Archive for the ‘Academic Freedom / Freedom of Speech’ Category

Read Full Post »

If you are a Revisionist, a free, critical thinker, or if you already possess a strong sense of historical truth at odds with that of the establishment and its mainstream media organs, I highly recommend viewing this documentary film. If you’re a gullible simpleton or a lazy academic, however, who automatically trusts as truth whatever you’re taught/told concerning the “Nazis” (or other historical “devils” for that matter), you’re rather unlikely to reap the reward of this four-hour investment. Intentionally or otherwise, the BBC misses the mark with respect to its peripheral mention of Joseph Goebbels and National Socialist propaganda (allegedly inspired by Bernays, which is rubbish)… But in this day and age, I could hardly expect otherwise. To their deserved credit, they do manage to get much correct and, in the course of their exploration, come much closer to certain forbidden truths than they likely intended. Thoughtfully counterbalance the information presented through this documentary with what you’ve (hopefully) already studied of the occupied news and entertainment media, the Neoconservative movement, the Zionist Power Configuration (Z.P.C.), the Frankfurt School/Political Correctness, the international “bankster gangsters”, and the chief proponents and beneficiaries of the wars of the last 100 years (as well as the unseen catalysts, historical deceptions, and false-flags which, more often than not, lead us there), and the value of its core-message will more than triple. -W

Read Full Post »

Documentary Source: Anti-Neocons


[Please view and share this outstanding documentary with your friends and family, in spite of its common (and therefore, expected) misconceptions concerning N.S. (f.ex., its alleged promotion of “The Big Lie“), the minor spelling errors (dyslexia), and the rough editing. This video, in conjunction with a few others (which I’ve provided links for further below), carries the potential to explode the deadliest myths of our time and accelerate enlightenment, awakening, and thus true liberation, on a tremendous scale. Reassess what you think you know, trust nothing untried, and you are sworn to rise.]

DVD Extra:

[Never mind the typical “Reich Wing” Fox News jab (another image plucked from the internet). Nothing new or terribly surprising. I detest the (occupied) mainstream media as well, but Fox is anything but N.S.., and thus, the shoe does not fit. I can’t understand how some people come so remarkably close to the truth, only to get it wrong (again) when it comes to this single topic. It almost derails their entire position, as far as I’m concerned… but I have a strong understanding of how deep the indoctrination runs — even for many who have otherwise managed to cast off the fetters. I’ve discussed the topic with Dawson, personally, in at least two letters, whose views on the extermination myth, for example, are not so very different from my own. Nevertheless, it’s just a subject which some people — even highly intelligent, free thinkers — can’t seem to critically navigate with any success. The “ultimate (d)evil” — a Zionist historical construct — represents the absolute end of the moral spectrum in countless millions of minds, and thus, it is relied upon (on account of its assured effect), again and again. It’s just puzzling in certain instances, because Dawson, himself, zeroes in on the strategic manner in which the Neoconservatives likened Saddam to Hitler in select PNAC papers in order to emotionally manipulate their audience (the same thing they’ve done with Ahmadinejad and his supposed ambitions of a “nuclear ‘Holocaust'”). He understands the method, ridicules it, and then (perhaps absent-mindedly, or due to years of familiar, ingrained pattern) employs it in passing. It’s never a central theme, and he still manages to get the facts straight, but I would say it is the one (perhaps the only) serious pitfall of his presentation(s). Having said that, I am grateful to the gentleman for his courage, his devotion to truth and justice, and his years of meaningful work. My mild criticisms above are more against a system of deception than any individual man who means well. -W.]

Further viewing (crucial!):

1. Missing Links
2. Painful Deceptions
3. 9/11 Mysteries

Please take the time (that is, make the time!) to study these documentaries, and keep them circulating, or else the “memory hole” will have its way.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Martin Luther King Broadcast Causes Controversy

School board member and radio station manager attacked by ADL, receives death threats for MLK commentary

by Kevin Alfred Strom
Source: nationalvanguard.org

A GUEST EDITORIAL — based largely on my exposé of Martin Luther King — has been airing on Greeley, Colorado’s KELS-FM twice daily in the days leading up to the federal MLK holiday, and the sparks are flying as the Usual Suspects try to get the truth off the air — and punish the man responsible for the broadcast.

Brett Reese (pictured), who is a school board member and director of the local school district, runs Greeley’s KELS 104.7. He says he regularly broadcasts guest editorials from listeners if their facts check out. And, he adds, in this case the facts did check out when he looked into them: “Martin Luther King, Junior” is an assumed name; King had numerous and intimate connections to high-level agents of the Communist Party; King misappropriated funds contributed to his “religious” charity and spent them on prostitutes and drunken orgies; and King was a plagiarist who cheated to obtain his PhD. You can listen to the editorial by clicking the link below.

KELS 20110107 Martin Luther King. Right-click and save as to download.

Reese says he’s not a White supremacist (and, of course, neither am I nor are most of the people so accused by the media) and actually admires King’s “civil rights movement,” but believes there are issues with the character of King that make it necessary to question the uncritical adulation and reverence he is accorded today. Reese adds, “I was taught growing up that Martin Luther King Jr. was a hero of history and to question his motivation or integrity was near sacrilege. I support the idea of being able to talk about historical facts. If these facts are out there, then we should be able to talk about them. There should not be a taboo on an honest discussion of history.”

When other school board members expressed their disapproval of the broadcasts and said he shouldn’t be making them, Reese responded: “Just because I am on the school board does not mean I have to accept Martin Luther King Jr. or any figure of history as above reproach or question. Asking a school board member to take an oath of blind allegiance and then check his brain at the door may be the root of the problems in our district today.” Reese did agree to moderate some of the language in the editorial, but said it will continue to run.

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has links to Meyer Lansky’s organized crime syndicate and which once gave their “Torch of Liberty” award to mob boss Moe Dalitz, has attacked Reese and demanded that the guest editorials cease: “The reckless and irresponsible spread of such misleading vitriol only heightens the divisions in our communities….” said ADL Regional Director Scott L. Levin (also a “Torch of Liberty” recipient), adding “We call upon Mr. Reese to desist from his divisive public broadcasts….” Immediately after the ADL’s attacks on him, Reese began receiving death threats that he considered credible. Reese has broadcast the critical MLK editorial for three years running around the MLK holiday, but never received death threats until the ADL, whose “phone tree” notification of Jewish activists is well known, publicized him in the last few days.

Because of the death threats, Mr. Reese has reluctantly decided to attend future school board meetings armed: “Because of the recent school board shooting (in Florida) and the recent death threats, I have to,” he stated to the Greeley Tribune. (Apparently the Tribune itself is fearful of the implications of this story, since they state on their Web site — at the bottom of every article on this subject — “Due to the sensitive nature of this story, the commenting feature has been disabled.”)

Clayborne Carson, the founding director of the “Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute” at Stanford University and the editor of King’s papers, admitted, according to the Tribune, that “many of the claims in the broadcast have been substantiated,” but added that many historical figures are flawed: “The significant thing about King is he did great work as part of a great movement. If you disagree with that, then there is discussion. The thing about plagiarism, yeah we know he plagiarized some academic papers, but how does that relate to the fact that he was one of the great orators of history?”

Although the MLK critique specifically states that opposing viewpoints are welcome, Reese says that in three years not one has been submitted, with opponents preferring to force the guest editorial off the air rather than engage in open debate. But KELS listeners are a different story. Reese says “It was new information to many of our listeners. It promoted discussions within our listening community and we had listeners call and thank us for airing it.”

Please see video HERE.

Read Full Post »

Israeli Cyber Warriors Crash Internet
By Rev. Ted Pike
27 Apr 10
Source: DavidDuke.com

Anti-“Tea Party” blogger Jason Levin incurred world scorn by encouraging alleged supporters in 65 US cities to “crash” Tea Party protests April 15. He goaded them to infiltrate Tea Party ranks and destroy the movement by saying and doing outrageous things. Much is not known about Levin. But his tactics resemble efforts by another saboteur to discredit critics online through disinformation and cyber-attack. That is the state of Israel.

For more than a year, Israel has reeled under unprecedented world criticism for its brutality to the people of Gaza. It has not silenced
its critics by beginning humane treatment or admitting its wrongdoing. Instead, it has unceasingly described itself as the victim,
withering under unprecedented, global anti-Semitism. It says critique of Israel poses as legitimate disagreement but only masks the ancient,
irrational Jew-hatred that led to the Holocaust.

Over the past years, defenders of Israel such as the Anti-Defamation League have proposed massive education as the only way to counter worldwide anger at Israel. But there’s a problem. The more educated people
become about Israel’s brutality (including use of white phosphorus
bombs to devour the flesh of innocent Gazans and their children), the
more “anti-Semitic” the world becomes! Thus, for the past
four years, Israel’s Foreign Ministry has been creating an international
cadre of Israeli and Jewish “cyber-warriors” who will do
more than “educate” against internet critics; they may also
now be spreading confusion, disinformation, and even sabotage against
Israel’s critics on the web – much as Jason Levin proposed
against Tea Partiers.

‘Israel’s government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters
to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab
propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats
to track websites and chat rooms so that networks of US and European
groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive
messages. In the past week, nearly five-thousand members of the
World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special “megaphone” software
that alerts them to anti-Israeli chat rooms or internet polls to
enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem
combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites
so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey
or the course of a debate.’ (Times
, “Israel
Backed By Army of Cyber-Soldiers,” 28July06

The widespread use of the “megaphone” software allows perhaps
100,000 Jews to be alerted the moment an internet public opinion poll
relating to Israel is proposed. Inventors of the “megaphone” desktop
tool clearly say that a purpose of the technology is to skew poll results.

The purpose of any public opinion poll within a democracy is to obtain
an accurate understanding of public opinion. It is not a forum for
argumentation. Yet countless Israeli cyber-warriors now distort honest
survey efforts, guilty of what critics increasingly call “ballot
stuffing.” In Britain, computing-website The Register called Israel’s
poll activism “highly organized mass manipulation of technology.”

For example, a poll in Britain attempted to determine if the British
think questioning the accuracy of the six-million figure of alleged
Holocaust victims should be a criminal offense. Massive “yes” votes
from Jewish cyber-warriors worldwide so distorted the response that
the poll became useless. Independent Television News and others have
also criticized cyber-warriors for stifling online discussion by generating
excessive comment and “spam” on internet message boards (Wikipedia, “Megaphone
Desktop Tool”
). By contaminating polling research necessary
to the democratic process, Jewish activists block orderly discussion
and reveal that their primary intent is to whitewash Israel.

Smashing Israel’s Opposition

Joel Leyden runs the Israeli government-approved Israel News Agency
and commands at least 100,000 Jewish cyber-warriors worldwide. When
an Iranian newspaper in 2006 sponsored a cartoon contest critical of
establishment history of the Holocaust, Leyden “used search-engine
optimization [directing search-engine results], to successfully bury
the Iranian content, and added text inserts into their cartoons which
explained the facts of the Holocaust.” Israel’s destruction of
the Iranian contest was not “education” but cyber-terrorism.
Jewish Chronicle
, “Israel Internet PR Cyber-Warriors” by
Lucy Tobin, 12Feb09
) It is the equivalent of one newspaper
hiring thugs to smash a rival newspaper’s printing presses.

Such is a powerful reminder that, while Israel counts itself a democracy,
it and its PR arm, the Anti-Defamation League, are actually intent
on destroying the free speech and action of their critics. In their
opinion, strong criticism of Israel ranks as one of the deadliest outbreaks
of anti-Semitism in history, imminently threatening the survival of
the Jewish state. It is beneath representation, they believe, and should
be illegal. Toward this end, Israel wants to end freedom of speech
not only for the Palestinians but also for Messianic
Christian evangelists in southern Israel and Holocaust revisionists
in Iran. (See, “Is
‘Strong’ Criticism of Israel Anti-Semitic?

The motto of Mossad, “by way of deception,” appears to
extend far beyond Israel’s secret police. It seems that, for
many Jewish activists, any means of silencing anti-Semites is permissible.

Destroying the Patriot Movement

Israel’s attempt to destroy internet opposition may already be well
advanced. Increasingly, a host of saboteurs attack critics of Israel
on the Internet.

– Spreading gossip and accusations within the Right, promoting distrust.

– Representing themselves as conspiracy theorists who are profane
and violent.

– Posing as wildly irresponsible anti-Semites and right-wing extremists
in order to frighten away newcomers.

– Calling for imminent violence.

– Cluttering search engines with disinformation.

– Inciting religious and racial tensions.

– Voting down good videos as soon as they appear while voting up bad
ones (Result: good videos languish from lack of interest).

Jeff Rense, the world’s preeminent anti-Zionist talk show host and
internet news provider, tells me:

“Zionist internet terrorism, character assassination, and email
hacking are growing in ferocity and arrogance. The ongoing interception
of many articles you write and send to me for posting is certainly
a prime case in point….here’s what I have to work against. Each story
I select for publication is edited, formatted, etc., by yours truly,
and then emailed to my webmaster for posting. To make certain he gets
the stories I want placed on rense.com, I email each of them a total
of *five* times. I send four of the copies to four *different* addresses
that James maintains at four *different* IPs. I also
send one email (the fifth one) – of each story back to myself via cc
to be as sure as possible the emails were actually processed and delivered.
What the Zionists (and perhaps others) do is clear. If they choose
to block certain stories, they intercept all four of the emails through
James’ four different email addresses… but they allow my own
cc to be delivered back to my mailbox. This makes it appear to me that
all five of the emails were processed correctly. Clever trick. We have
run across this ‘technique’ many, many times. So, in addition to blocking
and destroying incoming email from very important writers like yourself,
they are having a good time vaporizing outgoing stories I send to be
posted at rense.com. They are also quite capable of changing the content
of emails which they so choose. Unfortunately, there are a lot more
dirty tricks in their inventory, which is clearly laid out in my article
which can be read here: ‘Zionist
Terror Attacks
‘ on Rense.com and Rense
Radio. http://www.rense.com/general69/zattk.htm.”

What Can Be Done?

Lovers of freedom must recognize that the internet is the “Lexington
Green” on which freedom can be saved or lost today. As such, we
must be open to the possibility that Israeli cyber-warriors will not
be content to simply manipulate polls and search engines but will actually
create the impression of “anti-Semitic” bigotry, outrages,
and even threats of violence online. They may also attempt to knock
out websites and manipulate right-wing communications.

As we saw powerfully demonstrated on April 15, once the Tea Party
movement became aware of Jason Levin’s attempts to infiltrate and discredit
it, Tea Partiers everywhere made it clear they would be especially
watchful for such “agent provocateurs” and expel them. The
same awareness, action, and suspicion must pervade the Christian/conservative
right as the government of Israel attempts to take over one of the
very greatest forums of freedom left to us: a free internet. If Israel
wants ballot-stuffing and destruction of the communication tools of
its critics, then let such repression be confined to its twisted “democracy,” Israel.

Everyone must let Israel know that “by way of deception” will
not be tolerated on the information super highway. The internet belongs
to everyone.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression
(Appeared as a Preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense, October 11, 1980)
By Noam Chomsky
Source: Chomsky.Info

The remarks that follow are sufficiently banal so that I feel that an apology is in order to reasonable people who may happen to read them. If there is, nevertheless, good reason to put them on paper — and I fear that there is — this testifies to some remarkable features of contemporary French intellectual culture.

Before I turn to the subject on which I have been asked to comment, two clarifications are necessary. The remarks that follow are limited in two crucial respects. First: I am concerned here solely with a narrow and specific topic, namely, the right of free expression of ideas, conclusions and beliefs. I have nothing to say here about the work of Robert Faurisson or his critics, of which I know very little, or about the topics they address, concerning which I have no special knowledge. Second: I will have some harsh (but merited) things to say about certain segments of the French intelligentsia, who have demonstrated that they have not the slightest concern for fact or reason, as I have learned from unpleasant personal experience that I will not review here. Certainly, what I say does not apply to many others, who maintain a firm commitment to intellectual integrity. This is not the place for a detailed account. The tendencies to which I refer are, I believe, sufficiently significant to merit attention and concern, but I would not want these comments to be misunderstood as applying beyond their specific scope.

Some time ago I was asked to sign a petition in defense of Robert Faurisson’s “freedom of speech and expression.” The petition said absolutely nothing about the character, quality or validity of his research, but restricted itself quite explicitly to a defense of elementary rights that are taken for granted in democratic societies, calling upon university and government officials to “do everything possible to ensure the [Faurisson’s] safety and the free exercise of his legal rights.” I signed it without hesitation.

The fact that I had signed the petition aroused a storm of protest in France. In the Nouvel Observateur, an ex-Stalinist who has changed allegiance but not intellectual style published a grossly falsified version of the contents of the petition, amidst a stream of falsehoods that merit no comment. This, however, I have come to regard as normal. I was considerably more surprised to read in Esprit (September 1980) that Pierre Vidal-Naquet found the petition “scandaleuse,” citing specifically the fact that I had signed it (I omit the discussion of an accompanying article by the editor that again merits no comment, at least among people who retain a commitment to elementary values of truth and honesty).

Vidal-Naquet offers exactly one reason for finding the petition, and my act of signing it, “scandaleuse”: the petition, he claims, presented Faurisson’s “‘conclusions’ comme si elles etaient effectivement des decouvertes [as if they had just been discovered].” Vidal-Naquet’s statement is false. The petition simply stated that Faurisson had presented his “finding,” which is uncontroversial, stating or implying precisely nothing about their value and implying nothing about their validity. Perhaps Vidal-Naquet was misled by a faulty understanding of the English wording of the petition; that is, perhaps he misunderstood the English word “findings.” It is, of course, obvious that if I say that someone presented his “findings” I imply nothing whatsoever about their character or validity; the statement is perfectly neutral in this respect. I assume that it was indeed a simple misunderstanding of the text that led Vidal-Naquet to write what he did, in which case he will, of course, publicly withdraw that accusation that I (among others) have done something “scandaleuse” in signing an innocuous civil rights petition of the sort that all of us sign frequently.

I do not want to discuss individuals. Suppose, then, that some person does indeed find the petition “scandaleuse,” not on the basis of misreading, but because of what it actually says. Let us suppose that this person finds Faurisson’s ideas offensive, even horrendous, and finds his scholarship to be a scandal. Let us suppose further that he is correct in these conclusions — whether he is or not is plainly irrelevant in this context. Then we must conclude that the person in question believes that the petition was “scandaleuse” because Faurisson should indeed be denied the normal rights of self-expression, should be barred from the university, should be subjected to harassment and even violence, etc. Such attitudes are not uncommon. They are typical, for example, of American Communists and no doubt their counterparts elsewhere. Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States, which is why there has been nothing [not in 1980, anyhow] like the Faurisson affair here. In France, where a civil libertarian tradition is evidently not well-established and where there have been deep totalitarian strains among the intelligentsia for many years (collaborationism, the great influence of Leninism and its offshoots, the near-lunatic character of the new intellectual right, etc.), matters are apparently quite different.

For those who are concerned with the state of French intellectual culture, the Faurisson affair is not without interest. Two comparisons immediately come to mind. The first is this. I have frequently signed petitions — indeed, gone to far greater lengths — on behalf of Russian dissidents whose views are absolutely horrendous: advocates of ongoing U.S. savagery in Indochina, or of policies that would lead to nuclear war, or of a religious chauvinism that is reminiscent of the dark ages. No one has ever raised an objection. Should someone have done so, I would regard this with the same contempt as is deserved by the behavior of those who denounce the petition in support of Faurisson’s civil rights, and for exactly the same reason. I do not read the Communist Party press, but I have little doubt that the commissars and apparatchiks have carefully perused these petitions, seeking out phrases that could be maliciously misinterpreted, in an effort to discredit these efforts to prevent the suppression of human rights. In comparison, when I state that irrespective of his views, Faurisson’s civil rights should be guaranteed, this is taken to be “scandaleuse” and a great fuss is made about it in France. The reason for the distinction seems obvious enough. In the case of the Russian dissidents, the state (our states) approves of supporting them, for its own reasons, which have little to do with concern for human rights, needless to say. In the case of Faurisson, however, defense of his civil rights is not officially approved doctrine — far from it — so that segments of the intelligentsia, who are ever eager to line up and march off to the beat of the drums, do not perceive any need to take the stance accepted without question in the case of Soviet dissidents. In France, there may well be other factors: perhaps a lingering guilt about disgraceful behavior of substantial sectors under Vichy, the failure to protest the French wars in Indochina, that lasting impact of Stalinism and more generally Leninist doctrines, the bizarre and dadaistic character of certain streams of intellectual life in postwar France which makes rational discourse appear to be such an odd and unintelligible pastime, the currents of anti-Semitism that have exploded into violence.

A second comparison also comes to mind. I rarely have much good to say about the mainstream intelligentsia in the United States, who generally resemble their counterparts elsewhere. Still, it is very illuminating to compare the reaction to the Faurisson affair in France and to the same phenomenon here. In the United States, Arthur Butz (whom one might regard as the American Faurisson) has not been subjected to the kind of merciless attack leveled against Faurisson. When the “no holocaust” historians hold a large international meeting in the United States, as they did some months ago, there is nothing like the hysteria that we find in France over the Faurisson affair [of course, this has changed over the decades]. When the American Nazi Party calls for a parade in the largely Jewish city of Skokie, Illinois — obviously, pure provocation — the American Civil Liberties Union defends their rights (though of course, the American Communist Party is infuriated). As far as I am aware, much the same is true in England or Australia [this, too, has changed], countries which, like the United States, have a live civil libertarian tradition. Butz and the rest are sharply criticized and condemned, but without any attack on their civil rights, to my knowledge. There is no need, in these countries, for an innocuous petition such as the one that is found “scandaleuse” in France, and if there were such a petition, it would surely not be attacked outside of limited and insignificant circles […]. The comparison is, again, illuminating. One should try to understand it. One might argue, perhaps, that Nazism and anti-Semitism are much more threatening in France. I think that this is true, but it is simply a reflection of the same factors that led to the Leninism of substantial sectors of the French intelligentsia for a long period, their contempt for elementary civil libertarian principles today, and their current fanaticism in beating the drums for crusades against the Third World. There are, in short, deep-seated totalitarian strains that emerge in various guises, a matter well worth further consideration, I believe.

Let me add a final remark about Faurisson’s alleged “anti-Semitism.” Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi — such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here — this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read — largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him — I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort. In support of the charge of anti-Semitism, I have been informed that Faurisson is remembered by some schoolmates as having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in the 1940s, and as having written a letter that some interpret as having anti-Semitic implications at the time of the Algerian war. I am a little surprised that serious people should put such charges forth — even in private — as a sufficient basis for castigating someone as a long-time and well-known anti-Semitic. I am aware of nothing in the public record to support such charges. I will not pursue the exercise, but suppose we were to apply similar standards to others, asking, for example, what their attitude was towards the French war in Indochina, or to Stalinism, decades ago. Perhaps no more need be said.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »