If one is an independent thinker, things get complex. To research and logically consider an issue will generally leave one far outside the mainstream of thought in present day America. You might even become -gasp- intolerant, intolerant of what one believes to be evil.
Of course, most present day Americans are not critical thinkers and would never leave the mainstream out of fear of social discomfort, even if they happened to stumble upon a clear truth indicting the status quo. But for those who care enough to think, things are harder.
If one truly comes to a firm conviction that something is wrong, then they will feel the need to speak out about it –at least to their family and friends and quite likely in a public forum also. Enter the tolerance bugaboo.
Anyone who truly believes in something –religiously, politically, or culturally- will speak out against what they hold to be the enemy of their convictions. This does not mean that they would demand that their opponents be jailed, deported, or destroyed; it just means that they will proclaim them to be wrong (and maybe even evil or perverted and thus under the judgment of God). Speaking out against a person or group, and even proclaiming them to be evil, is very different from committing an act of violence against them.
In America, people (supposedly) have free speech. But that is starting to change. Those speaking out against certain things –such as sexual perversion, miscegenation, or Jewish subversion and Zionism- are decried by the media and government officials. The robe of toleration that the left has been wrapping themselves in for decades does not apply to all, and never did. They are willing to tolerate everything except conservatives being intolerant; thus toleration never was what it was sold to the public as being. The left is hyper-intolerant of their enemies – all in the name of toleration.
Why can a group of feminists, who self-proclaim that they are “nasty women”, march for abortion and against traditional gender roles, while those proclaiming abortion to be murder are portrayed as extremists –and potential oppressors? Why is February the federally proclaimed “Black History Month”, when there is no governmentally sanctioned white history celebration? Why can we speak out against destructive and pernicious Middle Eastern religions like Islam, but not Judaism? Why do we incessantly hear of the fabled 6 million, but not the much larger number actually killed by the Soviet Union (in Jewish ran gulags)?
Moving to internet censorship, why did AdSense, an online ad company owned by Google, recently pull its adds from the American Free Press website, as detailed by the article Radical Left Targets Alternative Media by John Friend in the Feb.27/Mar.6 print edition of AFP? Why did the popular blog and internet commenting service Disqus, just last week, announce that it was going to terminate its services for the popular Alt-Right oriented Southern Nationalist blog Occidental Dissent?
The movement for toleration never was about tolerance; tolerance was about intellectually disarming the traditional opposition to perversion and Marxism.
Well, we still have free speech in the U.S.A. –sort of. The “logical” conclusion of the Marxist and Neo-Babelism obsessions of western governments is so called “hate speech” laws. It appears that hate speech can be anything the government says that it is, especially saying anything critical of certain minority groups (even if the statement can be documented to be true). In some countries it can be mocking a religion, or questioning the accuracy of the official narrative of certain events (such as what I sarcastically refer to as The Most Holy Number 6 Million). In others it might be proclaiming Biblical truth about homosexuality/sodomy. In others, it might be proclaiming the right for the ethnic people who built a country and ruled it for 500 years to maintain their country rather than to give it to foreigners and be demographically displaced. In America, “hate speech” and political protest is currently under corporate media censorship, but not legally prohibited.
Forced inclusion and hate speech laws go hand in hand. South Africa and much of Europe are farther down the forced inclusion road than America is, but we are headed that way also. I understand, from an essay I read last month on a Kinist website, that South Africa has been so subverted that its parliament is now considering a “Preventing and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech” bill. The land of the Boers has been overrun by Bantus, with the aid of the (Jewish affiliated) communists at the ANC. In addition to race speech, this bill in S.A. would make it illegal to preach against homosexuality from a pulpit, or even for a private citizen to proclaim his abhorrence of Godless sodomites in his own living room!
And on top of all this, there was the “vault 7” Wikileaks release last week showing even more CIA spying on Americans, the potential setting up of the Russians for things they may not have done, and attempts to turn smartphones and some voice activated Samsung TVs into government spying devices. If it is said or typed via phone or computer, assume the government can know about it. Here in the U.S.A. we used to have the 4th Amendment…
Wake up Christian; wake up white man! The days of people consuming free dissident content online may be nearing a close. What is not legally prohibited will lose its advertisers. What remains up on the internet will have to be funded by donations, book sales from the site’s author, and individuals placing ads on their sites. You would not go to work for free, so why should the bloggers and authors who run the alternative media commentary sites do so? If people do not wish to support the alternative media, then it will certainly go away. If all you want to do is consume, then you may be down to (((Breitbart))) and (totally blind to that “Tribe”) Infowars for anything slightly harder than Fox. I suppose the choice is yours. Sadly, I think I know what choice most Americans will make.
On a personal note, the last few times I Googled the term Neo-Babelism, including this morning, my February 3rd essay Neo-Babelism comes up as the first search result under the term. That is a little victory for me.
© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.