In Defense Of Free Speech?
One David Marcus has published his feelings on the Chicago riot at Trump’s recent rally in Chicago on a site called the Federalist.
Democracy for David means that it is democratic to shut up anyone whose views you find unpalatable. As he puts it: Free Speech is a competition. I don’t know exactly what he means. Something like football I guess. The other guy has the ball and you throw him down and that’s it. He continues:
While we do not have the right to silence anybody, we do the right to speak more loudly and with greater moral authority than they do.
In other words, you can sack the quarterback if you’re able. That’s as close to his meaning as I can get.
Neither tenet covers what happened in Chicago. So Mr. Marcus is not really clear about what he believes. The effect is that you have the right to prevent a speaker from being heard or in his words: Free Speech is a competition no matter how violent so long as you prevail. He seems to be encouraging full scale warfare with the more powerful side able to impose their opinion. He seems to think this if free speech. You can deny the other the ability to be heard by any means necessary. If the other insists on being heard he’s the one who started the riot.
Anent this he says:
Would I prefer the protesters wore suits and quietly took the slings and arrows of Trump’s supporters’ ire in a dignified display of deference? Sure. But they didn’t. It’s not 1963.
What does David know about 1963? I was there in ’63. Most likely David was not yet even a gleam in his father’s eye. Perhaps his father was not yet a gleam in his grandfather’s eye. Time is like a fast running river.
I was there in ’63. I was there in Berkeley as the so-called Free Speech Movement, one of the most violent in our history to that point with all rules broken began. The Free Speech Movement was a Jewish affair as was the Trump brouhaha. Apart from a few token gois only Jews were allowed to participate. As Mr. Marcus’ name and picture implies he’s Jewish I presume he might find this interesting.
The Free Speech agitators shut down the university. Now, the agitators were a small part, a tiny part, of the student body although TV editing made the agitators seem nearly universal. It wasn’t. The majority of the students were at UC for an education. Most of the professors were tops in their field. Their education was put on hold while a bunch of loudmouths were shouting down any objectors. Yes, even hurting them or threatening them too. Mr. Marcus’ idea of democracy and free speech in action.
What was the result of this specious Free Speech Movement? Free speech? No, no. Free speech already existed. Free speech is what was lost. The Jews took control of the student body and negated free speech. A Jewish Commissar sat behind a desk at Sather Gate and every passing student was compelled to stop and give his obeisance to the Jews. He or she had to pledge that they were not an anti-Semite.
Apparently the Jews could shout the loudest and punish anyone who refused their lordship. Mr. Marcus vision of democracy and tolerance.
Now, Mr. Marcus, takes exception that Trump says he will prevent Moslems from entering the country. Mr. Marcus, a Jew, takes umbrage at what he considers a bigoted attitude.
However, let’s go to Mr. Marcus’ home State, Israel, and see how his fellow Jews are handling anti-Muslim bigotry. In 1920 when the Jewish invasion of Palestine began in force, that is when they began immigrating, the population was almost entirely Moslem. The land was filled with them with only a few pockets of Jews and some areas of Christian settlement.
Over the succeeding decades the Jews progressively moved the Moslems out while expelling the hated Christians. Today the Jews occupy the whole of what is now called Israel with a gigantic wall to keep Moslems out. The hated Christians no longer have a place in the land of their savior.
Now these Moslems that we and Europe are supposed to accept because the Jews imagine we are bigger hearted and less bigoted than they are are not welcome in Israel and even the Middle East.
Who is encouraging the Moslems to leave what is known as The Fertile Crescent for Europe and The Americas? Why the Jews who hate the Moslems in the Crescent but love them in Europe and the Americas. What is the difference?
Why, in Jewish lore, the Jews are someday to possess the whole Fertile Crescent from the Tigris-Euphrates to the Nile. Millions of Iraqis and Syrians have already died, or fled the area. One million or more have recently been directed to Europe. The Jewish goal is obviously to drive more millions to either Europe or the Americas.
In that case from the Tigris-Euphrates to Israel the land will be almost vacated. Without much loss of manpower or treasure it will be theoretically easy for Jews to annex the area for themselves. They will then have completed their desire to incorporate the Tigris-Euphrates into the Jewish Empire leaving only the Nile Valley to be annexed.
Now, we can see why it is so important that Americans be tolerant and not bigoted. The Jews occupy the Tigris-Euphrates, then hopefully American Jews will emigrate and leave the Americas to the Moslems and with all that oil the prophecy leaves only the conquest of Egypt.
So, Mr. Marcus, Free Speech and tolerance is a competition is it? Shut ‘em up and despoil them and the Jews are winners of the competition. Right? We’ll see.