John Stuart Mill, Speech Prohibition, and "Neo Nazism"

The following is a paper I have submitted to an unusually thoughtful Polysci professor of mine in early 1997. He didn't give me a grade on it. I ended up giving it to a couple other profs who demonstrated objective thought during my interaction with them, and they both really enjoyed it and suggested that I publish it. I have since added to it, to account for common objections to its original arguments. Email the SRRS and they will provide you with the original, if desired. This paper starts out being rather difficult to read, and boring. It gets far better toward the end. Contained in it is an enormous potential for word-twisting, so I am presenting it as one huge quote from itself. :-)

John Stuart Mill, Speech Prohibition, and "Neo Nazism" by Neil Camberly, college kid.

One of John Stuart Mill's primary arguments pertaining to the concept of absolute 'freedom of speech' was discussed in lecture last Friday, namely: that our certain fallibility prevents us from ever knowing with certainty a truth, and that therefore we would risk prohibiting the propagation of a truth when we endeavor to prohibit the propagation of a falsehood. Considering our human tendency to repose faith in authority when selecting the prime of two arguments, which can no doubt be imputed to our mental laziness and disinterest as much as to our lack of familiarity, it is no surprise that the following deceptive argument strategy is both potent and common: the one whereby an individual, when proposing an argument vocally or in writing, will present along with it a full description of a well-known or probable response to it, without a competent refutation of this response, or without a response at all, thus leaving his audience with the impression that he has considered and dismissed this response when coming to his own conclusion. It was opined in lecture last Friday that John Stuart Mill did just this when he discussed absolute 'freedom of speech' in his ON LIBERTY. The suggestion was made that he did not competently refute the argument which could be made in response to his own, namely: the argument that the degree of uncertainty we must always have due to our certain fallibility is not enough to justify inaction regarding speech proh ibition when a good might come from that prohibition, because otherwise this idea could be applied elsewhere and we could never act regarding anything, causing good, since fallibility in judgment abounds in all matters of action, not just those regarding the prohibition of falsehood propagation. Mill describes at length the reasons why he thinks that speech is special, and his response to the above argument is that a greater good will always come from allowing all opinions to be expressed freely. A side from this, it seems to me curious that, having described the probable response to this primary argument of his, Mill did not suggest the possible 'good which might come from acting'(to prohibit the propagation of a falsehood) to be anything more than the suppression of a falsehood, and therefore the advancement of understanding (a good which he of course does not see resulting from this action). It was you who suggested another good which might result from this: the protection of a group of people at whom violent speech might be aimed. It may be true that Mill's suggested good is the only good that could ever come from the prohibition of falsehood propagation, considering the idea that a call for direct violence does not constitute 'speech.' This may be true for Mill, at least, as he certainly treats speech as *argument.* The difference between whether a direct call for violence should be considered speech or not would certainly have no small influence on the outcome of the following (your) argument: that the smallness of the chance that we might err in judgment, the smallness of the damage done if we do err, and the good which would come from prohibiting certain speech all combine to justify prohibiting that speech if violence is prevented. This is obviously no small issue. The following questions this raises are each pivotal:

1. Do we consider direct calls for violence to be speech? Example: "Hey, you!...go purchase a firearm and shoot Jill."

2. Do we consider the argument in favor of direct violence to be speech? Example: "...it is my belief that, considering the above arguments against Jill's character and actions, and those against the legitimacy of the existing government, whose laws against murder we should therefore not recognize, you should purchase a firearm and shoot Jill." Or, still very different from this is the following argument: "...it is my belief that, considering the above arguments against Jill's character and actions, and those against the legitimacy of the existing government, whose laws against murder we should therefore not recognize, a person would be justified in purchasing a firearm and shooting Jill."

3. What do we do with speech that does not even mention a violent act, but resulting from which there is a clear pattern of violence? This would be any argument that, intentionally or not, disproportionately causes violence, which might result from frustration, etc. Can we hold The Snack Cake Ingredient Review Counsel responsible if its argument against the use of a certain preservative in "Twinkies" repeatedly gets people so riled up that they murder Hostess employees and eventually, the Hostess CEO?

This list could certainly be much longer. This is a very complicated issue, and obviously one whose controversial nature is well known. My personal circumstances, which are relatively unique, make this an issue which is of especially weighty importance to me. There does not pass a single day in which I do not thank the fates for the existence of the legal environment in which I live, which is the only remaining place in the entire world where I am guaranteed the right to propagate what I believe to be truths with the hope of bringing about the change I desperately want. I believe that if I, or others in my removed community of thought, do not succeed both in using this right to propagate what we believe, and, importantly, finding the means to propagate what we believe, by a certain time, irreversible damage to the world will result. Having first noticed the things I have, then met the people I have, attended the meetings I have, having said what I have said, and from having done so, experienced the strange, shocking, eye-opening repercussions I have, I would bet the whole farm and grandma too that few know as well as I do the complicated nature of the combination of factors that serve to influence public opinion, the opinion of otherwise open-minded intellectuals and academics, and, from these, the opinions of those whom we would have judge arguments to be worth prohibiting.

To emphasize the fallibility of our judgment, and therefore the need to concur with Mill that prohibiting speech is dangerous, I will refer to my own perspective. I almost never do so in the environment of an academic course because of the heavily emotion-laden nature of the subject matter involved, which makes my perspective impossible to discuss on a rational, adult level unless done so only with the most liberal and lucid of minds. I have chosen to do so now because of this somewhat ironic fact: that during lecture, when you endeavored to test Mill's suggestion that speech prohibition is never justified, you looked for an extreme case scenario, choosing a brand of speech that was as worthy of prohibition as possible, in order to suggest that the risk taken of unintentionally prohibiting the propagation of a truth when intending to prohibit the propagation of a falsehood is so small and the damage prevented so great, that prohibition of this speech may be justifiable. The speech you chose to be as worthy of prohibition as possible was named "racist," and you provided the historical example of the ill-treatment of Jews! Here goes. I belong to what is arguably the most hated organized effort in the world. I am very active in this effort. The ideology to which I adhere is in name so hated that I can honestly say I do not remember ever having taken a college course in which this ideology was not used as the eternal reference point by which to define evil itself or evil manifested in a state. They've even found a way to work this into physics courses I've taken! It is a political ideology which my experience has told me is certainly more complex than any which fall in between the two extremes on the "left-right," one-dimensional politicalm easure scale this campus operates on. It is an ideology which is called "extremist," and "right-wing," when, in my opinion, it represents the perfect moderation of capitalism and socialism, blending the best aspects of modern cultural conservatism with the best aspects of modern social liberalism and economic socialism. It is the ideology which virtually gave birth to environmentalism and animal rights as recognized by the state, while at the same time protecting low-level (less potential for buying influence in govt.) capitalist endeavor and recognizing the value of conserving and emphasizing the uniform cultural identity of a nation. It is an ideology that, when manifested in a state, was so fanatically devoted to by every walk of life in that state, es pecially by intellectuals and the thoughtful, that it took the entire capitalist and communist world to destroy it. There you go. I'm what the media calls a "neo-Nazi." But I am not the sort of neo-Nazi the media wants you to know about. Now before you re ach for your grade book, please ponder the following statements and discussions on whose honesty and sincerity I rest any credibility I take to my grave. [These are not arguments proposed for criticism, as some of the subjects dealt with are vastly complicated. These are listed only to reduce the obvious potential for emotional complications and provide some (however crude) answers to obvious objections on your part while criticizing the rest of this paper.]:

1. I have good reason to believe that virtually every term used to describe my belief system means a different thing to you than it does to me. These especially include the terms 'racist,' 'prejudiced,' 'anti-Semitic,' 'Nazi,' and 'discriminatory.'

2. I am not motivated by any sinister beliefs or any beliefs I would not make known with the rest of my arguments. I am ultimately concerned with the welfare of the world and the improvement of Mankind's understanding. I know from personal relationships I have had with the true leaders of this organized effort that none of them differ from me in this respect.

3. Having noticed the phenomena I will describe and developed the arguments I propose, virtually independently, I can attest that I have not myself been "brainwashed" or trickingly indoctrinat ed by anyone. This is a suggestion I have had to stomach for the last ten years, since I was barely teen-aged. (I have found that almost all of the ideas I have come up with, naively thinking they were novel, are ones which have been expressed before, but far better, by my ideological predecessors, as well as others. I will always indicate in my writing whether a given idea I treat is one I have learned from another person or his works. If I do not, this means I am unaware of another's having developed these ideas before I.)

4. I am not a violent person, and I do not 'hate' any other person for ridiculous reasons such as his or her appearance, skin color (as though skin color is among the more significant differences between the races) or his or her having been born in a certain time or place.

5. Gathering what I have from lecture, my understanding of history dramatically differs from yours, which also results in a dramatically different: a) understanding of how the world operates currently, and b)u nderstanding of how simple or complicated past conflicts have been.

6. I have labored for my entire adolescence to find flaws with the arguments I developed very early in my life, so that I might forget about them and get back to weaving in and out of speeding cars on my skateboard.

7. My honest estimate is that over 95% of the positions people attack, thinking they are attacking my positions, are, quite simply, not my positions! Nor were they ever the positions of those who legitimately represent my belief system. These are the positions that my enemies have worked hard to attribute to my belief system, in order that it might appear weak to the public. In logic, use of this tactic is called the "straw-man" fallacy.

8. Although it does not affect the legitimacy of the economic and social beliefs I have in common with it, it is worth mentioning that I do not believe that the German government of 1933-1945 ever had a plan to exterminate Jews systematically in death camps. Since you are human, and considering the magnitude of the defamation it would seem I have just committed if I am wrong, your blood might be understandably boiling right now. If you are Jewish or have any relatives who died in concentration camps I especially regret offending you. As I said earlier, this is an issue of almost unlimited emotional implications. I regret that I cannot stop and write an additional five hundred pages summarizing the larger points of my position on this unbelievably complicated subject, but to make it possible to comprehend that a human would hold such a position, I offer the following: The "Holocaust" justified the absolute destruction of Germany and the murder and rape of millions of its unarmed citizens before and after the war. It currently justifies the massive financial reparations the German people now pay to the state of Israel, whose influence in this world and in our government is not proportional to its size or economic relevance. Most suspiciously of all, this event renders my ideology socially unpresentable and undebatable. I certainly believe that concentration camps did exist, and that in them thousands of people starved to death, were individually shot to death, and died of diseases such as typhus. I also believe that the German military attempted to combat guerrilla partisan efforts against itself in the eastern occupied territories by means of the mass execution of Jews by shooting. It is well known by modern establishment historians that the German soldiers believed they were fighting to save civilization, which they believed would perish under Communism and Capitalism, with the Jews directing the miscegenation-induced extinction of the white race. Considering the fact that we live in a far less civilized society than they did, considering that no White nation is allowed to do anything to maintain its ethnic integrity, considering the fact that pride in being White constitutes "hate," while pride in any other race does not, and considering the overwhelming McDonalds, crime, litter, heroin and graffiti ugliness of our society, they were probably right.

9. It may be objected that "...not every Jew is the way you describe them, etc..." This objection makes no sense, because it finds individual exceptions to my descriptions of a group. Just as I get along with Blacks far better than most non-racialist Whites I know, I also have individual Jewish friends. To this objection I answer that I treat their group as a nation, as they have always considered themselves to be separate as, no matter what host nation they found themselves in. They have historically considered themselves to be a nation which transcends borders, to which each owes his first loyalty (yet they maintain themost sensitive positions in our own government and military). So, just as we might say "We are at war with the Iraqis," we do not mean that Ahmed the baker from Baghdad is such a bad guy, we mean to say that Iraqis as a nation are a group we are at war with. (For the record, I believe that the actual war which was raged against, and still is raged against, the Iraqi nation is but another stain on the record of my own, once-great nation.) I believe that my people and the Jewish nation have been locked in a conflict of wills for the last few thousand years. The difference is that their nation had the integrity, and therefore the foresight, to *plan ahead.* I believe that what we are seeing now is a manifestation of this planning, and that the pitiful state of the postwar western world is the last major stage of this planning. The Jews do what they think is right. They do what is good for their people. But the problem is that God has supposedly spent the last few thousand years telling them to do these things at the expense of other peoples. God has supposedly told them that harming other peoples, and profiting from the work of other peoples, is the right thing to do. Yes, not every Jew is malicious toward Gentiles. But not every Yugo is a junky car. I still wouldn't buy one. It could be said that I am stereotyping Yugos, and that in discriminating against them all, I stand a chance of never enjoying ownership of one of the good, quality Yugo automobiles out there. When we deal with great numbers, there is always variation, so thinking people deal with percentages. I am not at all suggesting that even a majority of Jews know about the plans the leaders of their nation have been carrying out for hundreds of years. But they do know about behind-the-scenes influence and connections, the "Jewish Career Network," etc. The Jews as a nation certainly stand out. They (through the businesses and the media they own) are the first to promote miscegenation of Gentile peoples, while openly acting to prevent such within their own nation. [Miscegenation, or "race-mixing," breaks down the fabric of integrity of ethnic groups, and virtually eliminates the feelings of group membership and ancestral loyalty of individuals who are the result of such activity, drastically reducing the potential for patriotism within populations made up of these individuals, making the resultant populations desirable to potential enemies for exploitation. The media's (and the US military's, for that matter) glorification of reproduction between White women and Black men, and between Asian women and White men is resulting in a gigantic demographic shift that the above two entities could never claim ignorance of. They desire it, for it may well rid the Jewish Nation of its most hated and effective historical stumbling block: the White European people.] The Hebrew word for 'Gentile' is the same as the Hebrew word for 'cattle.' Maybe that explains it.

10. It may be objected that differences among Jewish leadership and opinion prevents common will and therefore conspiracy. I am still amazed when I receive this objection from the smartest people, as it seems absolutely obvious to me that this is no issue at all. But I treat it anyway. I should be able to make myself clear by simply saying that the Jews' level of inter-connectivity and integrity makes them no less efficacious than a nation. Therefore, I think about them in my mind the same way I would a foreign nation. Humans can be grouped on many levels. All that is required to fit a body of people into the same group is a common trait that is not possessed by members of another existent group. Among the highest levels (that is, among the levels at which there are the fewest groups) which are commonly recognized is the 'national' level, which contains sub-groups based on the following categories: region, language, political affiliation, (often with very subtle differences in policy among the latter) etc. Each of these sub-groups can be further divided, and onward down the pyramid to the individual. Despite these sub-group differences, the grouping level most importantly emphasized is the national level, as the groups called nations are best organized in such a way that they can act as a group. Nations have certainly demonstrated their ability to act toward a given purpose, officially, despite differences within those nations. When a nation wages war, for instance, this is not enough to assume that every opposing faction within the nation wanted war, yet these factions generally all want what is best for the nation. Within every (political, religious, economic, etc.) effort there exist factions. But to be radically opposed to one another regarding some smaller difference does not mean to disregard what effort they have in common. I'm having a hard time making this extremely simple concept complicated enough for you to understand it.

11. I'm no dummy when it comes to genetics and evolutionary mechanisms, yet I reject the fashionable, popular idea that variation within races being greater than variation between races (it is not) means that "race does not exist." Race is to me a significant biological taxonomic classification, and exists no less than species. I could, and probably will, write a large book about this compli cated and enormously misunderstood issue.

To demonstrate the importance of Mill's view that humans can never be certain about an argument's falsity enough to justify the prohibition of its propagation, I will now proceed to provide and describe example s of complications which purvey human fallibility. These are descriptions of phenomena I believe I have accurately identified, and descriptions of possible phenomena I believe are worth considering for the purpose stated above. They all differ so much from each other that it would be cumbersome for me to list them in this paper, so the format in which they are provided and described is pretty sloppy. I believe the potency of this demonstration is contributed to by the fact that the ideology whose arguments I strengthen with these examples is an ideology that few people in our society would ever imagine to be one founded on reason, good will, and the desire to find truth. Of course, as mentioned above, it was this ideology's speech that was opined in lecture to be most worthy of prohibition.

These arguments do depend on and suggest the existence of a 'conspiracy.' By this I do not mean the popularized "JFK" definition of which. Rather, I mean 'to work or act together, without the publication of the common end worked or acted toward.' Since working toward ends is the cornerstone of just about all Human activity, and doing so privately is almost as common, I don't think the idea of a conspiracy is all that unreasonable. I personally appreciate no less than any other man the skeptical humor that surrounds the concept of conspiracy theory in our modern political climate. However, just the fact that the idea sounds goofy should be enough to alert thoughtful skeptics to the potential here for abuse. It may sound goofy because my enemies want it to- they may want the intellectuals to systematically reject these theories upon exposure to them. Maybe my enemies deliberately propagate similar, yet weak, unreasonable, and comically fantastic theories to the public by means of their monopoly of the mass media, generating the contempt for these theories average intellectuals frequently exhibit. The idea of the dozen or so old men sitting in a room somewhere deciding what to do next is pretty difficult to believe in. But this is just the sort of thing that happens. The difference between these conferences and those of the US defense cabinet is that these conferences are simply ignored by the media, along with the idea that the Jews have any strong organization at all. B'nai B'rith, World Jewish Congress: these are organizations with leaders, and these leaders do meet and decide on what to do next. Since they are in total cooperation, and their concerns and decisions are private, they are conspirators. I guess the extra ingredient that makes 'secret cooperation' equivalent to 'conspiracy' is criminal or sinister intent. I don't think that these groups are doing what they are doing to be evil, they are just doing what is good for the Jewish nation, at the expense of everyone else. This does often involve crime, however. (But we all know that billionaires, like Edgar Bronfman, head of both Seagrams booze and the World Jewish Congress, are not subject to the same sort of laws the rest of us are.)

Which environment is more fertile ground for Orwellian mind control- A. the society run by hard-line ideologues or religious leaders, or B. the society run by high-level private financial interests and a massive, "free" electronic and print media? Let's compare examples of each- An example of the former: Red China. An example of the latter: USA. In China, it is openly known that one can not read, state, or propagate certain opinions without being subject to fines or arrest. All adults there know this. They know opinion suppression is in effect. There is no trick or mind control about it. There is certainly dissident ("extremist") criticism of the system behind closed doors all over their nation. But I can walk into the Bulld og Newsstand and within a minute be confronted with a gigantic rack of literature that contains samples of the printed thoughts of a vast, seemingly endless spectrum of conflicting opinion. Next to each other will be two publications published by organizations that would see each other rot in hell for all eternity. Next to these will be a photocopied publication from California that calls for the immediate, violent removal of all non-leather enthusiasts from society. There doesn't seem room for truth or opinion suppression in this environment, does there? So in the US, it seems improbable for any truth known by a minority to be able to be suppressed by any power, and it seems impossible for any similar, yet important, truth to be able to be effectively suppressed by any power. If one entity controlled what I found on this newsstand rack, it sure is a confused one, right? After all, it couldn't possibly agree with each publication at the same time. It doesn't. Actually, it doesn't care. The possibility exists for the existence of an empowered entity, which doesn't care what the outcome of any of these viewpoint conflicts is. The rectitude of none of these viewpoints has implications which threaten the power of the empowered entity. The only body of opinion it would censor is the only one whose arguments are so powerful that their publication would directly threaten this entity's position of influence and power in this country. My belief is that media opinion manipulation is so effective, that if one wanted to figure out which body of opinion this might be, he should think of the stupidest, most unreasonable and disgusting one he could, and thoroughly investigate it. It is likely that this ideology is thought of this way because the empowered group wants it to be. Nothing sounds stupider to the average smart person than the idea that there is this big Jewish conspiracy that controls everything, etc. This is the viewpoint he should investigate. After long digging through the garbage which is a deliberate result of the empowered entity's actions (the garbage I am referring to is the costumed, 80-IQ clownhood one might find hanging around Hayden, Idaho, or on the discussion panel of "Geraldo"), he would find my body of opinion. But the weird thing is that when regular Joe's investigation of my body of opinion leads him eventually to its true representatives, he's in for a shocking experience. He finds himself thinking "I would have never guessed that those guys were right about that." He mentions his experience to others and, all of the sudden, is labeled a person who wants to commit horrible atrocities. Society has mentally set aside one belief system as unconsiderable when looking for answers. Hence the fact that one constantly hears comments like "No one knows what the solutions to today's problems are," or "That's what's wrong with this country,..." Is it too much to ask of a system that's its subjects be able to be satisfied with it, rather than constantly wondering what has gone wrong? Of the two environments contrasted above (Red China, USA), the latter environment is the more fertile ground of the two for Orwellian mind control, because in this environment everybody thinks it would be impossible. They've all got their guard down, and think that they are thinking for themselves when the media sets the acceptable parameters about what can be discussed and what cannott, and what the two sides to choose from are per subject. Now, consider this exact same environment but with laws against the reading or speaking of the one brand of opinion mentioned above, the only one whose arguments are feared by those in power, an environment in which anyone can say or read anything he wants to, (hence an unsuspicious public) except those things published by or representing the potent belief system mentioned above. If he violates this law, he will go to prison. That environment exists. It is called the Federal Republic of Germany. With "hate-speech" laws rapidly being passed or pushed in every Western nation, and with similar legislation being developed by the current executive administration in this nation, I predict that we will all soon live in this environment. Publication of the paper you are reading could put you in prison in Australia, Austria, Britian, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Canada, etc. The Jews are brilliant. They have achieved total behind-the-scenes power, and have had laws passed against the exposure of this fact.

We've all heard of "scapegoat politics." Suppose an entire be lief system is dismissed as unfit for consideration by those in search of truth because it depends on the blaming of a 'scapegoat' for success. (Of course, there are other child-minded suggestions about the ideology in question, like: it depends on "economic uncertainty" or "xenophobia.") Now consider the following opinions. There seems to me no better means of dismissing the legitimate claims made by an entity against one's own than suggesting that one's own has been targeted as a "scapegoat." Moreover,t here seems to me no more ingenious tactic on the part of a given entity, in an environment abounding with political conflict, than the manipulation of the public's understanding of history (via media, domination in academia, The History Channel, etc.) in order to establish itself as having been history's ultimate "scapegoat." Why? Because this renders the entity all but completely, and uniquely, immune to criticism as an entity. It is immune because to criticize it constitutes scapegoating. The potential for abuse of this status is astronomical. To maintain this immune status, avoiding the skeptical notice of this tactic by the alert, the entity might complicate matters with the brilliant tactic of occasionally permitting, in its own publications (major c ity newspapers, for instance), criticism of itself. The key to this tactic is that this allowed criticism can only pertain to matters that are unimportant, or ones in which the action 'exposed' is an action that has a pretty good argument defending it as well (the mass media's allowed recent criticism of Israel's air attack against terrorists in south Lebanon, for example).

"Anti-Semitism" is a word the Jews have developed to describe speech that is critical of Jewry. It is used in almost exactly the same way the word 'scapegoating' is used: to render Jews immune to criticism. By assigning this one label to all speech regarding the Jews, which the Jews don't like, they have created an atmosphere in which everybody assumes that there is some old, familiar, ugly, psychological illness which causes people to say negative things about the Jews. I have even heard it said by a Jew, about an Arab critic of Israeli politics, that said critic suffers a "pathological hatred toward(of) Jews." And that was for simply asking why Israel receives so many billions of dollars from the US government! We have all been led to think that there has been some enormous history of frivolous accusations made against the Jews. We have all he ard some comedian or some professor or some author, jokingly refer to the idiotic notion that the Jews are to blame for everything. This has gone on endlessly for the last fifty years, and has had an awesome impact on us all. These respected comedians, professors, authors, etc., are virtually invariably Jewish, or on a Jewish payroll. Well, there are some who parrot this joke in order to be fashionable, as well. Of course it is true that the Jewish nation is not to blame for everything. But it is to blame for an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of it. This has been the case for hundreds of years, but only now has pointing this out come to constitute "Anti-Semitism." True or not, any detail pointed out is therefore indicative of malicious intentions, or, at least, psychological illness. When things like the things I am saying now are said, most people who read them become disgusted. They feel sorry for the Jews, and feel that I am adding insult to injury by saying these things. I totally understand this feeling. I am the sort of person who feels sorry for others and wants to help them. But this compassion tendency, which is concentrated in my own race far more than it is in others, can be taken advantage of very easily. I balance mine with careful skepticism. That's why I don't give my food or money to those guys standing by the onramp with their cardboard signs, and that's why I don't buy into the Hollywood-perpetuated idea that the Jews are some sort of great victims. People don't understand that this Hollywood-perpetuated idea of Jews being victims, (of all things!) is a very new one. It contrasts sharply with the experience of hundreds of years of our forefathers. Its obtaining corresponds directly with the Jewish nation's total victory in World War Two, and its introduction of television to the Western world. With experience of the Jews gotten only from Hollywood, it is extremely easy to feel sorry for them. With a little bit of detailed research into their actual role in history and their current role in world affairs, it is extremely difficult to feel sorry for them.

(SRRS Internet note- The mental virus of ultra-sensitivity to "anti-Semitism" is so powerful, that even after one lists hundreds of undeniably legitimate grievances on dozens of pages, he will still receive emails asking questions like the following:

>From: "Steven Rosenblum" (sdr20@columbia.edu)
>To: (srevisionists@hotmail.com)
>Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:57:19 -0500

>Every time that I see a site like this, I lose faith in the human race.
I wonder, where do these paranoid delusions and ridiculus denials of truth stem from?
>Did some jewish kid get into a better college than you did?
>Do jewish kids consistantly do better in school?
>Did your father sodomize you?

We received this email a week ago. This is the most tasteful email we have ever received from a Jewish visitor. Dr. Rosenblum's typicalquestions are meant to resemble the child-minded lies the Jews have cooked up to explain why Adolf Hitler was first turned againstthe Jews. That subject is, of course, a little more grown-up and complicated thanthat.)

The media as separate from the system: Last year I got into an argument at the (on-campus location) with MTV "veejay" journalist ("Mr. X"). ("Mr. X") was here with MTV's "Rock the Vote" tour-bus, registering students to vote. Our argument concerned the following phenomenon I believe I have identified. The media, which has frequently demonstrated its behind-the-scenes cooperation with the government, will act as though it is an entity which is critical and suspicious of the government and the 'system' or 'establishment.' Particularly so with facets of its efforts aimed at the young. It will brilliantly disguise causes and interests which will serve its purposes (and those of the government) as being 'anti-establishment.' By these means, the media, which is a facet of the establishment, exploits the youth's postwar cultural tendency to be 'anti-establishment,' directing the force of thistendency toward establishment interests. The impressionable youths who buy into this propaganda (MTV's "Free your mind" campaign being a paramount example) think that by doing so they are breaking free from and rejecting some evil which persists in the system, some "institutionalized" evil which doesn't even exist in the institutions! Example: "The system is racist." (By rejecting racism you will be rejecting the system.) Nope. They just want the youths to reject the idea of race, and with it, the healthy ideas of cultural and racial nationalism. A "modern democracy" like ours is run by the opinion of the public. The public casts votes. But whoever controls the public's opinion (the media) controls the "modern democracy." These youths probably imagine that MTV is run by a bunch of hippies and rock group members in some shack trying to save the world while barely making ends meet. Actually, media magnate Sumner Redstone (himself a member of "God's chosen people") is no hippie. He owns MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, VIACOM itself, and, locally, "The End 107.7fm" (which was among the first to capitalize on and basically destroy what we once knew as underground music). His will is manifested in the presentations of MTV. First he manipulates our opinions and then he sends a bus around registering us to vote. Hence the hilarious tendency of modern college students to think that they are society's only enlightened. I despise television. I don't even watch the Simpsons anymore.

Adolf Hitler himself described and warned against the following tactic in his book MEIN KAMPF. It is called the "big lie" tactic. It takes advantage of the human tendency to expect a slanted story. Humans tend to read a news article, for instance, expect some slant to it, then mentally moderate it so as to arrive at an approximate theory as to what the truth of the matter is. If an article is entirely made up, few will accept that its author would have been so bold as to do such a thing, so they will believe a good portion of it. Repeated often and loudly enough, a lie will seem as though it must be partly true, at least. That few foreigners would read Hitler's book was later taken advantage of by his enemies, who extracted descriptive sections of the book for display to make it look as though he was commending this tactic as favorable! Despite the simplicity of their easily exposed trick, professors all over the country nevertheless parrot the fraudulently demonstrated line that Hitler praised the big lie, and used it himself. There are a thousand other alive and perpetuated obvious historical distortions regarding Hitler or the German National Socialists, but who bothers expose them?

Sensitivity reduction: I was watching the Simpsons a while back, and I noticed the following: An Immodium AD commercial appeared on the screen, and at the very end of the commercial, a voice told all of us zombies something to the effect that doctors prescribe Immodium AD more than any other brand of anti-diarrheal medication. At the very same time a hand is seen placing a characteristic orange prescription bottle in front of the camera. On the label it was indicated that "Dr. Goldstein" was the prescribing doctor. About six months later I was in a friend's living room where his mother was busy collecting rays from the holy glass toilet (the TV). She was watching some "mini-series" about an heroic, entirely racial-minority police force that bravely fought off an entirely white group of terrorists in some American city. What was remarkable was the fact that more than half of the characters were assigned stereotypically Jewish sounding names. A surgeon, predictably a black woman, was named "Dr. Bloomenthal," while an Asian policeman was named "Officer David Cohen," for instance. Dozens of similar reports from friends led me to theorize that this is an effort to reduce the sensitivity average people have to the Jewishness of these names, considering the fact that these names are becoming disproportionately prevalent in the government (and always have been in Hollywood, despite rampant name-changing in that environment).

One more example. This scenario was touched upon above when I listed the free speech questions raised by speech definition. It was the third, the "Twinkie" example. Imagine on e empowered entity whose interests are gravely threatened by a second, powerless, entity's arguments and possession of truths. This first entity might seek to reduce the public's receptivity to the second entity's arguments by means of misrepresenting those arguments. To do so, it might use the means of propagation at its disposal, possibly the mass media, especially the entertainment and news aspects of which, to present the public with an image of the second entity that is violent, irrational, and motivated by evil. Talk shows work well, but then again so can a single photograph in the newspapers. The first entity might find an illiterate, unattractive, hateful and thoughtless criminal to represent the second entity and its arguments. This serves three purposes: First, It steers thoughtful and healthy people away from the second entity's arguments, causing them to react with hostility when presented with the opportunity to hear these arguments in their true form. Second, it causes illiterate, hateful an d thoughtless people to be attracted to the second entity's cause. These undesirables then adopt the second entity's symbolism, imagery, names, etc., but are incapable of even comprehending its true arguments and motivations. Thirdly, this provides the first entity with fresh stock from which to choose talk-show candidates and newspaper photograph subjects (see attached contrasting photocopies). This scenario is a sort of "which came first-the chicken or the egg" one. Here's where I get back to the subject of this paper. Who is responsible for the mindless violence these illegitimate representatives of the second, powerless entity engage in? I can at least suggest with confidence that the second entity is no more responsible for this violence than the first entity. Whose argument propagation is more fit for prohibition, Gunter Deckert's or Geraldo Rivera's? (G. Deckert is a German school teacher sitting in a prison as I write this paper for the act of distributing literature.) From which speech prohibition would there come more of a good and less of a risk of prohibiting the propagation of a truth?

Entire contents of this paper Copyright © 1997 Neil Camberly. All Rights Reserved. It is one big long quote, so don't quote from it un less you're going to print the whole thing, and even then you must get permission.