Freedom of Defamation?

Posted on June 2, 2022 by zeev1776

The verdict is in: Amber Heard lost; Johnny Depp won. If you haven’t followed their court case circus, Johnny Depp was suing to restore his good name after Amber Heard spread scurrilous rumors of abuse and domestic violence years ago, resulting in the near obliteration of Depp’s career and reputation. I won’t go into the specifics of the case – they have been covered ad nauseum in the press, by Rekieta Law, and online. Instead, I want to talk about the two statements released by Heard and Depp after the verdict found that Heard had defamed Depp with malice.

Immediately after the jury found against her, Amber Heard released a Twitter statement dripping with petulance, ignorance, and feminist talking points. She griped:

“The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I’m heartbroken at the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband.

“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously.

“I believe Johnny’s attorneys succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of Freedom of Speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the UK.

“I’m sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American – to speak freely and openly.”

Every thinking person knows that the idea “believe all women” is as absurd as the notion “believe all men.” Lying about domestic abuse – making false allegations, publishing them, and having them exposed for the world to see – does far more harm to women than a man being cleared by a jury that saw through your contradictions and lies. Women who lie under oath, like men who lie under oath, don’t deserve “to be taken seriously.”

Furthermore, what woman in 21^st-Century America seriously feels so scared of society that she won’t speak out? Our society relentlessly attacks masculinity, makes fun of men, depicts males as bumbling jerks, belittles fathers, has education and court systems generally biased in favor of women, and is increasingly dominated by women. To play the gender card and imply some sort of mythical misogyny and phantom patriarchal oppression of women is idiotic in the extreme!

Though there are so many morsels I could talk about, I want to ignore the feminism inherent in this message. In the Tweet, Heard said that “the key issue” was “Freedom of Speech.” Let’s talk, then, about this key issue.

What is Freedom of speech? Does it mean you can say anything you want without restriction? Is it a right to lie, libel, slander, defame, or deceive? Does it allow you to shout “fire!” in a movie theater? Does it dictate that you can bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 2 A.M.? Amber Heard seems to think so.

There are indeed those who advocate an unrestrained “Freedom of speech.” Yet, the notion is erroneous and injurious to society. A few seconds of ponderous thought is sufficient to convince anyone that there must be some restraints if we want to maintain a civil society. The Founding Fathers were famous defenders of free speech. George Washington, for instance, famously said:

“For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter” (George Washington, Address to Army Officers, March 15, 1783).

Yet, universally, the Founders also acknowledged that not all speech was protected. Author Chester James Antieau explained:

“Since the natural right sometimes referred to as freedom of communication was designed to enable us to help ourselves and others to our ordained end and to make temporal society a more effective institution for accommodating our temporal needs, the peddling of untruths is never embraced within such a natural right. This was well comprehended by the Fathers. As much as Jefferson loved freedom of the press, he held it subject to these natural law limitations. It ought to be restrained, he urged, “within the legal and wholesome limits of truth.” In his Draught of a Fundamental Constitution for the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1783, he suggested a clause: “Printing presses shall be subject to no other restraint than liableness to legal prosecution for false facts printed and published.” Clearly, to Jefferson untruths had no right to enter the market place of thought. Nevertheless, although there is no natural right to utter or publish defamatory untruths, it does not follow that the criminal sanctions of the state should be used to incarcerate such individuals who pervert freedom of communication. There is much to be said for the social policy contained in the Draft for the Virginia Constitution of 1776, which read: “Printing presses shall be free, except so far as by commission of private injury cause may be given of private action.” One can believe that Jefferson felt much this way; when a clergyman allegedly libelled him he had the prosecution dismissed.

“Because of the lack of appeal to rational ends when force and violence take over, most of the Founding Fathers qualified the natural right to assemble by phrasing this as a “right of the people to assemble peaceably.” Perhaps the Fathers knew better than our generation that when printing is used for peddling for profit pornographies and obscenities it is no longer a natural right. As devoted a believer in natural rights and freedom of expression as Patrick Henry stated: “I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against.” There is evidence to conclude that even Thomas Jefferson was willing to have the state prosecute those who degenerated in expression to licentiousness dearly endangering community Morals” (Chester James Antieau, Natural Rights and the Founding Fathers – The Virginians, Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume 17, Issue 1, 56).

Obviously, to allow deliberate lies to be circulated without punishment or censure is dangerous. Prohibiting or punishing the publication of deliberate untruths is not the same as voicing an opinion or publishing/saying something that turns out not to be true. We have all said things that, upon further reflection or when additional information became available, we recanted or realized were wrong. We have all exaggerated or recounted a story out of order or with omissions. That is not what is being discussed. We are talking about the deliberate publication, circulation, or spreading of falsehoods.

I personally don’t want to live in a society that allows people to knowingly circulate lies or to slander or defame others with impunity. And it doesn’t matter what or who is targeted – the government, a celebrity, a political rival, a war enemy, or your next-door neighbor. It doesn’t matter. What matters is the truth; your feelings, political affiliation, or religious opinions be damned.

What Amber Heard did was defame Johnny Depp. When we look up “defame” on Google, we find that it means to “damage the good reputation of (someone); slander or libel.” Synonyms include “malign,” “smear,” “traduce,” “besmirch,” “calumniate,” “denigrate,” “disparage,” and “vilify.” At times, we need to vilify evil men. However, when we smear someone who doesn’t deserve it – and we know we do it illegitimately – that is heinous, wrong, and punishable.

Claiming that Johnny Depp was a violent abuser – which is no small claim – was precisely what Amber Heard did. She not only said it with her mouth, but published it in a major national publication. She lied maliciously, knowingly, and very publicly. She tried to blacken the name of an innocent man. Depp’s other warts aside (we all have them), he didn’t deserve to be accused of domestic abuse – and on the public stage no less.

Heard called her deliberate lies and defamation “Freedom of Speech,” but it was nothing if not a violation of free speech. Free speech doesn’t protect people when they speak untruths. If she really is correct and Johnny Depp is a master liar, then God will judge him for it and she will be vindicated. No one will get away with their lies indefinitely. That said, a jury of her peers said Amber Heard is lying. During cross-examination, she contradicted herself repeatedly. Her story fell flat. Her witnesses fell flat. Her story, despite being lapped up by a British court, fell flat when exposed to the light for three weeks.

Despite having no legs to stand on, Heard is still calling her crass defamation – and it formally is defamation – the truth. Lying is not Freedom of speech. Hurting another person is not legitimate. We are not talking about hurting other people’s feelings, but their reputations and livelihoods. Character assassination is a very real form of actual assassination. A society that allows, coddles, and excuses defamation is a society preparing to die.

To close, there is no Freedom of defamation. Real Freedom of speech does not include the right to destroy other people with lies or to knowingly accuse them of falsehoods. Using our Liberty to harm another person or infringe upon their own rights is wrong. Amber Heard is wrong and has exceeded the just limits of her right of free speech. No one is taking away her right to speak the truth or express honest opinions, no matter how stupid they are, but thank God her defamatory, malicious, and lying speech has been exposed and punished.

I end with Johnny Depp’s statement celebrating the verdict. It needs no additional commentary:

“Six years ago, my life, the life of my children, the lives of those closest to me, and also, the lives of the people, who for many, many years have supported and believed in me were forever changed.

“All in the blink of an eye.

“False, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the media, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content, although no charges were ever brought against me. It had already traveled around the world twice within a nanosecond and it had a seismic impact on my life and my career.

“And six years later, the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled.

“My decision to pursue this cause, knowing very well the height of the legal hurdles that I would be facing and the inevitable, worldwide spectacle into my life, was only made after considerable thought.

“From the very beginning, the goal of bringing this case was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome. Speaking the truth was something that I owed to my children and to all those who have remained steadfast in their support of me. I feel at peace knowing I have finally accomplished that.”

Zack Strong,
June 1, 2022

The Danger of Hate Crime Laws

Posted on October 28, 2019 by zeev1776

“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!” – Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1.

“Hate crimes” is a wholly illegitimate classification of crime. It is a bogus legal distinction implemented for political purposes. It is an inherently flawed and biased category of pseudo-law. The implementation of these so-called “hate crime” laws poses a very real danger and threat to our Liberty – in particular our rights of speech and association – as so conspicuously guaranteed under our federal Constitution.

Though the term “hate crime” has been around long enough that everyone should be familiar with it, it might be helpful to start with a formal definition. Google defines a “hate crime” as “a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.” Right off the bat this definition makes the thinking person scratch his head and ask why we even need a special category of crime that deals purely with motivation. After all, don’t we already have laws on the books forbidding “violence” for any reason? Doesn’t our justice system already prosecute violent offenders and criminals, regardless of why they choose to abuse, harm, or otherwise violate the rights of another individual?

Does a murder suddenly become worse because it was motivated by “hate” of the victim’s religion, sexual orientation, or what have you? Isn’t taking a life in violence just as heinous and awful even if the murderer wasn’t motivated by hate? Why do those who are killed or abused because of their race, religion, etc., matter more than those who are killed or abused for any other reason? Why have we chosen to create an entirely new category of crime and punishment based on the perpetrator’s motivation? Isn’t doing so an inherently political and, thus, subjective, move?

Let’s be honest with ourselves: “Hate crimes” are actually thought crimes because their entire rationale for existing is based exclusively on the culprit’s inward motivation. While motive must obviously be taken into consideration when reviewing crimes and administering justice, a murder is a murder, an assault is an assault, a rape is a rape, a robbery is a robbery, and a violation of another’s God-given rights is a violation of their God-given rights regardless of the perpetrator’s motive.

Choosing to focus exclusively on the motive behind a violent crime, as if that fundamentally changes its nature, opens the door to the total politicization of the already overly politicized justice system. I thought the goddess of justice wore a blindfold because the law is blind. However, “hate crime” laws remove the blindfold and pave the way for a fully biased court system. Instead of being based on what crimes a perpetrator commits, punishment will now be based on the society’s perceptions and ever-changing definition of what constitutes “hate.” This is not the type of justice system honest people want, especially when we consider how easily-offended, vindictive, and self-centered our culture has become.

In his book Liberty Defined, retired congressman Ron Paul gave us this thought about “hate crime” laws:

“Passing legislation concerning crimes against minorities is supposed to show compassion and prove that our society does not discriminate. In fact, the laws do the opposite. Confidence that such efforts will help protect minorities causes a gross misunderstanding of individual rights. If all individuals should be treated the same under the law, providing greater penalties to those who commit crimes against certain racial or sexual orientation groups nullifies this effort. It means that the law provides lesser penalties to those individuals committing crimes against people without that favored orientation.

“A power given to government to place a greater penalty on someone, assuming they understand the motivation for the crime – always a subjective conclusion – is a consequence of the victims belonging to a certain group. If this can be done, the power is exactly the same power that once was used to excuse violence if it was against a black or gay person. The only solution is to insist that all rights are individual and unrelated to belonging to a particular group.

“The fallacy of this type of legislation has led to the routine misunderstanding of groups having rights rather than all individuals having equal rights. Too often, we hear reference to gay rights, minority rights, and women’s rights, etc., which undermines the concept of individual liberty.

“The idea that a crime can be judged as to whether it was motivated by hate for certain groups introduces the notion of a thought police. If someone is robbed, beaten, or killed, the penalty should be unrelated to what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. It hardly matters. The actions are the actions. Imposing preferential penalties endorses the concept of relative rights, which is of course a very dangerous, slippery slope. It implies that some victims have greater worth than others. The extra and arbitrary enforcement power mocks the principle of equal justice before the law. Why should the penalty for assault be different depending on race, sexual orientation, or membership in a particular group?

“Because some criminals have in the past been punished less harshly due to their victims’ belonging to a particular group is hardly a justification for a criminal to be punished more harshly for the same reason. It’s best we drop the whole concept of hyphenated rights and refer only to individual rights” (Ron Paul, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, 147-148).

Numerous insightful points were made in this statement. First, I draw your attention to the idea of group rights. Groups don’t have rights. There is no such thing as “gay rights,” for instance. We need to immediately cease using terms like “women’s rights,” “black rights,” and the like. They only divide us, pit us against each other, and prevent national unity. Indeed, this phraseology is quintessentially Marxist. It is the very essence of collectivist thought – an exhibition of their need to divide everyone into groups or “classes” in order to more effectively confuse and control them.

Opposing this Old World conception is Americanism. Our Founding Fathers taught, and codified in our national documents, that there are no group rights, but only human rights; rights that extend equally to all individuals. Belonging to a group or holding a particular belief cannot be used as a reason for either punishment or preference. So long as organizations and individuals are not guilty of violating the equal rights of others, and are not subversive of our Constitution and Liberty (such as the Communist Party USA which I believe should be immediately outlawed), they cannot be suppressed, singled out, or punished.

Additionally, Dr. Paul hit upon something very important. Those who promote “hate crime” laws are working from a very specific set of assumptions; namely, that American society has traditionally been repressive, bigoted, and intolerant – especially against non-Christians, those afflicted by homosexuality or disorders like transgenderism, people of color, women, etc. To hold this view of American history is to hold the demonstrably false, Marxist-concocted view. If this gross misunderstanding of history is false, which it is, then the entire impetus for “hate crimes” legislation falls flat.

Contrary to the toxic lies shoved down our throats by the controlled media day in and day out, America is the least racist and least oppressive nation in world history. No other society has been a “melting pot” of nationalities, creeds, and races like we have. You need only travel or live abroad to see how institutionalized and accepted racism is in most other societies.

America is and has been far too tolerant. We’re so absurdly tolerant that we allow harmful perversions and self-inflicted mental illnesses to be paraded about – and even taught to our children – as “healthy” and “normal.” Our tolerance (i.e. permissiveness) is one of the great dangers to American society today. Yet, “hate crime” law proponents would have you believe that America is tormented by hate-filled hordes (i.e. whites, Christians, and constitutionalists) exercising intolerance, repression, and hate in violent or discriminatory ways wherever you look. It’s simply not true.

As touched upon, “hate crime” laws actually emphasize and exacerbate societal differences, fanning the minuscule embers of genuine tension into an artificial blaze of hate and resentment. Ironically, it is those of a leftist, anti-Christian, pro-LGBT, pro-racial minority political/religious/cultural persuasion – those who always boast of how “tolerate,” “loving,” “egalitarian,” and “progressive” they are – who are most likely to spew out and act upon hate.

This, the most hateful segments of our society, is that most likely to foist its perceptions upon the rest of us via unjust “hate crime” and “hate speech” laws. They have perverted the law and use it as a means to silence their opposition. They want to, whether consciously or unconsciously, criminalize dissent to their point of view. Their unstable mentality prevents them from tolerating opposition – especially when it is coherent, articulate, and sourced. Instead, they plug their ears, lash out, and attempt to silence those who would disturb them in their cozy cocoon of lies with facts, data, and truth.

Among other things, the communists want us to believe in the myth of “white privilege.” Yet, I – a straight, white, gun-toting, Christian, constitutionalist man – have been on the receiving end of hate, discrimination, and threats too many times to allow myself to swallow that lie. For instance, I’ve been banned from Facebook too many times for alleged “hate speech” to be ignorant of the fact that the term “hate speech” in reality refers to anyone speaking truth or sharing a facts that conflict with the Establishment’s narrative on everything from history to current events to religion. To be accused of being “politically incorrect” simply means that you have decided to not go along, like sheep to the slaughter, with the Marxist Establishment’s party line.

The fruit of the “hate crimes” mentality is, inevitably, hate. By unduly emphasizing race and other factors as alleged motivations for crime, the authorities have stoked the flames of resentment, revenge, and hate, whether race-based or otherwise. Promoting the idea that there is an increase in crimes that are motivated by racism, homophobia, and the like, creates hostility and contempt – even hate – in the minds of those gullible enough to fall for the propaganda against those said to be perpetrating the crimes. The hate extends to the groups that the alleged perpetrators belong to – whites, Christians, etc.

“Hate crime” designations are so dangerous precisely because they create false perceptions in the public mind that stir up unnecessary and artificial strife. They emphasize divisions and differences and drive an emotional wedge between groups, whether between blacks and whites, those afflicted by homosexuality and normal heterosexuals, and so forth. It’s no wonder that “hate crime” legislation factors prominently in the Elite’s divide-and-conquer strategy.

An inconvenient fact many people don’t know is that the number of hate crime hoaxes outnumbers the number of actual hate crimes! And most of these ridiculous hoaxes are perpetrated by minorities in an attempt to frame whites. So ubiquitous are “hate crime” hoaxes that a website has been set up to document them (http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/).

We all know the obvious hate crime stunt pulled by Jussie Smollett earlier this year. Smollett, a black actor, went to the police to report an alleged assault by some white men. He walked into the police station still wearing the noose that had allegedly been put around his neck to lynch him with. The only problem is that Smollett is a liar. He hired two black Nigerians, who have confessed their involvement, to perpetrate the hoax. Because of the racially-motivated Marxist “justice” system in Chicago, Smollett never faced the trial that he rightly deserved.

A great article from RealClearPolitics titled “The Hate Crimes of Jussie Smollett” contains a great overview of Smollett’s hoax:

“The cops concluded this “attack” was also a sham — one orchestrated, staged, and financed by Smollett, who managed to convince two hapless Nigerian-American brothers to play the heavies. Police soon found a link between Smollett and the brothers, Ola and Abel Osundairo, who were caught on camera buying the rope and ski masks used that night. Confronted with this evidence, the brothers confessed and said it was all Smollett’s idea, and that he had paid them $3,500 to carry it out. . . .

“In the real world, it must have taken some effort by the street-wise detectives who took Smollett’s original statement to keep a straight face. How is it, they surely wondered, that two racist, homophobic Trump supporters happened to be wandering around a toney Chicago neighborhood at 2 a.m. — in zero-degree weather — rope and Clorox at the ready, waiting in ambush for a B-list actor from a black soap opera? Why did Smollett wait 40 minutes to call it in? How did he manage to hold onto – and keep intact — the sub sandwich he was carrying with him? And what’s with the “This is MAGA country!” battle cry – in Hillary Clinton’s hometown, a city she carried overwhelmingly in 2016 against Donald Trump?

“Ah, but I have corroborating evidence, Smollett told the cops: I was on the mobile phone with my manager when I was attacked and he heard the whole thing. Great, said the detectives. Can we have the phone? Not gonna happen, replied the alleged victim. When Smollett finally consented to provide a pdf file of his call logs, he’d tampered with them, presumably to delete the calls to his accomplices. The most obvious tell was that when police arrived at his door, Smollett was still wearing the rope he claimed the attackers wrapped around his neck. Jussie Smollett was still in costume, in other words, wearing the prop he thought made his self-created character — a hate crime victim — more believable to the audience. . . .

“Although it’s a story line that only the conservative media seem to be following, it turns out that racial hoaxes are disturbingly commonplace in this country. Worse, the mainstream media often stokes them, or in some cases, takes the lead in pushing them. Their very frequency suggests a couple of disquieting deductions: First, in our victimhood culture the demand for such outrages may now exceed the supply. Second, it turned out that Jussie Smollett may have understood the political zeitgeist far better than those outraged by his scam.

“This became clear Monday when the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office dropped all charges against Smollett without bothering to offer any explanation to the court and then joined his defense lawyers in offering a series of deceitful, contradictory, and specious explanations to reporters. Adding to the perception that the fix was in, the prosecutor then stood mute as a judge acquiesced to a defense motion to seal the entire matter.”

Jussie Smollett and the socialist media are the real perpetrators of hate and “hate crimes” in the United States of America. And those who promote this garbage, support the lying media outlets, and subscribe to this perverse ideology, are accessories to the crimes. I won’t stand by silently as normal Americans – who, if guilty of anything, are guilty of too much tolerance – are falsely accused, smeared, and ramrodded for “hate crimes” they didn’t commit against minorities who have taken leave of their senses. I won’t stand by mute as whites are accused of racism despite the fact that it was whites who ended institutionalized slavery throughout the colored world that had practiced it for millennia before erring Europeans got involved. And I won’t stand silently by as my fellow Christians endure demonic verbal abuse from those “tolerant” liberals and Social Justice Marxists who accuse us of hate simply because we have the sense to obey and follow God’s laws.

Think of what Smollett and others have done by perpetrating their plethora of “hate crime” hoaxes. They’ve increased hatred between whites and blacks, increased mistrust of the justice system, and emboldened others inclined to lie about being victims of “hate crimes,” to name only three. If we lived in a world of true justice, Smollett and his Nigerian patsies – and all other perpetrators of these hoaxes – would be sitting behind bars and every American would know them as the traitors they are.

The percentage of Jews and blacks who have been caught spray-painting swastikas on walls to scapegoat whites and conservatives is truly astounding. So typical is it that you often see memes floating around depicting a rabbi furtively defacing his own synagogue in the black of night. Many of you might recall an incident that happened at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs in 2017. At that time, a number of black cadets reported racist slurs appearing near their dormitory. The alleged act of racism drew forth a fierce speech from Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria denouncing racism. As it turns out, the “targets” of the crime were not really the victims they were made out to be. One of the “targets,” a black cadet, was caught and later admitted to being the one behind the “racist” slurs.

This sort of thing happens over and over from coast to coast. The hoaxes are a dime a dozen. Yet, because the media is controlled by Marxists who want to demonize white America as racist, they pick up and run with these stories regardless of the damage they may cause to race relations, unity, and brotherhood in our country.

Retired police officer Doug Traubel, in his phenomenal book Red Badge, discussed the absurdity of suggesting that white America is racist and violent against black America. The statistics and raw data actually confirm the exact opposite; namely, that black-on-white crime is exponentially higher than white-on-black crime. And this is very telling considering that only 13% of the population is black. But crime statistics are a discussion for another day. The key thing to focus on now is the way the powers-that-be hijack our language and promote the myth that white, Christian, conservative America is “oppressive” and “hateful.” The bogeyman of “racism,” if you didn’t know, is yet another Marxist creation. Traubel explained:

“The black-on-white crime wave in the U.S. is not a reaction to real injustices blacks are suffering at the hands of the white majority. Furthermore, social justice is not tied to righteousness, but a revolution and opportunism. The terrorist change, “No Justice, No Peace!” is born of fiction not virtue. Offender-victim demographics over fifty years prove the Dirty War is the reality. White Americans have long suffered from black predatory tribalism. Nevertheless, speaking truth on race and crime necessarily brands one a racist.

“Recognize the label for what it is. Do not run from it; that is what the Marxists want. Push through it. The patented use of the words “racist” and “racism” are a Marxist construct. These words did not exist in the English language prior to the 1930s. They are the product of the Frankfurt School.

“The creation of the words racist and racism in essence replaced the words “kind” and “kindred” with a negative connotation. They are applied selectively to whites for the intended purpose of pushing tradition back on its heels. Labeling whites “racists” intimidates them into silence from promoting order and defending standards, expectations and tradition. Ultimately, this created the moral relativism and identity vacuum we see today” (Doug Traubel, Red Badge: A Veteran Peace Officer’s Commentary on the Marxist Subversion of American Law Enforcement and Culture, 336-337).

This selectivity – based on political motives – is the danger inherent in all “hate crime” laws. When you have laws on the books that punish people based on the thoughts, motivations, or ideology behind their actions, which is all “hate crime” laws do, it empowers whatever faction is in charge of the justice system, or whatever group can most effectively manipulate public opinion, to define what is “hate” and what is not. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the Establishment’s incessant use of the slurs “anti-Semite,” “Nazi,” and “white supremacist.”

The anti-white racist radicals and de facto domestic terrorists at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are leading the charge in promoting the false legal category of “hate crimes.” With decades of mass public conditioning on their side – conditioning that paints whites and constitutionalists as “Nazis” – the Jewish ADL are beating us over the heads with hysterical cries of “anti-Semitism!” Few things irk me more than to hear people falsely accused of being “anti-Semites,” “Nazis,” and “white supremacists.” I’ve been on the receiving end of these ludicrous slurs more times than I can count.

In my book A Century of Red, I wrote the following about alleged “anti-Semitism”:

“It is a sad commentary on the stunted intellectual capacities of our society that I have to waste space telling folks I am not an anti-Semite. Yet, it is necessary because the slur “anti-Semite” is hurled at anyone who opposes the Establishment and brings to light their heinous crimes, their treason, and their Satanic plots. Because of mass social conditioning, the average person rejects anyone or anything that bears the “anti-Semite” label, no matter how preposterous and unfounded that label is.

“The term “anti-Semite” has been so grossly overused that it has lost all meaning. The same goes for slurs like “Nazi” and “white nationalist” (though I fail to see what’s wrong with being white or being a nationalist). These days, if you dare question anything the powers-that-be do, you’re automatically an “anti-Semite” who probably has a gas chamber in his basement just ready to throw the poor Jews into. The use of this ridiculous slur has become so habitual that even Semites have been charged with “anti-Semitism”!

“I will be so bold as to say that if you have not been smeared or had your character assassinated, you probably haven’t been effective in the fight against Satan’s despotism. Communists and their ilk have always used character assassination to discredit their opposition. Ezra Taft Benson explained this principle in these words:

““The smear seems to be the most widely used and effective tool of the Conspiracy to discredit and weaken any effective anti-communist effort. The smear of any individual or organization by the Communists, their dupes and fellow-travelers is certain evidence of effectiveness. If any of you are affiliated with patriotic organizations reportedly opposed to the Communist Conspiracy, which are not extensively smeared, you can rest assured your opposition is largely ineffective. You had best look for a more fruitful affiliation.”

“By the same token, when you are called “ant-Semitic” these days – fear not, you are in good company. Indeed, you are likely in the company of those who have struck a nerve with the conspiracy and who have hit them in their exposed underbelly and, thus, are nearest to the truth.

“As when Lenin declared so-called anti-Semitism “counter revolutionary” and made it a capital offense, so, too, the tyrants of our day call the opposition of their iron rule “anti-Semites” and bring their forces to bear to assassinate the character of true patriots. Don’t be intimidated by these despots – that’s exactly what they’re counting on.”

The last part is key. To the communists, anything that was “counter revolutionary” – that is, anti-communist – was labeled “anti-Semitism.” It is no different today in our country. Anyone who bucks the Establishment, disobeys the party line, or speaks out against the conspiracy, is automatically an “anti-Semite,” “Nazi,” or “fascist.” Because we’ve been fed a totally warped view of WWII history, the words “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” sting like the crack of a whip. It is the fear of this proverbial whip that is designed to cow us into submission and self-censorship. Ultimately, that is the purpose of “hate crime” laws – to create an environment of fear of speaking out against the truly hateful agenda of Marxism.

We’re hyper-sensitive in an appalling way to the misapplied use of the terms just noted. Our brainwashing and conditioning has ensured this. Academia, Hollywood, the media, and public school teachers are guilty of presenting such a bastardized version of history that if anyone, for instance, has the audacity to cite the mountain of research that demonstrates nowhere close to six million Jews died in the “Holocaust,” you are hysterically singled out as a “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” and accused of “hate speech.” Numerous individuals currently sit in prison in North America and Europe for doing nothing other than questioning the Establishment’s official version of events; that is, for having unsanctioned thoughts that are considered “hate crimes.”

It’s curious that the historians, curators, and archivists who work at the Auschwitz labor camp can officially lower the presumed death toll by three million and yet the mainstream media throughout the world demands you still rigidly believe that six minus three equal six! Getting away with these monstrous lies would be utterly impossible were it not for our culture of fear which ostracizing you if the Establishment brands you a “Nazi.”

So horribly misused are the slurs “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” that I not only reaffirm what I wrote two years ago about being in good company when you’re singled out as a one, but I emphasize it more firmly: Being called “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” is a badge of honor these days. There is no true enemy of the global conspiracy that has not been derogatorily labeled a “Nazi.” And you can rest assured that those who have escaped this label are not really effective in their fight.

The fact that the Establishment loves to name-call is yet another reason why all “hate crime” legislation should be promptly repealed. How can one expect to receive a fair trail when the Establishment press brands him a “Nazi,” “anti-Semite,” “racist,” “homophobe,” or “transphobe”? In our conditioned society, someone who bears the “Nazi” or “racist” label – regardless of whether it is true or false – is automatically considered guilty of hate. Having the stigma “Nazi” or “racist” or “homophobe” attached to you almost ensures a conviction in a court prosecuting you for “hate crimes” because, again, “hate crime” laws deal exclusively with motive. If you’re a “Nazi,” of at least if the controlled press can make it appear you are, then it is assumed your underlying motivation is hate and intolerance regardless of whether there is even one scrap of evidence to prove it. Truly, “hate crime” laws are a slippery slope!

It should perhaps go without saying that I don’t consider “hate crime” laws constitutional and just, regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks. I’m not the only one who holds this view, however. The Heritage Foundation said that Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 “is based on serious analytical and constitutional flaws and would actually be counterproductive to prosecuting violent crime. They additionally noted:

“This amorphous standard would federalize almost all incidents of violent crime, even those that have nothing to do with bias, prejudice, or animus toward the victim because of his or her membership in a particular group. Virtually every sexual assault, for example, is committed “because of” the gender of the victim, the gender of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator’s gender preferences. Many criminals target women or those with real or perceived disabilities, believing that such victims may offer less resistance. It is even possible that a defendant could be deemed a “hate crimes” offender if he engaged in the violent conduct “because of” his own religion, gender, or national origin in some way. Thus an enormous proportion of local violent crime would become federal “hate crimes.””

I further extract two paragraphs from George Will’s article “The federal hate crime law is both unconstitutional and wise.” He explained:

“Hate crimes (usually vandalism, e.g., graffiti, or intimidation, e.g., verbal abuse) are a tiny fraction of 1 percent of all reported crimes. Almost all states have such laws, and a federal law duplicating them merely serves two disreputable purposes. It allows Congress to express theatrical indignation about hate. And it exposes to double jeopardy, under a federal law, defendants who are acquitted in politically charged state trials, especially ones involving race or religion.

“Even though states, unlike the federal government, have police powers, states’ hate crime laws also are problematic on policy grounds. They mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind that the government disapproves. The law holds us responsible for controlling our minds, which should control our conduct. The law always has had, and should have, the expressive function of stigmatizing particular kinds of conduct. But hate crime laws treat certain actions as especially reprehensible because the people committing them had odious (although not illegal) frames of mind. Such laws burden juries with the task of detecting an expanding number of impermissible motives for acts already criminalized. And juries must distinguish causation (a particular frame of mind causing an act) from correlation (the person who committed the act happened to have this or that mentality). So, even if the HCPA were not unconstitutional, it would be unwise.”

Theatrical indignation is a great description. “Hate crimes” are political theater. They rarely happen and when they do – or even when they don’t really, such as in the case of Jussie Smollett – the media seizes the opportunity to put them on the front page to promote the myth of angry, hateful America. The courts, the government, the media – they all combine to promote their delusions as “reality.” Don’t fall for it.

What’s more, there is no evidence that “hate crime” laws actually reduce crime or prevent alleged “hate crimes.” In the article “Cops Have No Idea If Hate Crime Laws Stop Hate Crimes,” Robby Soave gives us this great insight and some food for thought:

“The event—“In the Name of Hate: Examining the Federal Government’s Role in Responding to Hate Crimes”—began with Lhamon’s introductory remarks. Then she yielded the floor to Heriot, who took a few minutes to explain why she was dissenting from the day’s proceedings.

““Let me say that I am not really a fan of most hate crime laws, which I believe have a tendency to fuel identity politics at a time when the nation needs to come together,” said Heriot. “In particular I oppose the federal hate crime statute passed in 2009.”

“The 2009 law added gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability status to the list of protected classes, and it established that a person no longer needed to be involved in a federally relevant activity (like voting) in order to be deemed a victim of a federal hate crime. This was a vast expansion of the federal government’s ability to prosecute people for hate crimes, and it poses significant “double jeopardy” concerns, because it gives federal officials the opportunity to re-try defendants who survived state-based prosecutions. . . .

“. . . In my remarks, I urged public officials and the media to avoid blurring the distinction between hate crime—leveling additional penalties against people whose criminal actions impugned a special class—and hate speech, which is protected expression under the First Amendment. I also stressed that while we hear many pundits asserting that hate crimes are on the rise, this fact is not clearly supported by the available data. The hate crime rate has remained essentially unchanged over the last decade; moreover, the purported “Trump effect” in American schools is difficult to parse and possibly overstated. (Consider, for instance, the number of unsolved or outright hoax bias incidents on college campuses.) . . .

“While the other panelists seemed more enthusiastic about involving federal authorities in hate crimes prevention, they provided ample reason to doubt everything we think we know about the prevalence of hate crimes. Several panelists conceded that 88 percent of the police departments that bothered to submit hate crime information to the feds in 2016 reported zero hate crimes. Four municipalities that include more than 250,000 people apiece didn’t report any information whatsoever. Baltimore County—population: 831,000—reported just one hate crime.

“Some of the panelists conceded that they are often dealing with very low numbers, and with degrees of subjectivity. . . .

“Probably the best argument against strengthening federal hate crime prevention efforts was articulated by Commissioner Kirsanow, who asked just two questions during my panel. He directed his questions to all of us, and invited anyone who possessed the information to answer.

““Are you aware of any data, studies, or other evidence, that shows designating a crime a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime, and second, whether designating a crime a federal hate crime reduces, deters, or prevents incidents of that crime?” he asked.

“Neither I nor any of the other panelists were aware of such information, and so the panel fell silent.

“Kirsanow continued. “Then, one other question: are you aware of any databases, study, or other evidence that shows designating a crime a hate crime, whether a municipal, federal, or state crime, assists in the resolution of that crime or the apprehension of the perpetrator?” he asked.

“Again, silence.

““Thank you, Madame Chair,” he said, yielding the floor.”

As you can see, not only is “hate crime” a dubious legal category, but there is zero evidence that this type of politically-motivated legislation works. What’s more, Soave confirmed what I have already stated and quoted; namely, that the number of “hate crime” hoaxes is extremely large. From Smollett to the Air Force Academy, with hundreds of examples in between, “hate crimes” are clearly not a problem in the United States of America. Certainly white-on-minority “hate crimes” are very low indeed.

It is a travesty that both the domestic and international press – both of which are controlled by the same evil entities – have portrayed America s a racist, violent, hate-filled powder keg. To anyone reading this from overseas, trust me when I tell you that that image of America is utterly false. Apart from the black and Latino gang-ridden neighborhoods in the inner cities, America is an exceptionally safe place. Demonizing America, however, is part and parcel of the Elite agenda. We are, despite all our flaws, the “main enemy” of the worldwide communist conspiracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, all we are doing by tolerating “hate crime” legislation is allowing the Elite to erect Soviet-style kangaroo courts that will one day ramp up their persecution of everyday Americans who exercise their right to speak out against corruption, moral decadence, and treason. People like me will be increasingly hauled before these courts to answer for “hate speech” and any “hate crimes” that can be trumped up. These show trials will be used as further “evidence” of how “hateful” white, Christian America is and how we need to adopt a new way – the socialist-communist way of “tolerance.”

I pray that we will stand on our feet and not allow the intolerant, hate-filled leftists to silence us. Never self-censor for any reason, and especially not to appease the government or the mindless mob. Dare to be politically incorrect. Political incorrectness is where you’ll discover the truth. Don’t be afraid of labels like “racist,” “homophobe,” and “Nazi.” They’re meaningless. Wear them as a badge of honor and know that you’re hitting a nerve that the Establishment doesn’t want you to hit. Be real men and women who care more about their Faith, Families, and Freedom than about what the mainstream media, Hollywood, your neighbors, your teachers, the government, or anyone else says.

“Hate crime” laws are the real hate crimes. They represent a total departure from the tried-and-true methods of justice practiced by our forefathers. They represent the infiltration of traitors into the legal apparatus and government. Their existence evinces the reality of the mass conditioning of our People. If you are fortunate and discerning enough to have woken up, it’s time to do your utmost to wake up others. It’s not a time to be delicate; it’s a time to use every last breath in your lungs to trumpet the truth. And the truth, as far as our present subject goes, is that “hate crimes” are a travesty of justice, a slippery slope towards persecution, a departure from healthy law and order, and a device employed by our enemies to divide our People, suppress dissent, and stir up hate. Have the courage to reject this monstrous system of tyranny and those who are trying to herd you into a GULAG of the mind.

Zack Strong,

October 28, 2019

United Front Against Bolshevism

Posted on March 3, 2019 by zeev1776

For the sixth time, yours truly has been banned from Facebook. Nine days ago, I ended a 30-day Facebook ban. But the censorship continues as one of my anti-Bolshevism posts, shared months ago, was targeted and used as an excuse to silence me. Consequently, I have been banned yet again for 30 days across all of my pages, pages with a combined total of over 6,200 likes and a weekly reach in the tens of thousands. The powers-that-be can’t stand when someone unapologetically and coherently speaks the truth about their communist ideology and practices. With that in mind, I am writing yet another article about the Bolsheviks who dominate our society and corrupt it like a vicious cancer.

The post that got me banned this time was an anti-Bolshevism Norwegian World War II poster. It says “Felles Front Mot Bolsjevismen” in Norwegian. In other words, “United Front Against Bolshevism” or “Common Front Against Bolshevism.” The exact poster is represented below. Judge for yourself whether an anti-communist poster merits a 30-day Facebook ban.

“United Front Against Bolshevism”

Bolshevism, or Satanic communism as it should properly be known, is the greatest threat to the world. My recent article “Unparalleled Evil” explains that no other ideology has committed as many atrocities and spread as much evil as has communism. It is the Red Plague that is sweeping the globe, ravaging economies, cultures, and nations. Communism is a demonic spiritual sickness. It is a devouring contagion that must be quarantined and eradicated if society is to survive.

Dr. Fred Schwarz, author of the classic book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), warned that we must be alert and aware in order to combat the communist conspiracy:

“A knowledge of the true program of Communism and its strategy and tactics is the only protection good people of every sort have against the Communist snare. . . .

“The Communists are magnificently organized. They have dedicated personnel and they have acquired vast experience. Only on a basis of understanding, organization and dedication can we hope to meet and defeat them . . . eyes that see and minds that think must merge with hearts that love freedom, to meet this challenge” (56, 66).

The respected Ezra Taft Benson gave us a similar warning. He stated:

“Once you get the facts about our American Constitutional Republic and the threats to it – then you are going to want to do something. Certainly those who are organized and have a plan and are dedicated, though they be few, will always defeat the many who are not organized and have no plan or dedication. . . .

“Yes, the Fabian Socialists are as busy as bees rolling out the red carpet which leads inevitably to Communism. Faced with this situation our first duty is that of education. Starting with ourselves we must become familiar with the broad outlines of our movement toward destruction. We must, as President McKay has urged, become alerted and informed. After becoming informed ourselves, we must carry the word to all within hearing or seeing range, so that they, too, can become awakened. Take every opportunity to pass sound literature and books around so that your neighbors and their neighbors will awaken before it is too late. We are literally in a race against time and we must take every opportunity to spread the word” (President Ezra Taft Benson, “A Race Against Time,” BYU address, December 10, 1963).

The great anti-communist crusader J. Edgar Hoover likewise advised:

“Communism can exist only where it is protected and hidden. The spotlight of public exposure is the most effective means we have to use in destroying the communist conspiracy. Drag that conspiracy into the light! Tear it apart. Reveal the flaws in its philosophy. Keep the pressure on it. Force it into retreat” (J. Edgar Hoover, The Lion, October, 1957, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 251).

I have tirelessly attempted to shine the spotlight on the communist conspiracy by publishing two books, writing articles, publishing podcast episodes, and creating countless online posts on the subject. I even have an anti-communist t-shirt in the works. I’ve done what I can with my limited resources to warn my countrymen of the mortal threat facing them.

I love America. I love our Republic. I love our inspired Constitution. I love our unique and unmatched heritage of Liberty. And I oppose every attempt to destroy that God-given Freedom. Like Thomas Jefferson, “I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800). And no tyranny is more malicious, malignant, and menacing than Bolshevism.

Most people believe the myth that “communism is dead.” They also believe the mantra that the Soviet Union “collapsed.” My political awakening occurred at age twelve when I realized that communism was not dead. If people realized this fact, I believe a mass awakening could occur and we could mobilize against the communist traitors in our midst. Until that happens, however, we will not be able to put up a truly united front against Bolshevism.

In his 1987 book Perestroika, Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev admitted that communism was getting an outward makeover, but that nothing substantive was changing. He confessed that “Perestroika,” the so-called “restructuring” of the Soviet Union, was a total sham:

“[Perestroika] has to a far greater extent been prompted by an awareness that the potential of socialism had been underutilized.

“The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity. His very image is an undying example of lofty moral strength, all-round spiritual culture and selfless devotion to the cause of the people and to socialism. Lenin lives on in the minds and hearts of millions of people. . . .

“Turning to Lenin has greatly stimulated the Party and society in their search to find explanations and answers to the questions that have arisen. . . .

“The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice. Such is the essence of perestroika, which accounts for its genuine revolutionary spirit and its all-embracing scope. . . .

“Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system. . . .

“Does perestroika mean that we are giving up socialism or at least some of its foundations? Some ask this question with hope, others with misgiving. . . .

“To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika—and the program as a whole, for that matter—is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy” (Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, 10, 25, 35-36).

“Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin will live!”

This one confession should be enough to convince the skeptics that the Soviets did not go away, but merely changed their mask. Perestroika was not a conversion to “democracy,” though it uses the term “democracy” as often as possible in order to carry forth the ruse. This accords with The Communist Manifesto’s battle plan. Karl Marx wrote that “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Democracy, then, is a mere code word for revolution in the communist vocabulary.

Gorbachev’s “Perestroika” was nothing but a push for more revolution and a full embrace of Leninism. Vladimir Lenin, you will recall, led the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, butchered millions of the Russian people, caused famines and laughed at the human suffering that resulted, ravished churches and persecuted Christians, and was the high priest of the communist revolt against humanity in his day. This is the doctrine that Gorbachev’s “restructuring” in Russia was meant to achieve. As he confessed, “The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice. Such is the essence of perestroika, which accounts for its genuine revolutionary spirit and its all-embracing scope.”

Can we finally see through the Soviets’ lies that the USSR “collapsed” and communism “died”? Can we finally acknowledge that the Evil Empire has not gone away, but still threatens us under the iron leadership of “former” KGB agent Vladimir Putin? Can we finally wake up and recognize the communist traitors in our midst, such as Bolshevik Bernie and Comrade Cortez? Can we finally, after all this time, listen to those who have been warning about the Bolshevik fifth column that is subverting our nation?

When we encounter censorship, character assassination, cries of racism, “white guilt” insanity, legislative subversion, judicial activism, and cultural corruption, we can rest assured that the perpetrators are the exact same as those who actively tried to bring us down during the Cold War. The enemy has not retreated. We did not win the Cold War. In fact, we lost it without even realizing. We have labored under false delusions of victory for some thirty years. All the while, the communist enemy has advanced, armed to the teeth, entrenched itself, and prepared to deliver the final death blow to the West.

People scoff and call me a “conspiracy theorist.” Yet, conspiracy is a proven, documentable fact of life. And the communist conspiracy was an acknowledged fact for decades, as were its subversion efforts in our country. It is a fact that more people have been slaughtered by communist hands than by any other. It is a fact that the Soviet Empire advanced farther and faster than any other empire in history, enslaving most of the world. Did the hardened, committed murderers in the Kremlin and in Beijing simply throw up their hands, give up their power, and retire? Hardly! Evil doesn’t relinquish its power without bloodshed. It simply doesn’t and didn’t happen. And communism never died.

Bolshevism is a Satanic, demonic threat – a vicious conspiracy to snuff out Freedom and subject us to socialistic, monopolistic tyranny. The movement is more powerful and prevalent than ever before. Deluded Americans are now marching in the streets with hammer and sickle flags, celebrating communist holidays like International Women’s Day, reverencing communist icons like Martin Luther King, Jr., and turning out in droves to hear and vote for avowed socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Yet, people have the audacity to say communism is dead!

Communism is in its endgame now. We are on the brink of domestic anarchy and world war. Our culture is rotten and everyone is at each other’s throat for everything. Censorship is in full swing – particularly against anyone who speaks out against the Bolshevik conspiracy. If we continue down this path, we will soon have an open and avowed socialist for president to match our hostile Congress and activist Supreme Court. We will be buried in debt, immorality, bureaucracy, contention, lies, and war. Yet, we should not be surprised. After all, the Soviet mass-murderer Nikita Khrushchev angrily vowed all those years ago: “We will bury you!”

If we are to defeat the communists, we must admit the threat. If we are to survive as a society, communism must be quarantined and eliminated. If we are to revive our Republic with our God-given rights, we must create a united front against Bolshevism. As our Founding Fathers said to their fellow countrymen when faced with the prospect of British tyranny, “Join or Die!” You’re either with us or with the communists. There is no middle ground. Choose very carefully.

Zack Strong,

March 2, 2019.

Importance of the First Amendment

Posted on January 27, 2019 by zeev1776

It has happened yet again. Yours truly has been banned from Facebook for the next 30 days. This is the fifth time I’ve been blocked for a set period of time. Why, you may ask, has Facebook targeted my pages? Answer: Because I use my God-given right of free speech and expression to voice views that are contrary to the Marxist perspective held by the Establishment and the media moguls who dominate Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, and the other mass conditioning systems in our world.

Of all the times I have been blocked, had my pages and groups deleted, and had my content removed, this time was the lamest. Facebook is not allowing me to see which post it blocked me for, but I could see the commentary on the post in question. I wrote: “This made me chuckle. I thought it might make some of you laugh, too. Enjoy.” While I do not recall the precise post, I do remember it was a joke post. I believe I posted it several months ago on my Feminism is a Disease page – a fast-growing page with 3,412 likes and 3,559 followers as of this writing. Heaven forbid someone post an anti-feminist joke on Facebook!

Some people might immediately say: “Well, that’s tough luck. But Facebook is a private company, so they can do what they want to.” False. Facebook is absolutely not a private company. Facebook receives hundreds of millions of dollars in tax subsidies. In other words, Facebook receives hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payer money! And on top of this, they don’t even pay taxes. For proof of these facts, see this article, and this one, and this one.

Comrade Zuckerberg

To my sense of justice, the fact that Facebook (and Google, Apple, and other major companies) takes our money makes them a de facto public entity accountable to laws governing public speech. Yet, despite being funded by the American People – that is, by your tax dollars – Facebook believes they are above the law, and your opinions be damned.

Whether you choose to believe Facebook’s massive intake of public funds requires them to obey public laws is up to you. However, at stake is a bigger issue – the First Amendment. What is the First Amendment? What does it mean? What is its purpose? Why is it so tremendously important? And what is at stake when we allow publicly-funded entities like Facebook to censor legitimate speech that they simply don’t agree with?

The First Amendment was created to protect and defend the rights of speech and press, among other things. People were supposed to be able to say what they wanted to, within, of course, the reasonable limits of decency and decorum (for instance, you cannot yell “Fire!” in a theater, use sexual or profane language in public, or threaten someone’s life without consequence). But having the right to voice personal opinions on random topics is only one part – the less important part – of the First Amendment.

More than anything else, the First Amendment was a guarantee that the American People could always speak out against tyrannical government and hold their public representatives accountable. It was intended as a check on usurpation, lies, institutionalized corruption, injustice, and evil in high places. The First Amendment was not created so you could whisper your thoughts behind closed doors, but so that you could make your voice heard in the public arena. The First Amendment was designed, in short, to enable patriots to defend their nation.

The Sage of Monticello held such a high opinion of the rights of free speech and the press that he wrote:

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787).

Our government is based on, among other things, the sentiments and principles of the American People. The People is the source of political power. If they are to retain that power, they must safeguard their right to speak out. And elected representatives are duty-bound to defend that paramount right.

Another time, Jefferson asserted:

“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure” (Thomas Jefferson to Marquis de Lafayette, 1823).

And if those quotes were not blunt enough, Jefferson accurately declared:

“[O]ur liberty . . . cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it” (Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, January 25, 1786).

James Madison was of equal mind. From America’s revolutionary experience, he knew the importance of the right of the People to speak out against the abuses of their government, to publish and voice their thoughts, and to be included in the public dialogue. He said:

“[T]o the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression” (James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, January, 1800).

This famous quote might have more force when seen in context. The context was the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts instituted under the John Adams administration. The Sedition Act criminalized speech perceived as condemning the government at a time when national security was seen as precarious. Indeed it was precarious because of Jacobin agitation in the Union, but nevertheless it was an affront to the U.S. Constitution and to the rights of free speech, press, and conscience. Madison explained:

“In every State, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men of every description which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On this footing the freedom of the press has stood; on this footing it yet stands. And it will not be a breach either of truth or of candour to say, that no persons or presses are in the habit of more unrestrained animadversions [criticisms] on the proceedings and functionaries of the State governments than the persons and presses most zealous in vindicating the act of Congress for punishing similar animadversions on the Government of the United States.

“The last remark will not be understood as claiming for the State governments an immunity greater than they have heretofore enjoyed. Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression; who reflect that to the same beneficent source the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness? Had “Sedition Acts,” forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced against the press, might not the United States have been languishing at this day under the infirmities of a sickly Confederation? Might they not, possibly, be miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke?” (James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, January, 1800).

In short, without the protection of what we sometimes call “First Amendment rights,” America might never have won her Freedom from British despots and the American People would have groaned under the yoke of foreign tyranny. Similarly, today we are beginning to groan under the yoke of Marxist-inspired political correctness and bureaucratic tyranny spewing forth from enemy-controlled D.C. We cannot afford to allow this to happen. This road leads inevitably to slavery and oppression.

People sometimes say, “Well, what if people are saying things that are wrong or offensive? How can we allow that? It is dangerous!” It is not our place to “allow” or “disallow” speech we disagree with, even if it is wrong (excepting, as noted, the reasonable restrictions). Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others” (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803).

If you go down the road of blacklisting, banning, blocking, persecuting, and bullying people for speech that is not legitimately harmful but with which you simply disagree, the precedent will reach to you.

The great patriot Thomas Paine once made a statement which applies to today’s politically-correct culture where communist “hate speech” laws are proliferating and wreaking havoc on the First Amendment:

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself” (Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First-Principles of Government, 1795).

If you value your right to voice your opinions, justice dictates that you must defend the right of others – even those you disagree with – to do the same. If you do not, you bear at least partial blame for the destruction of the First Amendment.

We are not a democracy; we are a Republic. But otherwise, great image.

To understand more about what is at stake when the Freedom of speech is restricted, we quote from another of our illustrious Founding Fathers. In a November 1737 article in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. . . .

“. . . An evil magistrate intrusted with power to punish for words, would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible. Under pretence of pruning off the exuberant branches, he would be apt to destroy the tree. . . .

“. . . The construction of words being arbitrary, and left to the decision of the judges, no man could write or open his mouth without being in danger of forfeiting his head. . . .

“Upon the whole, to suppress inquiries into the administration is good policy in an arbitrary government; but a free constitution and freedom of speech have such a reciprocal dependence on each other, that they cannot subsist without consisting together.”

Will we defend free speech and, thus, support our free governmental system? Or we allow the arbitrary system of social control that is being constructed around us to shackle us? We jeopardize all of our rights when we allow the government, activist groups, biased judges, the lying Marxist media, or vicious segments of our population to limit, curtail, or restrict our God-given rights of speech, press, and conscience.

Don’t think that Freedom of speech is limited to speech and the press alone. Rather, our most sacred rights of conscience and religion are wrapped up in the right of speech. James Madison put it this way:

“The freedom of conscience and of religion are found in the same instruments which assert the freedom of the press” (James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, January, 1800).

If the Freedom of speech is limited, our most precious right to worship God as we see fit will be in peril. Our right of free conscience will also be in danger of overthrow if we’re not allowed to vocalize the thoughts and desires of our soul. If you value either the right to worship your God freely or to express the feelings of your conscience, it is your duty to fight tooth and nail to defend the First Amendment.

John Adams once said: “Let us dare to read, think, speak and write” (John Adams, “A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law,” 1765). In 2019, perhaps his statement should be amended to say: “Let us dare to read, think, speak and write – unless Facebook/Twitter/YouTube doesn’t agree with you” or “Let us dare to read, think, speak and write – unless the LGBT movement, radical feminists, or Black Lives Matter disagree with you.”

Our First Amendment is under serious assault. At least, the right of traditionalists, conservatives, and constitutionalists to speak out and defend or promote Christian values, moral principles, constitutionalism, Americanism, and truth is being curtailed in a major way. Our right to denounce the communist menace, publicize the truth about conspiracy, and point out the abuses of our government is also waning. Leading the charge in this politically-correct assault on logic, sanity, and tradition are the social media networks like Facebook and Twitter.

In the face of this tidal wave of peer pressure, Establishment oppression, and Marxist machinations against the sacred rights vouchsafed by the First Amendment, we must stand strong. We must defend the rights of others to speak if we value that right for ourselves. We must hold public institutions accountable for their violations of the sacred right of conscience and the right to vocalize our innermost feelings. If we are to survive as a free Republic, it is imperative that we push back the assault on our Liberty.

“Let us dare to read, think, speak and write.”

Zack Strong,

January 26, 2019.

Facebook Censorship Continues

Posted on August 23, 2018 by zeev1776

Some people deny that Facebook censors people they disagree with on politics and other ideological issues. These deniers are either willful liars or are completely ignorant of reality. I don’t need anyone else to tell me Facebook censors people – I have my own firsthand experience being censored on numerous occasions. This article is nothing more nor less than me adding my voice to the growing chorus of people who have had their content censored and voices silenced by Facebook.

The very first thing I want to stress is the fact that Facebook is not a private company. Everyone calls Facebook a private company, but that is simply not true. Facebook receives hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies from the federal government (and guess where the federal government gets it?) As a publicly-subsidized company, Facebook cannot ethically be considered private. As a public company, therefore, Facebook must follow the laws protecting free speech. If they were a private company, I would not complain much because private companies and individuals have a right to discriminate, or to associate, with whomever they please.

The second thing I want to point out is that what Facebook does can only be considered censorship because it only applies to certain groups, pages, individuals, and ideologies. Facebook does not censor members of the LGBT community. They do not censor feminists. They don’t censor leftists and communists. They don’t even censor people making death threats against the president. No, these anti-American groups and ideologies are protected classes.

The people, groups, and ideologies that Facebook deliberately targets and censors are those which can be called traditionalists, constitutionalists, conservatives, American patriots, and Christians, as well as those erroneously deemed “conspiracy theorists.” Anyone who opposes the bloated Establishment in Washington is an immediate target. Anyone who speaks out against the deadly virus of cultural Marxism is automatically singled out. Anyone who denounced the feminist disease and the LGBT subversion of our society is ridiculed, intimidated, and targeted.

Additionally, those who stand up in support of traditional values such as the patriarchal family unit, heterosexual marriage, the notion of only two genders, rule of law, individualism versus collectivism, constitutionalism, private virtue, public decency, manners, and Christianity, have a huge target painted on their backs. We are hated by the communist Establishment. The single most hated person on planet earth is the white, constitutionalist, Christian male from the United States. We are a dying breed. Our voice is being silenced and censored at every turn.

We often hear feminists and minorities – especially women – telling each other, “We need to make our voice heard!” Yet, their voice is the only one I hear. It’s the only one endorsed and protected by the mainstream press, Hollywood, and social media. The voice I don’t hear represented in the press is my voice – the voice of reason, truth, traditionalism, constitutionalism, Americanism, and Christianity. We are the true minority in this nation.

To get their way, the powers-that-be have come up with the ludicrous concept of hate speech and hate crimes. These, by definition, are not actual crimes. A motive cannot be a category of crime. If you murder someone because you hate them or because you wanted to steal their property or because they offended you, what does it matter? You still did the deed. Yet, the Marxists have come up with this new category of “hate crimes” and then use it to bludgeon traditionalists and constitutionalists into submission. Today, it is not only feasible, but is a reality, that conservatives or Christians can have their businesses shut down, be forced to pay fines, or be hauled off to jail for allegedly “hating” certain protected classes of people – such as homosexuals and transgenders. This is the level of delusion that exists in America today (and, unfortunately, it’s worse in many other places in the world such a socialist Europe).

Another weapon of the communist cultural revolution is political correctness. As I pointed out in my article on the subject, political correctness is a communist invention. What political correctness meant in communist lingo is the party line. That is, what the Communist Party says is politically correct and anything that differs from their line is anathema. Anyone who disagrees with the communists is automatically labelled an enemy of the revolution, a class enemy, or an enemy of the People. No further proof is needed that the United States has been captured by the Marxists and their dupes than to see communist-style political correctness run rampant in our culture and press.

Facebook is one of the chief exemplars of this Marxist-style censorship machine. Run by the Jewish elitist Mark Zuckerberg, who openly thinks its users are “dumb f**ks,” Facebook promotes cultural Marxism and the political and moral destruction of America. Facebook has admitted that its algorithms are biased against traditional/conservative pages and accounts. But beyond that, Facebook seeks every excuse to block people like me who speak out against the Establishment and who promote traditional values.

I will give you several examples of the censorship I have personally faced. I run seven different Facebook pages and a group. I used to operate one additional page, but it was taken down and deleted by Facebook for alleged “hate speech.” This page was titled World War II – Facts and Lies. I discussed, among other things, the true origin of that horrific war, the war crimes of the Allies, the false atrocity allegations against the Axis, Soviet machinations, the beliefs of Adolf Hitler, etc. The page only existed for a short time, but I was in the middle of a growth spurt and people from all over the world were liking and joining the page. Suddenly, someone reported my page. Facebook removed one of my post for supposedly violating their “community standards.” Of course, they never bothered to say which of their “standards” my post violated. Then, suddenly, a second post was removed for “hate speech.” Again, Facebook never deigned to tell me how my post allegedly constituted “hate speech.” That was just an easy excuse to remove someone who was saying things the Establishment doesn’t want to peasants to know. Finally, that page was deep-sixed by Facebook and no longer exists.

Unfortunately, that is not the only censorship and persecution I’ve faced. By far the most hatred, threats, false accusations, bullying, and intimidation I’ve received is from rabid feminists and delusional LGBT people – or LGBTQIAPK as they are now known. You know, those people who always tell us to be tolerant and pride themselves on being oh so “tolerant,” “egalitarian,” and “sophisticated.” They are so obsessed with their sexuality and their “empowerment” that they belittle and attack others and seek to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

The feminists in particular shriek and go into psychotic fits when someone tells them what God’s plan for women is. They can’t stand it. Perhaps that is because part of them, deep down, knows it is true and they are really trying to silence their conscience. Finding that impossible to do, they lash out at those of us who point out the reality which awakens in them a sense of guilt and shame. Living in disharmony with God is not conducive to happiness and fulfillment, yet that’s what the feminists do – then they get angry at men, traditional women, and non-feminists instead of improving themselves and reforming their own terrible habits and false beliefs.

One thing that the delusional feminists, LGBTQIAPK groupies, and transgenders can’t comprehend is human nature. Their philosophies are inherently anti-human-nature and at odds with reality and every degree of sanity, intelligence, and common sense. Every five-year-old can look down between his or her legs and see whether he or she is male. They inherently know they are male or female and that there are differences between the two genders – and this has been conclusively proven by studies and research throughout the years. It is very revealing that the enemy has to exert so much effort to indoctrinate kids with gender propaganda in order to confuse them and get them to question what their eternal gender is. Without this socialization and indoctrination, no one would question what they inherently know to be true.

All of this ties into Facebook censorship because it shows the motivation for their rabid and relentless attempt to silence all opposition. They simply cannot promote their delusional worldview – their mental and spiritual sickness – without silencing the voice of sanity and reason that is teaching people the truth. The truth must be silence in order for lies to prevail. Thus, people like me, Alex Jones of Infowars, and others who oppose this Marxist cultural revolution must be silenced.

For the record, I don’t support Trump. Yet, this cartoon demonstrates the sheer hypocrisy of people in the controlled press.

My Facebook page Feminism is a Disease has 1,253 likes as of this writing. I have experienced a 400-like jump in the past several weeks. My page is finally taking off and growing. Yet, the major hurdle is Facebook censorship. From day one, I’ve had false accusations leveled against me by feminists, transgenders, and LGBT fanatics. For instance, I’ve had a number of posts removed for allegedly violating “community standards” or arbitrary “hate speech” policies. In fact, months back I had my page unpublished. Fortunately, there was an appeal process and, after a number of days, I got my page reinstated. After that incident, I had a feminist openly admit that she (she said “we”) wouldn’t stop until my page was taken down. This is how psychotic and evil these people are. They are mini-tyrants and would-be-despots. And Facebook gives them the power to silence their fellow man.

The attacks have again begun in full force. As I write this, I am currently on a three-day time out (three separate times in the past I’ve been put in Facebook time out for one day, three days, and seven days). Why? After two of my posts we taken down last night, one for violating “community standards” and the other for “hate speech” violations, Facebook has blocked me from posting, commenting, liking, or otherwise using Facebook – and not just on my Feminism is a Disease page, but across all seven of my pages, my closed group, and my personal page. I can’t send messages, I can’t comment, I can’t post, I can’t do anything. Why? For no other reason than the fact that I said something the elitist radicals as Facebook don’t like – and also because a feminist or homosexual was offended at one of my posts and flagged it.

I won’t be surprised in the slightest if Facebook unpublishes my page again or if they outright delete it. That is their M.O. They silence their opposition because they can’t compete in the ideological arena when the opposition is given a free chance to explain their views. Tyrants throughout history have used the same tactic – and the tyrants of old only wish they had a system of censorship and social manipulation as effective as Facebook.

The post that was removed after being flagged last night gets to the heart of the entire matter. In fact, it was eerily prophetic. The action taken against me by Facebook proves and fulfills the prophecy. The quote comes from Henry Makow who wrote the best book on feminism titled Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order. On page 78, Makow wrote:

“Illuminati-Marxism spawned both the Gay and Woman’s liberation movements by transferring Marxist class conflict to gender. The “patriarchy” (male-dominated heterosexual family) is the root of all evil and must be destroyed (“transformed”). Women (the proletariat) and anyone “oppressed” (gays, certain favored minorities) must be handed position and power on a silver platter.”

That is precisely accurate! And it is true in my case – I am being discriminated against and censored because I have dared say anything against the privileged, favored, protected LGBT/feminist class and their Marxist overlords. Additionally, I think it is worth quoting the commentary I added to Mr. Makow’s quotation. This is what I wrote, including Makow’s full quote:

“As crazy as it sounds to those who haven’t taken the time to study real history, this is in fact true. Feminism, as I’ve said since day one, was and is a communist front movement (the Communist League, which later became the Bolshevik party which overthrew Russia, was an Illuminati creation). So, too, was the militant homosexual/transgender movement. The elites know that these perversions of nature and God’s law tend to corrupt families and break down society. That’s why they create and fund these movements – to foment division and chaos, out of which they intend to rebuild a Luciferian world order. Now you know, the rest of the story. . .

““Gay and feminist activists find common ground because they insist male-female distinctions are artificial, ignoring all scientific evidence. While many heterosexuals might consider themselves “feminists,” feminism is a homosexual movement. It believes that men and women are the same and only social conditioning makes us different. Homosexuality is love of the same. Today, gay and feminist activists want “people” to make love to “people” regardless of their sex. They depict normal heterosexual behaviour as pathological. Men are inherently abusive and the heterosexual family is oppressive. The way to social justice is to abolish heterosexuality altogether (isn’t this “hate”?) Illuminati-Marxism spawned both the Gay and Woman’s liberation movements by transferring Marxist class conflict to gender. The “patriarchy” (male-dominated heterosexual family) is the root of all evil and must be destroyed (“transformed”). Women (the proletariat) and anyone “oppressed” (gays, certain favored minorities) must be handed position and power on a silver platter. The Illuminati’s revolutionary goal is the “New World Order” or authoritarian socialism run by monopoly capital. It is big government in the service of big business, the Left in the service of the Right.” – Henry Makow, “Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order, 78-79.”

That ends my commentary and the full quote from Mr. Makow. As you can see, it was prophetic. It is a precise description of what has gone on for so long in America and throughout the Bolshevized world. And is there one word of hate in it? Of course not, unless calling a spade a spade is “hate.” In fact, this reminds me of a few comments made by the honorable President Ezra Taft Benson, a patriot in his day without equal.

Though each of these statements comes from different speeches given at various times, I take them from the 1964 book Title of Liberty: A Warning Voice compiled by Mark A. Benson for convenience.

“I have great faith in the American people. When fully informed, they will make wise decisions. They will stand up and be counted for what is right. This I know.

“I recognize that it is not popular in some circles to be called an anti-communist, but I consider communism a political and economic disease. I do not believe an American citizen can be patriotic and loyal to his own country and its God-inspired Constitution of freedom without being anti-communist–anti-socialist. . . .

“We must expose to the light of public inquiry those forces which would destroy our country and our way of life” (15-16).

“Our mortal enemies are the Satanic communists and those who prepare the path for them” (84).

“Yes, we have been lulled away into a false security. We are busy making money, enjoying our abundance but oblivious to the gradual loss of freedom which has made all of these blessings possible. As a nation we are affluent but foolish.

“This nation needs a revival of patriotism, a return to basic concepts, an awakening to the most deadly peril ever to threaten our people. I say to you with all my heart that the danger is real and can be deadly. We must become alerted and informed. . . .

“Grassroots thinking in America cries for strong, courageous leadership. Some American people are at long last becoming aroused in their hearts . . . They want to know the truth without bluffing.

“The American people are entitled to the facts. They will actively follow sound, courageous leadership. Our people know in their hearts that the opposite of victory is defeat, whether you call it “coexistence” or “compromise” with a godless tyranny.

“We are at war, and we must win the war. It’s time to go on the offensive. Let’s stop helping the enemy . . . Let’s make sure we’re right and then mobilize sufficient strength to win. For a change let’s try victory!” (51-51).

Will you stand up for what is right and vocally, actively, tenaciously oppose this Satanic tyranny that is sweeping across our nation and devouring our rights? Or are you so worried about your money, ease, and reputation to stand up and be counted? Are you worried what your friends might think or do you honestly care enough about your faith, family, and Freedom to defend them?

This is a war. Wars are not easy. They are not won over night. They are not won without sacrifice and loss, discomfort and pain, sweat and tears. Yet, the prize is worth the price. It really is worth it.

I’m doing about all I can do. I have published two books on the communist conspiracy, which include extensive discussion about front groups like feminism, the LGBT movement, environmentalism, etc., and I have just completed a third book that I pray will strengthen people’s testimony of the fact that they are literal children of God with a grand potential. To date, I have written more than 80 articles. I recently launched my Liberty Wolf podcast and I am preparing to release episode #10. I run, as noted, seven Facebook pages, and a group, devoted to truth on a host of subjects ranging from feminism to communism to occultism to the Founding Fathers to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Finally, in 2014, I ran for the U.S. House of Representatives out of Utah under the Independent American Party banner.

In nearly all of these endeavors, I have faced opposition and censorship. From having my Facebook pages censored, harassed, and deleted, to being told by the Republican government in Utah that I and all of my fellow independents were banned from the campaign debates, to receiving literal threats from feminists, to having “friends” stab me in the back repeatedly over these issues and disown me because I’m bold enough to speak the unpopular truth, I’ve had my fair share of hardship.

Yet, I push forward harder than ever before. And I do it for one major reason – I know it is right. If I know what the truth is, how can I be silent or complacent? Complacency is complicity. Silence is collusion. Ignorance is no excuse.

My conscience would not allow me to sit on the sidelines and watch life pass me by. These issues are too monumental – too much is at stake. We are in a war for our very lives and for everything that makes life worth living: Faith, Family, Freedom. With this in mind, we must stand and fight or consign our Republic to bondage and our families to misery and oppression. As President Reagan truthfully declared: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

Truly, America is the final battleground. The communists and their allies have conquered the entire globe. They have made tremendous inroads here in the United States. Our culture is being shaped in their image. Our political system, though ostensibly constitutionalist, now runs on Marxist policies and all ten planks of The Communist Manifesto have been instituted. Faith in the Savior Jesus Christ is dwindling while at the same time occultism is rising. Wicca, for example, is the fastest-growing religion in America and Britain. The entire tide is turning against us, against the truth, and against sanity. Yet, we are on the side of truth. Truth will prevail in the end. Our job is to hold on to truth until it crushes all enemies under its feet.

I encourage you to fight against censorship in all its manifestations. The best thing you can do is to educate people. Unless we have a critical mass of people who are as informed as we are and who believe the same basic values, our efforts will come to nothing. We cannot win this fight unless the American People are educated in facts and truth. A certain segment of society is, frankly, lost. Yet, millions of others are on the fence just waiting for leaders to stand up and lead.

I’m doing what I can to be a beacon of light to others, but because I am only one of a small handful, it makes me a target. If millions of us stood up, we would be too powerful to oppose. They could not, in that case, single us out and pick us off one-by-one. As it is, however, that is precisely what they are doing. I am on the verge of losing a hard-earned followership of 1,300 people simply because one offended radical complained and Facebook has kow-towed to their whims. This is the power of an individual. Image if individuals used that power for good rather than evil. Image if millions of individuals pooled their resources and strength and shouted as one in defense of traditionalism, the Constitution, sanity, religion, and truth. We would be unstoppable. Until we learn to stand up, however, we will continue to fail because we will continue to fall separately.

Zack Strong,

August 23, 2018

To hear a presentation on free speech, click the link to listen to my Liberty Wolf episode on the subject:

The Politically Incorrect Origin of Political Correctness

Posted on April 23, 2018 by zeev1776

It is politically incorrect these days to single out communism as the chief enemy of our American Republic. It is unpopular to call someone a communist or to suggest that a person belongs to, or unwittingly serves, an international cabal hell-bent on subverting and destroying our society. Communist propaganda has been so effective that any mention of communism draws forth an avalanche of skepticism, outright dismissal, and ludicrous name-calling. If you dare speak the truth about the communist conspiracy, you are called a “Nazi” or an “anti-Semite,” or are accused of whipping up another “Red Scare” or bringing back “McCarthyism.” In this article, I will discuss the communist origin of political correctness and its current purpose in our society; namely, to silence dissent to the communist subversion of our culture, government, and way of life.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly a conspiratorial source, said this of the origin of political correctness:

“The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line).”

To be strictly accurate, the term “politically correct” was used back in the late 1700s. But the meaning was so different as to be irreconcilable with what we know as political correctness today. In its modern connotation, the term originated and found popularity and widespread usage with the Soviets.

To recap, political correctness is the communist “party line.” It is the officially accepted and allowed mode of thinking and speaking among communists and their conquered subjects. It is a top-down standard of behavior forced upon society. It is a cookie cutter way of thinking and behaving dictated by a small clique that believes people are too stupid to rule their own lives. The purpose of political correctness is to stifle dissent to this “enlightened” way of life and to bring everyone into rigid conformity and obedience to communist leadership. It is collectivist groupthink at its most terrible.

If you wanted evidence that communism has taken over America, look no further than the existence and popular acceptance of political correctness. Political correctness has been foisted upon the United States by an alien group of gangsters as a means of dissuading the conquered from criticizing the conquerors. The elite Establishment will not tolerate outbursts among the peasantry. We are intended to do as we are told, think as we are commanded, and be what we are desired. And what our political overlords want us to be are slaves – cogs in their state machinery.

In an article, William Lind described political correctness thus:

“Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. . . .

“That is the dirty little secret of Political Correctness, folks: it is a form of Marxism.”

In another piece, Raymond V. Raehn wrote:

“America as a nation is now dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that has become known as Political Correctness. It seeks to impose a uniformity in thought and behavior among all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. It has its roots in the ideology of Marxism which requires a radical inversion of the prevailing traditional culture by cultural Marxism in order to achieve a social revolution. Such a social revolution is the kind envisioned by Karl Marx as an inversion of the social order and a commensurate inversion of the structure of power.”

And, finally, a third article described the concept this way:

“According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Kremlin advisers were the first to widely use the term. They did so without a trace of irony. Calling someone “politically correct” in Soviet Russia meant they toed the party line. A PC Kremlin insider was one who could reflect what Moscow was thinking—exactly the sort of person who would go far.”

Yes, political correctness is communism. It is an imposed “uniformity in thought and behavior.” It is totalitarian. Politically correct individuals are in reality toeing the latest Moscow propaganda line. The entire notion of political correctness is foreign to Americanism and the cherished, constitutionally-protected right of free thought, free speech, and public expression. Political correctness is a communist mechanism of subjugation – a form of warfare aimed at you and me.

Words are weapons. They are the most dangerous and effective weapons. Political correctness is perhaps more threatening than Russia and China’s massive, and ever-expanding, supply of thermonuclear missiles. This is because words sink into the soul and change our thoughts, speech, and deeds, whereas bombs only hurt our physical bodies. In order to truly conquer a nation, you must conquer their minds. The communists understand this and have kept up a century’s long barrage of propaganda and indoctrination aimed at bringing the American People into conformity to Moscow’s dictates.

In the era when Americans publicly denounced communism, many writers described the curse of conformity imposed by this demonic ideology. A 1949 publication of the U.S. House Committee on UnAmerican Activities titled 100 Things You Should Know About Communism asks the question “After you join [the Communist Party], what do you have to do?” and gives this answer:

“You have to obey the Party in all things. It may tell you to change your home, your job, your husband, or wife. It may order you to lie, steal, rob, or to go out into the street and fight.

“It claims the power to tell you what to think and what to do every day of your life. When you become a Communist, you become a revolutionary agent under a discipline more strict than the United States Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force have ever known.” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 14)

In his book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), the anti-communist author Fred Schwarz related a story about a psychiatrist who was angry at remarks Schwarz had made in a public address about the communist goal of world conquest. This psychiatrist railed against Schwarz and implied that his ideas were so crazy that he must need psychiatric help. Schwarz happened to have on hand a book written by the communist Liu Shao-chi wherein this Red Chinaman said that the communists would inevitably takeover the globe and make it communist. The psychiatrist saw the plain words on the page but nonetheless accused Schwarz of putting his own spin on them. Reflecting on this event, Schwarz made this observation to his readers:

“Outstanding among these attitudes is intellectual dishonesty. When the truth is too unpleasant, a natural tendency is to refuse to believe it. As a medical man, I have seen this often. A man of character and intelligence is afflicted with cancer. He knows the symptoms perfectly well, and if he saw them in another, would never have a moment’s doubt about the final outcome. When he observes these symptoms in himself, however, a strange thing happens. His characteristic honesty and clarity of judgement disappear. He ignores the central, symptomatic stream, and seizing on peripheral symptoms, builds them into a dream world in which to take refuge while doom advances. . . .

“The situation confronting us is dark and fearful. To face the true situation requires courage and honesty. The vast majority of people are quite unwilling to acknowledge the truth, preferring to ignore the evidence, or to select only those facts which will support their preconceived ideas and will not threaten the fulfilment of their desires. . . .

“When a man’s evidence cannot be discredited, the simplest alternative is to discredit the man himself. This is what [the psychiatrist] proceeded to do. . . .

“. . . Here was an apparently intelligent man who was quite unwilling to face the truth. . . .

“We have always had people in our midst who thought that fire would not burn, that if you jump out of a tenth story window, you may go down, but then again, you may go up. We used to call it insanity. Only recently has it taken itself the name of mental health.

“The malady of intellectual dishonesty has afflicted large segments of the educated and the religious groups leaving them quite unable to face the unpleasant truth. Intellectual dishonesty is one of the greatest allies of Communism. Like cancer, it cannot be treated adequately till its malignancy is recognized.” (Schwarz, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), 102-103,115-116).

At the end of the day, political correctness is intellectual dishonesty. This is so because political correctness is not concerned with truth and facts; it is purely agenda driven. The agenda being promoted is communism. If it serves the communist cause to say the sky is red, then politically correct individuals will deny the sky is blue even if they see it with their own two eyes. The truth has no appeal to, or hold on, the politically correct mind.

Political correctness is a disease just as communism is a disease. I have long called communism the Red Plague. How many Americans are infected by this plague of the soul? Too many to count. But such people are easy to spot because they are politically correct and toe the accepted Establishment line regardless of what the plain reality is and regardless of how much evidence you hold under their nose. These people come from all across the political spectrum. Republicans slavishly defend their party against all truthful attacks just as readily as the Democrats blindly defend their interests from the reproof of reality. And in both cases, the communist elite smiles at the stunted intellectual abilities of Americans caused by the attitude of conformity undergirding political correctness.

When we indulge political correctness, we indulge communism. When we are intellectually dishonest, we aid the enemy and poison the waters of reason. Political correctness divides our power by preventing us from focusing our attacks on our true enemy – the communists who have hijacked our society.

Political correctness is a communist invention; a means of enforcing obedience within its ranks. It is a sad indictment that the American People have also adopted this alien mentality and have substituted individualism for groupthink collectivism. If we ever expect to reverse the devastating cultural and political trends initiated by communist agents seeking our overthrow, we must cast off the shackles of political correctness, acknowledge communism as public enemy no. 1, and promulgate the truth with clarity and courage regardless of the lame labels and phony falsehoods hurled at us by the communists and their dupes.

Zack Strong

April 22, 2018.

The American Citadel

Defending our Faith, Families, and Freedom.

Tag Archives: Free Speech

Freedom of Defamation?

The Danger of Hate Crime Laws

United Front Against Bolshevism

Importance of the First Amendment

Facebook Censorship Continues

The Politically Incorrect Origin of Political Correctness