Waco – A New Revelation – Neo-Liberal State War Machine’s Assault on Christianity and Constitutional Freedoms

The portrayal of the Branch Dividians and David Koresh by the establishment media cast them as the belligerents in the Waco standoff. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of newscasts always paint a picture of David Koresh forcing his religious group into suicide. By inferno.

The reality is that the government, via the ATF, chose to make a harsh example of what happens when a group of people with an in-group religious preference acquire firearms that are outside the scope of approval by the coming of the Globohomogayplex, Neo-Liberal, State/Media apparatus.

What’s striking here is:

  • The true origins of the inferno (Delta)
  • The conflict of interest in negotiations (FBI)
  • Fucking CHUCK SCHUMER (this man has got to GO…it’s like 100 years later and he’s still in office)

Inside the War to Take Away Our Free Speech – National Justice

Source: https://national-justice.com/understanding-war-free-speech

by Eric Striker

Many Americans are rightfully on guard when it comes to their Second Amendment rights. There is a whole subculture, lobby and multitude of groups dedicated to celebrating firearms, monitoring political attacks on gun rights and fighting against them.

On the other hand, another cherished freedom, the right to express your beliefs, has been totally ceded to Jewish dominated left-wing activist groups, like the ACLU. 

Those ignorant of our nation’s history, and especially of Zionist mobilizations in the present, live with the comforting lie that free speech is an inviolable right. 

Today, the Jewish community in the United States, which has wrongfully earned a reputation for harboring civil libertarian views, has been at war with the very concept of the First Amendment.

Whether it’s former CEO of the National Constitution Center Richard Stengel writing opinion pieces calling for hate speech laws, or Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League calling on Congress to act against “anti-Semitic” opinions on the internet, it’s clear that the Jewish community no longer respects this freedom and is working tirelessly to abolish it. 

The cultural taboo against questioning the sanctity of the First Amendment have quickly been eroded since the election of Donald Trump. Today, panels discussing calling for limits on free speech are no longer exclusively populated by communist academics or blue-haired “SJWs,” but by actual Attorney Generals supposedly tasked with upholding civil liberties, like Josh Shapiro.

The ACLU, which won a free speech absolutist reputation after its army of largely Jewish lawyers defended brownshirt wearing “Nazis” in Skokie, today has abandoned this role and largely refuses to defend comparatively less controversial “hate speech” and political assembly after realizing nationalists are now a serious political force. 

Looking at the history of First Amendment cultural and legal battles, the pattern becomes clear: the Jews claiming to be fighting for free speech only did so to create space for unpopular left-liberal movements in the 1960s and 70s. Today, the Jews and the left have been absorbed by the neo-liberal establishment and no longer has any movements challenging the status quo, so they have lost interest in defending the right for citizens to assemble to try and effect social change, which has been disastrous for today’s dissidents since all advocacy groups are in their hands. 

Don’t Assume Anything About Your Rights 

Whitney v. California, decided in 1927, is seen by some as one of the most important contemporary affirmations of the right to belong to dissident political organizations and contribute to the marketplace of ideas.

He ruled with the majority in overturning the prosecution of Anita Whitney, who had founded a communist organization labeled a criminal syndicate in California, much to the chagrin of Herbert Hoover. Brandeis, a Zionist activist, made this decision at a time when the distinctions between Zionism and the heavily Jewish communist movement were not so cut-and-dry. 

In his opinion, the Jewish justice Louis Brandeis wrote passionately about the moral importance of the free exchange of ideas in a liberal democracy, winning him the reputation as a Jewish pioneer of civil liberties. He was one of the first judges to promote the idea that open debate allows good to triumph over evil. 

But Brandeis’ reputation as a lover of free speech and ideological diversity is brought into question when looking at a later ruling by another Jewish Justice, Felix Frankfurter, who Brandeis closely mentored and for years used as a personal mouthpiece. 

In 1952, Frankfurter established one of the first precedents for European-style “hate speech” laws in American history. 

The case of Beauharnais v. Illinois was remarkably similar to Whitney v. California. A man in Chicago posted leaflets in his city bringing attention to black crime, and called on whites to join his political advocacy movement. The materials did not express any violent sentiments. 

Frankfurter, authoring the opinion in the 5-4 ruling upholding Beauharnais’ conviction under Illinois hate speech statutes, declared that Beauharnais was guilty of “group-libel” against blacks by referring to their role in the increased crime rate, and that libel was not protected by the First Amendment.

“Hate speech” laws in Europe are premised on this same assertion, that generalizations about groups constitute “libel” and can thus be prosecuted. 

What is most disturbing about Beauharnais v. Illinois is that the Supreme Court has yet to overturn it.

The closest precedent some legal scholars cite as overruling it was New York Times v. Sullivan  in 1964, where it is claimed that SCOTUS found in favor of free speech above libel law. 

But here too, we find that the political nature of the dispute may have played a greater role than the principle of free speech itself. 

In the case, the Jewish controlled New York Times ran an advertisement from of a pro-Martin Luther King organization making outlandish and slanderous claims against the police in Montgomery, Alabama. A recent article by the Los Angeles Review of Books meticulously documents how Jews were in charge of every nook and cranny of the “civil rights movement” as well. 

L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner, decided to take them to court to clear his police department’s name. It was broadly accepted that many of the claims in the ad were false and he won his case in the Alabama state court, but later upon Supreme Court challenge it found that libel statutes did not apply to the white policemen because they could not prove “malice” in the printing of said lies.  

Today, the free speech law and the political conditions of their application remains opaque. While this author believes conservative anti-environmentalism is absurd, the Supreme Court’s refusal to clarify the National Review’s right to give a subjective opinion in the Mann v. National Review defamation case last November suggests our higher courts don’t find our First Amendment to be as sacred as we once assumed.    

In this case, a college professor is suing the National Review for libel over an opinion piece questioning his data on global warming. The National Review has so far spent millions of dollars defending itself over multiple years, often being dealt crushing defeats in lower courts. They have the support of many major think-tanks and big money over an issue far less “controversial” than race or Jewish power, and yet they still have been unable to find a court willing to unambiguously defend their right to weigh in on a hot-button political issue of the day.  

Donald Trump’s executive order essentially banning students from engaging in criticism of Zionism on college campuses is another shocking attack on free speech. While some Jews will admit that it is unconstitutional, there has yet to be any significant legal challenge to it. Compare the lack of interest to the immediate court injunctions Donald Trump gets for even the most minor decrees on immigration enforcement. 

Prominent voices in the Jewish community have now begun discussing the viability of using group-libel precedents in Beauharnais v. Illinois to persecute and prosecute “anti-Semites.”  It is vital to begin preparing for legal onslaughts on this front on par with gun rights advocacy, especially as popular discontent against the neo-liberal order grows. 

Zionist Frustration with Privatized Censorship 

In the 1980s and 90s, Jewish organizations like Joseph Levin’s Southern Poverty Law Center pioneered “private” methods for suppressing pro-white or nationalist speech. The tactic was to use the broken civil court system strategically to bankrupt political organizations and leaders that they saw as posing a political threat to Jewish power. 

In tandem with FBI surveillance and entrapment, along with media and corporate censorship, this tactic has long functioned to discourage political advocacy and lobbying by nationalist groups. 

But what happens when there are too many people to sue and they by and large go out of their way to obey the law? Jewish organizations like the SPLC and ADL have been wildly successful in working with Jewish run corporations like Paypal, Google and Facebook to artificially reduce the number of political views, books and ideas the public can access.

Yet, the old playbook has not stopped the growth of interest in ideas they deem “hate” or “anti-Semitic,” as they are not addressing the egregious economic and social conditions, like globalization and the rise of competing nationalisms inside the United States (“identity politics”), that have predictably sparked the awakening of racial consciousness in white people, the only group banned from having these feelings despite being permanently besieged.

The Sociology of the First Amendment 

A 2017 study by the Cato Institute polled people’s views on free speech across racial lines, finding that Jews were the most likely to favor restrictions on “hate speech” of any ethnic group.

Majorities across racial groups, to different degrees, opposed firing people from their jobs for believing blacks are genetically inferior (including 51% of blacks), along with a wide variety of other PC faux-pas. “Doxfiring,” the practice of causing people to lose their jobs for their political or social views is in other words highly unpopular.

Similarly, “punching Nazis” (the survey was taken months after the media campaign about Charlottesville) polled poorly among “Latinos” and blacks, with 80% and 73% stating that it was unacceptable, showing that the pervasiveness of this call to violence is not to protect minorities, but actually largely the product of Jews and wealthy left-wing whites occupying cultural chokepoints and creating a false impression. Individuals who identified as Republicans were more likely to support “punching a Nazi” than typical Democrats. 

Even more interesting is the fact that blacks and “Latinos” polled wanted stronger regulations applied to sexual content, which Jewish liberals have historically conflated with free speech. Majorities in the same two groups showed disinterest and irritation at the very concept of political correctness. 

In other words, Jews agitating for hate speech legislation in the name of protecting minorities are acting unilaterally and only using these other groups for cover in their war on whites, as was the case with the largely Jewish beginning of the NAACP.

When Jews are separated from whites in surveys, they show a preference for harsh and draconian restrictions on political speech, shattering the illusion of Jewish liberalism. 

In a Knight’s Foundation poll, Jewish students were the most likely to support curtailing the First Amendment in the name of “inclusion,” with 65% saying so. White Christians held the polar opposite opinion across all denominations. 68% of students in general complained that the problem wasn’t hate speech, but campus officials policing speech, which 68% said they found to be suffocating. 

83% of Gen Z students also answered that using violence to shut down a rally, speech or protest was never acceptable, contrary to what many in the media and elite promote. 

While it is true that non-whites broadly have more mixed opinions on gun rights and free speech than white Gentiles, the people composing the brain trusts and money-power leading the war on our civil liberties is the same as the one which oppressed people in the Soviet Union and oppresses Palestinians today.  

The universalist Jewish humanist is a work of fiction. America has a free speech emergency.   

National Justice – The Battle for Gun Rights in Virginia

Source: National Justice – by Ahab

Recent events in Virginia are teaching rural and working class white America a lesson about what they can expect when they are electorally outnumbered and replaced in their own state. Gun control is the order of the day, and in spite of vocal protests in city council meetings and public forums around the state, Second Amendment rights will soon be as dead in Virginia as First Amendment rights already are in the city of Charlottesville.  

Some believe the issue of gun rights is simply a harmless fixation of right-wing boomers, preppers and libertarian cranks. They are wrong. This issue strikes right to the heart of the biggest political and economic transformation in the United States of the past 40 years: the growth of monopolistic corporate power over the lives of the little people. Or to put it more accurately: the domination of billionaire Jews over the lives of  impoverished, socially disintegrated and debt-enslaved white America.

During the late 19th and early 20th century, gigantic capitalists during the Gilded Age presided over another era of big business tyranny over the lives of ordinary Americans. Brutal as they were, those capitalists were mostly white men who still shared some cultural and racial heritage with the masses of working people. Business magnates such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller oppressed their workers, but they made their fortunes from commodities such as oil and steel, the stuff which built the growth and transformation of America into an industrialized power. They felt enough residual affiliation with the cultural glories of old Europe to establish magnificent libraries, concert halls and museums. A few enlightened industrialists, such as Henry Ford, even went so far as to make the improvement of the lives of workers a priority, and to warn the people against the growing financial power of the international Jew.

Ford’s warnings were prophetic. We are living in the second great Gilded Age in America, but the new Jewish oligarchs of the 21st century differ from their predecessors in several important ways. For one, they mostly built their fortunes through parasitic–rather than productive–sources of wealth, such as usury or real estate speculation. They share no racial or cultural affinity with the majority of Americans, and to the extent they patronize culture and the arts, they only support a consumer mass culture also controlled by rich Jews. Rather than enlighten and edify the masses, this popular culture of pornography, hip hop and Marvel movies is designed to titillate only the most base instincts, to erode the social fabric, distract the people and render them docile and compliant.

 But one thing the Jewish oligarchs of today share with the Robber Barons of old: a shared antipathy towards the people’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms. During the great labor wars of the early 20th century, it was the ability of organized labor to fight back with rifles against the armed thugs and corrupt law enforcement officials of the capitalists which kept them from being completely overwhelmed. From the Great Railroad Strikes, the Colorado Labor Wars to the Battles of Homestead, Matewan and Blair Mountain, striking workers were only able to resist the iron heel of the oligarchs because they were armed with rifles which could hit back against the deadly force of the mercenaries. This was right in line with the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to secure the lives and liberty of the people against tyranny, a point missed by so many gun control advocates who sheepishly bleat against “military-style assault weapons.”

The working men of early 20th-century America were made of stiffer stuff than today’s emasculated suburbanites. The corporate bugmen and suburban career women of our modern capitalism have been socially engineered for docility, social conformity and cowardice. So when these feeble, degenerate specimens combine their votes with the rapidly increasing third world immigrant horde–who neither respect nor understand any tradition of independent gun ownership–they form a voting bloc which can overwhelm even the proud traditions of a state such as Virginia. The abuses of the giant capitalists of that time were kept in check by the organized labor power of the working white people, which was supported by the Second Amendment. Today, organized labor has been broken by forcing women into the workforce, by diversity quotas, by the largest influx of immigrant labor in American history, and by a co-opted labor movement which pushes an anti-white, anti-family and anti-2nd Amendment liberal agenda.

In the same way Jewish billionaires, such as George Soros and Sheldon Adelson, pull the strings to subvert the genuine people’s movements of both the Left and the Right in America, so do Jewish billionaires like Michael Bloomberg advocate openly for the total disarmament of the American people. One only has to remember the fate of Occupy Wall Street under Bloomberg’s iron heel to see clearly what he envisions for the rest of the country. At that time, Bloomberg used the NYPD–which he bragged about being the “7th-largest army in the world”–as the private foot soldiers of  Wall Street to utterly sweep the rag-tag protestors of OWS from the public square. Occupy was similarly crushed in Chicago by Bloomberg’s fellow Hebrew mayor Rahm Emmanuel–himself the son of an Israeli terrorist, yet a major advocate of gun control for white Americans. If the example of OWS is not enough, simply look to Palestine to see how the Jews treat a population which has been disarmed and is at their mercy.

Occupy was perhaps the last weak manifestation of Leftist resistance to global capital in the United States, before the Left was totally subverted and redirected against “racists” and other oppressed white people. Even such a seemingly anachronistic organization as Redneck Revolt, which claims to be a pro-gun successor to the great labor movements of the early 20th century, spends 95% of their time terrorizing “racists” and “fascists” instead of challenging the corporate Jewish oligarchs who control our society. In other words, they threaten and harass the few working white people still willing to offer resistance to capitalist politically correct tyranny, protecting the corporate masters of neoliberalism. Like the rest of Antifa, this obviously astroturfed Jewish front group only serves to act as the modern Pinkertons and Baldwin Felts of the earlier era–terrorizing and intimidating the working people who are only trying to organize to defend their rights!

Analysts talking about gun control in Virginia make it an issue about the voters there being forced to choose between upholding the Second Amendment, or “attracting high-tech companies” with socially liberal values. They no longer even feel the need to pretend this isn’t about the power of global corporations to override the local traditions and rights of the people. Time will tell whether enough whites in states like Virginia wake up from the conservative delusion of capitalist individualism to realize they are being targeted both as a class and as a race, and that only the socialism of class and the nationalism of race will give them the strength to drive back the creeping tyranny of the oligarchs.

Red Flag Laws – What You Need to Know

Source: Red Flag Laws – What You Need to Know

These days are quite divisive. They never fail to make your ever-lovable Grey Beard Biker take pause – and inventory – of the things which are important to us. Specifically, the 1st and 2nd amendments. Freedom of Speech and the right to “Keep and Bear Arms” are central to the founding and long-term health of the United States. Today, the liberal Mainstream Media (MSM) and many leftist congresspeople would like to take action to restrict both amendments.

First, let’s look at some of the assaults on the 1st Amendment – specifically its clauses which provides us Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Assembly. We see blatant disregard for this from the MSM and liberal politicians.

  1. The left is constantly trying to restrict Freedom of Speech. It is done by squashing conservative speech on social platforms where Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are throttling conservative free speech. They restrict who can see our posts and even our search results on Google, Yahoo and Bing. They do not want our message getting out.
  2. Today’s press is highly aligned with liberal and socialist ideologies. When breaking news which does not fit their narrative takes place, you will hardly see a mention of it in print or any major network (NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN Et. Al.) – a good example of which is the recent mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. None of the supposed “unbiased media” mentioned that the shooter was a YUGE supporter of Elizabeth Warren.
  3. Freedom of Assembly is being trampled on constantly by politicians, hate groups (Antifa) and social justice groups like the Women’s March. These groups will counter protest against non-violent assembly of conservatives at every turn. Antifa, specifically, will resort to violence against groups they do not agree with, as witnessed recently in Portland, Oregon.
  4. Liberal legislators continually attack Trump, and his supporters, as being Racist Xenophobes, to try and extinguish our message. This is pure hatred and is used to suppress our voices.

Red Flag Laws Are Harmful to the Second Amendment

The latest feel good “commonsense” gun reform, being proposed regularly, appears to be so-called Red Flag Laws. These are also known as (AKA): Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs). They are being positioned as a regulation which the majority of law-abiding gun owners support. This is pure hogwash. Once you understand more about these ridiculous laws, no law-abiding gun owner – especially those who partake in Concealed Carry – would ever support these laws.

Several states have passed ERPOs including Vermont, Washington, Illinois, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada, Indiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, Hawaii and Florida. What’s most surprising about this list is that several of these states have been considered very Pro-2A:  Nevada, Indiana and Florida. Florida enacted their Red Flag Law in the wake of the Parkland Shooting.

Red Flag Laws = No Due Process

So, what specifically do most of these Red Flag Laws attempt to do? In the event that someone you know considers you a danger to yourself, or others, they can go to a court and seek an ERPO against you. If the judge grants the motion for the ERPO, law enforcement will come to your home, unannounced, and remove all of your guns. This may seem “commonsense,” but it is anything but. The biggest issue with these laws is what talk radio host, Dana Loesch (Dana Radio) calls, “inverted due process.” These ERPOs are granted Ex Parte. This means that you are not able to be there to represent yourself. Hell, you won’t even know it’s going on until they come for your guns. If you were aware this was taking place you would have the opportunity to hire an attorney and defend yourself against what is nothing more than an illegal seizure of your personal property. Making matters worse, in some states, is that an ex-spouse/lover, neighbor, acquaintance or even someone who barely knows you can make such a claim – not just someone very close to you. This is a total perversion of another one of our Bill of Rights: Amendment IV, regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.

The last pitfall of these laws is that in most cases, besides being “guilty until proven innocent,” you have very limited recourse to repossess your improperly seized property (guns). Most of the states with these laws require you wait a specified amount of time to petition the court to remove the ERPO. Plus, there is a cost to do so, as you will probably have to hire an attorney to represent what should be an inalienable right – the right to keep and bear arms – a right which the 2nd Amendment says, “shall not be infringed.” Obviously, the leftists do not care about this amendment.

Act today. Contact your state, local and Federal legislators and let them know you do not want them to support Red Flag Laws!

Grey Beard Biker
@GreyBeard_Biker on the Twitter

Movie on those in power for effective 21st century political resistance -on YouTube

Aaron Kasparov’s excellent documentary on Zionist influence in corridors across the globe.