ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free speech means.

submitted by Chipit from (twitter.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

One thing the past two years have done is to illustrate in complete clarity the wholesale nature of our institutional collapse. Government, NGO, Medicine, Education, Media, Corporate. All of them. This is a philosophical collapse which has its tendrils absolutely everywhere. I think of it as a "Nervous Breakdown" of a society.

When such an event occurs, our job in watching it is to ask the single most important question: What is (are) the premise(s) with which all these people agree which is leading our institutions to such dangerous policies? People are trying to achieve some ideal, and in the attempt to achieve that, the de-facto results are coming in again and again with repeated tremendous cruelty. So what is this ideal that people are trying to reach which so blinds them to the tremendous on-the-ground human cost of their attempt?

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thier ideal is simply total Jewish hegemony.

[–]Chipit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ju2BGLAi9A

watch this while you're doing something else, like cleaning the house. it explains what you're asking about.

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for this link. You're right. It's right on target.

While this paper explains a lot, however, there are people who wouldn't espouse the views it holds but who still - to varying degrees - support the insanity. The people I'm thinking of are being lied to; they don't recognize the reality of what they are being sold and are then passing on. But something in the lies must be appealing to them at some deep level. In this paper, the strategy is quite explicit. But how are those enacting this strategy hooking the people who would reject such a plan if it were stated explicitly? In other words, all lies have to have an appeal. What is it in the lies we are being told that are so appealing that the numbers of the well-meaning population are still aligned with them?