Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Posted by Bob on September 17th, 2012 under Coaching Session


“… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

There is not just a right to free speech. There is a right to hold meetings, ESPECIALLY meetings of people who are called “extremists.”

Approved people have no reason to NEED such a right to be specified.

I hear a lot about free speech for the big media, but nobody mentions the right to peacefully assemble.

This is in the Constitution because the people who wrote it were themselves threatened by death for meeting for “extremist” purposes.

It does NOT say “the right to assemble for a politically correct purpose.”

The usual way of forbidding our meetings, especially on campus, is by saying that, while police will protect anyone ELSE from being harassed, “they cannot protect people from violence” if the meetings are about heretical or extreme purposes. So our meetings are routinely forbidden because THOSE WHO ARE NOT MEETING PEACEABLY will cause trouble. So the right to peaceably assemble is thrown out because thugs won’t like the meetings.

Considering they, the Founding Fathers, put in the first amendment because they themselves had been extremists and were threatened with thug violence, the idea that a group loses its right to free speech and assembly because THE OTHER SIDE might get violent with them would have been just what British authorities USED up to 1775.

When the Founding Fathers were talking “Treason” in 1775, someone who said it was OK to ban their meetings because they might cause riots — which they did — would not be looked upon as sane by the people who wrote the first amendment.

Allowing heretical views and extremist views AND THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE despite thugs was PRECISELY the reason for the first amendment.

Fortunately, no one brings it up.

Share it now. Like it while you're at it.
  1. #1 by Dave on 09/17/2012 - 12:01 pm

    The United States is the most militarized society on earth. The entire landscape is forged into militarized architectures with far greater capabilities than that of North Korea.

    The data centers now being built by Google, Hewlett Packard, Amazon, Oracle, and Microsoft are designed to deliver ubiquitous super computing power, enabling universal biologic identification through technologies such as the face recognition technology PittPatt acquired by Google.

    Every inch of America, every single unique physical venue in America is under the dominion of its own specialized rules dominion designed for the management of the particular venue. There has never been a society in history so thoroughly under active MANAGEMENT. Biologic ID just takes it to a new level where the ENFORCEMENT aspect becomes TOTAL.

    The world that existed at the time of the drafting of the America Constitution bears no relation to the world of today. Furthermore, there is no need for physical assembly. Electronic communications capability put paid to that need. In today’s world, the right to peacefully assemble has no political meaning. Only (secretly permitted) assembly for the purposes of violence as we witnessed last week in the orchestrated “mob” violence against Western diplomats and diplomatic venues throughout the Arab world has political meaning.

    Also, in America, free speech can be easily attacked through the issuance of broad brush search warrants, issued on the excuse of terrorist threat, against any banned political opposition. These search warrants are aimed at the seizure of computers, computing devices, and web sites.

    We will know when BUGS reaches banned status. That is when the BUGS’ custodians of the actual identities of BUGS participants have their computers seized under search warrants. Only on a “too late” basis will these custodians realize the value of encryption. Our custodians will also realize on a “too late” basis the appalling fact of the ABSENCE of any avenue of LEGAL REDRESS for such seizures.

    It will be then that there will be some realization on our side of how ridiculous it is to carry on about the supposed protections furnished under the American Constitution. Substantively, these “protections” disappeared long ago.

    • #2 by Daniel Genseric on 09/17/2012 - 5:30 pm

      Attacking the civil liberties of a group the establishment so desperately works to keep secret would prove counterproductive and fatal for them; thus instantly rendering us immortal.

      Besides, what is there to seize anyway? We post the Mantra at the top of this very page. They already know who we are and what we do.

      It’s no mystery.

      “It is better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand days as a lamb.” -Roman Proverb

  2. #3 by steadiness on 09/17/2012 - 1:44 pm

    Actually, they do. It’s something that the Left is right to be smug about. Go check out the DailyKos threads about the ACLU suing to let the KKK adopt a highway, or let the American Nazi Party have a demonstration.

    The Left believes that their greatest heroes, such as MLK, did what they did because their rights to free speech and assembly were protected. They forget that, additionally, there was a compliant media ready to plaster footage of protesters getting knocked down with fire hoses everywhere, and unwilling to do the same with footage of white girls getting marched into integrated schools at bayonet point.

    Today leftists wonder why their boycotts are ineffective. The boycotts the Civil Rights Movement organized weren’t just people organizing to not buy from a company. That’s the sanitized version that people are taught in school, then they believe in the righteous heroes who won through the plain obviousness of their righteousness, and they don’t question that righteousness.

    Because they believe that they win through the plain obviousness of righteousness, using free speech and assembly, they believe that we can’t possibly win using free speech and assembly because we are wrong.

    There is not and was never anything righteous about affirmative action or electing a new American people. People are even led to believe that the original heroes of the civil rights movement were not seeking affirmative action. People are also led to believe that integration was for the most part accepted by the white community, and demanded by the whole of the black community. In fact, breaking up black community schools to bus blacks into white schools led to worse outcomes for whites and blacks, and the radical egalitarians like MLK had a tough time selling it to the black community.

    The boycotts came with an implicit threat of violence, which the media dutifully ignored, and which court historians dutifully ignore as well. See http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2012/08/cleveland-1968-year-mcdonalds-went.html for more.

    As an aside, the fire hoses had to be retired after the Civil Rights Movement. In their place are rubber bullets, pepper balls which killed someone, pepper spray, devices which use sound to permanently damage protester’s hearing. Fire hoses were and are the most humane crowd control method available, but the media grandstanded so much they can’t be used any more. Inhumane doesn’t mean the treatment of the protesters, it means the media likes the protesters.

    Of course, now they want to ban “hatespeech”. Whenever someone says hatespeech should be banned, I reply, “You are committing hatespeech against the laws and cultural traditions of the American people, I’m going to call the KGB”. There was a recent book written agitating for laws against hatespeech. The money quote is this:

    “[W]e want to convey the sense that the bigots are isolated, embittered individuals, rather than permit them to contact and coordinate with one another.” Professor Jeremy Waldron, NYU Law, “The Harm in Hate Speech”, Harvard University Press, 2012

    When the Muslims go crazy over a video and start killing people, Obama has the guy who made the video brought in for questioning. Even most leftists recognize that that’s not supposed to happen in America.

  3. #4 by Dave on 09/17/2012 - 2:06 pm

    White supremacy: The new national security threat by Khaled A Beydoun

    Khaled A Beydoun is Adjunct Faculty and the Critical Race Studies Teaching Fellow at the UCLA School of Law

    Khaled Beydoun (a real American, unlike us white Christians who are terrorists) is on it:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201298105245647965.html

  4. #5 by backbaygrouch on 09/17/2012 - 2:39 pm

    Last September Richard Spencer as head of the National Policy Institute organized a conference in the wake of Jared Taylor again being forced to cancel an event, at the Reagan Building in Washington. It is harder to intimidate the government than it is to do so a private entity such as a hotel. The GSA the General Services Administration, which owns the facility was not inclined to admit it could not guarantee safety. The NPI conference went off without a hitch. Spencer recommends whenever possible finding a public owned facility where the government can be forced into the position of seeming to be buckling under to thuggery.

    Sadly universities are too often a law unto themselves.

    Faneuil Hall in Boston, under the terms of Peter Faneuil’s will, is open to public meetings. It has been the site a many tumultuous assemblies since before the Revolution, The hall is on the second floor but given height of the first floor the staircase is more like a third floor. Thugs who attempt to disrupt proceedings have been known to find the trip down that staircase very unpleasant at the hands of the Boston Police force.

    The point is that the government will protect its property. The trick is to piggyback your right on their interest. It is not the way it should be, but life seldom is.

  5. #6 by Jason on 09/17/2012 - 8:19 pm

    If we had full First Amendment rights, there would be tons of state and federal protection at stormfront meetings. Our First Amendment rights have already been compromised. I guess these were the “freedoms” the WWII generation were fighting for? I increasingly wonder if the majority of White people are even thinking when they talk about how the US “stands for freedom”. Try setting up an all White community, and see how much freedom you have. In fact, we should all have a few questions ready the next time a White person praises the US for it’s freedom.

    1. Can you set up an all White school?
    2. Can you do business only with Whites?
    3. Can you freely say what any White person could say in 1955?

    The list goes on. We need to puncture this myth among Whites that their sons are dying for OUR freedom.

  6. #7 by mandela on 09/18/2012 - 12:00 am

    Dave, I believe we need to assemble for our cause when we can. It sets precedence in the real world that we are allowed to assemble, and if we dont keep trying to assemble when we can we may loose any right to do so that we now have. I find politics here runs on public meetings, media, and getting folks to attend. Imagine no one going to see obama, that they just tweeted about him instead

  7. #8 by Vale on 09/19/2012 - 12:39 pm

    Are you ever amazed at the richness and variety of anti-White theories and ideas? America is a “proposition nation”, a “nation of immigrants”, a “global village”. For “humanity’s sake” we must embrace “multiculturalism”, “diversity” or “melting-pot theory”!

    So many ideas! And yet all these idea lead to the very same thing: the disempowerment and genocide of White people!

    Before I came here I had plenty of ideas. Now I have clarity. Thank you, Bugsters.

    • #9 by Harumphty Dumpty on 09/19/2012 - 7:34 pm

      “So many ideas! And yet all these idea lead to the very same thing: the disempowerment and genocide of White people!”

      Exactly! And another way we often put it to anti-whites, “all your ideas lead to a future with no white children.”

      Welcome, I’m very glad you’re here!

      • #10 by Jason on 09/19/2012 - 9:04 pm

        What’s amazing is how obvious the agenda of White Genocide is, once you see it, and yet how blind to it most Whites are. We are way ahead of the curve on this (with Bob’s help). It feels good to be on the vanguard. How many years ahead are we? I don’t know, but I know that in time, our talking points will break out into the open among Whites.

        • #11 by Vale on 09/20/2012 - 12:28 pm

          Thanks Jason, Harumpty, it’s great to be here. Joining BUGS and doing Beefcake’s Bootcamp was the best decision I’ve made this year.

  8. #12 by Harumphty Dumpty on 09/20/2012 - 3:02 am

    (To Jason)

    The fact of White Genocide will seem the simplest and most obvious thing in the world, in time. It sometimes reminds me of the Special Theory of Relativity, which I assume I understood well enough in college since I got an A on the material, but which my mind had evidently grown too inflexible to grasp when I tried to think about it again as an older man. I knew it was simple material…the most complicated math in it is the quadratic equation learned in second year high school algebra…but its ideas are so NEW AND DIFFERENT.

    Anything new and really different, no matter how simple, is hard for most humans.

    That’s why I’m confident that with enough repetition, the simple ideas in the hard-to-grasp-at-first-look Mantra will become self-evident.
    —–
    “(with Bob’s help)”…Lol! Yeah, that part constantly blows my mind! Real geniuses are such beautiful creations of nature. (I wonder if Bob blushes. And I wonder…Bob, how was the conference for you?)

  9. #13 by Jason on 09/20/2012 - 7:23 am

    On a Fox News show called Red Eye that comes on late, one of the regular guests (a liberal one) said it was wrong that Europe had holocaust denial laws that included jail time. It was in the context of the need to protect free speech with all the Muslim uprisings, and he said laws like that make Europe inconsistent in the eyes of critics. Two other guests agreed with him. I have never heard a conservative make that point on TV. I would like to think this is a hopeful sign that people are starting to see the obvious contradictions.

Comments are closed.