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

An Inquisition Tactic Ended Open Resistance to Integration

Posted by Bob on September 14th, 2013 under Coaching Session


 

Apparently Dr. Duke said that resistance to integration ended with that church bombing.

That is not true and Dave knows it isn’t, so why was this information produced?    It nice and emotional, which might have fit his bill at the moment he said it, or more likely it was a warning against violence to his audience.

Back in the real world the real reason Southern “leaders” switched sides on integration was the provision in the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 that Federal money would be denied to any school district which was not “doing its best” in my wording, to proceed with integration.Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

With passage of that bill, any statement against integration by any public official could and would be used in evidence against every school district in their area of representation.

Under the Inquisition, in Soviet Russia and under today’s Hate Speech Laws in Germany,  if the defendant lost the case, any of his lawyers who object to the verdict or declared doubtful any of the facts used in the case is subject to arrest and a prescribed minimum prison term.

Once a subject has been determined, in the Inquisition and in any totalitarian society, all argument is a crime.

Before you say this is theoretical, let me point out, and try to remember, that a number of witnesses in modern democratic Germany have been given prison sentences for testimony they gave in good faith in court.

I remember a case in which a Frenchman was crying and screaming on the stand because the prosecution was threatening to send him to prison then and there if he did not testify the way he had to.

David, whatever his intentions, is helping the Silence cover outright realities that ought to shame even anti-whites.   Nothing will shame a respectable conservative.

Learn to ignore misinformation, no matter how benignly offered.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

This entry was posted on 09/14/2013, 10:50 am and is filed under Coaching Session. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

  1. #1 by shari on 09/14/2013 - 2:05 pm

    Now I know why somebody could come into schools and say things that were absolutely phony and get away with it. First, it’s forbidden to object and then it’s lets all repeat this. Anti-white re-education.

    Quote

  2. #2 by steadiness on 09/14/2013 - 6:30 pm

    The doctrine of “equal protection under the law” is literally taken as implying that “protected classes” should be designated for more equal protection. This is known as “civil rights”.

    Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

    Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

    The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.

    The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

    Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.

    Prevention is the best tool to eliminate harassment in the workplace.

    …

    The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor’s harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.

    The employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees or non-employees over whom it has control (e.g., independent contractors or customers on the premises), if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.

    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/harassment.cfm

    It is illegal to knowingly employ racists. Anyone who visits this website, your employer is probably legally required to fire you.

    And then, when the racists are just a lunatic fringe made up of thoroughly disreputable people, it proves that racism is something only a disreputable person would believe. This is literally the final argument of the anti-Whites.

    Amazingly, the progressives have started talking about “shaming” and whether shaming is unacceptably coercive and government coersion is needed to correct it. But this gives us a window of opportunity. If progressives start to literally believe this about shaming, it will become difficult for them to justify the fact that they have made it illegal to knowingly employ a racist.

    Quote

  3. #3 by Al Parker on 09/14/2013 - 9:47 pm

    DD does say that from time to time, and sounds like he believes it. What’s up with that?

    Quote

You must be logged in to post a comment.