Written By Bob Whitaker. Originally posted 17th September 2012 – https://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2012/09/17/first-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution/

“… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO 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 from the big media, but nobody mentions the right to peaceably 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.

The below was written by Sunlit I. in a recent thread and I think this dicsussion is worth futhering on here….

Wuntz Moore raised an important question by starting this thread:
“Does the Mantra express opposition to intermarriage per se, and should we?”
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/does-the-mantra-express-opposition-to-intermarriage-per-se-and-should-we/

WmWhite reminded the readers of that thread about this previous one:
“Anti-Whites Insist That Integration Must Be Enforced Everywhere Because Whites Don’t Want It”
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2013/01/29/anti-whites-insist-that-integration-must-be-enforced-everywhere-because-whites-dont-want-it/#comments

And I have been thinking about it ever since… Has anyone ever paid attention to these articles?
(I am not sure, I could have missed someone else talking about them.)

“White people prefer white people on dating apps — but that could be changed, study says”
https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article219361075.html

Dating applications can allow users to fall into their own racial biases while searching for a partner, a new study says.

But in their study, researchers from schools like Cornell University say the “sexual racism” that plagues apps like Grindr, Tinder and Bumble can be stamped out with a few simple changes. The end goal, the study says, is to promote more diverse pairings on the dating sites.

Another article about it:

“Redesign dating apps to lessen racial bias, study recommends”
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/09/redesign-dating-apps-lessen-racial-bias-study-recommends

Mobile dating apps that allow users to filter their searches by race – or rely on algorithms that pair up people of the same race – reinforce racial divisions and biases, according to a new paper by Cornell researchers.

As more and more relationships begin online, dating and hookup apps should discourage discrimination by offering users categories other than race and ethnicity to describe themselves, posting inclusive community messages, and writing algorithms that don’t discriminate, the authors said.

“A random bar in North Dakota with 10 customers a day is subject to more civil rights directives than a platform that has 9 million people visiting every day,” Hutson said. “That’s an imbalance that doesn’t make sense.”

Still, the authors said, courts and legislatures have shown reluctance to get involved in intimate relationships, and it’s unlikely these apps will be regulated anytime soon.

So there IS a desire to regulate intimate relationships? Those wishing to do it just cannot achieve it yet?

The so called study itself:

“Debiasing Desire: Addressing Bias & Discrimination onIntimate Platforms”
http://www.karen-levy.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Debiasing_Desire_published.pdf

We consider bias and discriminationin the context of popular online dating and hookup platforms in the United States, which we call intimate platforms.

While individual intimate preferences are generally regarded as private matters that ought to be free from outside assessment and influence, systematic patterns in such preferences — and the structures that promote and preserve these patterns — hold serious implications for social equality. As others have shown, the intimate sphere has historically been a crucial locus of state control, as well as a key determinant of social and economic welfare [5,31,38].

It even seems to be aimed at white women:

At the extreme, preference in potential partners might very well rest on racial animus and overt prejudice — a belief that those of a different race are unworthy of affection or respect. Or, an individual might limit intimate encounters to others that belong to her own race, on the belief that her race is categorically superior to others. Such preferences might be rightly described as sexual racism in the sense that they reflect generally racist attitudes as expressed in choice of romantic partners.

So, is the Beefcake’s comment (“Saying that intermarriage isn’t being forced is trying to conceal the fact that the conditions which lead to it ARE being FORCED.” http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2013/01/29/anti-whites-insist-that-integration-must-be-enforced-everywhere-because-whites-dont-want-it/#comments) stil enough? Or do anti-whites actually openly want to control more?

In my opinion anti-whites do openly want to control what they themselves call the intimate sphere, and at least some of them are already trying to find a way to do it, because in the future, where whites become a minority in their own countries (and have harder time meeting each other in real life), having control over those dating applications can prove to be of growing importance.

Written by Bob Whitaker July 11th, 2014 – http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2014/07/11/soviet-free-speech/

The definition of freedom normally given is “the right to do anything that does not abridge the rights of others.”

According to this definition, there was not a single slave in the United States in 1850. Black slaves were free to do anything that did not abridge the rights of their masters.

Using that definition, free speech only allows you to say anything that doesn’t offend anybody.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936, issued by history’s greatest lover of freedom, Joseph Stalin, contained an absolute right to freedom of speech.

Solzhenitsyn wrote The Gulag Archipelago about his nightmare years in Soviet Death Camps. He was sent to the Gulag for writing private letters that were critical of Stalin. It was one of tens of millions of cases where Soviet Freedom of Speech had an exception.

Those letters expressed Solzhenitsyn’s hatred of Stalin.

And, in the USSR then as in the US now, “Hate is not free speech.”

In America, one example of this Hate would be for a white man to say he wouldn’t want his daughter to marry a black man. Solzhenitsyn’s letters to a friend about Stalin made it pretty clear that the Soviet Leader would not be his ideal husband for any daughter he had.

During the 1960s Mommy Professors’ boys running around in hippie uniforms wanted to have something to call a Free Speech Movement. Their problem was finding something to say that anyone world dare object to. Not only was everything they said ALLOWED in the media and on campus, it was the ONLY thing allowed in the media and on campus.

So they started fearlessly yelling obscenities to each other on campus and calling themselves champions of free speech.

No one objected, but the  media announced that their shouting obscenities was courageous and daring, like everything else they did.

The purpose of freedom of speech was never the right to scream obscenities. Since the 1700s, the purpose of free speech in America was to EXPRESS AN OPINION.

In fact, freedom of speech DOES allow you to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

But only if, your honest opinion is that there IS a fire in a crowded theater.

In Britain, where Soviet Free Speech rules, “The Truth is no defense” for heresy.

Way back in 1734 America established that telling the truth as you see it IS the ultimate legal defense for free speech.

John Peter Zenger was a German American printer in New York City.

In late 1733, Zenger began printing The New York Weekly Journal to voice  opinions critical of the colonial governor, William Cosby.

In November 1734, Zenger was arrested for libel by the sheriff on the orders of Cosby.

Zenger was acquitted in a landmark case where the jury ruled that the truth is an absolute defense against libel.

Two generations later “The truth IS a defense” was overwhelmingly reasserted in the 1798 congressional election. That election destroyed George Washington’s Federalist Party forever largely because that Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Alien and Sedition Acts reasserted the British and Stalinist assertions that “truth is not a defense.”

What Zenger said was true but Governor Cosby didn’t like it. The American jury said that was just too bad.

Soviet and now British “free speech” outlaw honest opinions and factual statements with slogans like “Hate is not Free Speech” and “Heresy is not free speech.”

That way lies enslavement.

Free speech means the right to state the facts and ANY honest opinion.

Audio Bob

Soviet Free Speech Part 1

Audio Bob Conversation – 1

Audio Conversations Bob – 2

Written by Bob Whitaker. Originally posted March 17th, 2005 – https://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2005/03/17/is-the-only-purposeof-a-gun-to-kill/

People who want to ban guns say that guns are different. Other things, they say, have many uses, but the only purpose of a gun is to kill.

In order to be respectable, respectable conservatives give a predictable answer to this question. That answer is:

“DUHHH!”

Most guns are used NOT to kill. You show that you have a gun and the threat goes away. That is the way guns are used ninty-nine percent or more of the time by honest citizens.

A gun is used to make you feel safe.

So forget target practice. Forget trying to justify guns to people who wouldn’t know which end to hold it by and which end to point. Explain how guns are actually used.

Hell, maybe even some respectable conservatives will understand you after awhile.