The Mind of the Liberal Jew: “The First Amendment Should Never Protect Hatred”

I was recently introduced to the Jewish mind of Tanya Cohen with the article below. This Jewess provides us with an invaluable window into the mind of our enemy. The article is pretty long, so I’m only going to keep the important stuff. For more expansive coverage of this deranged woman, read the Daily Stormer’s recent article about her, which covers a different essay of hers.

The First Amendment Should Never Protect Hatred

One of the most admirable things about Europe is that most (if not all) of the right-wing rhetoric that you hear in the US is explicitly against the law there. For example, attempting to link Islam with terrorism, saying that gay marriage isn’t really marriage, or saying that trans women aren’t really women would get you charged with discrimination and/or incitement to hatred.


Nobody in Europe believes that these laws interfere with their sacred, guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Rather, these laws protect freedom of speech by ensuring that it is used responsibly and for the purposes of good.

She finds it admirable that, in Europe, people lose their freedom and livelihoods while being separated from their families because they point out reality. She claims that nobody in Europe has a problem with these laws, which of course is a bold-faced lie. These laws that prohibit the expression of politically incorrect truths are only in effect for the good of the Jews, their proxies, and their collaborators, since none of the indigenous Europeans would care were it not for Jewish subversion of their traditions and culture. Far from protecting freedom of speech, what these laws are meant to do is to restrict the speech of the enemies of the Jews, their proxies and their traitorous white allies. These laws also send a clear message to the less brave section of Europe’s people: Toe the party line, or else..

In the US, however, no such laws exist. Right-wing hatemongers like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, and Sarah Palin (to name just a few) are allowed to freely incite hatred and violence, oppose human rights, and undermine progress with impunity. In the United States, hate speech is often spewed forth by people with a great deal of influence, thus making it even more dangerous.

These people are Jew ass-kissing shills. I wonder, does she realize this? Is she being insincere or is she also dumb on top of being deranged? I’m guessing she’s a Jewess of the left wing lemming variety, but surely she’s aware of the true “right-wing hatemongers.” Maybe she neglects to mention those people because they aren’t as influential as these Republican Fox News jokes are. But maybe it’s because the real “right-wing hatemongers” are far more dangerous than these shills will ever be to the ideology of Cohen and she doesn’t want to draw attention to them.

 …In a civilized country with basic human rights, Phil Robertson would have been taken before a government Human Rights Tribunal or Human Rights Commission and given a fine or prison sentence for the hateful and bigoted comments that he made about LGBT people. In the US, however, he was given no legal punishment, even though his comments easily had the potential to incite acts of violence against LGBT people, who already face widespread violence in the deeply homophobic American society – and his comments probably DID incite acts of violence against LGBT people.

Most countries have freedom of speech, but only in the US is “freedom of speech” so restrictive and repressive.

Calling our brand of freedom of speech “restrictive and repressive” is so Orwellian. On the contrary, we have absolutely unfettered free speech, at least for now. I wouldn’t shed any tears if subversive, anti-traditional anti-white speech was banned, or if the first admendment didn’t apply to Jews. They shouldn’t have been allowed to promote gun control, multiculturalism, integration, feminism, or sexual perversion, and if they hadn’t been allowed to say whatever they wanted through the media, that would have saved us a lot of heartbreak.

Not only is the US the only country without any laws against hateful or offensive speech, but it’s also the only country where the government cannot ban any movies, books, or video games, no matter how dangerous, demeaning to human dignity, or harmful to society they may be.

I can agree with this, but only if you apply it to how the Jews use these mediums for the promotion of pornography, race-mixing, cultural marxism, feminism, diversity, on and on, etc..

The US government is also the only government that cannot ban any groups or political parties, even when those groups or political parties pose a serious threat to democracy. This is completely incompatible with international human rights standards, which clearly state that freedom of speech does not protect speech which is harmful to society, to morality, or to human rights.

Once again, I could agree with this statement, but only if it applies to the Jews and their subversion of our culture and traditions with the help of their traitorous white collaborators.

Countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Australia – to name just a few examples – take a much more sensible approach to freedom of expression. They allow legitimate freedom of expression while banning bigots, hatemongers, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, pro-pedophile groups, terrorist sympathizers, harmful media, Holocaust deniers, pick-up artists, climate change deniers, and other forms of expression which damage society and social cohesion.

The United States has a very limited and very outdated understanding of human rights and political freedoms. In all other countries, it is simply common knowledge that freedom of speech does not permit hatred…

While America has always been far behind the rest of the world when it comes to basic human rights – we still have yet to ban firearms, we still have yet to provide free higher education, and we still have yet to implement free universal healthcare, for example – the need to outlaw hate speech is one of the most basic and fundamental human rights obligations. Not only is it codified in multiple international human rights conventions, but even countries like Russia, India, Turkey, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Jordan – countries that most Americans consider to be “third-world” – have laws against hate speech. Why is the so-called “third-world” protecting basic human rights better than America is?

..There is absolutely nobody outside of the US who thinks that there shouldn’t be ANY laws against hate speech, racial vilification, or incitement to hatred. That idea is just unthinkable in a society where basic human rights exist. The US has a dismal record on human rights, as indicated by the fact that it still doesn’t have universal healthcare, still carries out executions, still hasn’t banned firearms, and still tortures people, to name just a few things. But having NO laws against incitement to hatred? It’s just impossible for people in civilized countries in the year 2015 to even conceive of such a thing. In fact, most people in civilized countries simply assume that the US outlaws hate speech, and they are left in stunned disbelief and disgust when they are told that it doesn’t. Inevitably, they will ask: how can the US possibly call itself a free country and a democracy when it’s the only country in the world without any kind of laws against hate speech? Protecting vulnerable minorities from hate speech is one of the cornerstones of any democratic society, and it’s one of the most basic and fundamental human rights obligations. Do Americans have no idea how ironic it is for them to call their country “the land of the free” when it doesn’t have any kind of law against hate speech?

…I grew up in Australia, which is a much more civilized and progressive country than the comparatively backwards United States, with a much deeper respect for basic human rights. Any comment which may offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate vulnerable minorities is highlly illegal in Australia, and the Australian Human Rights Commission goes to great lengths to prosecute anyone who makes comments that offend minorities or oppose human rights. Australia’s human rights courts have ruled many times that it doesn’t matter whether the comments are “true” or “balanced” or not; if the comments may offend minorities or incite hatred, then they are against the law in Australia, as they should be. Australia has also proposed legislation (the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill) which declares people automatically guilty of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating minorities unless they can prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt. This legislation has been wholeheartedly endorsed by the Australian Human Rights Commission and by literally every single human rights group and progressive think tank in Australia, from Amnesty International Australia to Per Capita. The Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill was proposed by Australia’s centrists.

Even the most far-right ultra-libertarians in Australia still strongly agree that racial vilification and incitement to hatred (including Holocaust denial) should be against the law.

In Canada, hate speech and advocating genocide are very serious criminal offenses that can land you up to fourteen years in prison. The Supreme Court of Canada has also found that truthful statements can be classified as illegal hate speech, and that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction…. Nobody in Canada believes that laws against hate speech and advocating genocide infringe on freedom of speech….

Americans have a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech does NOT mean that you have the freedom to say anything….You don’t have the right to spout racist hate speech because that interferes with other people’s right to be free from racial discrimination….Freedom of speech does NOT give you the right to offend, to insult, to disrespect, to oppose human rights, to argue against the common good, to voice approval of totalitarian ideologies, to perpetuate toxic systems of privilege and oppression, to promote ideas which have no place in a modern democratic society, to be provocative or incendiary, or to express opinions which are unacceptable to the majority of people.

Most champions of hate speech are straight, white, Christian males who have never had to experience the devastating consequences of hate speech. These highly privileged members of society will never understand the harm that hate speech causes to vulnerable minorities. Hate speech is not “freedom” to the Muslims who face widespread attacks and abuse as a result of hate speech from outlets like Fox News and Bill Maher. Hate speech is not “freedom” to the women at abortion clinics who are shouted at by right-wing protesters just for attempting to exercise their human right to choose. Hate speech is not “freedom” to the thousands of people who are killed by guns every single year in America thanks to the gun lobby’s propaganda turning public opinion against sensible gun bans. Hate speech is certainly not “freedom” to the LGBT people who are viciously attacked and even murdered as a result of hate speech from the Christian right.

 Hate speech does have very serious consequences in the real world, but straight, white, Christian men could never be able to understand just how severe those consequences can be. Privileged members of society will never know what it’s like to be a victim of hate speech. As a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I know first-hand the extreme danger that flows directly from hate speech. Those championing hate speech, however, clearly do not understand just how dangerous hate speech is. There is a hierarchy of power in society, with straight, white, Christian men firmly at the top. Freedom of speech is counter-productive if the people who benefit from it are the people who already hold far too much power and privilege in our society.

I would just like to add a hearty LOL to the statement that heterosexual, white, Christian males are “firmly at the top” of the hierarchy of power in society.

A French Jewish leader recently told the US that it needs to join the civilized world by cracking down on online hatred since hate speech on the Internet puts vulnerable minorities in very real danger (both mental and physical), but, unfortunately, we all know that his urgent pleas to the US will go completely ignored, and online hate speech from the US will continue to place French Jews and other vulnerable minorities around the world in serious danger.

Don’t be such a defeatist, Tanya. The politicians in the USA are basically falling all over themselves in their support of the fight against anti-semitism.

Until the US decides to finally cooperate with the international community, the UN and human rights groups will never be able to remove hate speech from the Internet and elsewhere. In addition to passing strong legislation against hate speech, the US needs to report to the UN and it needs to allow the UN to prosecute Americans under the UN courts. When other countries fail to press hate speech charges against their citizens, the UN often steps in and presses charges under the UN courts. In America, however, that would currently be impossible. America also needs to hand over control of the Internet to the United Nations, which will use the international human rights framework to protect human rights online, as it has repeatedly encouraged all nations to do.

This is basically the Jews’s wet dream.

….The rest of the world continues to forge ahead in human rights – Belgium recently passed human rights legislation outlawing all forms of sexist speech, and numerous countries are passing human rights laws requiring anyone accused of hate speech to prove their innocence or be declared automatically guilty….While the United States needs to strongly support freedom of speech and firmly oppose all forms of censorship, it also needs to sincerely protect vulnerable minorities from all manifestations of hate speech. There is absolutely NO excuse whatsoever for an advanced democracy in the year 2015 to not have any kind of laws against hate speech.

…..Freedom of speech has to be balanced against the feelings of others.

When freedom of speech interferes with someone else’s freedom to not be offended, insulted, disrespected, vilified, or subjected to hatred, it needs to be restricted.

If anyone in Australia ever proposed that all laws against hate speech/vilification should be completely abolished, they would lose their job, they would lose all of their friends, and they would have to hire bodyguards. That’s not even an exaggeration. Outside of the US, hate speech laws have absolutely universal support from every single facet of society. Saying that there shouldn’t be any laws against hate speech would be like saying that there shouldn’t be any laws against child abuse.

Slurs and insults are not part of the “free exchange of ideas,” so the justification for “free speech” – that all ideas should be able to be discussed – doesn’t even cover that. In fact, slurs and insults are a kind of bullying that often discourage the target’s participation in discussion and debate in the “free exchange of ideas” and, therefore, slurs and insults are actually a crude form of censorship and themselves are an attack on another person or group’s freedom of speech. Vulnerable and marginalized groups cannot speak out openly when they are constantly hounded by hateful bigots spewing toxic vitriol at them. Hate speech is itself a form of censorship, and outlawing hate speech is thus required in order to protect freedom of speech.

She has it completely backwards here. Unfortunately, too many pro-whites use racial slurs all too often, and far from bullying their targets out of defending themselves, our enemies constantly harp on our use of racial slurs so they can appear to have the moral high ground when they advocate for hate speech legislation. I honestly wish Team White would collectively stop “spewing toxic vitriol” at our country’s “vulnerable minorities” because this is why I have strangers calling me a “hateful bigot” all the time when, in reality, it is they, the feminists and the anti-racists, who are the hateful bigots.

At a time when racism, fascism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and Islamophobia are surging in Europe, it is now more important than ever for the United States to finally fulfill its international human rights obligations and enact a law against all forms of hate speech. The fact that America still does not have a hate speech law in the year 2015 is a national embarrassment…

It’s interesting how she keeps crying about how it’s “already 2015” and the US still hasn’t silenced the pro-white anti-Jews. She keeps appealing to peoples’ desire to be trendy and fashionable. “Like, didn’t you know that free speech is sooo Two Thousand and Late? Get with the times, girl.”

So there you have it. I do think she is a liberal lemming and not a shifty, conscious subverter. The only thing that makes her a little more rabid than your average leftie is her Jewishness and all the benefits or the resources that come with it. In a perfect world, she would be living in Israel without the human right or privilege of every being allowed to leave.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s