The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part 3

Where is the bill of particulars against him?

by Jon Rappoport

August 8, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

(For Part 2, click here)

When several big-tech companies remove a person from their platforms in a 12-hour period, which is what happened to Alex Jones, you need to ask:

Where are the specific violations Jones is charged with?

Where is the bill of particulars against him?

Where is the “hate speech” he is accused of spewing to his audience?

What definition (if any) of hate speech is being used as a measuring stick?

Asking those questions, you come up very short on answers.

Jones is being made into a SYMBOL of a hater by social media and the mainstream press—and when THAT is the objective, the whole idea is to avoid specifics and just smear the target with a very broad and general brush.

“Hate speech” is replacing the 1st Amendment as a standard of judgment. The question now is: did you express hate toward someone? Rather than: did you commit slander or libel?

Did you utter something that could offend and might disturb a victim or victim-group? Yes? YOU’RE BANNED. CENSORED. Of course, social media giants decide what constitutes hate and who is designated a victim-group with “protected status.”

The term “hate speech” is very elastic. Its definition can be changed on a moment’s notice.

Don’t like someone?

Upset at their actual ideas?

Disturbed at their success?

Embroil them in charges of being a hater and expressing hatred toward victims. Ban and censor them from online platforms based on that accusation. Ignore millions of their words—instead, invoke a few outbursts they committed over the years.

And finally, make the conversation all about whether the accused—in this case, Jones—is good or not, is honest or not, is caring or not, is worthy or not—AS IF THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD DECIDE WHETHER BANNING JONES FROM ONLNE PLATFORMS WAS A CORRECT ACTION.

This is the ultimate diversion and distraction, for increasing numbers of the dumbed-down public.

And toss the brain-challenged a bone—permission to HATE THE HATER.

“You see, in this case, it’s OK to hate, because the target is a hater. So go to it, express all that bottled-up emotion. Have a field day.”

“With every molecule of hate you express, you change the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment. And this is exactly what we need: a new society based on less freedom and more goodness.”

Less freedom, more goodness.

If you buy that package, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.

Here are links to go to, to listen to the Alex Jones show now:

Live stream: 9am to Noon ET:

Live stream: Noon to 4pm ET:

Live stream: 4pm to 7pm ET:

Additionally, here:

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

55 comments on “The war to destroy Alex Jones, Part 3

  1. Angela Frost says:

    I see loads of “Kill the Whites” posts by black South Africans. Their posts, when reported, “Don’t contravene the Community Standard” according to Facebook, but anyone says something against these blacks or muslims, then they get banned from Facebook! DOUBLE STANDARDS! It’s OK to make HATE SPEECH against whites or Christians, but it’s Racist/offensive/hate speech if a white or christian person comments on what is being posted!

    • Adaline says:

      No hate speech is OK

      • Theodore says:

        are you saying ‘hate speech’ is or is not OK?

        • Adaline says:

          I’m saying hate speech is not ok.
          But I am for free speech. Catch-22

          • honestliberty says:

            No catch at all. You are either for freedom or against, with all the positives and negatives.
            It is evident these tech giants are now political, applying a double standard as they see fit. I despise anti-white racists; I don’t them abhorrent scum. However, they can say whatever disturbing and disgusting crap they want, because I’m strong enough in myself to stand up for myself, and I’ll end them if they ever attempted to violate me or my child. Period.

            The first amendment is critical to avoid me having to use my second amendment rights, which it seems the left knows damn well and is doing this to incite a civil war. News flash globalists, we who aren’t lefties have and know how to use small arms. Additionally, that is something most of us never want to do, but are absolutely prepared to if we must.

            Freedom isn’t free my ass. That’s insanity, that phrase. If one wants to claim the restraint necessary to live within personal responsibility is a cost, that is different because that is the individuals obligation to meet those demands, not an external law mandating such, thereby eliminating freedom.

          • Snowleopard says:

            I am for freedom, and I like the spirit of your comment, but think you might misunderstand something.

            Just TRY to use your second amendment rights.

            I am 100% in favor of your right to self defense. But that is only tangential to the second amendment.

            The second amendment is about the right of the people (everyone) to own and bear ARMS (weapons of war) to facilitate their forming voluntary local militias (or even state controlled ones though few of those developed). Many colonials at the time of the American revolution personally owned field artillery, a few personally owned warships, and local militias were common. The second amendment was about preserving these rights. It was not about the right to self defense, which was not in question, as even dueling was legal.

            So, in accordance with the second amendment, you have the right to possess weapons similar to the National Guard; and be the self organized voluntary “Local Guard”. if you will,, and without answering to federal authority. While this is legal under the Constitution, attempting to put it into practice could be hazardous to your health…lol. .

          • But by the very fact that you are allowed to bear such weapons, is the reason for this not clearly for defense. Most lived in wilderness, savage Indians and wild animals, a call to arms was nearly fatal in 1776.

            “Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context – that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. “

          • snow- I hear ya. I agree with your comment.

          • Not So Free says:

            So who is to say what is hate speech?
            The people next door?
            That becomes a very slippery slope.

          • Theodore says:

            I agree NSF.

            “hate speech” as a tool: not needed. we can claim, in court, libel or slander or criminal calls to violence.

            “civil rights” as a tool: not needed. we have god-given rights enshrined in the constitution.

          • Theodore says:

            US Department of Justice: not needed. post- Civil War reconstruction was completed by the 1880s.

            FBI: not needed. alcohol prohibition ended 1930s.

          • “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 

            ― United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights


            This idea of hate speech, is finding a snug and comfortable place in ordinarily adult language. Language is limited enough without adding into it words, or phrases, or a type of speaking that cannot be spoken. A language that some prude with a highlighter doesn’t like..

            There is no such thing as hate speech, there is only speech.

            Written or spoken words — simply words.

            Some words are put together the way you like, they sound good when spoken and some are put together the way you don’t like. They become tainted with ephemeral or bastertized meanings, and outlast that fancy — gay was at one time an expression of happy. Now the meaning is censored.

            Many words are hard to say… some are rarely used or ever spoken at all — not really understood. Most are ignorant of how many words there are; a few hundred thousand, but many people use or understand only a percentage of that number. Other words flow from your mouth like honey to a your lover ear.

            A cuss word might inspire laughter, or anger, disgust or cause fear…but it still just a word. When you add in asterisks, you still have said the word, and are expressing how weak afraid you are…

            Many are warped from their original meaning to suit a political agenda, and become nothing but jargon. A lingo that is over used and meaningless.

            Words bring forth uncomfortable memories…some might bring pleasant thoughts. Some words you have forbidden yourself from speaking. And others words you want to speak every single day. Words you will forbid others to speak because of race, creed or religion; political beliefs and fervency of a desire.

            And some think that certain words should never ever be spoken again and should be burnt, in there written form.. Some people take possession of words, and no other race or person can speak ever them again. These words belong to them now and only people of that race might utter them to each other, or as a shame on another race. 

            This issue of censorship travels very deeply into the psyche, and when looked at correctly, one can see that we are all being tested here. Tested on how free we really think we are, how free we want others in this world to be. How free we want the Internet to be — we can be free to speak but they can’t be…”I say what I want, but, not out in public.”

            If you have an enemy, are the other members of your family or friends allowed to speak freely about that person in your presence? Or are they censored. Or do they censor themselves and help you create lies.

            Censoring Alex Jones’s right to speak is the real issue at hand, not how he is speaking. ‘Hate Speech” is the buzz phrase to trigger the cacophony of “censor him.” –when in fact, he is not guilty of anything.

            “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

            [Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”  — Harry Truman

            If the corporation is allowed to do this, they will not stop until the whole world is mute.

            What is evident is that the conjecture that most people bark out in condemnation of Alex Jones — when most don’t know what they are talking about. They heard it from someone, or they think this or that — Facebook, YouTube censored him, Google censored him, ‘They are the internet authorities, so they must be right’.

            But really there is a lot of knee-jerking going on. This whole issue is becoming purposely clouded — which is a real issue here — who are, and what is the group determined to take away freedom of speech from us?

            Passion for what one is saying, is not hate speech. Alex Jones is an extremely passionate individual about what he speaks about on his YouTube channel. Intellectual bravado is not hate speech. 

            The PTB, set the beat and slogan for the lynch mob, and their trolls beat the bushes for his supporters… and the mob yells out all those odd and untrue little things that relate to their own type of censorship.  

            Individual freedom is being assassinated, do you care?

            When you decide in your own head that there is such a thing as hate speech, you begin to censor yourself, and then others. You hold back ideas, that sometimes are valid and impassioned, and needs rougher language sometimes to impress its point.

            When you begin to worry about that other person’s feelings. You are not be truthful now. You are lying, being pretentious, pandering to their needs, and their whims.

            People need to worry about their own feelings, making sure they understand them, and deal with them so they can’t run amuck inside us, causing pain — rather than meddle or worry with other peoples feelings. Rather than a populations feelings. Rather than a mobs feelings or the consensus feelings.

            If emotions rise and are getting hurt by someone’s speech, then that is not the fault of the speaker but the listener. The listener needs to get stronger to harsher language. The weak victim voice is the voice that cry foul, I am a victim of hate speech. Hate speech offends me. The listener is unfree, the listener has censored themselves, the listener has stopped listening, and wishes others to stop listening. The listener is now contained inside a sickly sweet, and sentimentally censored Internet bubble brought to them by an uncensored elite.

            Do not stop talking or allow other to stop talk, no matter what it is…

          • From Quebec says:

            Great post Michael.

            You know what makes me laugh. it is when the government plays with words to fool us.

            Example: The Patriot Act, Who do they think they are kidding? There is nothing patriotic about this act.

            Hey, I have a little treat for you:

            George Carlin Expressions and Sayings

          • barn moose says:

            Good stuff, bub. Knowing one’s own mind is a challenge. It’s a freedom you don’t want to give up if you’ve spent much time gaining and maintaining it. At any point in time you are *capable* of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about what resides in and behind your eyes. It’s a snapshot and can’t be identical to another taken five minutes later. An interesting part is when you think you know your own mind and then find out you don’t in some major way. Epiphany. Then you know how much of an organism you really are.

          • barn moose says:

            Compliment: You’re quite the organism, fella.

          • Lawrence says:

            Great post!

          • dave cee says:

            Now who determines if it’s hate speech ? What if that someone hates you any anything you say and decides any thing you say is hate speech. Speech is speech ,the first amendment says nothing about dividing speech into categories.

          • The one world gov types are trying to cause a shift toward socialism in our society. This is part of that and it’s a naked attempt at silencing dissent and killing off anything but the “official” version. Free Alex Jones! Break Google, Apple, Fbook into small pieces.

  2. Adaline says:

    I get the impression that Jon is not promoting Alex, but he is promoting free speech.

  3. auldhickory says:

    My initial reaction was not outrage. It was, “So, they finally did it!” The silver lining is that the so called liberal, progressive, caring and sharing “Tech Lords” have all but torn off their mask. There is now almost no excuse for being ignorant about their nature. This actually puts a smile upon my face.

    Alex Jones should not be shocked by this. Nearly three years ago, Matt Drudge warned Jones that this was coming. If you have forty-five minutes to spare, here is a copy of the interview: /watch?v=yY-IKDRIReQ

    • From Quebec says:

      Yes, I remember this great meeting. Such a profound moment.
      Thanks for posting it, I was my pleasure to watch it again.

  4. MrDuncmck says:

    The consensus builders.= Permission given to hate the haters..BOOOOOM!!!
    It is astonishing watching evil dismantle itself..Its hard to get these concepts understood when the bone you throw at them is infused with their head. Consensus creators= social media..the new town hall umpired by the tech giants.

  5. There are a few plays going on simultaneously:
    1. This was a concerted, collusionary effort between legacy media outlets concerned about their share of profits being threatened by his growing market share
    2. In combination with the financial losses likely to be suffered with another devastating Democratic loss in these upcoming midterms, (this is certainly about influencing the mood term elections because of the threat Trump poses, in their opinion, of the status quo) as he was instrumental in charging the base to vote, as well exposing enough Independents to the demonic nature of HRC
    3. Using this as an opportunity to establish precedent in a medium not covered by the Constitution (this is likely to be adjudicated) because we’re already seeing conversations about whether cognitive sovereignty is a right /tFlOzNfYzRY

    4. I’m sure there is other stuff but Stefan Molyneux had some great insight on this as well, regarding the claim because they are business they can do whatever. Except that in this case they managed to get away with providing a platform supposedly free from bias so they aren’t held accountable for what is produced, yet they are clearly applying these guidelines only to conservative voices.
    Sargon of Akkad points this out regarding the hate speech of the leftists getting a free pass.

    What really irritates me about this whole shebang, is that I’m not even a friggin right wing type. It’s just that the left has gone so far down the path of totalitarianism they label anyone slightly right of their center a radical. I’ve never seen such projection and transference from s political group in my life.

  6. Tom_12 says:

    Who decides what is “Hate Speech” ?

    I remember many many Moons ago when it was already discussed that there were paid online people used by ???? to post views that the ???? desired. This will be used to mop up the big and mid profile independent information distributors.

    There is too much undesirable information on the Net which is making TPTB job too difficult. Those famous Davos meetings are used to coordinate just such actions as we see Today. This is just the start.

    • Adaline says:

      Hate speech could be defined as Nationalism and White Supremacy, Neo-Nazi propaganda. Which as horrible and wrong as it is, sis defended as a right to free speech by the 1st amendment. Seems like a Catch-22 to me.

  7. From Quebec says:

    All of this shit is not even about free speech. What is happening here, is that the big corporation , the Deep State, the Globalist and the DC Swamp are in a panic mode

    WHY? Because they cannot get rid of Trump. They fear the coming red wave in the US midterm elections 2018

    Trump made them look like pure idiots who could never accomplish anything, and they cannot stand that. In less than 2 years, he as accomplished more than the last 5 presidents who were trying to bring the USA down so they could install their New World Order. Now they realize that they are losing badly.

    Hysteria is what this is all about.

    They think that if they silence Infowars and other conservative sites, that this will create a Blue WAVE in November.

    Boy, are they in for a big surprise, They think that we cannot see what they are trying to accomplish . They think the deplorable are stupid. LOL


    • Snowleopard says:

      The deep state got rid of Kennedy. That woke up some sleepers, but had little consequence to them otherwise. Trump is more open and working faster, which likely means (to me) they will act soon, but why do you think Trump presents a greater problem? I think they are just trying to tone down the outcry in advance.

  8. Sunshine2 says:

    I’ve been following this with much interest. The hate speech social media law was passed in Europe in 2016 (, and I wondered at the time how long it would take to reach the US. The media companies are heavily fined in Europe for allowing hate speech. As you know, social media platforms are intertwined with each other and connected to other countries. It would be a programming nightmare to try to separate all of them. It also goes against what they were built for…and as more news comes out it is becoming clearer what that is. So why not bring the hate speech ban to the US? So much easier for them. Whether it was engineered from the start to work that way, I don’t know. May very well have been. Facebook is being hounded by lawsuits in the US. Other social media platforms are poised to follow the same fate as more information about their illegal and immoral practices are released. People don’t like finding out their personal data was given to Cambridge Analytical (the small company that took the fall for a larger company still trying to hide in the shadows). Limited hangouts and diversions are no longer working. We want to know why Z-man was selling off stock like mad well ahead of their damaging news. Who else is selling off stock now? How many people have stopped using FB/YouTube/Twitter/Google services already? How many more will jump ship if they connect banks to Facebook? These platforms are dying.

    Why go after a big fish like Infowars now? Are they trying to take the heat off their own organizations? Are they trying to redirect our attention? Are they trying to silence their biggest news competitor? Besides the obvious attack against free speech, all of these questions and more hound me.

    • This censoring of free speech has also spread to Canada, with the instituting and passing into law, Bill C-16 which is criminalizing free speech. The valiant and word savvy Dr Jordan Pederson of renown,  is both fighting the bill and its illegal standpoint of violating Canadian human rights. Especially from the aspect of gender pronouns and their usage, and speech against Israel and the Palestinians.

      His opposition to the fruity, tuity and tattooed and rather stupid Trudy Zoolander ( our pet name for Justin Trudeau, a despicable sort tramp who sheds crocodile tears for the oppressed and dreams about becoming a muslim woman living in a harem on a magic carpet, with someone name Ali — and is rumored to be the love child of Mick Jagger or Keith Richards, some say both. I think they might be right. Pierre was up nights writing multi-cultural laws for canada and wondering were Maggie was..) might possibly have the courageous and logical Pederson running for the highest seat in the land — the Prime Minister of Canada.

  9. Jacqueline Worthington says:

    Dear Jon, …….continued

    I do not believe Infowars or any other site should be censored. The exception isviolent phonography. We need to protect freedom of speech and certainly as Dr Jordan Peterson says we should not have compelled speech.

    Jacqueline Medicine Hat Alberta Canada

  10. Adaline says:

    Real Video (Mike Adams, Naturalnews dot com) started his own youtube alternative platform after he was banned from Youtube. It launched 7/4, and they just banned a few videos with extreme vulger language. There was a backlash from users, who were right, and the videos were reinstated, with a new rule that ‘explicit’ has to be in the title of the video. Growing pains. They made the right decision.

  11. Tim says:

    This issue is not simply freedom of expression, it is also freedom of the press.

    It’s obvious that the main stream press is not touching certain stories. People like Jones and others are going after stories and airing issues that the owners of mainstream press don’t want people to know about.

    Jon Rappoport is on the side of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and other essential freedoms.

  12. From Quebec says:

    Powerful rant from Alex Jones tonight: Must listen to.

    EMERGENCY EXCLUSIVE: Democrats / Deep State Close To Taking Down Infowars

  13. Jon

    I did read part two about FB and couldn’t bring myself to comment. All I’ll say is Facebook has every right to make its own rules. Don’t like it, leave it….

    This idea of censorship is “the pot calling kettle black”. I have a few mild associates that have caught the “wrong end” of Jones’ wrath. Here’s what I think.

    Karma’s bitten Jones back in the ass and I pray to God it bites him a whole lot more 🙂


    • and once again you have taken a terribly obtuse position, just like your position on relationships with underage children. Who cares what type of person AJ is, it isn’t about that. Get off the drugs you old doper

    • From Quebec says:

      Oh boy! If there is a God, for sure he will bite you for hating the most patriotic man in the USA who happens to be Alex Jones.

      What an uninformed person you are. Either you just hate your own country, or maybe you are not even an American. If I am right, why don’t you go and live in China, you would like it there, the censorship is in full gear..

    • So Ozzie, in conclusion…you believe he (Alex Jones) should be banned on Google’s YouTube. His channel should be silenced. His universal right to free speech on a public media is not the issue, he should be censored?

      In your Ozzie Thinker four-part articles Israel, Zionist Ambition, Isis and the US Affiliated Connections, you profess to — considered by many people to be a conspiracy theory —  that psychiatric medications seem to be a cause of murder, massacre…

      “It is an open secret that medications proscribed by psychiatry seem to be the cause of the majority of US social massacres which weren’t negotiated by professional hit men. There is also undeniable evidence that suggests master planners are behind all the global terrorist movements (Forgive the “suspect” source but information “checks”).”  –OzzieThinker

      You go on to say that ‘master planners are behind all Global terrorist movements’…

      “So much so, swelling groups of proud misinformation givers parading as news streams even pledge their allegiance to Zionist ambition in the open.” –OzzieThinker

      interestingly you also state that…

      “We know why they (the powers) are behind the fake alternative news. Ultimately, they intend to create standards, outlawing alternative information sources (backed by the lies they created), to impose universal censorship for the benefit (sic) of the people.” — OzzieThinker

      …in short Ozzie I am left in confusion? Clearly in your last quote you are astute to their (the powers) foreboding censorship. But distaste of that is obvious within your speech. Are you against censorship or for it? Why is it a ‘kettle calling the pot black situation”.

      Alex Jones is accused of being a conspiracy theorist. Accused of putting information out on his YouTube channel; saying similar things as yourself. The real difference is he has 3 and half million subscribers. Whereas you seek a greater audience.

      You claim that a few friends have caught the wrong end of Jones’ wrath and so therefor, it is fine, and he deserves a greater bite in the ass. I can understand your dislike of him, but should he be censored because of that? Did you get AJ’s twist on those accusations, the cause for his rage towards them (mild friends). Is this the reason for your opinion, are you prone to one-sidedness as a writer? You dislike someone so it is okay to censor him. Or do you search out facts and the truth. Does that outcome regardless of truth, warrant his censorship. And is it self censorship that guides and informs your comment?

      If WordPress decided that your above quotes were “Hate Speech” — if your copious writings and articles, specifically; Israel, Zionist Ambition, Isis and the US Affiliated Connections the rather lengthy four-part article as ant-semitic would you be as amiable to his censorship then… If they in fact censored you and your websites. Would your vitriol towards him be as sharp?

      If they (the powers) placed your book on a censored list, would you be as ardent to express such opinions. You are a journalist, a writer, a good one, I would say — you also hold extreme views on aliens and extraterrestrials and your position as a Exo-politician. You hold extremes and eccentric views Ozzie, on many current topics and subjects, including vaccination, psychiatric medications, the Australian government, Jews, Zionism and religion to state a few.  Many of these can be considered extreme and conspiratorial. Your views on Jews and Zionism could be considered anti-semitic. Do you practice hate speech.


      • MB, you are losing your touch….

        “Conspiracy theories”…me? I think not. I am one that questions and deconstructs to reconstruct. You have me very wrong there.

        You also have misread my criticism of Jones. Yes, he supports many individuals that offer poor/loaded arguments as their “case” for truth. There lies the problem. His visceral objective is to sensationalise. This is clear. That’s why the deluded throngs flock to him. Think of the pied piper. No throngs visit “Ozzie Thinker” because I don’t sensationalise. My information doesn’t attract because it is pure.

        Do I want Jones wiped off Google? No way. I want people to wake up.

        As for “Racism” (that ADL abomination). I compliment good Jews and disparage bad ones. I am not a “truth crusader”, but I have been passionate about certain issues (that are invariably not) which, I feel, should be forefront of human concern.

        Truth is impartial and non-negotiable, Michael. To label something “extreme”, in this context, is merely a cute way of attempting to censor wider “thoughts”/considerations. There are no topics off intellectual limits. Finally, I both love and hate at the same time. If my speech is generally regarded as “hateful” it is being read the wrong way. Real love, true love is always tough. Lessons in life are harsh, but, reflectively, those that pass the tests, do so well from the consequence.

        I hope that helps 🙂

        • From Quebec says:

          Do I want Jones wiped off Google? No way. I want people to wake up.(Ozzie Thinker)

          And this is precisely what Alex Jones has done: WAKE UP PEOPLE.
          He is probably the champion on that issue.

          As for you, who reads you?

          So, it seems to me that you do not like competition.

  14. From Quebec says:

    I think that the MSM should be bam.

    Watch this video:

    This is what mind control looks like /watch?v=pL1zwMtz_Ho

  15. Larry says:

    Lest left-leaning folks are feeling out in the cold, Facebook has now censored Venezuela Access, a liberal site.

    There must be a larger agenda here, but I’m not
    grokking it.

    One wonders how these guys can sleep at night, wielding such jaw-dropping powers.

    F*CK ZUCK!!!

  16. Something wicked this way cometh … censorship is about lust for power

  17. britinara says:

    Here it is. Here we are. “1984” two minutes of hate:

  18. Todd says:

    Great writing and analysis as usual Jon!I have a feeling this censorship is going to backfire at some point. By the way it’s happening as well to redice with paypal, Jay Dyer on wordpress, and no doubt there are other casualties. Support the artists directly. It might not be long before Jon’s triple mega matrix collection is considered subversive hate speech. Aloha!

  19. JB says:

    Unbelievable myopia.

    The 1st Amendment is about “CONGRESS shall make no law”

    The Constitution and the BofR does not govern people nor businesses nor institutions in their private affairs. What is written there is what THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can/cannot do. Many of the Amendments are a violation of the original declarations.

    The distortion of the Constitution’s contents and purpose is why this country is sinking deeper into political correctness and social chaos.

    Businesses, churches, associations, can do what they please with their membership; discriminate on any basis they want. The Constitution does not govern the PEOPLE, it govern the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *