FREEDOM OF SPEECH, CENSORSHIP, AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM

 

Prelude:

By James Rousse

Why are We Discussing the topic of Free Speech and Censorship in the First Place?

The Thule Society recently published an article that discusses the Jewish Lugenpress,. The term “Lugenpress” simply translates to “Lying Press” when it is translated from its origin in the German language into English. It was Dr. Joseph Geobbels who named the Jewish media machine the “Lugenpress.” After editing and publishing our article that discusses the particulars of Jewish media manipulation, we at the Thule Society soon wound up discussing whether National Socialists would ever need to maintain campaigns of media censorship once we ourselves have political power cemented. After pondering the topic of National Socialist censorship, we eventually concluded that some degree of state censorship is needed if a National Socialist society is to ever really function at all. Obviously, some critics and haters of National Socialism will use these needed restriction on public broadcasting and public discourse as a leverage point to attack National Socialists, yet some practical limits are needed concerning what is said during public broadcasting and when printing mass communications of the written word.

.

Part One – Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech does not exist as a generic abstraction in a vacuum because “Freedom of Speech” always happens within a particular and specific context, and “Free Speech” is always practiced with a particular goal in mind. The practices of “Public Speech” and “Free Speech” always take place during a particular time, within a particular place, and among a particular group of people who have a certain and unique history. Both “Free Speech” and its accompanying “Public Speech” also take place under particular sets of circumstances.  When they happen, both Public Speaking and Public Writing always have particular sets of goal(s) in mind.

Private Speech that takes place among tiny groups of people is relatively harmless because it goes no further than the gathering of people who are present. However, Public Communications where the individual(s) who produce these communications intend to influence their fellow citizens in a certain way(s) is a different matter than casual private speech. A few people who are grumbling to each other about some government policy are harmless because such talk generally never goes beyond that moment and that conversation.

On the other hand, when groups of conspirators gather together to make plans for destabilizing their government along with their entire society, this constitutes a different matter all together. These gatherings of conspirators typically meet to further their end goal of overthrowing the current reigning government and replacing it with one more to their liking. These same groups of conspirators might also plan to destabilized their current government because this process is a necessary stepping stone along the path to creating a new government. When analyzing the concept of free speech, we must realize that some social gatherings do not just consist of normal conversations; no, some gatherings of people represent something else altogether.

Even national governments that have high degrees of popular support will still harbor a few haters and malcontents amongst the general population, and these haters will exist to some degree no matter what any government does or does not do. Every ideology has its haters and enemies, and sadly, National Socialism is no different in this regard – no way of living has ever pleased every last person, nor will any way of life ever satisfy everyone. The more just and benevolent that a government is, the less resources it will need to spend on monitoring its own people and censoring the population’s communications; none the less, some degrees of surveillance on the populace is always bluntly necessary no matter the circumstances. So, how do the watchdogs and guardians of The Folk determine whether a gathering of citizens is just a routine and acceptable meetings or if a gathering of people is a den of conspirators who have assembled to plot society’s downfall?

In answer, every government must maintain some sort of internal organization that keeps watch for conspirators and criminal networks, and this watch-keeping applies to what is said in the media as well as who is gathering together. Somebody has to determine whether a gathering of citizens is really a routine meeting for at the local Book of the Month club or a nasty gathering of subversives.

Whether the people who are meeting in secret are the “Good Guys” or the “Bad Guys” is largely a matter of perspective. Fact is, every nation, including the contemporary United States of America which is supposed to stand for great values such as “Freedom” and “Democracy,” still maintains an internal surveillance agency along the lines of the Third Reich’s Gestapo.

Despite what Hollywood might portray in popular entertainment, the Zio-American FBI performs exactly the same functions that the Gestapo did for the Third Reich. Britain’s National Crime Agency also perform similar functions to the Zio-American FBI and the Third Reich’s Gestapo. Likewise, large police departments must maintain “Internal Affairs” divisions that keep watch on their own people, and the United States Army maintains the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) which operates networks of infiltrators and informants for the purpose of keeping watch on their own military personnel.

Like it or not, every national government, every empire,  and every large organization spies on and monitors its own people out to necessity. Many of us have been told that the Third Reich’s Gestapo were truly bad people, but when someone watches a mainstream network television show about law enforcement, Zio-American FBI agents who are supposed to represent a group of good people are often seen raiding and stopping meetings of National Socialists, so in such instances FBI agents and acting just like the Gestapo’s “bad guys.”

On the other hand, a growing number of people would watch this same cheesy television episode and see the National Socialists who are being raided and arrested by the FBI for holding a meeting as a group of heroes who are rightfully resisting an evil and corrupt government. Some people who are living in the United Stares of America might see the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) as a benevolent and protective national police force, but others see this same organization as little more than the old Communist Cheka operating under a different name. The Cheka was largely a Jewish organization, and today many people believe that the Zio-American FBI is just an extension of Israeli organizations and a tool of International Jewry. Like it or not, every national government is going to practice some degree of surveillance and censorship against its own population.

The image posted above shows Felix Dzerzhinsky and other member of the old Society Cheka in 1919. Image courtesy of wikipedia.org

Having Freedom of The Press is valuable and essential, except this freedom might be troublesome during times of war and during times of extreme crisis. Most of the time, it is crucial for media complexes to try and report things as they are, at least as far as the journalists in question can honestly ascertain the truth. However, it is quite another matter for people to apply the press and all other forms of media technology with the goal of willfully deceiving and manipulating huge numbers of people. This process where the media complex misleads millions of people is typically done to undermine a Legitimate Government of The Folk and to tear apart the Social Fabric of Volkish Society. Access to the machinery of mass media technologies such as industrial printing machines and high-wattage radio broadcasting installations gives individual people and groups of people the ability to drive massive campaigns of Social Engineering. Laws that protect Freedom of Speech in an abstract and absolutist sense still give no one the legal or moral right to deceive and harm huge numbers of people for nefarious purposes.

During the First Zionist War (World War I), the Second Reich did not want to restrict “Freedom of Speech,” so as a result of this bad decision, subversive Jews were able to sabotage the Reich’s War Effort, bring down the German Empire, and stage a Bolshevik Revolution (which fortunately was defeated, primarily thanks to the Free Corps.).

The Weimar Republic was big on Freedom of Speech, at least as far as Jewish Interests were concerned. During these years, the Jews used their access to German mass media technologies as a means to advance the destruction of Germany’s Moral, Ethical, and Familial Social Fabric. By having access to Germany’s media technology, the Jews then used expensive broadcasting and printing capital equipment to promote Drugs, Drunkenness, Alcoholism, Homosexuality, Sexual Libertinism, Pedophilia, Gambling, Bestiality, Race Mixing (especially with Negros), plus the Jews promoted a general pattern of Decadence that permeated every aspect to German society.

The Jews also simply promoted a lot of Degeneracy on top of promoting decadence, and this pattern spread across German society in general during the Weimar Republic years, particularly in The Arts. During Germany’s Weimar years, the Jews  harnessed Germany’s media industrial complex to push for the destruction of Marriage and The Family amongst German Folk. Besides just promoting all types of behaviors and habits that they knew to be very maladaptive, the Jews used their presence in the German mass media complex to advance their intended Bolshevization of German Society by way of a planned Bolshevik Revolution.

It is all just common sense really, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Pen, and Freedom of the Press are all essential…BUT…HOWEVER…there must be a line drawn SOMEWHERE!  There must especially be a line drawn somewhere when you are dealing with the likes of Jews and Bolsheviks because these types of nefarious characters will use any access to the media as a leverage post to destroy Folkish Society, to grab power, and then to enslave The Folk. Ideally media must be used as a means to promote the continued advancement, development, and growth of The Folk, which is the proper function for Freedom of Speech.  

.

Part Two – Censorship

We see that sense degree of prudent Censorship is absolutely essential if we are to maintain the survival, the freedom, the general welfare, and the prosperity of our Folk. If the Government of a nation cannot, or will not, defend the citizens of that nation against those who would deceive, exploit, threaten, or otherwise harm the people, then such a government has absolutely no moral authority! A national government that lacks moral authority cannot demand the loyalty or obedience of its population!

 When we hear somebody demanding “Freedom of Speech,” we must first ask three questions:

FREEDOM TO SAY WHAT SPECIFICALLY? 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

WHO REALLY HAS THIS “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”?

I think that I have already made perfectly clear what the only legitimate answer to these three questions might be.

HOWEVER…we must be very careful not to go too far when it comes to limiting public speeches, public broadcasts, and public publishing, because… “An Honest Movement Should Never Fear Honest Investigation.” – Adolf Hitler.

An honest government should welcome people speaking freely when such speaking exposes real corruption, exposes dangerous negligence, exposes troubling incompetence, and spotlights outright treason amongst government officials and other representatives of The State. A silent and suppressed media is a big problem when it fails to alert the public of government corruption, crimes committed, and environmental damage.  A media complex is useless if it continually fails to correct serious problems.

Within the context of National Socialism, watchdog reporting and whistleblowing journalism are essential so long as it these things are done in ways that does not threaten the Folk nor threaten National Socialism itself. A subversive would try to use a real problem as an excuse to attack National Socialist Civilization itself. Uncovering a problem is good if such an action leads to the improvement of society and the betterment of the people, but if watchdog journalism is done to undermine the Folk and to undermine National Socialism in general, then such work constitutes Acts of Treason that must be dealt with accordingly.

Never give a Jewish agitator a real problem to work with, otherwise they will manipulate such an issue into yet another cause for a Revolution that is led by the Jews and for the Jews. In a more prosaic sense, a loyal citizen must feel free to bring his government’s attention to problems that people simply may not be aware of so that such problem(s) can be corrected.

.

Part Three – National Socialism and the Media Industrial Complex

According to (((official historical records,))) Dr. Joseph Goebbels was the Third Reich’s “Minister of Propaganda.” However, when (((mainstream))) historical commentators use the term “PROPAGANDA” to describe what Joseph Goebbels did for the Third Reich, this word is not properly translated from its original use in German. The Jews along with their Judeo-Christian and Communist accomplices mislead the unsuspecting about what The Chancellor and the NSDAP meant by the term “PROPAGANDA” as it related to the work of Dr. Goebbels. The intended meaning of the word that describes the duties of Dr. Goebbels is “EDUCATION.” To eliminate confusion and deception, Dr. Goebbels should be called the Third Reich’s “MINISTER OF EDUCATION” because the term “MINISTER OF EDUCATION” much more clearly describes his function when the English language is used.

Dr. Goebbels obtained his Doctorate in Literature from the University of Heidelberg, where he was teaching at the time that he first met Adolf Hitler. (Incidentally, I am kin by marriage to the Goebbels Family.)

Dr. Goebbels was assigned by The Chancellor to direct the Third Reich’s CENSORSHIP PROGRAM. Simply put, The Great One made it plain to everyone if they did not already know that giving the Jews and their accomplices free rein to say, write, and publish whatever they chose carried fatal consequences for The Folk. Concerning what Hitler knew about giving the Jews free access to Germany’s media industrial complex, he recognized what I have already covered so far in this blog.

GOEBBELS WAS GIVEN THE JOB OF SUPPRESSING JEWISH CONSPIRACIES THROUGH CENSORSHIP OF JEWISH PROPAGANDA!

The well known “Book Burnings” that took place under the oversight of Dr. Goebbels were mass public eliminations of Jewish Pornography. Combatting the spread of Jewish pornography was part of Dr. Goebbels’s official function. The enemies of National Socialism were the same ones who were attempting to propagandize the population (as the term is commonly understood) even as the Government of the Third Reich was educating its people about what was true.

Hitler, Dr. Goebbels, and other National Socialist luminaries understood that it was not enough to just suppress the lying propaganda of the Jews, instead, it was recognized that the Third Reich’s citizenry had to be EDUCATED ABOUT THE TRUTH IN ORDER TO COUNTERACT THE NEFARIOUS INFLUENCES OF JEWISH PROPAGANDA. Dr. Goebbels made it his mission to prevent Jewish propaganda’s poisonous seeds from taking root inside the minds of ignorant and unsuspecting people; therefore, his true position was that of the Reich’s Education Minister.

There are two well-known quotes from Dr. Goebbels that are pertinent to the present discussion:

“Lie, Lie, Lie, Sooner Or Later Something Will Stick.”

“Tell A Big Enough Lie, And Keep It Up Long Enough, Then People Will Start Believing That It Is The Truth.“

THE ACTUAL CONTEXT OF THESE PREVIOUSLY POSTED STATEMENTS WAS DR. GOEBBELS EDUCATING THE GERMAN FOLK ABOUT HOW THE JEWS WERE OPERATING. On the opposite side, the NSDAP was telling people the plain truth so that they could easily recognize Jewish lies themselves. What has applied in the past will continue to apply in the future.

.
Part Four: The Road Ahead

By James Rousse

Curt Doolittle and his Propertiarian Institute have spoken and written about the topic of media and broadcasting freedom. Doolittle has determined that public communications need to be “Warrantied” if they are to be broadcast at all.  The concept of “Warrantied” public discourse means that any public communication must be demonstrably and provably made “In Good Faith.” So, what does the term “In Good Faith” mean?  In this case, speaking or writing “In Good Faith” means that whoever is publishing or driving the public dissemination of information must not be seeking to intentionally mislead of deceive their audience.

The image above shows Curt Doolittle’s profile photograph for his personal account on X.com

Under the laws of “Good Faith” journalism, if a person publishes or speaks incorrect information during a public communication, yet the person or group in question believes that the information which they were presenting is correct at the time of their broadcast or publishing, then there is no crime committed. Under Propertarian law, getting facts wrong during public communications is not legally punishable so long as the communicators in question are not making any sincere efforts to lie or deceive. On the other hand, if a speech-maker or publisher is demonstrably trying to mislead or deceive the public, then fitting punishment(s) are most certainly due.

During one of his old YouTube videos from the now-defunct Coach Red Pill channel, the late commentator named Gonzalo Lira noted that during General August Pinochet’s time ruling the nation Chile under a right-wing military dictatorship, Chilean journalists publicly criticized Pinochet and avoided punishments so long as they could prove that what they were saying was true within a court of law. Many people might consider Lira to have been a bit of a grifter, so the Thule Society refuses to categorically endorse Lira; none the less, he was still a rather smart fellow and he did offer some good insights during his old video blogs. As Lira noted, General Pinochet tolerated personal criticism of himself, and he tolerated criticism of his government; however, his accusers had to make sure that they could verify their criticisms in courts of law.

The image above shows the Chilean movie-maker, author, and commentator named Gonzalo Lira in 2018. As far as we know, Lira was not Jewish, even though he might look somewhat Jewish in the photo seen above.  Image courtesy of wikipedia.com

Perhaps General Pinochet and Kurt Doolittle both provide a good roadmap for how National Socialists might handle the topic of free speech and censorship in the future. Both Lira and Doolittle are saying that sharing public accusations of wrongdoing is healthy for society because such exposures allows problems to be identified and addressed, yet whoever is offering their public criticisms must also be willing and able to prove the veracity of their statements before judges, juries, and the public.

One could argue that if critics are simply expressing their feelings and personal opinions about a government or about public figures through media outlets or in public speeches, then they are not really causing problems. One could argue that expressing feelings about a given topic is not harmful because the people who are communicating distaste are offering nothing more than personal opinions. For example, a radio or podcast commentator might routinely call a public figure who he dislikes pejorative and small-minded names like a “jerk” or an “asshole.” However, media attacks against governments or public figures must name specific bad actions or name specific speech if such calumny is to truly influence public opinion. If public slander is to truly perform its intended function, then at some point specific accusations must made against particular people or specific institutions, yet under a National Socialist legal system such accusations must be provable in courts of law. If spurious public accusations can be made without proof under the aegis of “Free Speech,” then this state of affairs presents a very real danger to any society.

 

A Few Notes about Curt Doolittle and Propertarian Philosophy

Both Curt Doolittle and his Propertarian philosophy have their share of critics, and most of these critics come from a line up of (((the usual suspects))), but White liberals are also some of the most strident of Doolittle’s critics. So, why do the usual suspects dislike Doolittle’s ideas? Perhaps Doolittle’s ideas are disliked because he proposes designing a legal system that is engineered to identify and stop acts of deception and parasitism, and at the very cores of their beings both Jews and their Communist lackeys are deceivers and parasites. (Being a deceiver and being a parasite are by no means mutually exclusive traits.)

Critics also say that Doolittle’s philosophy only appeals to males who are bright but afflicted with some degree of autism or Asperger’s Syndrome. These critics are really saying that Doolittle himself along with his autistic fan club lack real-world savvy; therefore, Propertian ideas will never appeal to the masses nor will these ideas ever work in practice. This line of criticism against Doolittle and Propertarianism is basically saying that bright but autistic males just cannot comprehend how “normal people” or “Normies” process information, nor can these autistic misfits see how regular people view the world; thus, Propertarian ideas are doomed to fail. (Perhaps not processing the world like “Normies” do is really for the better.)

Doolittle’s Propertarian ideas have been compared to classical Anarcho Capitalism because Propertarianism places a high priority on recognizing and protecting every individual’s personal “property” within a legal framework. Propertariansm defines “property” as being “anything that people will fight to defend or fight to acquire.” Anarcho Capitalism basically places the highest emphasis on personal rights that pertain to  acquiring and holding private property. Anarcho Capitalism also emphasizes that individuals and organizations are free to pretty much do as they wish with their private property – the rest of the world be damned. Anarcho Capitalism clearly places individual whims that are labeled “rights of ownership” or “rights of private property” above any sense of common good, so this ideology is really a recipe for disaster and future Communist uprisings.

Anarcho Capitalism has basically fallen out of favor because such a system lends itself to massive economic inequality and environmental destruction. Anarcho Capitalism would create so much trouble for the world if it were the dominating ideology because it assumes that businesses and wealthy individuals will somehow show disciple or regulate their activities for the betterment of society. (Only fools would believe such syphilis.) Some critics have postulated that any philosophy (including Propertariansm) that permits too much freedom for businesses and the wealthy will inevitably create a nightmarish and dystopian society because both industry and the rich need to have some degree of accountability for their actions or inactions.

The above image shows the Jewish economist Milton Friedman who is a staunch proponent of Anarcho Capitalism. Both Libertarianism and Anarcho Capitalism are fundamentally Jewish affairs, so they cannot be good for Folkish society.

So, what entities are capable of keeping the excesses of capitalism in check? It seems that national governments and religious institutions are capable of curbing the excesses of business interests and the wealthy, but unions can perhaps curb big business’s excesses as well so long as they are not too corrupt. National Socialist ideology is certainly one route for protecting the profitability of business interests while also ensuring that their behavior does not become too destructive to The Folk’s welfare.

Another very real shortcoming of Propertarianism is its Asperger Syndrome emphasis on real-world provability and factual accountability over protecting peoples’ feelings. Needless to say, any governmental system or philosophical outlook that prioritizes facts and logical outcomes over sentimentality and feelings will run afoul of many people, particularly women; hence, the critics of Propertarianism have a solid case when they claim that this philosophy’s appeal is limited to high-IQ males with Asperger’s Syndrome.

Yes, Curt Doolittle’s has some glaring personal shortcomings, and his Propertarian philosophy has its practical limitations, yet… some aspect of Doolittle’s Propertarian ideology are still worth studying for future architects of governmental policy.  Propertarianism probably cannot be adopted as a governmental foundation in a lock-stock-and-barrel sort of manner if for no other reason than it is just too abstract and cerebral for most people to truly understand or appreciate.

One big problem with Libertarianism and Propertarianism is that both of these ideologies are too bookish and intellectual in nature, so they both lack strong romanic elements. If any ideology is to truly thrive and become popular, then it must appeal to people’s emotions and spiritual longings as well as their intellects. Are people willing to bleed and die for abstractions like “unrestricted property rights”? National Socialism does not suffer from such a problem. Adolf Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf that dissent can never be strictly intellectual, so for this reason, Propertarianism will never serve as a workable ideology for building solid civilizations. Sure, Propertarianism has its limitations, but putting certain bits and pieces of this ideology into practice seems workable and sensible.

Heil Hitler deva!
-88-
Randall Lee Hilburn