It is perhaps very well known that when one is running off at the mouth, he is in no state to learn much of anything. When this is coupled with the commonly held belief that the lip flapper knows all there is to know, we have a de facto state of censorship. All bigotry and prejudice contain this element of self-censorship.

Censorship is about the flow of information. It is obvious that the sender of information is not interested in censoring what he says. Politically incorrect talk never leaves the lips of most people because of a self-imposed censorship. Eric Thomson calls this the Gulag of the Mind. This is not at all bad for often the speaking of certain things, in certain crowds, will get your face bashed in. A fine line is drawn between cowardice and discretion.

If the intended receiver of information does not want to hear it, he might be tempted to support censorship of what you are saying. This is a very common position today since a vast number of people dislike any form of displeasing reality, especially if it "offends" them. Their tender egos and an over-estimation of their individual worth, makes their feelings vulnerable to the slightest hint of insult. Our society enthusiastically condones lying when it is used to make someone "feel good."

I want to tell you something and you are willing to listen. For whatever reason, a third party doesn't want you to receive what I wish to impart. The flow of information is from my mouth to your ears via the mechanical vibrations of the air carrying those sounds. Thus, there are three components in this flow of information and the censor only has to interfere with one of those elements.

Suppression of information flow is little more than a partial removal. All censors start with suppression and, if successful, work towards complete removal.

Our censor could issue a threat making it "illegal" for me to say certain things as the jews did in the Soviet Union regarding anything which could be labeled anti-Semitic talk. People were executed for this. He could also make it illegal for you the hear it – a rather tenuous approach. He could, of course, simply shoot me, if threats proved ineffective, and end the matter swiftly. He could also shoot you, but that would not be in his interest. The best approach would be to interfere with the media which transports those bits of undesirable information. The censor simply breaks out his 666 decibel boom-box and lets it rip with jungle monkey "rap" noise. This avenue allows the censor to boast that I am not prevented from speaking my piece. You might object since it interferes with your ability to hear things other than those audacious and hazardous volumes of racket.

Censors, like all go-gooders and other social pests, are not interested in censoring what they say – only others with dissenting views. Here, they are in the same bed as are those irritating "tolerance" crusaders who will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. This is called hypocrisy and what would our society and our masters be without it?

People are getting steamed up over attempts at Internet censorship and I feel that they have not thought very deeply about it at all. Somehow I get the impression that Internet babbling is viewed as being on the same plane as talking gossip over a few drinks. On the other side – the receiver's side – many think they should be able to view whatever the kinks in their minds dictate. This could be a crude photo of someone's crude crotch; a do-it-yourself set of instructions for explosive manufacture; how to poison your husband's mistress; or seeing some four-letter word written 6,000,000 times. Consider what the actual flow of information is.

I pecker away at the keyboard composing all sorts of objectionable, and informative, material sometimes designed to piss someone off. The electrons buzz here, and they buzz there, and they finally scoot down the phone lines to another computer, which may work in cahoots with other computers, to keep those electrons herded into the proper phone lines. At the other end of this complicated travel, the electrical energy arrives at your computer ready and willing to install a good dose of hate, lust, or whatever, into your susceptible noggin. How might someone manage censorship of this information travel?

I could be threatened with penalties for issuing "hate speech" on the Internet but this could not happen without making other items illegal for all means of communication. This is not acceptable for it would be too noticeable to the goyim. One does not allow the remaining cattle to witness the slaughter of those who entered the killing shoot before them.

Censoring the receiver is happening but it is generally ineffective since it requires a massive amount of surveillance and subsequent warrants and confiscation of cases of incriminating evidence, as in the case of child pornography. Clinton's "chip proposal" certainly would interfere with the receipt of taboo information at the point of destination.

Along the way, the varied assortment of tandem Internet Service Providers could be intimidated into no longer carrying your material. This technique is old-hat and very popular. It is not rare that some jewish outfit threatens to withhold his advertising dollars if the carrier doesn't abide by their rules. With enough financial clout, censorship is bought with the greedy cooperation of those who engage in information transportation.

Chips, free speech suppression, ISP control and FCC rules are not really the entities which need our attentive eye. At present, all Internet connections involve telephone lines, in whole or in part. Control the phone lines and you control it all and no one's free speech rights are ever violated. It's similar to what I have said many times before: To hell with gun control – just control the flow of ammunition.

We are literally saturated with "news" each and every day. The shear volume of it leaves us with the feeling that we are learning about everything there is to know. We are like near-sighted sheep in a huge pasture, cut off from the rest of the world by a 60-foot concrete wall and no matter where we look, we see freedom – the walls are painted to look like plush meadows.

All over this country are hundreds of innocuous buildings, next to telephone central offices, which are loaded with tape recorders ostensibly for the purpose of "billing." The telephone companies have the wherewithal to terminate service to an individual or a corporation. This, in effect, is the ultimate in control of Internet information flow. The telephone power supply is an independent D.C. supply of 48 volts with generators capable of supplying the 90 V.A.C. ring signal. To their surprise, many people have noticed that when there is a power outage affecting their lights and TVs, they can still use the telephone.

Let's suppose that the government, or a set of its stooges, is peeking into the data which you are sending over the Internet. In this case, it is very easy to identify the phone lines over which the data travels and using a phony 'username,' or multiple mail box relays, won't make a bit of difference. Many fail to recognize the highly technical, and powerful, snooping capability that our benevolent Big Brother has at his disposal. You can be nailed so why hide your real name? Moreover, isn't it your duty to let the government know of your grievances so that it might address them? It's in the First Amendment, in case you didn't know: "...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Then there are the freaky crypto-heads who like to use sophisticated encryption methods to feel safe that their nonsense is not read by outsiders. From what I have seen, most messages sent in English are not understandable anyway. Besides, it's like carrying a set of burglary tools. What would the government think if they knew you were scrambling information? Wouldn't that arouse their curiosity?

Paranoid is as paranoid does.

Our problems are far more serious than worrying about whether your imaginary right to mouth off whenever you have an itch, is infringed or not. If talking, and other means of making noise, were banned altogether, I would welcome the comforting silence. In the meantime, the hordes of muds would still come rushing to us with their hands held out for freebies, albeit in silence. No matter what the blather about equality and the devil Whites is, one thing is obvious: Our "equals" can't hack it without us and most of the world depends upon Whites to bail their stupid little asses out of the problems they create for themselves. It's about time we cut them adrift for one cannot have a beautiful garden unless he gets rid of the weeds.

by Robert Frenz

23 October 1998