A Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

***********************************************************************************************************************************
A FORUM FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND VIGOROUS DEBATE, CORNERSTONES OF DEMOCRACY
[For the journal--guidelines, focus, etc.--go to www.theamericandissident.org. If you have questions, please contact me at todslone@hotmail.com. Comments are NOT moderated (i.e., CENSORED)!]
Encouraged censorship and self-censorship seem to have become popular in America today. Those who censor others, not just self, tend to favor the term "moderate," as opposed to "censor" and "moderation" to "censorship." But that doesn't change what they do. They still act as Little Caesars or Big Brother protectors of the thin-skinned. Democracy, however, demands a tough populace, not so easily offended. On this blog, and to buck the trend of censorship, banning, and ostracizing, comments are NEVER "moderated." Rarely (almost NEVER) do the targets of these blog entries respond in an effort to defend themselves with cogent counter-argumentation. This blog is testimony to how little academics, poets, critics, newspaper editors, cartoonists, political hacks, cultural council apparatchiks, librarians et al appreciate VIGOROUS DEBATE, cornerstone of democracy. Clearly, far too many of them could likely prosper just fine in places like communist China and Cuba or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia, not to mention Sweden, England, and Austria.

More P. Maudit cartoons (and essays) at Global Free Press: http://www.globalfreepress.org

Friday, September 4, 2020

Charlie Hebdo

Below is the front cover for issue #29 (2015).  


 

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Randi Weingarten

 

The following cartoon was sketched in 2015.
...............................................................................

............................................................................................................................................
From: George Slone
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:28 AM
To: rweingar@aft.org <rweingar@aft.org>
Subject: Weingarten satirized in a P. Maudit cartoon
 

To Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers:   
Apparently I didn't send you the cartoon satire I drew on you in 2015 (see attached).  Perhaps you'd like to share it with your teacher colleagues, since you are supposed to be a proponent of debate.  Yes, I am currently writing a counter essay regarding "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate," of which you are a signatory.  The cartoon will be part of that essay.  If something in the cartoon is not on target, please do inform me.  Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
   

G. Tod Slone, PhD (Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit,

Founding Editor (1998)

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

www.theamericandissident.org

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630



Monday, August 31, 2020

Wendy Kaminer


The cartoon below was sketched in 2009.
.......................................................................

From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: wendykaminer@aol.com
Subject:
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:10:44 -0400

To Wendy Kaminer,
Your book, Worst Instincts, was truly a great read. I do quote you now and then. In fact, I even recently sketched a cartoon on you and the CEO of the ACLU. It is posted on my blog. Thank you for that inspiration.

On another note, perhaps you ought to be aware of what goes on under your very nose on Cape Cod. For one thing, Truro Library and the rest of the libraries in the Clams Library System of Cape Cod have essentially banned The American Dissident from the system. In fact, in a last ditch effort to get just one of the libraries to subscribe ($20/year), I sent a letter to about 25 library directors of the system, including Truro's. Only one director responded a week later, though not in writing. Lucy Loomis, director of Sturgis Library, had no less than three cops enter the library to escort me out of the library. I was quietly working on my laptop per usual. I have never caused a ruckus or threatened anyone at the library. Loomis announced that she was PERMANENTLY trespassing me from the library because I'd been critical of it and made her "feel uncomfortable". She refused to hand me a written document, arguing her decree was verbal. Ellie Claus, president of the Barnstable County libraries, refused to accord me due process, despite my request. A year and half earlier, Loomis had prohibited me from leaving my critical flyers on library premises and from talking about that with staff. I obeyed. In fact, she even refused a free subscription offer. The ACLUM will not take my case, though it did say it spoke with the library. It would not tell me what was said. So now I am forced to pay taxes to help support a library that has permanently banned me. That really makes me feel quite uncomfortable. Yes, Loomis had told the cops that I'd made her "feel uncomfortable."

This whole incident was really surprising to me, even though several years ago Watertown Free Public Library had trespassed me for three months w/o due process. I had asked a rather surly reference librarian if she'd consider subscribing. In fact, I've only been to that library once in my entire life. Yet the cops told me the ref librarian had said I'd been a problem on other days too.

I do hope you might respond.

Sincerely,

G. Tod Slone, PhD and Founding Editor (1998)


The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence


www.theamericandissident.org


wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com


todslone@hotmail.com


217 Commerce Rd.


Barnstable, MA 02630 


From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: wendykaminer@aol.com
Subject: RE: No response from you at all
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:28:59 -0400

No response at all from you! Should I be surprised that you don't give a damn about what happens on Cape Cod vis-a-vis free speech? Probably not.
Sincerely,
G. Tod Slone

Anne Applebaum

 The following cartoon was sketched in 2018.

..............................................................................


................................

From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:33 PM

To: applebaumanne@washpost.com; Fred.Hiatt@washpost.com

Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP or THE FIRST AMENDMENT, Not Both!

 

To Anne Applebaum, Washington Post,

The attached cartoon satirizes your take on controlling speech.  When journalists become ideologues, they really cease being journalists.  That is likely the prime problem concerning journalism today and is likely rarely if ever discussed at, for example, Columbia School of Journalism.  


Is it not revealing that the Washington Post would never publish the cartoon, let alone the direct rebuttal I wrote, “Censorship OR the First Amendment, NOT Both!”  Likely you didn’t even read it.  Why not?  Well…


Ideology has become far more important for journalists today than vigorous debate.  How can journalists claim to be friends of the people (i.e., not enemies of the people) considering that sad state of journalism?  A great wall now exists between elite journalists like you and plebes like me.  And that wall is getting larger, not smaller…
Au plaisir,



G. Tod Slone, PhD (Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit,

Founding Editor (1998)

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

www.theamericandissident.org

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630




From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 8:24 AM

To: applebaumanne@washpost.com; Fred.Hiatt@washpost.com

Subject: CENSORSHIP or THE FIRST AMENDMENT, Not Both!

 

To Ann Applebaum, Columnist, and Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page Editor, Washington Post:

Would the Post publish the following counter-essay?  Likely--very highly likely--it would not!  Why not?  Well, besides my being an unknown writer (i.e., a plebe), the essay directly challenges the Post's evident pro-censorship stance.  In any case, if you deign to read it, perhaps it might provoke reflection, that is, if you could somehow open your minds to reflection beyond the wall of ideology.  BTW, Elizabeth Lund is featured with others on the front cover of the current issue of The American Dissident (See http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2018/11/tyehimba-jess.html). 

Sincerely,


G. Tod Slone, PhD (Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit,

Founding Editor (1998)

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

www.theamericandissident.org

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.


Barnstable, MA 02630



Censorship OR the First Amendment, NOT Both!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

—Juvenal


Unsurprisingly, Washington Post journalist Anne Applebaum wrote a column calling for increased censorship, though of course not quite putting it that way: “We have learned a lot about online disinformation — and we are doing nothing.”  PC in general is a call for increased censorship.

Proponents of censorship like Applebaum seem always to argue that somehow they’re not proponents of censorship… likely because, in essence, even they somehow, deep down, know that censorship, friend of autocracy, is the enemy of democracy.  Censorship demands higher-than-thou censors like holy inquisitors, imams, or better yet tech CEOs like Zuckerberg and Dorsey.  

Proponents will generally not come right out and argue they favor censorship.  Instead, they will play word games in an effort to avoid the term and appear righteous.  “Control of information,” “calls for regulation,” “algorithms,” “monitor,” and “taken down” are terms used by Applebaum, who argues that “political leaders” (i.e., political prevaricating hacks, left and right-wing) should “take control of the information…” and thus essentially replace the First Amendment, though unsurprisingly she does not mention the First Amendment in her article at all.  Well, she does tack the term “anarchy” on to “information,” in an effort to deflect from the reality of “censorship.”  Control of “information anarchy” is simply another term for censorship of information.  Applebaum thus argues that politicians should determine what is “anarchy” and what is not “anarchy” in an effort to eliminate the “information anarchy that will eventually consume them all.”  That is insane because that “information anarchy” can easily be interpreted as information that will eventually out them all as the lying hacks they tend to be, and that ought to be viewed as a positive, not a negative.  

Censorship inevitably means more power to the censors.  Always there will be flaws in the argumentation of enemies of freedom of speech, those would-be censors and proponents of censorship, who, of course, will somehow argue they’re not in favor of censorship.  Often, it is those with voice who want to make certain those without voice remain without voice.  Applebaum notes, “Facebook and Twitter have both hired people to monitor their sites for ‘hate speech’ — a term with an extremely wide range of definitions — to dubious effect.”  Yet she does not stipulate what that “dubious effect” was or is, nor does she mention who the people hired (e.g., left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center), nor who the people banned and censored (e.g., right-wing Jones, Spencer, and Geller).  By not mentioning the latter, she participates in their burial… and the burial of freedom of speech, a term she also does not mention in her article.  In fact, how can one not mention freedom of speech (i.e., “information anarchy”) in an article pushing for control of speech?  

Applebaum argues, “We know how social media increases polarization, how fact-checking only reaches a narrow audience, how the lack of regulation enables false and opaque political advertisements, how algorithms favor angry and extreme views.”  On the other hand, however, we know how communist/socialist regimes decreased polarization (e.g., Pravda and the gulag archipelago).  We also know how so-called “fact-checking” can become highly partisan and thus highly unreliable.  Why does Applebaum fail to mention these things?  Moreover, she fails to note just how highly subjective terms like “angry,” “extreme views,” and “false and opaque political advertisements” can be.  Must I spell it out, as in extreme for thee, might be normal for me, and vice versa? 

Oddly, Applebaum does not mention Trump in her article, though she does evoke Russia, Russia, Russia, as in “Facebook and Twitter have taken down some Russian-origin accounts.”  But again she fails to mention non-Russian-origin accounts (i.,e., American) that have been censored, uh, “taken down” or how little if any effect at all those accounts had in swaying the Trump/Hillary election.   Why?   Applebaum notes, “After analyzing 2.5 million tweets and 6,986 Facebook pages, the Oxford Internet Institute has just found that the amount of biased, hyperbolic and conspiratorial “junk news” in circulation is actually greater than it was in 2016.”  Again, she fails to grasp the very crux of why freedom of speech needs to be very broad and very inclusive:  the high subjectivity of the terms “biased,” “hyperbolic,” and “conspiratorial junk news”!  Facts and reason can easily be dismissed as biased, hyperbolic and conspiratorial junk news!  Criticism of Islam is a good example of that.  Also, might the Institute be akin to SPLC, which has been proven to be highly biased?  Moreover, “junk news” (i.e., fake news) should be countered by real factual news, not by more biased news and speech regulations (i.e., restrictions).  


Hazy, undefined, secretive algorithms have become the new tools of censors.  But Applebaum doesn’t quite put it that way.  Instead, she evokes Russia, Russia, but not China: “Even after being told many times about the problem, YouTube — which is owned by Google — still allows its algorithms to be manipulated by Russia Today, the Russian state broadcasting company.”  Eliminate the censor’s algorithms and eliminate the algorithm-manipulation problem!  Creating algorithms that bot-eliminate right-wing opinions is certainly not democratic in nature.  It is autocratic.  Applebaum suggests, “YouTube, and others, could change their algorithms so that known sources of disinformation don’t keep floating to the top.”  Well, where has she been with that regard?  They’ve already been doing that.  But who determines what “disinformation” is and what it is not?  Sadly, the faceless bureaucrats or rather corpo-rats at YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter et al make the determinations.  Applebaum argues that “Calls for regulation without censorship have been made by many people and many groups — it’s just that there is simply no political will to make an [sic] real change”?  But “calls for regulation” are calls for restrictions which are calls for censorship.  Only twisted minds can manage to believe that speech regulations (i.e., restrictions) are somehow still free speech…  



Friday, August 21, 2020

Jessica Hill

Protected Species for Some, But Not for Others
Because Some People Are More Equal Than Others

Jessica Hill’s article, “An ongoing battle:  Tribal members still harassed for pursuing aboriginal fishing rights,” fails to pose certain uncomfortable questions.  

The article presents so-called tribal members as victims without spine.  And perhaps indeed that is what they’ve become; that is what they’ve been encouraged to become! 

Tribal member Marcus Hendricks says he has been getting harassed often lately while fishing for herring.  People will yell at him or call the police and say he is trespassing or fishing illegally.  One woman approached him last week without a mask on and began to holler at him to stop fishing, he said. 

Well, perhaps Hendricks should have responded with a “screw you, Karen!”  [Karen is slang for an entitled, obnoxious, middle-aged white woman.]. Did he have a mask on… or do natives not have to wear masks… in the name of Orwellian equal treatment under the law?  Hill mentions that some, perhaps many, people (i.e., non-aboriginals) are unaware “of aboriginal rights to fish and harvest.”  But she fails to wonder how special rights for some people reinforce the constitutional notion of equality, a supposed basic right in America.  Indeed, when will all people finally experience equal rights under the law?  How does giving more rights to aboriginals or any other group serve the important notion of equality under the law?  Clearly, it does not!  

Since January, the Massachusetts Environmental Police have received 12 calls from the public for alleged violations in state herring runs that were ultimately found to be tribal members legally harvesting fish, according to Craig Gilvarg, press secretary for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 

Well, I was unaware that the state had a special police force for the environment.  Will it soon also have a Massachusetts Harassment Police force to respond to people who complain that somebody called them a name?  Are we not heading in that direction, in the direction where freedom of expression becomes a “harassment incident”?  Isn’t the term “harassment” being thrown around like “racism” to the point where it becomes nonsensical?  Hill further reports that “Hendricks said there are no repercussions for people who harass tribal members while fishing.”  But “harassment” has become such a vague term, which is why it has a precise legal definition, though really applied only to situations in work environments.  Does fishing for herring for sustenance legally constitute a workplace environment?  Likely it does not.  But if somehow it does, legally harassment means one person over and over bothering another person to the point where the latter can no longer perform his or her duties, in this case, scooping a net in the water.  

Hill notes, “The harvest of river herring was prohibited by the state Division of Marine Fisheries in 2006, but that does not apply to Native Americans.” She fails to mention why precisely it was prohibited.   One might reasonably assume herring was on its way to become an endangered species.  But if indeed that were the case, how does permitting some Americans to continue killing possibly protect the herring?  Shouldn’t native Americans also be concerned?  Do they really need to kill the dwindling herring to survive?  Would they starve to death if they too were not permitted to kill the herring?  What about federal and state handouts (i.e., grants et al)?  For the lack of transparency with that regard, examine “Newspaper finds access to tribal records irregular, especially if you are a believer in the Indian good/white bad stereotype.  

Hill reports that Hendricks also said, “We get harassed, but no one’s issued a citation, no one’s issued a verbal warning.”  Well, perhaps the reason for that might have been that no law was actually broken.  She then cites another tribal member, Natasha Cash:  “If there was a sign at every single fishing spot (and) herring run of what our rights were nobody would say anything.  Cape Cod is a peaceful, communal place. They’re not trying to cause trouble. They just don’t know.”  So, how about a sign like WARNING:  ONLY ABORIGINALS PERMITTED TO FISH HERE / WHITES NOT PERMITTED!  

Hill notes that “Although some residents may be aware of aboriginal rights, their perceptions of what Native Americans look like may be skewed. Tribal members have been approached and told they ‘don’t look Indian.’”  And so in this age of PC, oddly today we have environmentalist Karens harassing Native Americans.  What’s next?  Burning Karens at the stake?    

Cash said people often scold her and her children about taking herring, saying they are a protected species. Herring are back to their original numbers now, but many tribal members who fish are cautious about the populations, Cash said.  […] We can’t even afford food right now really.  We have to hunt and fish.

So, now we know the herring is indeed a protected species.  If “we” means all of us, then are all the Mashpee aboriginals really so poor that they cannot afford to buy food?  Do they not even qualify for food stamps?  Well, I google that and, according to the USDA, they certainly do qualify, as well as for other financial perks (see https://www.fns.usda.gov/program/assistance-native-americans).  Hill cites several others, including an aboriginal Cape Cod Times freelancer, Rachael Devaney.  

They’re tribal people, and they do have rights that not everybody has.  And people get so upset about it. A lot of people here say, ‘Well, I’m native. I was born here,’ and there’s just a huge distinction. It’s something that’s not talked about enough and it’s why all of this backlash continues to fall on Wampanoag people to prove who they are.

And so I send this to the Cape Cod Times since the subject is “not talked about enough.”  Will it publish it?  From my long experience with the Times, it will likely not! 

To Noose or Not to Noose
In the Haze of Legal Vagueness

“…intimidation” is an ambiguous qualifier for determining which representations of a noose count as free speech and which count as a hate speech/crime. 

—Mike Riggs, “Noose Laws Hang Free Speech,” Reason, 2008


General lack of citizen awareness/knowledge as to what precisely constitutes legal or illegal speech and expression gives those in power positions more power over common citizens.  It is sad that our laws are not clear at all.  Many citizens seem to believe that hate speech is actually illegal in America, whereas it is NOT illegal.  Why isn’t it illegal?  Well, it shouldn’t be illegal for the simple reason that “hate” is a highly subjective designation.  So, if you were to post a BLM sign, and I were to think that to be an example of racist hate speech against white people, it would not be illegal… or might it be illegal (see below)?  Our universities need to include serious freshman orientation courses on the law.  Instead, they seem only willing to include obligatory monkey-see, monkey-do diversity courses.  Again, keeping the populace ignorant serves a purpose:  more power to those in power.  

What precisely is free speech?  Well, I’m not really sure.  Is shouting the word FUCK legal, where I live?  Well, according to Commonwealth vs. Johnson (1994): “Mere use of obscenities in public does not make out crime of disorderly conduct.”  And yet that’s what I did in the Commonwealth and was arrested and incarcerated for a day, as well as “fined” $95 to retrieve my car, which was not at all illegally parked, but had been towed on the order of the arresting cop.  Three months later the judge dismissed the case, even though the prosecutor was clearly against that decision!  What comes into play is de facto versus de jura.   In other words, a cop, despite the legality and, who knows, he or she probably doesn’t even know it’s legal, might still arrest you, cuff you, put you behind bars, and force you to appear in the courthouse, while he or she makes double-time salary sitting in the courthouse audience.  For all details and documents regarding the de facto punishment for my entirely de jura (legal) exercise of free speech, see http://theamericandissident.org/orgs/walden_pond.html.  

Most citizens are likely quite ignorant as to what speech is or is not permitted.   This morning a headline in the Cape Cod Times grabbed my attention and provoked this brief essay:  “Yarmouth police seeks suspects who placed rope noose in tree.”  I read through the short article.  Sadly, the Times did not even mention anything at all regarding the legality or illegality of such an act.  In essence, not only the nation’s universities help maintain ignorance of the law, but the media helps do that too.  Now, those who want hate speech to be illegal can go about it in a roundabout way by arguing the speech to be an act of vandalism or littering, both of which are crimes (see my blog post on the University of Southern Maine:  wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2016/12/glenn-cummings.html).  In essence, place a BLM sign on someone else’s property and you could be arrested for littering and/or trespassing.  

The Times article noted that “Officers met with members of the neighborhood watch program who pointed out the noose hanging from a tree near the neighborhood association pond, the report said.  Members of the association believed the noose to be a racist threat, according to the report.”  I then had to do a little google research on the legality or illegality of “racist threat,” another highly subjective designation.  Apparently, back in 2008 there was again much brouhaha about a noose.  David L. Hudson, Jr., writing for SPLC, noted:


Many noose displays could qualify as true threats under the rationale of the U.S. Supreme Court's cross-burning decision in Virginia v. Black (2003), in which the high court ruled that a state could criminalize cross burning carried out "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons." The justices reasoned that cross burnings intended to intimidate constitute true threats unprotected by the First Amendment.  In other words, prosecutors must prove an intent to intimidate; the First Amendment will not allow intent to be presumed.


Well, Connecticut hate-crime law is a bit clearer:  “Any person who places a noose or a simulation thereof on any public property, or on any private property without the written consent of the owner, and with intent to intimidate or harass any other person on account of religion, national origin, alienage, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, blindness or physical disability, shall be in violation.”  Unfortunately, I could find nothing for Massachusetts.  


Needless to say, it can be quite a dizzying experience attempting to obtain some clarity regarding “intimidation” and the law.  Each state has its own laws.  A few like Michigan actually have “ethnic intimidation” laws.  As far as my state, Massachusetts, is concerned:  “Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 13B makes it a crime to willfully or recklessly engage in certain acts in an attempt to persuade certain persons who are connected to criminal proceedings, including witnesses, jurors, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others.”  But evidently that has nothing to do with the noose as reported in the Times since it had nothing to do with a criminal proceeding.  But “intimidation” can be a form of harassment and the state has all kinds of laws with that regard (see https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-harassment-stalking-or-intentional-infliction-of-emotional).  

Lectric Law Library states, regarding “intimidation”

Means to intentionally say or do something which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities to be fearful of bodily harm. It is not necessary to prove that the victim was actually frightened, and neither is it necessary to prove that the behavior of the person was so violent that it was likely to cause terror, panic or hysteria.

And if you think it can’t get any more dizzying, Legal Information Institute asserts:  

It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.

So, what if I displayed a noose on my own property with the purpose of illustrating the intimidation vagueness problem?  What if a black person called the police or even stole the noose?  Would I/could I actually be arrested, fined, and even jailed?  Can a person be arrested for saying, I don’t like you because you are white?  Would/could such a statement be considered “ethnic intimidation”?  It is no wonder that the law has become a multi-billion dollar industry in America.  Do some lawyers actually specialize in “ethnic intimidation” law?  In any case, I am still left wondering whether or not it is a crime to hang a noose.  Unfortunately, I am still left in a vague cloud as to how precisely “intimidate” is legally defined.  After all, the term is highly subjective.  The lack of clarity of our laws serves not only the legal industry but also to keep the citizenry self-censoring and muzzled.

Jessica Hill, Cape Cod Times

The Whitewashing, uh, Blackwashing of BLM
Questioning and Challenging the Parrots

This counter-essay was sent to Jessica Hill, News Reporter for the Cape Cod Times.  I do not expect her to respond [and indeed she did NOT respond!] because debate and dialogue are NOT embraced by many, if not most, journalists today.  The free press is NOT free.  It is corporate owned; it is ideologically bound; it tends to despise free debate and free expression.  Such dialogue is certainly not embraced by the editors, past and present, of the Cape Cod Times, who reject any criticism with their regard.  That has certainly been my experience over the past decade.  In essence, a reporter’s job depends on his or her echoing/supporting the editor’s and publisher’s narrative.   How can that be considered freedom of the press?  

Hill’s headline story, Falmouth residents concerned by flyers, theft of Black Lives Matter signs, essentially promotes, rather than challenges, an ideology.  It grabbed my attention because it serves as an egregious example of journalist dereliction of duty, quite common nowadays.  Few questions, if any at all, were raised in the article.  The alleged victim, Adam Subhas, in the story got to tell his story and broadcast his opinions.  That was it.  The incident, however, was alleged—not necessarily based on facts and reality.  Given the number of hate-crime Bubba Wallace-noose and Jussie Smollett-like hoaxes, pushed in an effort to inflate, if not encourage, black victimhood and thus BLM, the reporter ought to have raised that as a possibility.  She did not.

Hill began her reportage with the following statement:  “After a West Falmouth resident’s Black Lives Matter signs were stolen, he says he found flyers in his mailbox promoting white supremacist and racist views.”  Unfortunately, Hill did not bother to examine and discuss what BLM is.  Might it actually be an anti-white racist and black supremacist movement?   Hill does not mention that Subhas is a well-to-do, if not wealthy, scientist employed at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.  Might he also be a Pakistani or Indian immigrant?  If so, why immigrate to such a racist country like the USA?  Why work in such a racist area like Cape Cod?  Money?  Is money more important for Subhas?  Well, maybe he’s not an immigrant.  In any case, Hill omits the information.  BLM is, by the way, a Marxist/communist organization that clearly does NOT advocate for freedom of expression.  It has also apparently broken the law by advocating openly for the removal of President Trump.   Apparently, money donated to BLM has ended up in the coffers of the Democrat Party.  According to Nonprofit Expert:  “For an organization to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) it cannot ‘participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.’”  Will BLM be held accountable in this Age of Unaccountability and have its 501c3 status removed?   

Interestingly, Hill states regarding the alleged three flyers that Subhas allegedly found in his mailbox: “One flyer compared the Black Lives Matter movement to the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism. Another described George Floyd as an armed criminal, and another explained that the word racism was created as a ‘method of control’ by Leon Trotsky.”  Hill does not discuss whether each of those thoughts are factually false.  In fact, they might actually be factually true.  Floyd did steal the cop’s taser and aimed it at the cop.  He was also a criminal with a fairly long record.  Communism and Nazism are closely related.  Both reject freedom of the press and freedom of speech.  

Subhas stated, according to Hill, that “I feel like I was targeted, not because of who I am but because I put signs up, not necessarily anything about my identity.  If I’m being targeted indiscriminately, you can just imagine the myriad ways in which people of color and Black people and minorities are targeted because of their color or identity.”  BLM promotes and encourages black victimhood.  That is obvious.  It is an odd situation because I, as a white man, would be more afraid to post a White Lives Matter or All Lives Matter sign in front of my house, than a BLM sign.  I’d also be more afraid to post a sign like Islam Hates Free Speech.  Why?  Well, that would be an interesting point of discussion.  

It seems BLM protest/rioters can be quite violent.  Also, on Cape Cod the white nationalist nazi-hype seems entirely unfounded in reality and seems to be very rare, if at all existent.  But BLM needs it to exist so that it can promote its principle stereotype:  black victim/white victimizer (i.e., black good/white bad).  Now, it has become evident, thanks in part to BLM hype, that whites are being targeted because of their skin color.  Ain’t no way I’d walk in a black neighborhood at night!  Paranoia or reality?  Well, if you’re white and believe the former, then why not prove it by taking that walk?  And sometimes, it doesn’t even have to be night.  Hell, I was beaten and robbed in Baton Rouge by three blacks in the daytime, and the local newspaper, The Advocate, refused to cover the story.  What then is that newspaper advocating?  The narrative!  

The Cape Cod Times has yet to cover my story of being permanently banned w/o warning or due process from my neighborhood library in Barnstable.  Well, I digress… or sort of.  But are those occurrences “deep and systemic” to use Subhas’ words, as in “I think we just need to recognize that, because there’s no way we’re going to get over it unless we recognize how deep and systemic some of this stuff goes.”  Is there deep and systemic racism against whites by blacks?  Why is that question never posed by journalist reporters?  Bias!  Egregious bias!  Why are the latter so afraid to be individuals with backbone?  Why have so many of them become mere pc-parrots?  Parrots for BLM!  The American press has become rotten to the core like Pravda, the state and ideologically-controlled press of the former Soviet Union.  Our democracy cannot continue with a press like that, with a press like the Cape Cod Times!  

Hill notes that “Gwyneth Packard, who is on the leadership team of Engage Falmouth, said a previous member of the organization found similar flyers two years ago when her signs were stolen. She did not feel comfortable going to the police, Packard said.”  Well, does she think I, as a white man, felt comfortable when three cops suddenly entered the room where I was working alone in Sturgis Library, frisked me, and told me to leave or I’d be arrested?  Oh yeah, I must have done something wrong like write an open letter critical of the intrinsic hypocrisy of the library collection development statement, “libraries should provide materials and information that present all points of view.”  Well, my point of view and that of others I publish have been permanently banned!  

Hill notes that “In February, a visiting scientist in Woods Hole found flyers espousing white supremacist ideology attached to a telephone pole. That incident was reported to Falmouth police and the Anti-Defamation League’s New England office, Packard said.”  And so, what happened?  Is it a crime to attach a piece of paper on a telephone pole?  Why doesn’t Hill inform her readers with that regard?  In essence, it might be considered a crime of littering.  How many cops were deployed to investigate it?  Why doesn’t Hill point out that BLM might in fact be a black supremacist ideology like Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam?  Why are so many citizens so willfully ignorant?  How can a democracy, as opposed to communism, possibly survive when the people do not educate themselves?  

According to Packard, as reported by Hill, “The Black Lives Matter sign is about countering acts of violence and about promoting justice.  That’s what the signs symbolize. It’s a collective effort to address longstanding anti-Black racism in our society and asking for an end to the violent death of unarmed black people.”  And yet BLM protesters have been quite violent!  And didn’t one of its prime leaders, Hawk Newsome, state, “if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?  And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation. […] I don't condone nor do I condemn rioting.”?  And what about the five cops murdered in 2016 by black BLM advocate, Micah Xavier Johnson?  Why is none of this information included in Hill’s reportage?  

Finally, what is legal and what is not legal?  Our laws are extremely vague, which benefits of course the great multi-billion dollar lawyer industry.  Sadly, the press does not help educate the populace regarding that very question.  The hate crime, if it actually occurred, was theft of several pieces of cardboard.  Is it illegal to put a piece of paper into someone else’s mailbox?  I do not know the answer to that.  It is however illegal to intimidate, but intimidating is a vague concept.  And what about all the intimidating and crimes committed by BLM rioting looters, uh, peaceful protesters according to the MSM?  Aren’t some of them also hate crimes?  Why doesn’t the free press report on those crimes too?  

Alternate opinions to those promoted by the press ought to have been included in the report.  

Hill could have encouraged readers to submit such opinions, but she did not.  Perhaps she could have educated readers with facts and statistics that do or do not support the victim’s opinion of ubiquitous anti-black racism on Cape Cod, which is nothing more than an echo of BLM ideology.  The enemies of ideology, of course, are REASON, LOGIC, and FACTS.    Ideology is killing the free press from within.  Hill obviously supports Freedom of the Press, since the only photo of her available on Google depicts her wearing a teeshirt with those very words on it.  But there can really be no such thing if Hill and the press in general continue to mimic Pravda.   So, what might happen if I placed a sign, ALL LIVES MATTER, or worse yet, WHITE LIVES MATTER, on my front lawn?  Would my house be burned down?  Or would Princeton part-time teacher BLM advocate Claira Janover hunt me down and stab me?  “The next person who has the caucasity [sic] to say all lives matter, I’m gonna stab you!  I’m gonna stab you!” she declared on social media.  If anything, Janover serves as an egregious example of the utter failure of the very idea of multiculturalism.  Nonviolent?  Hmm.  Am I even permitted in this Age of Linguistic Multiculti Control to write such a hypothetical deed?  Or might that too be considered a hate crime?

NB:  I cc’d the essay to Northeastern University journalism professor Dan Kennedy.  His response was the following.

From: Dan Kennedy <dan.kennedy@northeastern.edu>

Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:40 AM

To: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Cc: jhill@capecodonline.com <jhill@capecodonline.com>; Hilljhill@capecodonline.com <Hilljhill@capecodonline.com>; asubhas@whoi.edu <asubhas@whoi.edu>; jlipkin@capecodonline.com <jlipkin@capecodonline.com>; abrennan@capecodonline.com <abrennan@capecodonline.com>

Subject: Re: Jessica Hill and Adam Subhas satirized in a new P. Maudit cartoon, etc.

 

My response:


Zzzzzzz.


DK