Posted on 06/25/2002 3:42:21 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
The following email is being circulated to our members by various disgruntled former FReepers:
Subject: The Future of Our Free RepublicDear Fellow Free Republic Member,
Many of us at Free Republic are distressed by the extraordinary level of censorship that has been so obviously going on. It is very obvious that individual posts, entire threads, and the entire work of members who have been highly regarded are disappearing into a Memory Hole.
Scores of us have organized an e-mail network that is independent of the communication controls presently, and sadly, being used at our Free Republic. We have carefully documented the unmistakeable evidence that most of the posts, threads, and posters that are vaporized completely are overwhelmingly targeted for their political stance on the Right. These are not Leftwingers. These are not even Middle-of-the-Roaders. These are not disruptors. These are not foul-mouthed delinquents. These are fellow patriots on the Right who disagree with the controllers of FR on specific issues that are now hotly debated by the Right. We have documented that FR will parade before you, as if to hide all of the great posters whose work has been destroyed, a straw-man delinquent that has been banned. This is deceptive.
Treating these fellow patriots on the Right so shabbily is not right. As shabbily as those banned into the Memory Hole are being treated, the most shabbily treated of all are all of the good folks on Free Republic themselves. We came here for honest debate. Free Republic advertised itself as a Forum for honest debate. Without that honest debate...everything at Free Republic becomes shabby.
We can do much better. As a measure of how intense the simmering feelings have gotten among members on this unjustifiable use of deleting, censoring, and banning please link to the following thread. You will notice that one simple and sincere plea from one of our finest members has spontaneously touched off a prairie fire of approximately 500 posts in a mere 18 hours. If it isn't Memory Holed this thread may shoot into the thousands.
If you would like to receive anonymous updates of information concerning the hundreds of Freepers who have networked via e-mail to restore the wonderful honest debate to Free Republic, just drop an e-mail of just one or two words if you like for extreme brevity to:
StopCensoringUs@hotmail.com
And, here's that link back to the snowballing thread at FR:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704701/posts
Thank you so much for giving your thought to this vital matter for our Internet home.
Sincerely, StopCensoringUs@hotmail.com
Ya know, Vinny, if you're so unhappy at Freerepublic, why are you still here?
And yup, us Jews really stick together, don't we, Vinny?
But it's a giant Jewish conspiracy, isn't it, Vinny? Isn't it always?
As the ultra-secret combat arm of the Israeli Amen Corner (patent pending), you never know when a Møøse might need to be spåånked and you have to be REAL subtle to sneak up on one of those big mothers to inflict the requiring Møøsenspåånken.
You did threaten to have my brother banned from this forum for defending Bill Graham against the slanderous charges organized by Jews that he's an anti-semite.
So you have to know what he said to get himself banned in order to defend him. So what'd he say? You can summarize, of course, but I'd rather have his exact comments. Of course, if you have no idea of what your brother said, what are you defending him against exactly? Organized Jews?
Here's the artilce that upset you so much and threaten to have my brother removed from this forum. Easy to find on the internet.
Was Billy Graham right?
by Sam Francis
If anybody had a bad weekend last week, it was probably the Rev. Billy Graham, who at the ripe age of 83 finds himself slapped in the face by various private remarks he uttered 30 years ago. The comments were made to President Richard Nixon in what a more naive world once really considered "privacy." Little did the clergyman imagine he was being recorded.
Whatever Mr. Graham had to tell Nixon about God was quickly forgotten; what made the headlines last week and led him to issue an immediate -- and cringing -- apology was what he had to say about Jews. "Although I have no memory of the occasion," he sniveled, "I deeply regret comments I apparently made in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon." The comments "do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused" by them. But why does Mr. Graham feel the need, obviously overpowering because issued so quickly, to apologize? The factual core of what he said 30 years ago was essentially true -- and worth thinking about.
Aside from various offensive wisecracks about Jews from Nixon, chief of staff Bob Haldeman and Mr. Graham, coupled with asseverations that all three really liked Jews and had Jewish friends, the main brunt of the conversation was that "Jews dominate the media." As a matter of fact, that's more or less true -- and significant.
As Jewish historian Benjamin Ginsberg notes in his The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), "The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and most influential single newspaper, the New York Times." He later notes the "elite newspapers -- in which, as it happened, Jews also had significant influence, most significantly the New York Times and the Washington Post."
Professor Ginsberg isn't the only one to say what the most powerful man in the world in his conversation with Mr. Graham said, "I can't ever say." In 1996, Michael Medved, an Orthodox Jewish film critic, wrote in the Jewish magazine Moment, "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." Hollywood isn't the same as the news media, of course, but it's probably far more influential.
Well, what difference does it make that Jews "control the media" -- or, more accurately, have disproportionate influence in it? Nixon's and Haldeman's complaints in 1972 were that Jews are liberals or leftists and were trying to wreck the administration. They cited by name the White House correspondents employed by the major papers and NBC News, all of whom were Jewish. This brings us back to Professor Ginsberg.
"With their special stake in domestic programs and spending," he writes, "a number of Jews played important roles in mobilizing opposition against the Nixon administration.... In their battles with the Nixon administration, forces defending the domestic state were able to rely upon the support of another major institution in which Jews played key roles -- the mass media." You can approve of this little factoid, or you can rant and whine about it like Nixon and his pals, but facts remain facts.
The larger truth to which such facts point is that a great deal of the dominance of liberalism in the news and entertainment media -- not to mention culture and politics generally -- is, quite simply, due to Jewish influence. It's well known that American Jews vote Democratic (70 percent or more every four years) and have been prominent in liberal or left-wing causes (e.g., the ACLU, the NAACP, not to mention the New Left and the Communist Party -- check out Professor Ginsberg on that too). Neo-conservative Irving Kristol once cracked that Jews are the only ethnic group with the income of Episcopalians and the voting behavior of Puerto Ricans. The blunt truth is that American liberalism, in the days of Nixon as today, is powerful in large part because Jews are powerful.
There are strong historical reasons for that, of course, and there are many exceptions (not all Jews are on the left; most on the left are not Jews), but the fact remains that liberalism would be nowhere near as powerful and as well-entrenched in the United States today if it were not for the Jewish power that entrenches it. Mr. Graham called it a "stranglehold," and neither he nor the president of the United States was willing or able to say it out loud. Now that it has been said, we need to know they were right -- and to think, rather than rant and whine, about what it means.
And you're calling ME stupid?
That's a real shame although a bigger shame is that you don't even know what "censor" means.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You aren't even close to being right.
I am not saying he deserved it or didn't deserve another ban for that, I am not going to double guess the moderators who have a difficult job that by default buts a bull'seye on their rumps, but after watching this site a while, you indeed can anticipate where the next lightning bolt will strike next.
That sort of thing makes me wonder if there could not be a lesser ban for well meaning folks who step on it. Why not ban people who need socialization into the board community at FR everywhere except for mail and the social forum?
Just a thought. Seems to me that now we have multiple forums, that in and of itself could open options that would cure some of the heat this thread has spotlighted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.