http://216.46.238.34/articles/?a=1999/11/15/191859

Link

Y2K and Hate Speech

Mike Adams November 16, 1999

(Part Two of a Five-Part Series)

Aha!

I admit this realization should have come to me sooner, but nonetheless, I have recently been struck by something that reveals the inner non-logic driving Y2K Deniers. It hit me when I was reading various e-mail complaints from some of the less-patriotic Y2K Newswire readers.

Earlier last week, you see, I had posted a news flash about how a 16-year-old student was arrested for writing an assigned essay that mentioned various acts of violence (such as blowing up his school). Now, as any person with any common sense whatsoever already knows, writing an essay about anything  no matter how threatening  is not a crime. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, and putting words on paper is nowhere equivalent to delivering a specific threat to a specific person.

But, boy, was I wrong. Thanks in part to the network news feeding frenzy over recent school shootings, it turns out that writing such an essay IS illegal! The child was arrested, jailed and charged with a felony.

This wasn't the end of my amazement, however. It turns out that more than a few Americans blindly support this action. According to these people, anybody who writes threatening words  whether in an essay, a TV script, a diary, or in a work of fiction  is now considered a felon (especially if the described acts of violence include "schools" and "bombs").

THOUGHT CRIMES

The criminalization of essay writing can only be called "thought crimes." This is a terrifying extension of the recent criminalization of certain kinds of speech  now dubbed "hate speech." According to this philosophy, sticks and stones can break my bones, and words and thoughts can harm me, too. Therefore, "inappropriate" words and thoughts must be made illegal.

It appears that George Orwell's book 1984 was titled sixteen years off the mark. If you've been wondering when Orwell's Thought Police predictions would actually come true, stop holding your breath. It's here right now. We now live in a world where thinking certain thoughts, writing certain things down, or saying certain things in public is a federal crime.

Y2K

This all ties in with Y2K in a subtle, but powerful, way. The reason people are supporting the criminalization of words and thoughts is a simple one: they are unable to distinguish between statements and reality. In other words, when a schoolchild writes, in a fictional essay, "I'm going to blow up the school," these people cannot discriminate between the writing of words and the actions those words describe. In the minds of these people, the words are the actions, and therefore, they should be punished as such.

This is exactly the reason why people believe Y2K spin. They are confusing the statements with reality. For example, when people hear the FAA say it is 100% Y2K-compliant, they confuse the words with a statement of reality. This is exactly the same slip-of-the-mind mistake made by people who criminalize the essay-writing schoolchildren who use words to describe violent acts.

The press makes this mistake, too. When a reporter calls the head of a government department to ask about that department's Y2K compliance, and that person tells them the department is 100% Y2K-compliant, the reporter usually assigns statement of reality status to the quote. He subconsciously believes the statement is representative of reality, not that the statement is a warping of reality. In this way, he confuses spin with fact  and he lets the spin-mongers get away with yet another blatant lie.

This is exactly why newspapers run headlines like, "Banks are 99% Y2K compliant" rather than, "Banks say they are 99% Y2K compliant." The latter headline is news. The former headline is just rumor-mongering. Both headlines, by the way, reveal the inner logic of the reporter writing them.

In the first headline, the reporter internally believes banks are 99% Y2K-compliant. But how did she arrive at that figure? She didn't: she was told by somebody  probably the ABA or the FDIC. But in the second headline, the reporter is doing her job by reporting that banks claim to be 99% Y2K-compliant. This is the correct headline by any responsible journalist. The first headline does not qualify as journalism, of course, and any publication printing such a headline should be shunned by intelligent readers.

THIS IS FREEDOM-CRITICAL STUFF

I have seen essays preaching Y2K end-of-the-world scenarios. I have seen predictions of polar shifts, Nostradamus comets, alien attacks, solar flares and Biblical Armageddon. I have heard testimony from oil experts who swear we'll be lucky to have half our oil supply after January 1. But nothing scares me more than this recent criminalization of words and thoughts.

With the passage of "hate crime" bills, "hate speech" laws, and now, "hate essay" criminalization, we have entered a danger zone so treacherous that it threatens the very foundation of freedom in the United States of America. This government-led effort to enrage the public on various topics (like racism)  then to use that hate to justify the passage of thought-control laws  is marching American citizens down the dark path of mental slavery.

Today, right now, it is apparently illegal to write down the words, "I will blow up the school." Naturally, it has always been illegal to write those words and deliver them to the school principal. That is a specific, targeted threat, and it should be illegal. But today, it is now apparently illegal just to write them down.

Do you comprehend the magnitude of this subtle shift? It is now a criminal act to write "I will blow up the school" in your own diary. And if the federal government could read your thoughts, they would certainly make it illegal to think the words, too.

This is not an anti-crime movement, it is an anti-freedom movement. "Hate speech" legislation destroys the First Amendment of the Constitution. And with that out of the way, the rest of our sacred, God-given rights quickly erode.

NO FREEDOM THOUGHTS ALLOWED IN CHINA

Thought crimes are now being aggressively enforced in Communist China. The Falun Gong religious group, which is primarily composed of elderly people who engage in silent meditation, has been under severe attack by the Mainland Chinese authorities. Chinese government authorities have tortured, beaten and imprisoned thousands of Falun Gong members to date, and the persecution continues.

Their crime? Thought crimes. They have been MEDITATING. They have been exploring their inner truths, their self-awareness, their God-given talents to find creative, peaceful "places" in their own mind. This is the same meditation practiced by masters of the martial arts, by Buddhist monks, by the Dalai Lama, and by religious leaders worldwide.

So why is China arresting Falun Gong members? Read this carefully: because self-awareness is incompatible with government control. The more people practice meditation and self-awareness, they harder they are to control. Thus, the Communist China government correctly perceives meditation as a threat to their power base, and they will stop at nothing  including murder  to destroy those who search for truth.

America may be next. Already, "thoughts" are being made illegal through the dangerous proliferation of hate crimes. These imaginary "crimes" are the precursor to bona-fide Thought Crimes.

NO SUCH THING AS A HATE CRIME

What is a "hate crime"? If you murder someone while thinking racist thoughts, is it any worse than murdering someone while you're thinking non-racist thoughts? Of course not: both are murder. Both should be punished as murder. The contents of the perpetrator's thoughts are of no consequence. What matters are his actions and the consequences thereof.

Not surprisingly, we are now witnessing a global surge in thought crime legislation. Call it whatever you like  a conspiracy, a Big Brother action, a New World Order effort, or just over-zealous law enforcement. But the bottom line is that all over the globe, new efforts are being aggressively pursued to control and direct the very thoughts of Earth's citizens. In China, this government-led effort is as obvious as daylight. In the United States, it is not immediately obvious, but upon close inspection, the truth is undeniable: thoughts are being increasingly legislated against.

Gutenberg, considered by many to be the most important man of the millennium, would be appalled. The invention of the printing press served to set mankind free. The invention of the Internet further multiplied the freedom effect, and that is perhaps why the control-mongers of the world (Big Government in particular) are taking new action to limit freedom of speech and freedom of thought over the Internet.

The Internet allows thinking people to reach other thinking people for fractions of a penny per page. It allows truth to spread at the speed of light. This attribute, by itself, has scared the socks off drug companies like Monsanto, which recently said the Internet was a "big problem" because it allowed people to distribute information questioning the safety of Nutrasweet. It has also scared Washington.

While Al Gore once heralded the construction of the Internet (and even took credit for inventing it), the White House recently started blocking all e-mail from Vote.com  a site that solicits public opinion on certain matters and forwards those opinion polling results to the appropriate House members.

Big Government now finds itself in a tight spot: it loves the economy-enhancing aspects of the Internet, but not the unleashing of free speech and free thought. To counter this, they will have to enact new legislation to outlaw certain types of speech on the Internet.

This effort has already begun. Senators Feinstein, Hatch, Biden, Helms and others recently backed a bill that seeks to criminalize the "discussion of non-approved drugs" on the Internet. Click here to read our August report on this issue. Their justification? "Fighting crime." But, in fact, they would be criminalizing the Internet publication of information about herbs, for example. Highly profitable drug manufacturers will likely be showing strong support for this bill because it would outlaw the health-enhancing distribution of information about alternative medicine while protecting drug-producer profits.

We may yet see further attacks on Y2K-related speech, too. It's not difficult to imagine federal officials arresting the more alarmist Y2K commentators and charging them with "inciting to riot." Furthermore, officials might suggest that anybody warning their neighbors about Y2K is "contributing to public unrest" and should be arrested.

What's frightening here is the fact that these scenarios are not a stretch. They are entirely possible. In fact, they're already being set into motion! In one mainstream news article after another, we can see the government pre-blaming the public for Y2K failures when they say, "Any problems that occur will be due to the public overreaction...." Clearly, this is the groundwork necessary for framing the public for anything that goes wrong.

Using this strategy  coupled with Thought Crimes legislation  our government can use fear of persecution to prevent private citizens for preparing for Y2K. Thinking that Y2K is a big problem will be legislated against, while thinking that Y2K is no big deal will be perfectly legal.

Truth itself will have, indeed, become illegal to pursue or share. Only economic and logical fallacies will be allowed to enter the mindspace of America. Welcome to 1984.

Mike Adams is the editor of Y2K Newswire

Part One of Series: The IRS and Y2K

For the Latest News on Y2K, Links and Commentary Visit the "Y2K Daily."

-- Homer Beanfang (Bats@inbellfry.com), November 16, 1999

Answers

Makes you wonder what's in cpr's files and what he's going to do with them. Might also explain those strange questions on the forum lately.

Thanks for the head's up, Homer.

-- Careful (what@I.say), November 16, 1999.

in the Late Summer/early fall of 98 my parents went out of their way to warn some people we knew. I knoew them, and I knew that one was a known thief, alcoholic, and liar, and the other was an adultress, thief and liar. (The former was a childhood friend and the latter his wife, he came back into ,my life in 98 after being absent for 6 years, he left it again shortly thereafter) After this incident I took my father aside and said "dad, don't say anything about y2k to those morons ever again! I wouldn't be surprised if in a year there was a reward for people like us!" sad, but it seems i may have been closer to the truth than I really want to be. I seem to remember talkin' bad 'bout der fuhrer was a no-no as well. we're in deep Sh*t.

-- jeremiah (braponspdetroit@hotmail.com), November 16, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I was moved to write to my senator, one of the sponsors of the bill referenced in the "original question." Here's what I sent:

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I was amazed to find your name on a list of those sponsoring a bill to make it illegal to comment on the internet about so-called "unapproved" drugs. Speaking as someone who suffers from an auto-immune disorder for which there is no known cure, and for which alopathic pain relief is hit-or-miss, I very much resent the idea that anyone should dictate for me what drugs are "approved," let alone which ones I may even discuss. Would marijuana be on the approved list? I'm guessing that it would not be.

What's not forbidden is required. Reportedly, this bill would also make it illegal to speak disparagingly about so-called "safe" drugs, such as aspertame. Would we be allowed to complain about caffeine and nicotine? What about vaccinations?

Please, visit my health page for links to more information. ( http://www.lacarte.org/health )

Sincerely,

Tracie (a California voter)

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 16, 1999.

Just say NO to idiot legislators!

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 16, 1999.