Similar to the ideas behind “hate crimes” sentencing enhancements, but look where ignoring that slow march towards tyranny has gotten us.

Also somewhat similar to how Alex Jones was prosecuted - his guilt was predetermined by the “actions of those he inspired”, and a default judgement against him was rendered before he could even defend his statements. The purpose of the whole charade was to, much like the notions of “hate crimes” or “stochastic terrorism”, cut the knees off freedom of speech and just determine how hard they want to twist the knife in each specific case. Same thing with making Assange finally accept a guilty plea. The first step to the new world order is overturning the precedent of the old

Edit - one further note I thought about the other day and think is relavent here:

This is also probably why the selective publishing of “manifestos” always tends to reek something fierce - the entire point is to build the idea in our minds that a chain of guilt can be established between speakers (like AJ) and unrelated others, for the actions of others (like whatever nutjob or patsy can be rounded up to commit the heinous act) through attribution of “cause” in the manifesto (“I’m doing this because Alex Jones / Trump / etc made me think it was a good idea!”)

Similar to the ideas behind “hate crimes” sentencing enhancements, but look where ignoring that slow march towards tyranny has gotten us.

Also somewhat similar to how Alex Jones was prosecuted - his guilt was predetermined by the “actions of those he inspired”, and a default judgement against him was rendered before he could even defend his statements. The purpose of the whole charade was to, much like the notions of “hate crimes” or “stochastic terrorism”, cut the knees off freedom of speech and just determine how hard they want to twist the knife in each specific case. Same thing with making Assange finally accept a guilty plea. The first step to the new world order is overturning the precedent of the old