The Trial of John Doe Vs. Censored
By Jon Rappoport
October 30, 2019
The trial took place in a quiet empty room, in an underground bunker, at an undisclosed location in [Censored].
The Judge sat behind a high table. John Doe stood below him.
Judge: You are John Doe? You have a website called Doe Doe?
Doe: Yes, Your Honor. May I know your name?
Judge: Of course. It’s Judge.
Doe: That’s your title.
Judge: It’s also my name.
Doe: You’re Judge Judge?
Judge: Correct. Now, let’s get down to business. You’re the author of an article you posted on your site. The title of the article was, “A Catalog of Sexual Assaults and Other Crimes Committed by Migrants in [Censored], 2015-2017.” The subtitle was, “Soaring Migrant Crime Rate Is a National Disaster—[Censored] Women Fear for Their Safety.”
Judge: How did you assemble this “catalog?”
Doe: I cited articles in the [Censored] press. I obtained access to police reports in [Censored]. I interviewed over two hundred citizens and their families. I interviewed law-enforcement officials.
Judge: You traveled to [Censored].
Judge: And as you were exiting the country, you were detained by [Censored] Customs and Immigration and told your visa was canceled and you were banned from returning to the country.
Doe: That’s true.
Judge: That’s certainly a black mark against you.
Doe: I don’t see it that way. The government didn’t want me to accumulate all that information and spread it.
Judge: You’re aware of a foundation called “Anti-Hate-Crime Speech?”
Doe: I am.
Judge: The foundation was formed by GoogleFacebookTwitterYouTubeFooFooShooShooAmazonStarbucksMerckTheCIA
FoundationForBetterLiving and 167 other groups.
Doe: So I understand.
Judge: And several of those groups canceled your donation account, de-monetized your videos, deleted your site from six search engines, and convinced a local delivery service to stop bringing pizza to your house.
Judge: You’re accused of hate speech against immigrants.
Doe: I published facts. I wasn’t speaking against anyone off the cuff.
Judge: But that’s how it was interpreted. Your article was incendiary, because it inspired a negative view of immigration.
Doe: Inspired? I wrote facts. How others took those facts was their business.
Judge: It’s a question of the greater good. Exposing a few cases of wrongdoing versus alarming and biasing a whole population.
Doe: There is another element. Suppressing important information. Keeping people from seeing what’s happening to their communities and their nation.
Judge: Hate speech cannot be tolerated.
Doe: Who says it’s hate speech?
Judge: A non-profit in Alabama. Two media outlets. They’ve been hired by the Anti-Hate-Crime Speech Foundation to scour articles and identify hate.
Doe: Well, they’re wrong.
Judge: They can’t be wrong.
Doe: Why not?
Judge: Because they’re authorities.
Doe: According to whom?
Judge: These groups are setting a standard. Someone has to.
Doe: How about someone else setting a standard?
Judge: Who would that be?
Doe: The point is, I was exercising my 1st Amendment rights.
Judge: Your what?
Doe: I have a right to speak and write.
Judge: Not if it upsets the good order of the community and causes suffering on the part of people associated with those you accuse of committing serious crimes.
Doe: I disagree. And why shouldn’t I disturb “the good order” if the order is ill-advised and based on the fear of speaking out?
Judge: Let me explain something, Mr. Doe. You have created a generality of hatred.
Doe: A what?
Judge: By publishing your article, you created a generality of negative reaction against a whole group.
Doe: I reported facts, not generalities.
Judge: What you reported can’t be divorced from the effect it had on other people.
Doe: Of course it can. My work didn’t have an automatic effect on other people. They inferred whatever they inferred from my article.
Judge: The overriding principle is: everything is connected to everything.
Doe: You lost me there, sir.
Judge: Everyone in this world is connected and interdependent. Therefore, whatever you do spreads like ink on a blotter.
Doe: How can that be? I gathered specific facts. Those facts don’t apply to all people.
Judge: That’s the old view of things. Now we know that all of us are together as One. A charge against a few is a charge against many.
Doe: That’s illogical. It’s also dangerous. If what you’re saying were true, no one could speak out…
Judge: But you see, there is an important exception to the general rule. I have a list of groups. Certain groups are protected against accusation or slander. Other groups may be accused. In fact, they must be accused.
Doe: Where did you get the list?
Judge: From our leaders.
Doe: Our who?
Judge: Leaders. The people who have knowledge of these matters. The people who understand history. The people who are—
Doe: I see. I exposed certain members of a group that can’t be accused.
Doe: This is over-complicated. I come back to the principle of free speech.
Judge: There is no such principle. At one time, there may have been, but not anymore.
Doe: You’re losing me again, sir.
Judge: It’s quite simple, really.
At this point, six men in black masks holding rifles and burning torches entered the room. One of the men said, “This proceeding is over. We are [Censored]. We have taken the sacred oath of [Censored]. We are cells of the body of the Soros.
Judge: Welcome. Was your oath the [Censored]?
Masked Man: Yes.
Judge: I, too, have taken the oath of the [Censored]. We are One. What message do you bring?
Masked Man: Our leader instructs us to tell you that the defendant, John Doe, is to be sentenced to six days without food or water in the burning desert of [Censored], after which he will be transported to a re-education camp in [Censored], where he will undergo a one-year period of [Censored]. This is the Word.
Judge: I see. Very well. My sentence is thusly made.
Doe: You take orders from these men, Your Honor?
Judge: These men and I are not separate. We are One.
Doe: How did that happen?
Judge: Once upon a time, we were losers. Now we are winners. We overthrew the old order and instituted a new one.
Doe: That must have taken a great deal of planning.
Judge: Decades. More.
Doe: Why haven’t I heard about it?
Judge: Because you are one of those people who would have tried to expose our agenda. Suffice it to say, we worked in secret. We introduced chaos. As just one strategy of many, and I only mention it because it’s one of my favorites, we introduced, into the culture, a long series of absurd rulings and situations that defy logic and rationality. Such rulings paralyze the mind. The mind retreats. It becomes passive. Quiescent. A grandmother grows vegetables on her lawn. She is hauled into court and prosecuted for defacing the appearance of the neighborhood. A child brings a pastry to school and bites it into the shape of what might look like a gun. The child is suspended. Colleges offer rooms with dolls and hot chocolate to students who are triggered by a pronoun. A college student council decides that all white people are demons and must be excluded from decision-making roles. A four-year-old child is encouraged to talk with his parents about the child’s “choice” to change his gender. A manual used by elementary school teachers suggests discussions on all possible forms of sexual intercourse, even sex with animals. Parents are told their vaccinated children are protected from disease, but must not play with unvaccinated children, because then they could get sick, even though they are protected. A state which is in debt to the tune of half a trillion dollars proposes accepting immigrants without limit and giving them many government services without charge. Any politician who speaks with a Russian faces a potential charge of trading with the enemy. Do I need to go on? Over time, one fantastic and absurd thing after another is piled up upon the consciousness of the public, until the insanity reaches to the sky. What is the effect of all that? The befuddled public surrenders and becomes passive. And then we come in behind that and impose our agenda.
Masked Man: Enough. We will remove the defendant now and take him to [Censored].
Judge: Of course.
Doe: So I’m not really guilty.
Judge: You are what we say you are. That overrides all questions of guilt or innocence. There is no more guilt or innocence. There are only rulings. For centuries, guilt and innocence have been twisted by men in power to suit their own ends. We have stopped that. We have stopped the corruption. Now we make decisions based on the greater good. We are the pure ones. We have no agenda except service to the people.
Doe: You’re destroyers.
Judge: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
Doe: You’re going to lose.
Judge: Why is that, Mr. Doe?
Doe: You’ll go too far. You have no idea what people will do when you put them against the wall. That passivity you spoke of is going to evaporate.
Judge: We will see. We will see.
Doe: Are you even human?
Judge: Of course I am. Do you think I’m AI android number 3012-6-B, third generation, extruded at Factory [Censored], produced by [Censored] in accordance with regulations under the [Censored] code of [Censored]…?
The above is likely a preview of coming attractions, unless the majority of people pull together to claim unalienable rights, and create the kind of future the people want, which includes self governance.
Please share to raise awareness that decision time is now. Thank you.
Doreen A Agostino
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
Sent via hardwired computer
All wireless turned off to safeguard life