Biden 1974 Interview: “Politicians Can Take Away the First Amendment”

Pomidor Quixote
Daily Stormer
June 11, 2019

Joe Biden thinks that he can do whatever he wants because he’s a politician.

Breitbart:

Former Vice President Joe Biden told a journalist in 1974 that “cruddy politicians” like himself could “take away” the First Amendment if they wanted.

The current 2020 Democrat frontrunner made the comments to Washingtonian magazine while being interviewed for a profile published in June 1974. Biden, then only 31-years-old, came to regret the interview, as his penchant for gaffes and insensitive remarks—traits defining later portions of his career—heavily colored the piece. At the time, however, Biden appeared eager to discuss his life as the nation’s youngest senator.

I am proud to be a politician,” Biden told then-Washingtonian writer Kitty Kelley, who authored the profile. “There is no other walk of life which can do more good for mankind than politics. It influences everything that happens to the American people.

Biden proceeded, according to Kelley, to lean “over his desk to shake his finger at me” while explaining elected officials like himself had the power to “take away” constitutionally protected rights if they saw fit.

And, whether you like it or not, young lady,” he said. “Us cruddy politicians can take away that First Amendment of yours if we want to.

He’s not wrong, you know?

In this “democracy” thing we have now, politicians can take away whatever they want to take away and do whatever they want to do if they manipulate the masses first.

After all, every voice matters, and the vote of a stupid ape is worth the same as your vote.

Although this may sound counterintuitive at first, manipulating everyone is easier than manipulating only a few. You can call it brainwashing, manipulation, mind control or persuasion — it doesn’t matter. The more people you reach with it, the better return of investment you get and the less effort you have to put into it.

Take a monarchy or dictatorship, for example. If you focused on “persuading” the few in control, the rest of the people would voluntarily or involuntarily manifest instances of disagreement in multiple forms.

It can work short-term, but the more you go without the approval of the masses, the more you risk the masses rebelling.

Even putting weak ideas into the minds of the population can quickly add up to something much more powerful than you’d have been able to install in only one individual’s mind.

Take gay marriage, for example. “Homosexuals should be able to marry” in the minds of millions quickly added up to “it’s okay if little boys want to cut their dicks off,” which in turn is now turning into “actually little boys should cut their dicks off.”

Convincing individuals of the merits of penis mutilation, one-by-one, is harder than convincing everyone that faggots should be able to marry and periodically making small pushes towards the cutting off of penises so the masses can pick up on it, process it and reach the land of penis cutting “on their own.”

It’s a kind of snowball effect where mass persuasion through the media is the equivalent of creating snow to feed the snowball sliding down the slippery slope.

This democracy thing, where everyone’s vote counts just because of HUMAN RIGHTS or whatever, potentiates this manipulation maxim to achieve even better results.

Some people funded a country and set clear rules about why they did it and for whom they did it, but what was once for whites and what once defended freedom of speech can be turned into Mordor because the people benefiting from the Founding Fathers’ epic achievement “changed their minds” about the nature of the land they inhabit after watching some Netflix, HBO and CNN.

Why should all voices matter if we’re not all the same?

Oh, but we are all the same, goyim. Everyone’s equal. We’re all just the human race.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS