US under Jews: William A. White found guilty for the crime of being semitically incorrect

Done in by his own words, Internet hatemonger William A. White was convicted Friday of threatening people from Virginia Beach to Canada.

Source: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/230282

As said in an above post, even though American law protects one's right of free speech, speech may only be free once it doesn't "incites to violence". By claiming "incitement to violence" in every single case of speech found displeasurable by Jews this last remnant of democracy is effectively annulled.

Because no crime was committed, one is judged for alleged "intentions" and the nature of the trial is by default incompatible with law. It is not by accident, therefore, that all these trials conducted against anti-Semites are modern replica of Stalinist show trials conducted against various "enemies of the people", deemed to be dangers to society and best dealt with death or hard labor.

Now what is the crime of William A. White: he spoke against Jews and, worse still, he tried to organize a movement for our interests (which goes automatically against Jewish interests). By these mere actions, he should have expected the consequences, because organized resistance is not something any master tolerates. Here the totalitarian nature of our government stands revealed: they have to condemn the errant and for the sake of image have to give it a legal veneer. To do that, they follow exactly the age-old tried and tested methods used by Soviet propaganda (or rather the latter is just a child of the same Jewish parent):
1. First, the person is demonized by the media! Because media is under Jewish control (directly or indirectly), it can say just about anything about someone, while giving the accused no means to properly defend himself. Because the crime is ideological, accusations are taking root heavily on a fertile ground of propagandistic imagery created not just by the same media but by a thoroughly Semitized education system as well, where reverence to Jews as unassailable saints or to their propasphere (multiculturalism, feminism, zionism) as "justice" incarnate are the rule.
2. After a sensible amount of demonization, the necessity of having this "social danger" safely contained seems immediate in the public mind. In order to instrument a case in US, Jewish activists start claiming of having been threatened and Holocaust imagery is once again invoked. Because Jews are saints and any disagreement or let alone action against them is by default "evil", "Nazi" and above all "anti-Semitic" (which means to believers much more than hostility to an ethnic group), when Jews claim of being victimized, they gather an almost universal rallying behind their decision. Not only are they blindly believed, but an impending Holocaust is thought to follow unless the "anti-Semite" is removed from society.

3. Law enforcement, who "protects public safety" (save when roaming nigger gangs are mugging, raping at leisure) has now all the grounds it needs to instrument a case. The "criminal" is accused of incitement to violence and his words are used as grounds of accusation for imagined violent outcomes.
4. The trial is nothing more than a pitiful masquerade required to pronounce the GUILTY verdict. The only part deserving mention is how defence is part of accusation (otherwise the lawyer himself is accused of the same "crimes" as the defendant, as it happened with Sylvia Stoltz, who stands alone among those who took defense seriously).