Case in point,
Germany in the 1920s was a land of broad literacy and diverse politics, boasting 146 daily newspapers in Berlin alone. Yet in the course of a few years, a fringe party was able to define a national community by scapegoating internal enemies; elevate a single, messianic leader; and keep the public docile with hatred while the state committed unprecedented crimes.
Amazing that they attempt to demonize Nazi Germany by describing EXACTLY what the U.S. and Israel are doing at present.
In fact, "scapegoating internal enemies" is exactly what Mr. Gershon (the writer of the article) is doing with his article. The media is overwhelmingly leftist and jewish and actively demonizes and makes scapegoats out of Whites on a daily basis.
When we defend ourselves, they call us "racists."
He goes on,
Ethicist Clive Hamilton calls this a "belligerent brutopia." "The Internet should represent a great flourishing of democratic participation," he argues. "But it doesn't. . . . The brutality of public debate on the Internet is due to one fact above all -- the option of anonymity. The belligerence would not be tolerated if the perpetrators' identities were known because they would be rebuffed and criticized by those who know them. Free speech without accountability breeds dogmatism and confrontation."
Translation; all who oppose the regime should be made to wear arm bands signifying their identity in public.
This destructive disinhibition is disturbing in itself. It also allows hatred to invade respected institutional spaces..
Respected by who?
Postings of this kind regularly attack immigrants and African Americans, recycle centuries of anti-Semitism and deny the events of the Holocaust as a massive Jewish lie.
In other words, facts and history.
And the Holocaust is not an event, it is a religion pure and simple. That's why it's adherents (much like their islamist cousins in the middle-east) seek to silence or imprison all who would dare question it.
But this does not mean that popular news sites, along with settings such as Facebook and YouTube, are constitutionally required to provide forums for bullies and bigots.
And yet the "respected" Washington Times is giving a platform for people like him to use as a bully pulpit.
Basically what Gerson is advocating is the cessation of free speech, one way or another. He doesn't want a free exchange of ideas because his ideology is about controlling the general populace with propaganda.
He knows that the media can exert so much pressure on people to publicly comply to an agenda, that they can scare most into silence.
Shine the light of truth on these people and they'll wail and cringe like a vampire in the sunlight. They prey upon unsuspecting victims with contempt and hate yet when they are caught they cry out, "persecution, persecution!"
People like Gerson imagined the Internet would work like television with the conversation going in one direction.
It both enrages and terrifies people of that ilk when the "little people" have a voice.
See here and here for more insight into the historic nature of their lament.