°°°°°°°°°

odal3

°°°°°°°°°

Redefining Anti-Semitism
A Tale For Our Times

The current political row about so-called “anti-Semitism” in the British Labour party is a relevant tale of our times for several reasons.

I.         It is a relevant tale, firstly, because the term “anti-Semitism” is a fairly recent invention, dating from the 1870’s but only becoming common in English due to the anti-German propaganda that proliferated before and during the Second World War. {1} As defined in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary (Second edition, 1989) it means “hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people, and the theory, action, or practice resulting from this.”

II.         It is a relevant tale, secondly, because it reveals how influential and powerful certain Jewish advocacy groups are since they have for years lobbied the British government – and police forces and other official bodies – to accept the new definition of “anti-Semitism” invented by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

The IHRA’s definition is: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

However, as well of this definition, the IHRA helpfully provide examples of what according to their definition constitute the “crime” of “anti-Semitism”. Among their examples are the following:

           ° Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

           ° Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

           ° Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

           ° Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Since this IHRA definition – and its examples – define things which it advocates and supporters consider to be “wrong”, morally reprehensible, it should be obvious that it enshrines an ideology; that is, it is a scheme of ideas relating to ethics, politics and society, and forms the basis of action and policy.

Furthermore, since this ideology, enshrined in the IHRA definition and its examples, is now increasingly being used by police forces, councils, and other official bodies, to determine if a “hate crime” has been committed, it is clear that there is a movement, not yet written in law but continually agitated for, to make things such as a “certain perception of Jews”, “holocaust denial” and criticism of Zionists and of the Zionist entity itself, punishable crimes in the modern West.

That this ideology – whose advocates and supporters seek to criminalise “a certain perception” that some other people do not like or approve of – is an assault on freedom of expression and freedom of belief should be obvious. That this assault is still not obvious to many is tribute to just how effective the propaganda of the Zionist lobbies and of “holocaust remembrance” lobbies is and has been, for such propaganda – repeated almost every day, every week, every year, since 1945 – is that “anti-Semitism led to the horrors, the inhumanity, of the holocaust and such horrors must never be allowed to happen again.”

Yet if – as those who write and speak in favour of historical revisionism claim and believe – the holocaust did not happen as portrayed in the holocaust literature then persecuting and criminalizing those who question or doubt it is repressive and intolerant. This intolerance was summed up following the criminal conviction in May 2018 in a British court of law of a singer – Alison Chabloz – just for singing songs questioning the veracity of the holocaust, with the leader of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism declaring that “in Britain Holocaust denial […] will not be tolerated.”

In other words, advocates and supporters of a particular ideology demand that their zealous intolerance becomes official policy and is enshrined in the law of the land, just as they rejoice when someone is convicted in a court of law on the basis of the intolerant ideology they advocate and support.

It really does seem as if we in the West have not learned much from the religious intolerance of former centuries when those who did not believe in certain things – and who perhaps had “a certain perception” that differed from what was then the accepted, the non-heretical, norm – were persecuted and criminalized.

III.         It is a relevant tale, thirdly, because it reveals just how intertwined the modern legend of the holocaust is (i) with re-defining “anti-Semitism”, (ii) with intolerant attempts to criminalize “a certain perception”, (iii) with support for and the survival of the Zionist entity that currently occupies Palestine, and (iv) with the religious belief that the Jews were and are the “chosen people of God” and that therefore they have a God-given right and duty to create and then to live in the Zionist entity. Hence, of course, the Zionist “law of return”.

For without the legend of the holocaust the Zionist entity would either not exist or would not be supported as it is and has been – economically, financially, militarily, propagandistically and otherwise – by the wealthy nations of the modern West.

It should therefore come as no surprise that, in an unguarded moment, the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Dr. Jakobovits, declared that “The Jews were chosen to act as pathfinders for the world, and Israel has a special place as an instrument to effect the Jew’s social engineering upon the world.” {2}

Where by the term “social engineering” he meant and implied both (i) government and State efforts (through laws, propaganda and other means) to influence the attitudes and ideas of people and the structure of society, and (ii) efforts by the Media and special interest groups to bring about certain changes in society.

For re-defining the term “anti-Semitism”, criminalizing questioning or doubting the legend of the holocaust, and – among things – demanding that a certain ideology becomes official policy and is enshrined in the law of the land, most certainly amounts to social engineering.

Haereticus
23rd July 2018 ev

{1} An example of such propaganda occurred in The Economist magazine dated 24th August 1935: “The Nazi Party stalwarts […] have all been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant crusade.”

{2} The Guardian newspaper (London), 7th August 1982.

°°°°°°°

Relevant & Necessary Disclosure:
It should also be noted that the pseudonym Haereticus – “a heretic” – is used by several different authors.


Article source:
https://reichsfolktimes.wordpress.com/2018/07/23/redefining-anti-semitism/


Advertisements