A Group of Very Dangerous Jews Call for European Totalitarianism to Avoid Totalitarianism

European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.
...
...creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered.

The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on grounds of tolerance and in the interests of security. [Goodbye Charlie.]
...
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.”
...
...calling for the criminalisation of “overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or antisemitism.”
Education in tolerance should be mandatory from primary school to university, and for the military and the police, while public broadcasting must “devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance”.

The drafters are currently touring the parliaments of Europe trying to drum up support for a consensus that would get many, if not all, of the proposals turned into law across 28 countries. Given the national disparities on gay rights, libel laws, holocaust denial and more, the proposals represent a legal minefield.
...
The yardstick, say the drafters, should be that if an international tribunal has ruled genocide has taken place, it should be accepted everywhere in Europe as criminal conduct to contest that in public. The Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, and the mass murder of Muslims by Serbs in Srebrenica, Bosnia, in 1995 would be covered. The Turkish massacre of Armenians in 1915, for example, would not be covered.

Source: Jewish leaders call for Europe-wide legislation outlawing antisemitism | World news | The Guardian.

"...pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism...." First define "Semitism." What they mean is anti-Jewishness. Define that. If they mean no discrimination solely on the basis of ethnicity, isn't that already the law?

"...creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered." Define "libel." Aren't there already anti-libel laws; and when taken in conjunction with laws against discrimination solely on the basis of ethnicity, isn't it already covered concerning being a Jew by ethnicity? They want to protect religious groups and homosexuality too. Religions are already protected to a shrinking degree precisely because homosexuality is causing the persecution of anti-homosexuality religions. They want to treat homosexuality as a protected group too. They aren't balancing rights. They want homosexuality to trump everything. Homosexuality is a mental disease. They want to make it illegal to even debate that. They are calling for the elimination of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, the foundations of truth seeking. They are anti-intellectual.

"The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on grounds of tolerance and in the interests of security." That means goodbye Charlie Hebdo. I'm not for Charlie Hebdo. I think the publication stinks, always have. However, the Jews who are pushing this law want to silence negative criticism of Israel by defining such criticism as "antisemetic" and illegal. They figure to get there, they have to clamp down on all sorts of expression so much so that we arrive in a totalitarian state.

“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.” To be intolerant of the intolerant is to be intolerant and won't be tolerated. It's circular. Define "defame." Is it defamation of Jewishness if I say that Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal, which he is? These Jews would say so.

"...calling for the criminalisation of 'overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or antisemitism.'" Note the term "overt" there. It won't be criminal to do it covertly? How stupid! Here they are calling for totalitarianism and for totalitarianism to be illegal at the same time. They want to outlaw themselves except that they want to be able to wing it as they go along and be the sole arbiters of where the line is to be drawn, all to protect the political Zionism of Benjamin Netanyahu worldwide. Thou shalt not say that the Zionists in Israel have gone there and stolen the land via terrorism and ethnic cleansing and more and even though that's all completely well documented (irrefutable) even by Zionists themselves.

"Education in tolerance should be mandatory from primary school to university, and for the military and the police, while public broadcasting must 'devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance'." It's called indoctrination, re-education, and, frankly, brainwashing in this context.

"The yardstick, say the drafters, should be that if an international tribunal has ruled genocide has taken place, it should be accepted everywhere in Europe as criminal conduct to contest that in public." Now that's designed to close the door on any debate including about whether the "international tribunal" got it wrong. New facts come to light, don't they? This "Jewish" push would make it impossible for a researcher to publicly discuss his or her findings or speculation. It's the height of protecting lies and deception.

"The Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, and the mass murder of Muslims by Serbs in Srebrenica, Bosnia, in 1995 would be covered. The Turkish massacre of Armenians in 1915, for example, would not be covered." You see there the whole point. "The Holocaust" is the thing used by the Zionists to milk sympathy so that the world will turn a blind eye to the terrorism, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and inferior (second-class, Arab/Muslim citizen) democracy in Israel.

Would criticizing the Old Testament commandment to commit genocide to take the coveted land become illegal too? It would under this law because it would claimed that saying it would constitute defaming the "Jews."

Here's what those Jews call the deed to the land from "the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates." (Genesis 15:18):

When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; (Deuteronomy 7:1)

And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20:13-18)

Never mind that Abraham's seed (offspring) includes non-Jews as well.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17)

"Neighbour" there to the Jews means Jewish neighbor.

Here's Jesus on the subject:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (Luke 10:25-37)

The Samaritan was not a Jew. For Jesus to be consistent, he could not possibly call for genocide to possess coveted land. Therefore, under Christianity, the Old Testament is confused when left unexpanded upon by Jesus's teachings. It stinks without Jesus. Jesus came and clarified. Would saying that publicly become illegal? Did I just defame Torah Judaism and Talmudic Judaism? What I said is not false. Defamation occurs when something false is stated on purpose to cause harm and while knowing it's false.

I have also posted negative critiques on Islam (CAIR-Chicago Ducked. Will Council on American-Islamic Relations-National?) and on homosexuality (Atlanta Fire Chief Fired for Constitutionally Protected Christian Faith: More & More Homosexual Fascism Until Christianity Becomes a Capital Offense (Again)). There's plenty more where that came from too. I say Islam stinks and so does homosexuality.

I'm not out to coerce people into not saying publicly that Christianity stinks. I'm going to remain free to publicly say why they're wrong. I'm going to say things that will change their minds and hearts, or they're going to fail to make it. That's how I see it. That's what I've read in the words of Jesus Christ.

I'm not saying no censorship. I censor on this blog for instance (but it's not a publicly owned space nor is it a commercial, for-profit enterprise as defined in the secular law). There are limits. I typically let people have their say provided they are serious and avoid profanity. I don't let them go on indefinitely ignoring valid points. My rules here aren't good enough for these Jews in question though. Well, they're wrong.

What these specific Jews are trying to do is to make it impossible to speak except in agreement with them that Zionism regardless of what Israel does is to be not only tolerated but protected including from even the tiniest scrutiny. Well, it's Zionist-fascism; and I'm not going along with it.

The "Holocaust" is still debated as to the degree to which it took place and the means to carry it out and even whether it was ever an official Nazi goal. That's how it should be. Let people put forth their arguments, and let the best argument win; but don't make it illegal to argue about it because new facts come to light and there are different reasonable interpretations as to what "evidence" means or how it could be taken.

The people putting forth this suggested law are very dangerous people. They are very dangerous to civil liberties worldwide, and their law should be summarily rejected worldwide.

I will not agree to adhere to such a law even upon the threat of death by the state. To cave into these evil-minded Jews pushing this would mean that I could not even quote the words of Jesus Christ in public. That I will never agree to. I'd rather be put to death than to agree with it or adhere to it.

Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) These particular Jews (not all) hate that. They hate Jesus. They are anti-Christ, and that's illegal in Heaven. Praise God!

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Holocaust. Bookmark the permalink.