Ban the term “antisemitism” as being hate speech

Liberty
1

Even if you are a Jew, I would suggest that loving your neighbor as you love yourself, is a far more functionally practical alternative to hating enslaving and exterminating everyone else. This is most probably the case, because it reflects the universal truth, that we all are one: reflections, and sparks of the unitary consciousness, of which all is composed and manifest.

I would invite every human being to oppose racism and supremacism of all stripes.

The idea that people “simply” hate Jews, and that an irrational hatred motivates speech, or action, is incredibly disingenuous. This is not to mention that 90% of Jews alive today do not have any Semitic blood, being of Caucasian origin, which is a point irrelevant to the core of the issue.

People understandably hate Jews because their faith allows Usury, whereby Jews make debt slaves of the world, coming to own all property without toil, but also most importantly because hatred tends to be a reciprocal function.

It is only natural that a group of people which professes the racist doctrine, that they Alone are Chosen of God, above all others, and therefore, are most appropriately the masters of all other races and creeds, which are as cattle and beasts of burden, whom they are free to rape, murder and deceive within the confines of religious morality, existing only for their benefit, should experience rejection in return. It is only natural to push back against your own extermination and enslavement. As it is taught in their Talmud, the final arrangement of the world is that Jews will rule everyone and each shall have 2800 slaves, chosen from among the goyim.

Babylonian Talmudism is a religion which preaches maximum hatred and extermination for all non-Jews.

Unless you’re a Jew, you should be opposed to that. But then you would be labeled antisemitic. You see the dilemma.

The idea that Jews are somehow unfairly singled out and hated is in fact, hate speech enshrined in the term antisemitism.

This is amplified and reinforced by the holocaust hoax, which allows Zionists, who were at the time the most willing collaborators of Hitler, seeking to move the German Jew to their colony in Palestine, to wear the mantle of perpetual victim, despite the never ending war, to which their creed propels them.

Many members of my family are Jews, and many of my friends as well. Most of them have no idea that the core principle of their faith is racial supremacism, and maximum hatred, driven toward the subjugation and extermination of all other groups.

2 Likes
2

In the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Ezekiel classifies the charging of interest among the worst sins, denouncing it as an abomination.

Connecting any identity politics to any globalist issue is part of the problem.

Ezekiel 18:8a - The Righteous Man Does Not Take Advance or Accrued Interest.

You said:

People understandably hate Jews because their faith allows Usury, whereby Jews make debt slaves of the world, coming to own all property without toil, but also most importantly because hatred tends to be a reciprocal function.

This is just wrong. Hate speech, is just speech in the US. Even though we have disgusting opinions, like your own, all must be allowed to be heard, and identified for what they are, hate.

2 Likes
3

Engaging in identity politics may well be as you say, counterproductive to the general progress. Sinking into the mud serves only to make everyone filthy.

Certainly the thread leading from Sabbatai to Frank to Weishaupt to Rothschild in the establishment of the Illuminati, which subsequently infected the Jesuits, and the secret societies with saturnalian excesses, was a multi denominational effort, frustrating attempts to pin down the globalist effort to this day.

I noticed that you quote from the Tanakh, which, along with the Torah is shared with the Christian Bible. Obviously if Jewry as a whole had strictly adhered to that notion, there would be far fewer than 1030 expulsions in their history.

The vein of the theology to which I have above referred was the Babylonian Talmud, which encourages the faithful to deceive and subjugate all non-Jews.

I must note with gratitude your elegance, in expressing revulsion to the opinions expressed, rather than the person. Very well done. As I have mentioned, this is a very difficult and conflicted subject for me personally because of the many Jewish members of my own family. The simple point is that the lower emotions breed a reflection of the lower emotions. Jews play the perpetual victim, with hands aloft to heaven, wondering why everyone scorns them, while most, in fact, are simply indifferent barring a direct stimulus. The rhetoric of superiority and derision which comes from so many of their texts and rabbis is surely reflected in the treatment they receive in public.

Certainly Babylonian Talmudism is not the only religion which preaches division and domination, but it certainly is the most successful in its globalist aspirations! Do not these currently proposed laws prohibiting antisemitism, in the robust tradition of Comrade Lenin, point to the very fact of the domination of the Talmudist?

I must concede that the banning of any word or phrase is anathema to the freedom of speech, which is the fundament of a free society. That being said, if they’re about to make antisemitism illegal, is not such an absurd proposal as banning the word antisemitism itself de rigueur?

Of course, the gold standard of upholding free speech is that expression of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

4

If any term should be banned it is “Hate Speech”.

Banning what can and cannot be said is the worst form of intolerance. Regardless of your motivation.

People will often believe what they want to believe irrespective of the truth of the matter. The real way to fight ignorance is open and honest debate, not restricting who can say what.

You state that you believe the “holocaust is a hoax” in spite of the ample historical proof and the testimonies of the victims. That is proof that people believe what they want to believe rather than reality. That is your choice, “everyone chooses their own brand of ignorance.” Walt Kelly -Pogo Cartoons

I prefer that someone who hates me says so clearly and direct, that way I know what to expect from them, I can hear why they hate me in direct terms, then there is a clear path for me to react to protect myself, or a basis to discuss their misconceptions and hopefully to inform their minds to a different attitude.

3 Likes
5

I agree with absolutely everything you say, except that there is sufficient historical proof. I remain unconvinced. Certainly many suffered and many died. But cui bono. I am too suspicious of authority to swallow the pablum without question, and I see too many cracks to confirm the main stream story unedited. Thanks for the Kelly quote. It has an interesting corollary in the Peter Principle, but also I find that the limiting factor confining humans from embracing the full extent of their potential as Fountainhead, beyond the vertigo of infinity, is the sheer weight of responsibility entailed in assuming the role of Godhead, the superman, the realization of the full potential of the divine spark each of us represents. It’s just an awful lot of bother isn’t it?-)

6

“Sufficient historical proof”?
I lived in Nurnberg for 3 years, Berlin for 4 years, Stuttgart for 3 years. I spent time in the Dulles Library reading the documentation from the Nurnberg Trials, Periodicals from the German Government and press of the War Years. I visited Dachau outside of Munich. I spent time in Freiburg where the cobblestones, sidewalks and buildings have metal plaques that list the Jews forcibly removed to camps. I have seen “sufficient historical proof”.

History is a favorite subject of mine. Much of the documentation is still available online today and it is written in German so a study of the language would be worth your time.

I find that the limiting factor confining humans from embracing the full extent of their potential is original sin, lack of repentance, and a love of evil. but thats just my viewpoint…
It’s real hard to be good.

4 Likes
7

I’m going to be a ‘no’ on the government officially banning any term.

5 Likes
8

I think you meant any.
And I completely agree with you!

2 Likes
9

Thank you for your generous invitation to study in German; I minored in the language at university, and while my total time in the country is only about three months over the years, I have had multiple occasions to keep it fresh, including speaking with my jewish grandfather, who escaped through Paris to New York, in 39, and my Serbian mother-in-law, whose English is nonexistent… while my Serbian is passing for day to day, conversing in German has been most convenient. Of the 124 members of her family living before the second world war, only three survived the Croatian camps. All together 2 million Serbs Jews and Roma died in Croatia. Sail your yacht with a German flag into any Croatian port. Even to this day they will raise the right arm straight up for you like it was 1944… again, I’m not denying that great suffering, and death happened, nor that indefensible acts took place. However, I stipulate that what actually happened was bad enough, and that any embellishment is a disservice to the memory of those who did suffer. You cite the Nuremberg trials. Are you not also aware that all confessions were brutally coerced? It’s a matter of where attention is focused and how, I feel. Should we lament any less violently for the 30 million Christians unalived by Stalin in Russia and Ukraine, before the war? Or the 10 million Germans unalived by Bolshevik forces following the defeat? What justice would there be in embellishing the suffering of the Japanese families herded into concentration camps in America during the same period? Who benefits from this narrative, and what is the most appropriate posture?

By original sin are you referring to the knowledge of good and evil? Well, yes, most certainly apprehending the world solely in the dualistic framework fundamentally limits one’s apprehension of a unitary consciousness, of which all is composed and manifest. I would agree also that denial of one’s failings makes it impossible to recover from them, and certainly willful evil precludes communion with the light of God. And again I would say, we both might agree that it is very hard to be good, and even harder to embrace the divinity within oneself with all the responsibility therein entailed.

image
image1080×1214 179 KB

image
image670×909 137 KB

image
image751×967 179 KB

image
image1000×1244 269 KB

10

I must concede that the banning of any word or phrase is anathema to the freedom of speech, which is the fundament of a free society.

Of course, the gold standard of upholding free speech is that expression of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Couldn’t have said it better. Yet we must turn the other cheek when it comes to the crossroads of standpoints on religion.

The ONLY superior ideology is secularism. Freedom of religion, separation of church and state. Upholding values of liberty, freedom, and the happiness of the People, all People.

Not to pull out the coexist bumper sticker, but.

That being said, I can only speak on the known. Hitler was right about globalist banking influence, primary example being Rothchild influence of Naples vs. Germany. Yet the demonization of an entire group of people only serves tyrannical purposes, and such ideology of any kind should not belong in the hearts and minds of people. I could also agree the imperial globalists (Britian, France, Woodrow Wilson, etc.) sought to enable and prolong the status quo-their global dominance-over an imbalance, by allowing the German Empire to continue to exist. So, they split the nation, indebted it, and disabled it’s ability to expand/defend.

Even with all this bitterness over the global status quo, the identity driven internal policy and recreation of US Manifest Destiny were flat out tyrannical. Evil. There is far too much evidence that suggests a propaganda machine, death/labor camps, and covert ops from hiding rearmament to SS operations.

End the divide and conquer tactic.

George Washington once said something along the lines of ‘the love of one ought to endear you to the preservation of the other.’

1 Like
11

So you agree that there is sufficient historical proof that the Holocaust did exist, therefore antisemitism is a real action, and no term describing reality should ever be banned.

This in no way minimizes the Armenian Genocide, or the american actions against Native American Indigenous people, also called Native indians, or the many genocides against any of the multitudes of people through history.

They are just not covered under the term “antisemitism”.

Language should always be able to describe reality in all of it’s manifest horror, and that’s what I mean by Original Sin, the ability to commit atrocities against other People, the ability to dehumanize them to a level lower than ourselves, to justify their extinction. That was all brought about by Adam’s first sin of disobedience to God.
Antisemitism, Racism, ***Phobes, and a host of other hateful terms should never be banned, for then we lose the ability to describe the hateful actions against each of us.

And that is Reality.

12

Sorry David, but I think the term holocaust is being used to describe the intentional extermination of Jews in gas chambers. That’s the part I don’t think happened. Even Goebbels in his memoir clearly defines the final solution regarding the Jews as their eventual deportation from the Reich. Even though 40,000 Jews did die in Auschwitz, mostly of typhus, according to the bound volumes of death certificates, which have come out of the Soviet archives, and that is, of course, terrible, I think all the hubbub and fury surrounding the “holocaust”narrative serves primarily to distract from the murder of 60 million Christians in the same period from 1932 to the end of the Second World War, by Stalin, with bullets and starvation, oh, and by the west as willing accomplices, sending brave young men to die, as cannon fodder, in yet another conflagration with both sides cynically funded by the same party, as it has been with all wars for the last 200 years on Earth.

If you read past the title paragraph in this thread, you would understand that my suggestion to eliminate antisemitism from the lexicon, is a reductio ad absurdum in response to the antisemitism legislation recently introduced to Congress. A very similar bill was the first legislative act of Comrade Lenin, who made it a capital offense. President Trump has suggested it should be made a deportable offense. When you make an entire group of people immune to criticism by law, especially if those people are the ones holding all the cards, with their grubby mitts on the levers of power, yet parading as perennial victims, danger, Will Robinson, DANGER!

13

Sorry Aaron, but I think the term holocaust really means the intentional extermination of Jews by any means from 1936 to 1950, in any part of the world. Including the Turkey, Albanian, Arab nations, or any other Government.

How people misuse words for their political advantage is a direct reason for not banning any words.

For example:
Racism means the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as [inferior]or superior to one another.

Yet DEI “Experts” want to include an element of power into the defanition so that minorities can not be accused of racism, arguing that as they have no power they can not be raciest. So Black billionaires, Congressmen, Senators can’t be racist because they have no power.
Ref Maxine Watters, Ibram X, and a host of others.

14

Right. So now that you’ve opted after considering the evidence to back off of your idea that there was an attempt to exterminate, not just deport the Jews from Germany, please also face the fact that Muslims actively welcomed Jewish immigrants deported from German held areas. A “holocaust” didn’t happen in the Islamic countries you named, as it is well known that Muslim countries accepted Jewish refugees openly during this period. Turkey served as a transit for European Jews during the 1930s and 1940s. During the war, Turkey did however denaturalize 3,000 to 5,000 Jews living abroad.

Furthermore, I don’t agree with your definition of racism.

I would call racism the consideration of an individual’s race as a criterion in evaluating their suitability for any role or interaction. Racism can also furthermore be understood is any policy of a government or private institution, which includes race as a criterion in the application of resources and the framing of objectives.

At the end there you’re really kind of making my point for me, that a law forbidding antisemitism is racist just as laws in regarding DEI are racist. They both rely on a victim mentality, to prevent discussion and assessment, in a neutral manner based on empirical analysis of the simple facts in any given situation devoid of matters of race per se. Justice is color blind. And yet lives in a world of abundance, not of lack.

Recognizing that different races have different characteristics is simply a matter of accepting scientifically valid statistics. Judgment of blanket superiority or inferiority based on the facts of different characteristics, is racism. Put it another way. Every individual human being has different characteristics from every other individual, just as different races, have different median characteristics from other races. These are simple facts. Racism starts when you apply value hierarchies based on race derived from an assessment of these characteristics which contravene the truth, that all living beings are interconnected yet independent avatars of the one, and as such intrinsically equal in value as living beings.

Clearly any judgement regarding classification or actions regarding an individual should be based on the content of the character and the demonstrable actions and consequences thereafter related to the matter at hand.

Good news!
Let’s contact our representatives and push!

15

You are wrong in your assumption, I have not backed off of the fact that Jews were exterminated in Germany, the discussion just got to the point of stating it was much wider than just Germany, an argument I never denied.
Jews were denied an opportunity to resettle into the area of Jerusalem by the Balfour agreement after WW1 and they were not welcomed after WW2, the United Nations like the League of Nations before it, still tried to outlaw it.

“Furthermore, I don’t agree with your definition of racism.” Too bad that is the Dictionary definition. You can redefine it all you want and you will still be wrong.

“a law forbidding antisemitism is racist just as laws in regarding DEI are racist.”
Here you are correct, it is not the thoughts that should be outlawed but the violent reaction. you can be as hateful as you want to; until you reach for a club, words are just words, they are not violence in it’s self.

Turkey was tolerant of Jews historically but during WW1 they did attack and kill many living in the Levant area, and turkish soldiers did the same during WW2.

“Muslims actively welcomed Jewish immigrants deported from German held areas.” would that be the ones in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or perhaps the Northern coast of Africa? Maybe you are thinking of the Muslims in Albania?

16

Well, I guess you must not have addressed any of the documents above provided. It is fair to call that attitude willful ignorance.

Yes, the dictionary definition of racism is discrimination, and prejudice, based on immutable racial characteristics, but my point is to go further, to say that constantly harping about racism perpetuates racism. There needs to be a shift in consciousness where that is just no longer part of any discussion, ever.

There was no Balfour agreement. There was a Balfour declaration of sympathy. That was issued in 1917 by the captured British government in a letter addressed to lord Rothschild. It was a quid pro quo, in which the British, who had all but lost the war against the Kaiser, rewarded Zionists with a promise to support a Jewish home in Palestine, in exchange for Zionist activity resulting in the United States entrance into the war. So then the Zionists successfully applied their propaganda machine and the levers of the captured government of the United States to draw America into the war, a fight in which the U.S. previously had no dog. If anything, Americans were pro German, with 95% of foreign language schools teaching German. At the time the land of Palestine was not under British control. It was an Arab state. The document is as baseless as if the Ukrainian government today issued a promise to Kurds that they would be allowed to settle in Argentina, and in exchange for successful Kurdish efforts, to bring Iran or Syria into the conflict on the side of Ukraine. Even more ludicrous would be Kurds going to Argentina and driving Argentinians off their land to make room for Kurdish settlements, ethnically cleansing them, declaring there the state of Kurdistan, and setting up a system of apartheid, whereby Argentinians become second class citizens, requiring Kurdish permission to travel from home to the office. Of course, they have no right. Even if they were to have a book 5000 years old, which said so. And contrary to your suggestion, there were plenty of Jews living in Palestine, the Arab state, in peace and brotherhood, previous to and after the Balfour declaration. There was also a significant Christian population, as there is today. Christians are still welcome to spend their days in Israel as long as they don’t mind being spit on in the street by the occasional passing Jew. Amazingly, Christians have for long years been able to worship their God and practice their faith in Palestine, without uprooting the Israelis and Palestinians, then declaring a Christian state.

image
image1125×2436 214 KB

Reattached here for your generous consideration, are the reams of arguments, which you have failed to address whatsoever.

17

True. I have also failed to address the reams of arguments about Disney and racist cartoons of the war years.

Propaganda takes many forms, separating truth from fantasy is often difficult because all effective propaganda contains enough truth to to make it seem reasonable.

Like the DEI initiative, your “deprogramming course” is revisionist history. No response needed.

18

“Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers… or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”

— ‘Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust’ at the Stockholm International Forum, 2000

You stick to the party line perfectly!

Only two of the roughly 100 German prisoners who testified at the Nuremberg trials survived their interrogation with their testicles intact, having been kicked in the groin until they were destroyed. And that wasn’t the worst of it, according to the congressional record of the US.

So far the only evidence you provided for the extermination of the Jews, is a few plaques on the ground in Freiburg, indicating the Jews were forced to leave. No one denies this. Not at all convincing. Isn’t it much more likely the sort of people who will put a black hood over your face and beat you with brass knuckles until you lose your teeth and your jaw is broken would be better candidates to make up an extermination story which is profitable in so many ways? And where are the plaques for the millions of German women and girls raped and murdered by the Russians after Germany’s defeat?

image
image1125×1128 351 KB

image
image834×834 165 KB

image
image1884×2048 765 KB

Ha, wasn’t it the Rockefellers, who pushed for the government to pay women to leave their husbands and join the workforce so they could double the tax base and have more time with the children for government indoctrination? Wasn’t it the Jewish and Jesuit NGOs that brought 20 million military aged men through the open southern border just as they were bringing in 300,000 underage sex slaves? Seems nothing has changed it 100 years. Except they have much shinier machines with more bells and whistles.

19

Which has nothing to do with the topic.

I have been to Dachau, the ovens were not built to bake bread, nor to heat the camp.

I can walk through the field of a thousand cattle, and avoid stepping in to the BS

1 Like
20

If the “Holocaust” was really a propaganda campaign instead of a historical reality, it would need to be illegal to question in western countries…

image
image750×482 32.3 KB

You would exclude from the history books, that Jews in the US wrote books on the logical basis to exterminate all the Germans. Meanwhile there isn’t one document from Nazi germany discussing the planned extermination of all the Jews.
image
image615×571 68.6 KB

image
image689×897 107 KB

image
image828×1024 110 KB

Even further, the Holocaust would be used as a way to flood the countries with Immigrants, and say to European people, you can never have your own states again….

“One of the main reasons for perpetuating the Holocaust Myth is to poison European people with a guilt complex. They are never allowed to have national or ethnic pride again, and this is used as the excuse to flood their nation with immigrants.”

-Jurgen Graf

If the Holocaust was a propaganda weapon, there would be many fake stories later exposed as frauds….

image
image638×1024 87 KB

image
image602×1024 94.1 KB

image
image642×1024 122 KB

image
image624×1024 88.6 KB

If the Holocaust was propaganda, they would just need to do exactly what they are doing…

And let you lap that up, more nonsense from the people who brought you a safe and effective Bioweapon, and the forgivable genocide in Gaza; that’s just fine, because the ones perpetrating it were victims of genocide themselves… unless they weren’t?

image
image720×717 52.8 KB