The Noose Tightens on Europe

How short the memory. How empty the rhetoric. Just weeks after the largest outpouring of support for “free speech” that Europe has witnessed in recent decades, genuine free speech in Europe finds itself lined up opposite a Jewish firing squad. The Guardian reports that European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are preparing to call for pan-European legislation outlawing ‘anti-Semitism.’

A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the Orwellian European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent the last three years drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and in line with a renewed and intense Jewish drive for complete invulnerability, they are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU. The ECTR is typical of the “think-tank” Jewish method of introducing laws without the consent of the people [for other examples see my work on the introduction of laws limiting free speech in Britain, and the work of Brenton Sanderson on the employment of the same method in Australia].

For a long time the ECTR had a non-Jewish public face through the Presidency of Aleksander Kwaśniewski, himself a former President of Poland. But the real engine room of the body lies in the form of its co-Chairman, Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor. Kantor also acts as the President of the European Jewish Congress. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ this individual also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson). As for the panel of ‘experts,’ the most influential member is the panel chair – Yoram Dinstein, a “war crimes expert,” professor and former president of Tel Aviv university.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

The proposal now presented to the EU’s 28 countries will make ‘anti-Semitism’ illegal, as well as criminalizing a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds. This fits the pattern of Jews padding out legislation in order to muddy the waters and prevent it being too obvious (to the unsuspecting European masses) that the effort is strategic. The ‘padding’ will criminalize the following:

  • Any denial of the standard narrative of the Holocaust (even though academics continue to disagree on what exactly this narrative should be, and no total of casualties can ever be deemed totally accurate).
  • Denial of any commonly acknowledged genocide, apart from that of the Armenians by the Turks. Sucks to be Armenian.
  • Any and all examples or expressions of ‘xenophobia.’

When pursuing a group evolutionary strategy, perhaps the most sacred Holy Grail for the group would be legally preventing any discussion of the group. This new legislation would effectively signal the final defeat of the European struggle against the Jewish evolutionary strategy, since Europeans would relinquish their rights to acknowledge and question the interests, activities and actions of other peoples as a group. The law will create a new crime of “group libel” — public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Padding comes in here too, as women’s and gay rights would also be covered.

The term ‘group libel’ will be familiar to readers of my essay on the war on free speech in Britain. The phrase has some pedigree, and is a Jewish concoction, designed for Jewish ends, and pursued with Jewish tactics. I wrote that:

Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament. Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952 when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever, introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.  Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”

The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on purported grounds of “tolerance and security.” These terms are the Abracadabra of the modern age — just like that they can pave the way for the abolition of any number of freedoms.

The dubious document pieced together by Kantor, Dinstein and others, argues that:

Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group. 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.

This unelected group of non-Europeans complains that

there’s a real threat of another Jewish exodus from Europe. … The only way to fix these problems is deep changes in legislation to protect all, not just Jews. … Antisemitism is clearly part of it, but by no means the thrust of the project. … It’s about tolerance and if you expect tolerance, you have to show tolerance. Otherwise it becomes very obnoxious.

But are Europeans really tolerated by those who have come to dwell among them? Are they tolerated by those who wish to impose Sharia law in European schools, towns and cities? Are they tolerated by that obnoxious elite which seeks to re-write European history for its own purposes, or who seek with apparently inexhaustible energy to destroy European culture?

This document, innocuously titled “A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” also calls for the criminalization of “overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.” It will make “education in tolerance” mandatory from elementary school to college, 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.

Europe’s only hope is opposition. At a recent European parliament committee hearing, Dinstein complained that Britain’s UK Independence party (UKIP) was strongly opposed, and that Hungary’s government “wouldn’t touch [the proposals] with a long pole.” But the release of the document has been expertly timed to coincide with the Jewish co-opting of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and the accompanying engineered panic about the status of Europe’s Jews. Europe is weak.

If this legislation passes, it may go largely unheralded, and with little opposition. But the date of its passing should be marked, for it will be the date on which Europe abolishes itself.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

Comments are closed.