There is a Canadian woman being held in a German jail without any recourse to friends or family or even legal representation. She is presently charged with no crime but was arrested for a video that questioned the “Holocaust” and is therefore that most evil of criminals, a “holocaust denier.” Most Americans would view her situation as a version of Orwell’s 1984 and believe it fictional. It isn’t. Today, in many Western nations, not only can an individual be imprisoned for being an “anti-Semite,” but that person’s lawyer can be arrested and imprisoned for providing a proper defense against that charge to his client!
Even worse, this attack on human liberty lacks limits. Exactly what is “anti-Semitism” and, in the same vein, what is “racism”—and is either a matter of criminality? After all, both of these concepts are political constructs, the latter emanating from communist Leon Trotsky, one of the first to use the word. Now, most people know the definition of “bigotry.” A bigot hates people for something over which they have no control whether it is it race or nationality or any other part of the human condition. On the other hand, matters of choice—such as religion—with their inevitable results are different as these can motivate people to do things that are in fact deserving of condemnation. Yet even the actual bigot does not break the law unless he commits a crime motivated by his bigotry!
Today the terms ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘racist’ are based not only on people’s reactions to matters of nationality and race, but on beliefs and behaviors found in and committed by the groups involved. In other words, if today I point out that communism has mainly Jewish origins and that the present-day left is financed and led by a great many persons of that religious and cultural persuasion, I am immediately judged to be an anti-Semite. It doesn’t matter if what I say is true, it only matters that I am pointing out a reality that certain groups do not want publicly voiced. If I question any Jewish historical construct, again I am an anti-Semite even if I can prove my claim with facts. And the same can be said of unpopular comments about Blacks! No matter how factual the comments, their utterance is simply not countenanced. Thus, bigotry is no longer a matter of mindless hate directed at particular groups, but any negative response, however valid, to the actions of those same groups.
Yet this understanding is not maintained throughout the culture. For instance, any intolerance directed at Whites and especially White males, as well as traditional Christians is perfectly acceptable though it contradicts the claim that mindless hate and intolerance are never acceptable. So we not only have a very broad definition of anti-Semitism and racism, but that definition is subject to a complete reversal contingent upon the target group. Thus, it is considered “Islamophobic” to criticize Muslims for raping and killing their fellow Muslims and infidels alike, but it is politically correct to persecute a Christian baker or florist for refusing to participate in a homosexual celebration because it is contrary to his or her religious beliefs. Yet, if it is wrong to even hold Jews or Blacks responsible for any truly objectionable behavior, why is it legally and morally permissible to persecute Whites and Christians for beliefs and behavior that is neither illegal nor immoral! Catholic Brett Kavanaugh is crucified for unproved sexual allegations while Bill Clinton is acknowledged to have raped and abused many women but gets a pass.
A somnambulant public needs to understand that the terms ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘racism’ are not legitimate. In many cases, such terms may not represent mindless bigotry (which though morally reprehensible is not legally actionable). Rather, they criminalize a rational response to the actions of certain groups and thus violate our God-given right to think and act. As long as these spurious “crimes” are used to shut down debate and opposition to acts of the State, we are essentially in chains.