Jews, Israel push to ban alternative views of Holocaust on Internet

Berlin Holocaust Memorial built by Jews. This is the kind of regulation they seem bent on achieving in the goyim population where their Holocaust narrative is concerned. Total, unwavering acceptance of their story by all is what Jews are after.

By Carolyn Yeager

IN 1998, AN ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE jOURNAL OF HISTORICAL REVIEW (IHR) penned by Mark Weber, titled “Jewish Group Demands More Anti-Revisionist Laws.” At that time, only five or six European countries had holocaust denial or hatred incitement laws. Now that number is 19 (virtually all), plus the European Union. Joining them are Israel, Australia and the United Arab Emirates.

This is all due to the lobbying of Jewish groups, because, they say, “Jews' rights are best protected in open and tolerant democracies that actively prosecute all forms of racial and religious hatred." But why should conducting research into the historical Holocaust and finding reason to have an alternative view be considered “hatred”? Only because Jews fear such views will spread if the public has the opportunity to learn what these researchers have found. Thus it is actually the Jewish groups spreading the hatred against those they have labeled Deniers. Back in 1998, Weber quoted some Jews who told deliberate lies about what the “revisionists/deniers” said. Itzhak Nener, Israeli deputy president of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ) charged at a meeting in June '98:

"The denial movement has a historical institute [IHR] which is reviewing history and whose real aim is to deny the Holocaust. They have tremendous sums of money."

In fact, the opposite was true. It was Jews, and the IAJLJ who had tremendous sums of money with which to operate, while the revisionists and their IHR operated on a shoestring in comparison. Another conference participant, Isidor Wolfe from Canada said:

"This growing [revisionist] group is using web sites to make amazingly ridiculous claims, like that they measured the gas chambers and found they were not big enough for people."

Haha – as Weber wrote, “If revisionist arguments were really as absurd as these Jewish legal experts contend, there would hardly be a need for laws to punish anyone espousing them.” Since then, the effort has continued to be directed toward the legal process, hoping to block revisionists' arguments from public access altogether via criminalization.

At the time, the IAJLJ planned to hold conferences in more than 20 other European countries to lobby for more anti-revisionism laws. Today, with all their success, they are lobbying for more stringent laws with harsher penalties. And, more importantly, to harrass websites that present alternative views with the intent of getting them shut down. Their goal is to make the Internet completely denial-free along with the countries where the majority of Jews live. Which really means a world-wide ban on all thought and speech that they deem to be detrimental to their interests! Big Brother, here we are. It doesn't get any worse than this, and here are some recent examples for you to consider.

Jews seek legal action against conservative student leaders for mocking holocaust

In Austria, the Union of Jewish University Students (JÖH) — want those behind the content posted over four years in the Facebook group “FVJUS Men’s Collective” and the Whatsapp chat group “Badass warlords” to be “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” The chats’ content included a picture of a pile of ashes, with the caption: “Leaked Anne Frank nudes!”

In another post, a picture of Adolf Hitler was uploaded with the words: “Hey. I just met you and this is crazy, but here’s your number … So Auschwitz, maybe?” (shown right)

Benjamin Hess, spokesman for the Jews, said he was shocked that the Conservative Student Union at the University of Vienna, whose leaders participated in the leaked chat, some using their real names, “barely incurred any losses in the recent student election” and “these people go on to be the country's leaders.” He wants to make sure all people who did something questionable are removed from their positions; his group is pursuing criminal charges as well as holding demonstrations in front of the law school to raise awareness.

PayPal urged by the Jerusalem Post to cancel account of Der Dritte Weg (The Third Way)

At the request of the Jerusalem Post, the leading Israeli English language news outlet, PayPal has launched an investigation into its account with the German 'The Third Way' because it is “pro-Hezbollah, pro-Assad, and has supported holocaust denier Horst Mahler."

The Third Way lists PayPal funding amounts on its website ranging from €10 to €100. PayPal told the Post in an email, ““PayPal’s policy is not to allow our services to be used to accept payments or donations to organizations for activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.” It also said, “... we may disagree with the attitudes expressed by some of our account holders, but we respect the right to free expression and open dialogue.”

The JPost describes The Third Way as a neo-nazi organization that spreads an “anti-Semitic ideology” and opposes asylum for refugees. It enlists the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Efraim Zuroff to comment, “PayPal should not be hiding behind the fact that Germany has not banned The Third Way, which is clearly antisemitic and actively promotes antisemitism.”

So … antisemitism should be illegal, supporting Assad and Hezbollah should be illegal, and of course supporting holocaust denier Horst Mahler is illegal. Those who do will be shut down and forced off the Internet.

Anti-Defamation League demands Google remove Deniers from search results

Jonathan Vick — the ADL’s associate director of investigative technology and cyber-hate — was surprised to find a picture of David Irving among other holocaust historians at the top of a Google search page. He's calling on Google to edit the algorithm to ensure the exclusion of deniers and antisemites.

Others on the list that offend the Jews are David Hoggan, author of The Myth of the Six Million, and one-time Columbia University [revisionist] historian Harry Elmer Barnes, both highly respected historians in their day.

ADL's Vick said he was highly concerned by the fact that “we don’t know how long this issue has been up, and it would’ve been nice if someone had noticed earlier.” Google press representatives did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

In 2013, it was exposed that auto-fill suggestions on the search engine for “Jews should” included a host of disturbing [what they call] antisemitic phrases. Google hurried to edit that algorithm to exclude the most offensive statements from appearing in the auto-fill feature. [Of course, these suggestions come from the most frequently used search terms by Internet users. So this is in reality censorship and cover up of “real life” in order to impose a false jew-friendly view of reality that Jews are comfortable with.]

UPDATE: The Google search results for “Holocaust historian” have now been updated to exclude the image bar entirely.

So … changes, changes, changes are being made to please the Jews, to stop the Jews from screaming, and otherwise punishing the company, be it Google or PayPal or the Austrian university system. Where does it stop? It stops with the total criminalization of any political, historical or religious position that Jews don't want to see.

IHRA working definition of antisemitism being pushed

Then there's the latest new definition of antisemitism that is being pushed on everyone.-- this one put out by an organization called the 'International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.' This is a globalist group that started up in Sweden (ostensibly) in 1998, for the purpose of “expanding Holocaust education worldwide.” This is their non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“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.”

Does this clarify anything? No, it does not. What is it's purpose? I don't know but it is currently being pushed in the UK with the help of the  Board of Deputies of British Jews. It goes on to explain:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Further specific definitions include:

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Just this month, the Slovenian delegation to the IHRA issued a public statement condeming an incident of Holocaust denial -- in late April  Bernard Brščič  "denied the Holocaust" in a TV interview. Oh, horrors. The delegations are generally made up of Jews and this is the kind of reporting they do.

When organizations resist

Most recently, the University and College Union (UCU) decided at its annual congress to spurn the  International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as “retrograde,” “deeply disappointing” and “disgraceful.”

The UCU motion stated that the “[IHRA] definition conflates anti-semitism with criticism of the state of Israel and has been used to intimidate academics who are engaged in activities that are critical of the policies of the Israeli government but that are not anti-semitic.”

Another criticism was that the definition encourages the banning of speakers who are opposed to the policies of the state of Israel but who have not in any way expressed racism against Jewish people.”

In 2011, the UCU also rejected the definition of antisemitism proposed by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which, like the IHRA, considers forms of anti-Zionism to be antisemitic.

So the Jews keep trying to get everyone to sign on to a universal agreement on antisemitism that can be used as the basis for uniform laws under which offenders can be prosecuted. It's all about their enforcement powers. And the fact is, they keep gaining ground, little by little, in spite of the clearly anti-democratic nature of what they're doing. The way to stop them is to bring down the hoax of the holocaust because it, and it alone, is the basis for all their claims against European society.