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

Published by carolyn on Wed, 2017-05-31 01:16

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.


Translation: Our Holohoax can't stand up to the facts. forensic science, or the truth!
Our lies are being exposed...must shut down the internet.

The two Zundel trials in Toronto, 1985 and 1988, proved conclusively, even though Ernst and his legal team faced a pre-trial; "the truth is no defence", that the chambers claimed to be where millions were gassed, could never have been used as such. The investigation by American Fred Leuchter, an authority on gas execution, came to that conclusion in 1988.  

After extensive research I have not yet found evidence of a holocaust.I have found much evidence of jewish lies though.After all the rants of mountains of evidence that is never shown, it would be very simple to shut down holocaust denial for ever.Show us just some of the proof that is claimed to exist.If you claim to have it without actual evidence, then I will call you a liar.Zionists were screaming 6 million since the year 1900. Why?

Excellent research, Carolyn.
 The only question one needs ask is:
 "What sort of 'truth' has to be protected by jailing its transgressors?"
 The answer... none.  Only lies need this kind of force to keep them afloat.  But, fear not, no lie - whether it be against historical facts or natural laws - can be sustained.  They always fall under their own weight eventually. 

The ABCDEF, or Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaulation Frame  I am sure you can find it if you seek to know about dangerous cults.I can tell that you are a dangerous cult by your actions and tell-tale signs, you start telling me I can't read this or that and I'm stright done listening to you.The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame

It's amazing to me that the proponents & enablers of the snake of israel still panic every time someone has the guts to say these guys are liars & thieves. Recall what happened to Christ when he threw them out of the temple saying "they had made it a den of thieves." Sounds like the Fed, & Bauer's Central Banking doesn't it? We in the sane world are supposed to assign the Crucifixion, WWI, WWII, Nov. 22, 1963, June 18, 1967, Sept. 11, 2001 and the murder of Rachel Corrie as just Jewish mistakes. No, the Truth is that the cold, calculating eyes of satan the snake deliberately did those evils and has never, ever felt any remorse. Their day is coming. 

the official story is that it was himmler's idea?  

No, that is not the official story, but that is increasingly David Irving's story. I don't know anyone else who puts that out.

The European Parliament on Thursday voted in favor of a resolution endorsing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, drawing praise from Jewish groups.

Jews are always the first to sign up. The only people commenting on it are Dr. Moshe Kantor, President of the phony European JEWISH Congress (EJC) and Daniel Schwammenthal, Director of the American JEWISH Congress Transatlantic Institute.

So far, only the UK, Austria, Romania and Israel have adopted the definition. Something to keep an eye on though.

Stalin is supposed to have said: "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes."
I think we are in a situation now, where it doesn't matter what you know, or what everybody knows, or what has been proven, or what is obvious. It doesn't even matter now how obvious the lies are.
The only thing which matters, is whether your vote counts.Our opponents simply solve the problem by making it illegal express opinions that counter their own. "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists"!
We have nobody to represent us, no way to protest or fight these Zionist dictates in the name of "humanism" and "anti-racism", while they are represented at evey level.
We are forced to believe impossible feats now, like planes dissappearing without a trace in a skyscraper, and buildings pancaking down. We are forced to believe politically motivated climate change hoaxes, and in some countries, just being critical of mass immigrations equals "Nazism". I wish it were - with such a large number of good Nazis, liberation from the globalist grip, and the deportion of millions of Muslim invaders and Mexican criminals would not be far away.
But let me get back to my point: Our opponents, the regimes, the institutions, don't really care much anymore about keeping up facades. They seem increasingly uninterested in the quality of their hoaxes. It seems to be enough they have a story they can tell, and if people don't believe it they couldn't care less. Same with holyhoax as with 9/11, they don't care anymore, they know they will probably soon have to drop their masks completely anyway. When the peado thing threatens to really explode they'll just start a war or arrange another false flag.

Mr Brščič, mentioned in the article, never denied the holocaust, he merely used the word "alleged", which implies skepticism, not denial. So far public prosecutor has refused to prosecute anyone even for outright holo denial, which is an infrequent occurrence anyway, but this may change now as some members of the political left are crying wolf about the dramatic increase in antisemitism supposedly taking place in Slovenia.
Strangely enough, it's been reported in the past few days that the person who first went public with threats of pressing charges against Mr Brščič, an obscure homosexual activist and director of some kind of a Jew Centre by the name of Robert Waltl, isn't even a Jew himself, he just recognized a niche and took in millions of euros from the government for supposed Jewish studies and such like. The actual Jewish community, however, distanced themselves from Mr Waltl's rabid actions and said they have no issue with Mr Brščič's views or statements.

Thanks very much, Danny. Isn't that how it usually is - the Jewish press and organizations make a lot of noise about every little thing that concerns Jews. And then we talk about it!

Unless we can get revisionist lawmakers to push back against these jews, we'll lose.  Why can't we find someone to make a stand for us??
Any revisionist attorneys out there?