TradCatKnight: Jew World Order: You can Bad Mouth Catholics But Not Jews

Did you know it is now against the law
to say that Jews control the media? 

It is a fair bet that any ‘media reform’ welcomed by Dr Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, will be bad news for the defenders of free speech. So it is with his reaction to the British government’s groundbreaking new definition of anti-Semitism.
Kantor said: “We welcome the UK’s landmark decision to define anti-Semitism, particularly in the face of rising attacks against Jews. We must now look towards other European governments to follow the example set by the UK.”
He is referring to the British government’s decision to adopt a “legally binding definition” which will be used by police forces, councils, universities and public bodies. This ratchets the law sharply in the direction of making Jews a legally protected group and placing them beyond criticism. It would certainly sharply curtail academic and journalistic discussion of Jewish group behaviour.
For if the ethnic agendas of this very powerful and ethnocentric group cannot be discussed, it would effectively end legitimate academic and journalistic inquiry on the matter. It would certainly curtail discussion of all unflattering examples of Jewish group behaviour such as those outlined in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique.
The definition drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition (IHRA) is broadly the same one contained in the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that quietly went through the US senate. The aim seems to be to create a global standard on stifling free speech about Jewish power.
The definition itself is so open-ended as to be meaningless.

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (italics added)

Clear as mud. But it is when you look under the hood that things get very disturbing.
The IHRA definition lists a number of specific examples of anti-Semitism it wishes to outlaw and these include:

— Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
— Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
— Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
— Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
— Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
— Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
— Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Taken to its natural conclusion, it is hard to think of any descriptions of specific Jewish ethnic behaviour not covered by these sweeping definitions. (Or indeed any article in The Occidental Observer).
Is pointing out Jewish ownership of the media off-limits? How much media ownership, media management, and creation of media content amounts to media control? What about the ethnic composition of the neoconservative movement and the reasons behind their enthusiasm for Middle East wars? Or how about how the drive for ‘open borders’ and how restrictions on free speech across the West are overwhelmingly pushed by Jewish organisations (i.e., Jewish collectives).  Read more »