True to Jewish form, William C. Daroff, who is CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, saw an opportunity to snatch one more concession from a society that is governed by pinheads, and he went for it. He wrote an article under the title: “How anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism intersect,” and had it published on July 1, 2021 in the New York Daily News.
The
main purpose of the article is to have the pinheads and others like them adopt
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of
anti-Semitism, which they wrote themselves, and shove it down the throat of
every segment of society. Here are the unedited words of William Daroff:
“The
United States, government, businesses and civil society must prioritize the
adoption and application of the IHRA definition with its helpful and
comprehensive examples. Schools and universities should use it in their
diversity and inclusion trainings to help students recognize bias; and
administrators should use the definition as a tool in determining whether an
incident is anti-Semitic. Social media companies should use it to assess what
constitutes hateful speech on their platforms. Law enforcement should apply its
guidance to determine whether a hate crime has been committed. Governments
should consult it when considering instances of discrimination against Jews”.
Even
though the text laying out the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, says it
is only a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism,” we cannot
trust that the Jews will not spend time, money and effort bribing, mesmerizing and
blackmailing the pinheads to reverse that promise, and turn the definition into
a legal document. There will be much more about that in a moment.
For
now, let’s take a closer look at the IHRA definition. It contains many examples
as to what constitutes antisemitism. Anyone looking at these examples would find
a number of them disturbing. The three I find most disturbing are the
following:
First:
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.
My
problem with this one, is that I would have to be a pathological liar and a
nutcase, trained in the art of self-deception to look at a Jew who would not
serve in the Canadian or American military, but goes to serve in the Israeli
military — and convince myself that this dude is more loyal to Canada or
America than he is to Israel. I would also have to be a pinhead to do that. But
if I were such a thing, I’d become a politician and run to be elected
legislator. And I would join the tribe of braindead zombies.
Second:
Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected
or demanded of any other democratic nation.
My
problem with this one, is that I would have to be totally ignorant of what
defines a democratic nation, or worse, I would know what defines a democratic
nation, but pretend that Israel is one that happens to annex other people’s
lands in the same way that good old democratic Hitler annexed other people’s
lands and got away with his crime till someone bombed him out of existence. I
am not willing to wait till it becomes safe to finally tell it like it is,
namely that Israel is as Fascist as Italy was under Mussolini, and as Nazi as
Germany was under Hitler.
Third:
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
My
problem with this one, is that aside from Israel, I cannot find a contemporaneous
example of a country or an entity that seeks to add to its population by
specifying that the newcomers must be of certain ethnic or religious group.
Hitler did it when he annexed the lands that contained a majority of ethnic
Germans. Israel is doing it by taking in only Jews.
As
to the difficulties I have in trusting that the Jews will not spend time, money
and effort bribing, mesmerizing or blackmailing the pinheads to have them break
the promise that the definition will not be turned into a legal document, let
me give you an example that will make your head spin.
It
is an article that came under the title: “The Warped Vision of a Two-State
Solution,” written by Victor Sharpe, and published on July 31 2021 in The
American Thinker.
Do
you remember what the Jews have been saying about offering the Palestinians
really, really, really good plans for a two-state solution on several occasions
but that the Palestinians rejected them all? Do you remember the Palestinians
saying that the Jews never offered anything, but that they used the peace talks
to buy time and consolidate their position on the ground, steal more lands from
the Palestinians, and bring in more Jews to settle in them?
Well,
look what Victor Sharp is saying now as he speaks in the name of Jews in Israel
and elsewhere. The following is only a condensed version of the first two
paragraphs in an article that is more than a thousand words long, and should be
read in its entirety:
“Barack Hussein Obama made Israel’s life miserable as he
pursued relentlessly his warped vision of a Two-State Solution to the
Israel-Palestinian conflict. That vision, being imagined yet again, would
remain national suicide for Israel. Pushed by many in the international
corridors of power, it is an appalling euphemism not unlike the German Nazi’s
‘Final Solution’ which ushered in the Holocaust. And now, the Biden/Harris
administration is currently pushing yet again for the disinterment of that
rotting corpse known as the Two-State Solution. It will spell the destruction
of the reconstituted Jewish state and the extermination of its people”.
That’s
what the Jews were really, really, really thinking while lying to the world,
saying that they made some really, really, really good offers to the
Palestinians. The Jews lied then, and they are lying now when they say they
intend for the definition of antisemitism to remain non-binding legally.
We cannot trust them or the pinheads whose only wish in life is to find a Jewish ass to which they can glue their lips and collect the Jewish Benjamins.