When you author a piece of work, you
become the ultimate authority on it. Two people may dispute words and/or
passages in it, but neither can claim being one hundred percent correct in what
they say. The only one that can make such claim, is you, the author of the
piece.
All of that is fine and dandy if the piece
is a work of art that's put out in the public domain for audiences to consume,
to enjoy and to engage in debates about it. What is not fine or dandy is that
the work be labeled a definition of some kind, and given legal force or a
quasi-legal one. In fact, something like this can happen by creeping
infiltration if the definition — made-up by an individual or a group — is repeatedly
attached to legal precis, and considered an element of doctrine commanding some
level of authority.
We must consider a development such as
that happening to the legal system as a tragedy that should be avoided like
Ebola. That's because only a parliamentary institution operating within the
confines of a well-defined jurisdiction, should have the mandate to bestow this
kind of authority onto someone. Even then, the institution would have to have
fully deliberated the various points that pertain to the issue before bestowing
such authority onto someone. In fact, that someone cannot be just anybody: he
or she will have to be an elected executive. Moreover, the bestowed power
should have a sunset clause attached to it so as to put a time-limit on the
mandate.
Failing that, the tragedy that could
potentially be created, stems from the fact that when a definition is given the
power of law, the creator of the definition becomes sovereign — and not just
any sovereign, but an authoritarian sovereign. Whether it is an individual or a
group, they will be consulted in every legal case where the definition is
invoked. And their word will decide the outcome of all such cases. This, in
fact, is what the Jews are trying to accomplish using what they call the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Antisemitism Definition.
You can see for yourself how forcefully
the Jews are pushing to have their definition of antisemitism adopted by any
fool who will listen to them. You'll find an example of their argument in the
article that came under the title: “It's Time for the Media to Adopt the IHRA
Antisemitism Definition,” written by Pesach Benson and published on March 14,
2019 in Algemeiner.
Before you're done reading the first
paragraph of the article, you'll have felt the chill run up your spine. It goes
like this: “A working definition of antisemitism is gaining traction … it has
been adopted and endorsed by a growing number of governments — most recently,
France”.
Pesach Benson goes on to tell what the
Jews will be able to control in the jurisdictions that will adopt their
definition of antisemitism. Note however that even if the definition were
totally innocuous — which it isn't — the fact of adopting it alone, will make
of the Jews the ultimate arbiters that will decide the outcome of every case
where the definition will have been invoked by one of the litigants.
And you shudder recalling that even
without such definition in their tool box, it took the Jews less than half a
century to take control of superpower America using the simple confusing trick
of accusing everyone they wished to vanquish off the face of the earth, of
being: antisemitic for saying A instead of B, and being antisemitic for saying
B instead of A.
Now try to imagine the Jews wielding that
definition in addition to the other tools they have developed throughout the
centuries. Or maybe you shouldn't even try to imagine because Benson has done
the imagining for you. Look what he says in that regard:
“Guided by the definition, police and prosecutors
will effectively respond to hate crimes; colleges will deal with campus
antisemitism; and local activists won't flounder. The definition has already
served as a powerful tool: Britain's Labour Party sought to adopt a
watered-down version, but the controversy it sparked proved too embarrassing.
Labour adopted the full definition. The controversy stirred by Labour
highlights one aspect of the definition that's not universally accepted. That
is: denying the Jews the right to self-determination, claiming that Israel is a
racist endeavor, and requiring of Israel behavior not expected of other
entities. As well, Anti-Zionism is recognized as a form of antisemitism. Beyond
governments, the media need to adopt the definition. Guided by it, journalists will
make better decisions covering the BDS movement on campuses. Editors will be
able to judge op-eds and letters, and moderators will better control comments”.
Now, my friend, as an intellectual
exercise, put together the secret wishes of all the dictators that have
disgraced Planet Earth since the beginning of time, and you'll find that they
did not dream of wielding a fraction of that level of power over their
subjects.
To think that the Jews are asking for it,
and that some people contemplate granting it to them, says a great deal that’s
unflattering about the level of intellectual development the human species has
attained.