What's the difference between having a working definition for an activity on one hand, and writing into law that same definition on the other hand? The difference is that the law ascribes punishment for violating the definition. This would be punishment that ranges anywhere between a slap on the wrist, and the death penalty in the places where capital punishment is still practiced.
Let's take two examples to see
what exactly we're talking about:
First example: You define
killing someone as depriving them of their life. Killing being a physical act,
it is easy to ascribe a penalty to it. In fact, because there are several
categories of killing, such as premeditated, manslaughter, involuntary and so
on, you can ascribe a specific punishment for each category.
Second example: You try to
define not a physical act such as killing, beating, stealing and so on, but
define the expression of a thought that is not an incitement to hurt a person
or an identifiable group (which is prosecutable under current laws,) but an
expression that describes your assessment of that person's character or that
group's cultural habits which you find objectionable.
To begin with, how do you
classify such assessment into categories so that you may ascribe an appropriate
level of punishment for each category?
It is that, a thought you
express about someone or a group, can range from a simple insult such as
calling them “idiot,” to a serious accusation such as, “I saw this man shoot
his wife dead.” The thing is that there are current laws which cover this kind
of cases and there is no need for more laws. In addition, because calling
someone an expletive does not hurt unless it is repeated over and over in a public
setting, people do not seek legal remedy when so victimized. But to falsely
accuse someone of a crime, is viewed as a serious offense that is usually
prosecuted.
Because there is a wide gulf
between the expletive you'll ignore, and the false accusation you'll want to
prosecute, we must ask: What could be between those two extremes?
When you ponder on that
question in search of an answer, you'll find that as individuals and as a
group, most Jews sit on both sides of the fence. In fact, they repeatedly call
someone they do not like, an anti-Semite, which has proven to destroy careers,
even the lives of innocent people. Simultaneous to that, the Jews whine no end
about innocuous expletives used by others to describe the character of a Jew or
the cultural habits of Jews as a group.
The Jews have now intensified
their attacks on others, doing it publicly and repeatedly by calling those they
do not like anti-Semites. As well, they have intensified their whining about
the rise of what they insist is antisemitism among the general public. They are
doing it not just in one country or one continent, but throughout the world.
And they have the gall to say that this is proof there is something wrong with
humanity which, in their screwed-up way of thinking, means they are perfect.
As per habit, the Jews ran to
a higher authority, hand pressed against their aching bellies, and called for
the enactment of legislation that would give them relief from those who dare
tell them that when they accuse all of humanity of being at fault, they look
worse than the emperor with no clothes, they look like naked clowns.
One of those is Rhoda Smolow
who is president of the women's Zionist Organization of America. She wrote an
article in which she tells the American Congress, “Time for America to write
the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of
anti-Semitism into law,” which happens to be the title of her article,
published on October 7, 2020 in Jewish News Syndicate.
The article is the usual pile
of garbage that's put together by the Jews to impress the mentally retarded of
the Congress, coaxing them to ask no questions and do as told. In fact, the
article is not worth parsing, but you need to read it in its entirety anyway,
if only to satisfy yourself of the reality that nowhere in this piece of work,
does the author point to an offense alluded to in the IHRA that's not now
covered by existing laws.
Regardless of that silly
definition, how could the Jews justify going after someone that tells them the
following: You are asking too much as usual, and the general public is getting
mad at you. Rather than let it get some steam off, you're forcing the public to
bottle up the anger. And it's about to explode with rage.
In fact, the Jews know this
cycle too well because it has been their history for thousands of years. So,
why are they repeating it? They are repeating it, not because they believe that
the moment America adopts their definition, the public will change their hearts
and mind about the Jews, but because they expect to see something more profound
than that.
You see, my friend, whether
Moses lied to them or he was hallucinating when he told them he went up the
mountain, met God who promised to make the Jew special, they feel they are owed
the fulfillment of that promise. Since they are now convinced that no messiah
will come and officially impose the Jews on humanity, they want the governments
of the world to substitute for God and impose the Jews on their respective
societies.
Enacting that definition into law would be one way to get there. And the Jews will work as hard as the dickens to make it happen … Holocaust or no Holocaust.