by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.
Editorâ€™s note: This is the second in a brilliant three-part sequence first published by The Occidental Observer on Tuesday 14th July 2020 at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/07/14/secure-tolerance-the-jewish-plan-to-permanently-silence-the-west-part-2/
2012-2015: The National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance
Between 2012 and January 2015, Dinstein and three other experts on constitutional law, backed by Kantorâ€™s ECTR developed a draft 12-page pan-European â€œtolerance lawâ€ for adoption by the European Union. The law was intended to â€œcriminalize â€˜group libelâ€™, such as negative stereotyping, target group-to-group intolerance, and ban neo-Nazi and other discriminatory organizations in Europeâ€.
On January 27, the draft legislation debuted at the European Jewish Congress, then meeting in Prague, with Kantor presiding and throwing his â€œsupport behind the proposal, which would grant harsher punishments for hate crimes against Jews, Muslims, Roma, women, and LGBQT alike across the continentâ€.
Minor complaints came from Alan Dershowitz and Bernard Henri-Levy, who believed that an educational (indoctrination) strategy would be a more effective (safer for Jews) way of pursuing an end to anti-Semitism. Dinstein (and, one would presume, Kantor), according to Times of Israel, was â€œundeterred by the criticism, insisting that he would continue to promote the legislation to European governments, in the hopes that like Holocaust denial criminalization, which he said was initially perceived as a â€˜pipe dreamâ€™, the tolerance law will ultimately take root.â€
Dinsteinâ€™s document, innocuously titled â€œA European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,â€ [full text here] but also known by the name â€œModel National Statute for the Promotion of Toleranceâ€, was designed to legally implement Kantorâ€™s ideological proposals as outlined in the 2011 Manifesto for Secure Tolerance, and made provision for the explicit criminalization of â€œovert approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitismâ€.
It proposes to make â€œeducation in toleranceâ€ mandatory from elementary school to college. All governments will be legally obliged to ensure their schools â€œintroduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity. â€¦ It is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme, i.e. in elementary schoolâ€. The same measures will have to be imposed in the education of the military and the police, and for the entire professional class within society.
The statute also makes it a legal obligation for every EU country to ensure that public broadcasting â€œdevote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of toleranceâ€. It asserts a legally binding commitment that: â€œThe production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes â€“ promoting a climate of tolerance â€“ will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.â€
Mass media will be completely given over to the development and dissemination of pro-diversity propaganda:
- The Government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.
- The Government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance.
- The Government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints commission.
In short, the proposals aim to make â€œcommitment to toleranceâ€ a total and legally binding principle, bringing about a revolution in culture. In other words, nations will be punished if their TV stations do not produce pro-tolerance propaganda, if they fail to indoctrinate their children in pro-tolerance propaganda, and if they fail to aggressively prosecute and imprison dissidents. In fact, it provides for the establishment of â€œspecial administrative unitsâ€ dedicated to the direct surveillance of all individuals or groups deemed to possess â€œintolerant viewsâ€.
The statute develops a framework of â€œconcrete and enforceable obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intoleranceâ€. The proposals were also designed by Kantor and Dinstein to include explicit, special protections for Jews. Dinstein, for example, remarked at a 2012 presentation of an early draft to then-EU President Martin Schulz, that â€œWhilst current definitions of tolerance would preclude racism and religious-based bigotry, anti-Semitism must be individually stated as a separate definition. Holocaust denial should be a crime.â€
Crucially, the statute provides for the legal protection of all standard Jewish historical narratives, not just that of the Holocaust. It asserts, for example, that â€œIt must be understood that the â€˜group libelâ€™ may appear to be aimed at members of the group in a different time (another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the State)â€. Based on one of his most recent speeches, Kantorâ€™s own interpretation of history leaves a lot to be desired: â€œHistorically, Jews were always among the most loyal citizens of their countries, and did their best to integrate and to become pillars of society in all walks of life.â€
Presumably, anything outside such a fantasy would be considered criminal hate speech. In other words, if a modern-day Italian made the claim that Jews were dominant moneylenders in England during the medieval period, and that they contributed to the hostility demonstrated against them during that time, and which resulted in their expulsion in 1290, this individual could be subjected to the same harsh legal penalties as someone who made â€œanti-Semiticâ€ criticisms of Israel today, or â€œdenied the Holocaust.â€ And these penalties are harsh.
The document argues there is â€œno need to be tolerant to the intolerantâ€. Group libel, â€œOvert approval of a totalitarian ideologyâ€, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and public approval or denial of the Holocaust, are all to be treated as â€œaggravated crimesâ€. Juveniles â€œguilty of intoleranceâ€ will avoid prison, but are to be brainwashed via â€œa rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of toleranceâ€.
Since first presenting a draft to Martin Schulz in 2012, Kantorâ€™s ECTR has presented the Model Statute in a series of meetings and seminars with international organizations, including the Council of Europe and the OSCE, as part of an intensive lobbying effort to have it written into law throughout Europe. There is currently a joint ECTR-European Council task force which is working on its implementation.
Kantor has ensured his measures are massively incentivized. He has launched a $1 million â€œKantor Prize for Secure Toleranceâ€, an ECTR annual European Medal of Tolerance, and a research fund offering grants of â€œ20â€“50 thousand Euro eachâ€ for experts who can advance the legal and cultural enforcement of diversity.
2016â€“2018: Kantor, the ADL, and the War on â€œCyber Hateâ€
Beginning in late 2015, Kantor began accelerating a more global approach to â€œSecure Toleranceâ€ by building a more intensive relationships with the ADL and focusing more heavily on internet â€œintolerance.â€ In January 2016, Kantorâ€™s European Jewish Congress and the ADL announced â€œa partnership to cooperate on advocacy work within European Union institutions,â€ that would involve lobbying for the implementation of the Model Statute and for heightened levels of internet censorship.
At a meeting of the EJCâ€™s General Assembly in Brussels, it was announced that the move would â€œenable the ADL to have a greater impact on E.U. policies and programsâ€, while providing Kantorâ€™s policies with a pathway to U.S. legislators. ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt boasted that â€œWorking together, we will leverage our respective strengths to pursue our common goals more effectively.â€ An enthused Kantor replied, â€œI am delighted that we are partnering with such an august institution as ADL which has a longstanding record of fighting for greater tolerance and against the scourge of hatred, racism and anti-Semitism.â€
Ultimately, of course, it meant the further dilution of democracy in Europe, with an unelected and unsolicited gang of American Jews now free to engage in â€œadvocacy work within European institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Commissionâ€.
By 2018, Kantorâ€™s effort at international Jewish co-operation to bring about â€œsecure toleranceâ€ had settled on the internet as a matter of major concern and as a potential springboard for further movement on repressive international legislation. There had been earlier grumblings. In 2015, then ADL Director Abraham Foxman, and also Yoram Dinstein, had called for measures to end internet anonymity and therefore expose the â€œintolerantâ€ to â€œthe censure of society. â€¦ If you want to be bigot you have to take responsibility for itâ€. But by 2018 this had evolved into the quest for more systematic, legal solutions to online dissent.
In March 2018, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum made a priority of â€œfighting cyber hateâ€.
A modern day meeting of the Elders of Zion, the number of representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over one thousand, including leaders from the ADL; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil ReprÃ©sentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; Bâ€™nai Bâ€™rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.
The Global Forum, in common with so much of what we have seen so far, is essentially a central â€œthink tankâ€ for the campaign to introduce internet censorship throughout the West. It devises intellectual and political strategies styled as â€œrecommendationsâ€ for Western governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations. The â€˜recommendationsâ€™ of the 2018 Forum included a demand that all governments adopt â€œa clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitismâ€ the latter being achieved quite quickly since the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was devised in 2016.
The Global Forum called for the introduction of an international legal ban on â€œHolocaust denial sitesâ€, and its plan to â€œeliminate anti-Semitismâ€ is comprehensive. Among its more recent recommendations were proposals to establish national legal units responsible for combating â€˜cyber hateâ€™; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute â€˜cyber hateâ€™ and â€˜online anti-Semitismâ€™, and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are absent.
In much the same way that Kantorâ€™s â€œsecure toleranceâ€ policy proposes that â€œrestrictions are necessary for freedomâ€, many if not all of the Jewish intellectuals involved in the campaign to end free speech on the internet do so while shamelessly and hypocritically posing as the truest defenders of freedom and liberty.
A classic example in this regard is Raphael Cohen-Almagor, author of Confronting the Internetâ€™s Dark Side (2015) and a key figure in the Global Forum as well as perhaps the leading anti-free speech intellectual active today. Cohen-Almagor received his D. Phil. in political theory from Oxford University in 1991, and his B.A. and M.A. from Tel Aviv University. In 1992â€“1995 he lectured at the Hebrew University Law Faculty. From 1995â€“2007 he taught at the University of Haifa Law School, Department of Communication, and Library and Information Studies University of Haifa. He is a very strongly-identified Jew, having acted as Chairperson of â€œThe Second Generation to the Holocaust and Heroism Remembranceâ€ Organization in Israel. He also shamelessly but aggressively postures himself as a â€œdefender of democracyâ€, acting as Founder and Director of Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. He is currently Chair in Politics at the University of Hull, United Kingdom. As with other aspects of the â€œthink tankâ€ strategy, this is â€œdemocracyâ€, but not as you know it.
Cohen-Almagorâ€™s most recent significant production, titled â€œTaking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internetâ€, appeared in 2018 in the International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy.  Along with an earlier piece from 2016  the article is an excellent sample and summary of Cohen-Almagorâ€™s work to date, and also acts as a remarkable and important example of Jewish manipulation of discussions of free speech and the politics of White advocacy.
The articleâ€™s basic argument is that American so-called â€œWhite supremacistâ€ websites are a hotbed of dangerous hate speech which can be conclusively linked to criminality. Since hate speech â€œcan and does inspire crimeâ€, it is incumbent upon governments to introduce legislation banning such speech under harsh legal penalties.
We will never know how Charlottesville might have been remembered without the incident involving James Fields and Heather Heyer, but there is little doubt that it was perhaps the greatest propaganda coup that Jewish organizations could have hoped for. It therefore comes as no surprise that Cohen-Almagor should open his article with this:
â€œOn 12 August 2017, James Alex Fields Jr rammed his car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters united against a white supremacist rally, Unite the Right, in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America (USA).â€
Despite the extreme rarity of violence from the Alt-Right, and the many singular aspects of this particular episode, Cohen-Almagor employs the most sweeping generalizations to assert the incident â€œillustrates the danger that the white supremacist movement poses to American society, and the close connection between hate online and hate crimes.â€
Cohen-Almagor, along with the 18 Jews from the ADL, SPLC, and similar organizations he interviewed for the paper, are aware of the objections of classical liberalism to restrictions on speech:
â€œ[C. Edwin] Baker (1992, 1997), for instance, argues that almost all of the harm inflicted by free speech is eventually mediated by the mental processes of the audience. The audience decides its reaction to speech. The listeners determine their own response. Any consequences of the listenersâ€™ response to hate speech must be attributed, in the end, to the listeners. The result is the right of speakers to present their views even if assimilation by the listeners leads to or constitutes serious harm. Baker (1997, 2012), like many American liberal philosophers and First Amendment scholars, wishes to protect freedom of expression notwithstanding the harm that the speech might inflict on the audience. â€¦ Consequently, many of my interviewees argue that American liberals thus tend to underestimate the harm in hate speech.â€
The key Jewish counter-argument is to assert that speech itself can be harmful and that â€œthe audienceâ€ can be harmed merely by exposure to it. In practical terms, Cohen-Almagor contends that James Fields drove his car into a crowd at Charlottesville solely because he was exposed to hate speech â€” not because of his mental health, situational factors that day and immediately prior to his conduct in the vehicle, or because of catastrophic policing failures.
Why everyone else â€œexposedâ€ to â€œWhite supremacist hate speechâ€ didnâ€™t engage in similar conduct is left unexplained. Instead, we are to agree with Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish colleagues that
â€œhate speech should not be dismissed as â€˜mere speech.â€™ â€¦ The preferred American liberal approach of fighting ideas with ideas, speech with speech, is insufficient. Hate speech needs to be taken more seriously by the legal authorities than it currently is.â€
Just as the James Fields episode is extrapolated exponentially to define an entire movement, so the issue of â€œhate speechâ€ and censorship is based on an extremely small number of exceptional cases. Cohen-Almagor claims that â€œinternet hate can be found on thousands of websites, file archives, chat rooms, newsgroups and mailing lists,â€ so one might assume that his methodology and argument would involve a wide range of examples where these thousands of sources are linked to thousands of instances of violence and criminality â€” particularly since Cohen-Almagor argues that â€œWhite supremacistâ€ websites are â€œlike terrorist groupsâ€. The problem, however, is that he does no such thing, because there are no such examples.
In order to present even the most tenuously relevant research, Cohen-Almagor relies purely on unsophisticated comments from a handful of the most extreme and obscure racialist sites on the internet, and even here the author fails to provide a single instance where a White racialist website has suggested any acts of violence. So inconsequential and amateurish were such sites that by the time of writing his article Cohen-Almagor has to concede â€œquite a few sites discussed here are now defunctâ€. Having initially made a small directory of such sites, he admits the â€œvast majority of the web pages in that directory are no longer operativeâ€.
It is surely a damning indictment of the state of modern peer-reviewed academic journals that someone could publish an argument against the principle of free speech solely on the basis of the putative content of obscure and minuscule internet sources which are no longer even in existence.
In fact, Cohen-Almagor canâ€™t even come to a fixed and satisfactory definition of â€œhate speechâ€ or â€œhate sites.â€ This is presumably by design, with the intention that the topic is plagued by so many gray areas that any future legislation in the area is, like all existing examples of hate legislation, destined to be rhetorically capacious enough to ensure easy arbitrary interpretation by those in control.
Early in his essay he asserts that â€œHate speech is intended to injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize the targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against them.â€ But he also later endorses a definition of the Alt-Right, which is routinely portrayed by Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish allies as a body of â€œhate groupsâ€, as merely â€œcriticalâ€ of â€œmulticulturalism, feminists, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minoritiesâ€. Criticism thus becomes conflated with hate.
It goes without saying that there is a crucial difference between the two definitions, and it is in the gulf between these two definitions that these activists seek to destroy freedom of speech. Mere criticism may not â€œinjure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimizeâ€ anyone, but the existence of a legislative framework privileging minority interpretations of such criticism will surely consign it to hate speech categorization.
Cohen-Almagor and his co-ethnic activists are equally vague in explaining exactly how â€œWhite supremacistâ€ websites are morally or legally wrong. Despite its initial claims and promises, much of the article is in fact taken up with banal observations. White racialist websites, Cohen-Almagor informs us, often have â€œforums, discussion groups, photos and videosâ€. They offer â€œeye-catching teasers such as symbols and picturesâ€. Readers of such websites â€œtalk to each other, thereby reinforcing their commonly held views, empowering people who share their beliefs.â€ A key strategy involves â€œencouraging interpersonal socialization in the offline worldâ€. Members â€œuse cyberspace as a free space to create and sustain movement culture and coordinate collective actionâ€. Website proprietors can also â€œmake appeals for fundingâ€. Perhaps this is quite terrifying to Jews, but as a philosophical argument for the annihilation of free speech it is catastrophically lacking.
Cohen-Almagor provides no evidence suggesting a link between even the most incendiary racial commentary on the internet and acts of violence. The only two examples he attempts to provide are almost two decades old, and concern individuals with clearly unsound mental health â€” spree-shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith having exhibited all the signs of conduct disorder and psychopathy in adolescence prior to his 1999 rampage, and Buford O. Furrow having been hospitalized a number of times due to psychiatric instability and suicidal tendencies prior to his shooting spree at a Jewish community center, also in 1999.
Even the most basic critique of such a proposed link would ask why, given the proliferation of the internet and social media between 1999 and 2018, there has been a decrease in violence from the far right. Indeed, if one can excuse the continued use of the â€œracistâ€ and â€œhateâ€ buzzwords, itâ€™s difficult to disagree with one University of California, Berkeley study that pointed out:
â€œAlthough White racist groups have proliferated on the Internet in recent years, there appears to have been no corresponding increase in membership in these groups or in hate crime rates. In fact, one might argue that the prevalence of racist groups on the Internet works to reduce hate crime, perhaps by providing less physical, more rhetorical outlets for hate.â€ 
The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagorâ€™s argument â€” that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence â€” is a total fabrication.
It is a fabrication that is being used in conjunction with some of the biggest international Jewish organizations and, via the Global Forum, the State of Israel, to blackmail and deceive Western populations via a specious sense of morality (i.e., a â€œmoralityâ€ that denies the legitimate interests of White populations in maintaining political, cultural, and demographic control) coupled with activism in the media and financial pressure on politicians.
Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the ADL, argues shamelessly in an interview with Cohen-Almagor: â€˜The evidence is clear that hate online inspires hate crimesâ€™. Cohen-Almagor writes:
â€œOverly permissive and tolerant attitudes towards hate speech is a form of akrasia, whereby people act against their better judgment. Not just those who post but also those who allow such postings on their servers are culpable for their akratic conduct. Whether through ignorance, indifference or insistence on clinging to freedom of speech without caring about dangerous consequences, these are unjustifiable. Internet service providers are expected to abide by a basic code of conduct, one that objects to rather than celebrates violence and its promotion. When it comes to hate speech on the Internet, society and its regulators cannot continue to remain akratic and avoid responsibility for the harm that is inflicted.â€
 Cohen-Almagor, â€˜Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,â€™ International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2018), pp.38-57.
 Cohen-Almagor, â€˜Hate and Racist Speech in the United States: A critique,â€™ Philosophy and Public Issues, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.77-123.
 J. Glaser, J. Dixit & D. Green, â€™Studying Hate Crime with the Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?â€™ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 177â€“193 (p.189)