On May 1, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 6090, the official title to which is the “Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023.”
Critics say that its definition of antisemitism is overly broad and will lead to censorship or worse. Here, we’ll take a closer look.
That said, by design, the working definition of antisemitism has always been expansive to the point of being practically boundless.
For example, last year, as some reads may recall, podcaster Joe Rogan was called an antisemite for commenting on the powerful influence of George Soros in American politics, even though no connection was made to the fact that Soros is a Jew.
The lesson? Self-identified Jews who support liberal, globalist causes are beyond all criticism, and those who dare to point out their evil ways are destined to be denounced (perhaps persecuted, de-platformed, cancelled) as antisemites. In other words, the charge of antisemitism has never been anything other than a weapon that God’s adversaries can use to silence and punish their opponents.
So why the big dustup over H.R. 6090?
For one, the bill has the potential for serving as a steppingstone toward making charges of antisemitism criminally actionable. Of course, the U.S. government already freely harasses, charges, arrests, and incarcerates whomever it wishes. Still, the Antisemitism Awareness Act can only make matters worse.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, for those unafraid to acknowledge reality, it serves as evidence that Benjamin Freedman was correct when he warned all the way back in 1961:
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their coreligionists have complete control of our government.
For those unaware, Benjamin Freedman, a Jew who later converted to Christianity, was directly involved in meetings with President Woodrow Wilson as he was being influenced to support the Zionist movement and to adopt “the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve.” He was also present at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference after WWI as part “a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.”
Freedman’s insights on Zionism, the history of WWI, and the Jewish experience in Germany are of inestimable value, so much so that the speech linked above has been banned from YouTube. So, do yourself a favor…
Now, on to the bill.
According to H.R. 6090, the “definition of antisemitism” is to be understood as that which was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including the “contemporary examples of antisemitism” identified by that same organization.
That definition reads:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Let’s dissect:
- A certain perception of Jews
In other words, an opinion, the relative truthfulness of which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it’s an opinion of a certain kind.
What kind?
This, of course, is undefined by design. As a practical matter, the kinds of opinions that are subject to condemnation as “antisemitic” will be those that are disliked by Jews and their subservient goyim.
- Rhetorical and physical manifestations
Don’t be fooled. “Physical,” contrary to what the naïve will assume, does not refer simply to acts of violence or intimidation. Rather, it includes such physical things as books, newspapers, magazines, etc. More broadly, it refers to audio recordings, video presentations, websites, etc. “Rhetorical and physical manifestations” as a category encompasses all means of communication.
- Directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals
In other words, anyone, that is to say, any and all “manifestations” of an undesirable opinion are subject to the charge of antisemitism.
- Directed toward their property, Jewish community institutions, and religious facilities.
The naïve will assume that this refers exclusively to acts of vandalism or theft, but it may also include undesirable opinions or actions in relation to Jewish enterprises and/or the goods or services they provide.
For example, simply speaking out about the undue political influence of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which gives millions of dollars to members of Congress who then do the Jews’ bidding (e.g., the Bill under discussion here), would fall well within the IHRA definition of antisemitism. So too would criticism of Haaretz, one of the largest media outlets reporting on “the Jewish World” (their own words). Likewise, boycotting a Jewish business.
Presumably, you get the point.
In short, the potential list of Jewish grievances that fall under the category known as “antisemitism” is practically endless.
Now, let’s consider the examples provided by the IHRA. I will leave it to readers to visit the IHRA website linked above to read all of the examples if interested. Here, I will highlight just two of them:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.
Israel’s own Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel makes it clear that Israel conceives of itself as a Jewish collectivity. Therefore, any criticism of Israel is necessarily open to a charge of antisemitism.
Of greatest concern for anyone who calls himself Christian, however, is that “claims of Jews killing Jesus” is also among the examples of antisemitism provided for by the IHRA and ratified, by extension, in the U.S. House of Representatives via H.R. 6090.
What this means is that certain portions of Sacred Scripture can no longer be quoted, preached, or otherwise declared, either in word or in print (i.e, all “rhetorical and physical manifestations”) without committing an act of antisemitism. For example:
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. (Acts 3:13-15)
Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead. (Acts 4:10)
The Jews, both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men. (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15).
These are the inspired words of Almighty God. And here we have the Jews and those who take their money and do their bidding attempting to silence Him!
Shocking? No, not really.
He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
Of course those who reject God are loathe to hear Him, but it’s even worse than that. These servants of Satan do not want anyone to hear Him, and this too is nothing new.
In Acts 4, we find that Peter and John are called before the chief priests and elders who charge them to “speak no more in the name of Jesus to any man” (cf Acts 4:17).
Get that? To any man. In other words, forget carrying out the mission given to the Church by Jesus Christ!
At Vatican Council II, the Jews and their allies scored a major victory in their war against Christ the King, specifically as it concerns Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae, both of which are cited by name in the 1993 Fundamental Agreement Between the Holy See and the State of Israel. (See previous post.)
As a direct result of these conciliar texts, the church-of-man to which they belong feels no obligation whatsoever to call any man to conversion – not the Jews, not the Muslims, not the Buddhists, no one.
H.R. 6090 is cut from the same godless cloth as Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. Whereas the latter are aimed at muzzling the Church and curtailing her activities, the former is aimed at controlling the State.
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (Matthew 12:30)
In any battle, knowing one’s enemy is crucial. As followers of Christ, that means not only calling out and opposing their evil operations, it also means loving them enough to make sure they hear the truth.
With this in mind, the United States Congress, the IHRA, and the devious bastards who pull their strings can take their definition of antisemitism and stick it.
NOTE: The previous post poked the hornet’s nest. No doubt, this one will have them swarming as well. Maybe that’s why most Catholic media outlets, even those calling themselves “traditional,” largely treat “the Jews” as a third rail, despite the Bible verses cited above, and despite their obvious influence and ultimate victory at the Council that all of us claim to oppose.
At akaCatholic, we will continue speaking the truth no matter who it offends, no matter what it may cost. And cost it certainly has. If our approach resonates with you, any support you can offer will be most appreciated.
