Genocide: Secret History of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act

A Chronicle of a Two-Tiered Standard of Judgment



I. Genocide Denial Law as Applied Only to One People

II. The “Noahide Law” Deception and Talmudic Exceptionalism

III. The Antisemitism Awareness Act: The Beginning of the End for the First Amendment

I . Genocide Denial Law as Applied Only to One People

“The Holocaust falls into that unique category of criminal malevolence whose enormity puts it beyond the purview of traditional standards of law and reason.” —Kenneth Lasson, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore

“I believe the true line of research lies in the noting and comparison of the smallest details.” —Sir William Matthew Flinders-Petrie

Despite some slight window-dressing to the contrary, Genocide Denials and the Lawpublished by Oxford University, is handbook for punishing human beings for doubting the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz. All other doubts about all the other acts of genocide that have occurred throughout history are permissible.

Genocide Denials and the Law begins with an axiom from which its remaining 320-some pages proceed: “For historians, denials of genocide (or of any other crime against humanity) does not raise any serious issue. Indeed, they can demonstrate easily the absurdity of the deniers’ arguments.”

We are informed that the Holocaust cannot be subjected to questions because those who would seek to uphold the truth of execution gas chambers would be tricked into losing.  Here’s the argument from Genocide Denials and the Law:

To entertain the theses or to debate Holocaust revisionists (deniers) would be to fall into Arthur Schopenhauer’s exposition of the pitfalls of “controversy,” whereby, in a debate between homicidal gas chamber affirmers and homicidal gas chamber deniers, the deniers could triumph through tricks such as “argument ad auditores” in which an “invalid objection” is raised which “only an expert sees to be invalid” (p. xvii).

In other words, people can’t be trusted to form their own judgments. The experts must do their thinking for them and the state must intervene through the promulgation of an official truth and declare holocaust denial illegal. No controversy must be allowed to arise because the non-expert public would be too readily gulled.

Nota bene (and this is the clincher): All other skepticism about other forms of war crime, genocide and holocaust are legal however, including Deborah Lipstadt’s infamous denial of the 1945 Allied holocaust in the city of Dresden.

In Germany, they tell us, Holocaust deniers can be punished on the grounds that their doubts have harmed the self-esteem of Judaic people: “…deniers can be convicted with the offenses of insult or defamation, since the courts consider this expression to be an attack on the `personality,’ that is, the `self-conception’ (Selbstverständnis) of Jews living today in the country.”

This was partly the basis of the conviction in France under the Gayssot Act, of Robert Faurisson, following the publication of a newspaper interview in which he contested the existence of homicidal gas chambers. He appealed his conviction to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, Robert Faurisson v. France (1996.)

The United Nations ruled that “(S)ince the statements made by the author, read in their full context, were of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-semitic feelings, the restriction served the respect of the Jewish community to live free from fear of an atmosphere of anti-semitism” (p. xxxiii).

Holocaust Denialism Law (as it has come to be known), is tilted toward the demands of ethno-chauvinists. Denials by Zionists of holocausts against Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanese in Beirut in the summer of 1982, and against Germans in Dresden, are never the subject of prosecution. The “strengthening” of anti-Arab or anti-German “feelings” is not an issue.

In ruling against French philosopher Roger Garaudy’s appeal of his conviction in France for writing his 1996 book, Les Mythes fondateurs de la politique Israelienne, (translated into English and published in the U.S. as The Founding Myths of Modern Israel), the European Court of Human Rights wrote in 2003: “Denying crimes against humanity is…one of the most serious forms of racial defamation of Jews and of incitement to hatred of them…and thus its counter to the fundamental values of the (European Human Rights) Convention, as expressed in its Preamble, namely justice and peace” (p. xxxvi).

The obvious question is whether “denying crimes against Arabs and German civilians is one of the most serious forms of racial defamation of Arabs and Germans and of incitement to hatred of them…and thus its counter to the fundamental values of the (European Human Rights) Convention.”

European, Canadian and Australian laws banning holocaust denial do not remotely take into account the impact on the people of Lebanon of the denial of the Israeli holocaust in Beirut in the summer of 1982, or the impact on Palestinians of the denial of the Israeli holocaust in Gaza from December, 2008 through January, 2009, and since October, 2023.

Is not denying those crimes against humanity “one of the most serious forms of racial defamation” of Arabs and of incitement to hatred of them? But no such linkage appears possible.

The European Court, whether or not it is actually conversant with Talmudic theology and Zionist ideology, seems to have been mentally colonized by the supremacism of those two belief systems, given that its legal rulings reflect the superior/inferior dichotomy inherent in them.



In Genocide Denials and the Law, Amherst College Law Prof. Lawrence Douglas argues that all denial of homicidal gas chambers is an extension of Nazi propaganda. It is certainly true that today’s Hitler sympathizers and neo-Nazis comprise large segments of the denial movement. I would estimate however, that 10 to 15% are purely in pursuit of forbidden knowledge.

In and of itself the act of investigating details of history cannot be “anti” anyone. It is a purely intellectual undertaking. It was the reason Sir Flinders-Petrie, an auto-didact who arrived in Egypt as an amateur archaeologist renowned for his knowledge and insatiable curiosity, made major discoveries including the Merneptah Stele and Proto-Sinaitic script.

It is a disservice to the Holocaust to treat it as a religion possessed of a liturgy rather than a history, and a remit to prosecute and jail heretics (some of whom have been imprisoned in Austria, Germany, Canada and Britain, and fined and fired in Australia, France and Switzerland).  These repressive acts tend to increase the attraction of historical investigation of a forbidden topic.

The overarching problem here is the blind, thoughtless partisanship according to which Holocaust denial is made illegal in order to prevent the revival of Nazism. The good end supposedly justifies the bad means.

Overlooked is the real world harm which Zionism—weaponized by Talmudism—has inflicted in terms of the massacre and genocide of Arab civilians. In logic, accepting the rationale for the censorship and prosecution of deniers of the Nazi holocaust furnishes justification for the censorship and prosecution of Gaza holocaust denial, assuming Jewish and Gentile victims of mass murder are equal. It appears however, that they are not.

Douglas furnishes a self-serving moral rationale for why it is right to imprison deniers for years: “Once we appreciate that the methods of the deniers represent an extension and reimplementation of strategies and tactics first designed by and deployed by the perpetrators, we are better positioned to grasp the logic behind criminalizing denial, at least in such countries as Germany and Austria” (p. 56).

Au contraire Prof. Douglas, human beings are not accomplices to murder because they deny the existence of a murder weapon. The right to doubt honestly, that is, doubt that is based on a reasonable apprehension of fantasies and contradictions being present in a dogma, is a Socratic imperative and an immemorial right.

Douglas derides as harassment of the “survivors,” the tough questions put to prosecution witnesses by Demjanjuk’s defense attorney Mark O’Connor. Yet Mr. Douglas is content to expend half of p. 68 mocking Demjanjuk’s testimony in Jerusalem, all but calling him a dumb goy in the process. Demjanjuk’s “story was so implausible” and he “openly contradicted himself.”

By contrast, in defense of the stories recounted by the witnesses against Demjanjuk, Douglas exonerates them as follows:

“In the Demjanjuk trial the living memory of survivors…only revealed the foibles of traumatic memory—its vulnerability to suggestion and misidentification” (p. 73).

Clearly it is some kind of an offense (possibly criminal) to speak of the testimony of Nazi genocide survivors in terms reserved for a goy like Demjanjuk. When some Judaic witnesses fib or fantasize it is a result of “trauma” and “vulnerability.” The double standard is trnsparent.

In Genocide Denials and the Law Robert A. Kahn, Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, is concerned with distinctions between “Holocaust denial” and hate speech: “…does hate speech theory capture the harm that Holocaust denial poses to society?” he asks.

I admit to feeling threatened by rabbinic hate speech, wherein it is declared by rabbis such as Yitzhak Shapira that Gentiles may be killed at will. The hate speech of Rabbi Shapira will probably never be a target of Prof. Kahn; or result in calls for Shapira’s imprisonment.

Professor Kahn wants to punish deniers and intimidate would-be skeptics: “Ideally, hate speech laws should not only punish the deniers (and prevent future denial); they should also send a `didactic’ message to the rest of society that the world repudiates Holocaust denial.”

Kahn writes, “…deniers differ from the classic free speech martyr in their unwillingness to take the views of the scholarly community seriously” (p. 103).

This claim of Kahn’s can only have credibility among those who have not read the voluminous and detailed revisionist studies of numerous establishment historians, as well as the Nuremberg transcripts themselves. Moreover, whether a dissident takes “seriously” an opponents’ arguments or not, has no bearing on their status as a “classic free speech martyr.”

Prof. Kahn’s definition is a reflection of his own partisan biases. A martyr to freedom of speech is any non-violent writer or speaker who has suffered penury, violence, imprisonment or death for having expressed views based on their conscience.

A free speech martyr cannot find it in their mind and heart to give consent to that which the herd believes, to that which government commands, or religion imposes, without betraying their self-respect and integrity. Prof. Kahn cannot accept such an open-ended definition of a martyr to the cause of free expression and inquiry because it is not sufficiently politicized.

Other qualifications must be imposed, ones that will ensure that revisionist speakers and writers subject to repression are excluded from being termed martyrs to freedom of thought. Such an outcome—the status of martyr conferred on men and women who suffer prison sentences for expressing their doubts—cannot be allowed.

Kenneth Lasson, Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore, contributes the next section of the book, “Defending Truth.” Prof. Lasson’s specialty is in obstructing revisionist books and scholars in the U.S., within the limits of the First Amendment. He offers American censors and inquisitors legitimacy as follows.

1. Holocaust denial is not an attempt at free inquiry but distortion. Universities have no obligation to provide a forum for deniers. “Holocaust denial is a particularly pernicious form of hate speech.”

2. Revisionist books can be treated like the works of pornographers and defamers. Ads for revisionist books can be “rejected at will” and for “arbitrary reasons.”

3. Tort actions can be pursued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. “American courts should adopt the Canadian view.”

“4. Do not debate revisionists: “When verifiable falsehoods become subjects for debate, then nonsense such as Holocaust denial cannot be effectively dismissed, and democratic society is imperiled…”

5. Don’t let reason intrude on the history of World War II: “The Holocaust falls into that unique category of criminal malevolence whose enormity puts it beyond the purview of traditional standards of law and reason.”

Laurent Pech is a Professor of European Union (EU) Public Law at the National University of Ireland (Galway). Pech predicts that, “…the full implementation of the 2010 European Union Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, will radically alter the legal landscape in Europe” (p. 186).

The EU Framework Decision on racism “harmonizes the law of Holocaust denial in Europe by compelling all EU member states to punish it… To put it concisely and at the risk of oversimplification, the case law in Europe generally reflects, when it comes to reviewing restrictions on `extremist speech,’ the rejection of the presuppositions inherent to the…United States…according to which the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market” (p. 186; italics added).

Pech makes important reference to the source for the European Union’s “Holocaust denial” case law. The law is not derived from any European Constitution or any statute from the thousand and more years that Europe was Christian; or even from the Common Law or the ancient Greco-Roman philosophy.

Pech places the roots of “Holocaust denial” criminalization in the masonic French Revolution, as advanced by one of its most notorious leaders, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just (1767-1794), a member of Maximilien Robespierre’s totalitarian “Committee of Public Safety” who was deeply complicit in the Reign of Terror.

Pech writes that attempts at criminalizing gas chamber skepticism “appear to have been clearly inspired by the ancient philosophy famously espoused by the French revolutionary Saint-Just, `pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté (no freedom to the enemies of freedom)” (p. 190).

Who decides who is an enemy of freedom? What safeguards are there to keep the definition from falling into captivity by political partisans who demonize their rivals for the hearts and minds of the public by labeling their ideological opponents “enemies of freedom” and on that basis denying them freedom?

Thomas Hochmann is a research fellow at the University of Paris. His paper, “The Denier’s Intent” was first presented in in 2005, in a different form at the “Hate Speech Regulation Conference” hosted by a Talmudic institution, the Cardozo School of Law in New York, which was supported by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Hochmann operates as a kind of clairvoyant who seems to imagine that he has the ability to read the minds of revisionists and therefore knows that they are lying when they say it is their conscience which forbids them from assenting to the homicidal gas chamber testimony.

Mr. Hochmann fancies himself an expert on the “psychology of denial.” Hochmann insinuates that Dr. Faurisson became a “denier” to achieve fame, being merely a teacher at a girl’s school (he omits Faurisson’s doctorate from the Sorbone and his position on the faculty of the University of Lyon).

Mr. Hochmann wants us to believe that in order to become a celebrity, Faurisson sacrificed his academic career, subjected himself to being repeatedly prosecuted, fined and hounded; beaten several times (incurring serious injuries to his face in one attack); his wife harassed and demeaned, and their home repeatedly raided by the police. Ah, but he was famous!

Hochmann notes that both Henri Roques and Olga Wormser-Migot defend Dr. Faurisson as a skeptic in good faith. He quotes Belgian historian Jean Stengers saying that Stengers considers Faurisson a “mad scientist” who nonetheless believes what he writes.

Hochmann, however finds it “quite difficult to believe that a `scholar’ denier, one willing to prove the `inexistence’ of the genocide or the gas chambers, can possibly act in good faith…” Hochmann wants the “bad faith and hateful intent” of the denier to play a role at his sentencing: “The state of mind of the denier can thus be considered during sentencing, as an observation of the widespread moral presumption that a lie deserves a harsher punishment than a mistake.”

And what of the state of mind of those who lie about Gaza and claim no genocide has occurred there?

Genocide Denials and the Law is a manual for censorship and repression cloaked as an Oxford law study. It offers a rationale for punishing homicidal gas chamber deniers with long imprisonment as a just and imperative penalty. Laws against writing and speaking holocaust denial use the cudgel of the law to force a thinker to convert to the “true belief.”

The American way to defeat the criminal Nazi ideology responsible for the unconscionable mass murder of innocent Jewish people in World War II is to confront its Hitlerian delusions with fact.

The extent to which much of the Holocaust denial movement is constructed around the rehabilitation of the reputation of Hitler and Nazism renders it just as problematic as the movements that have arisen to conceal Talmudic and war-Zionist crimes and racism.

Genocide Denial laws must prosecute all denials of every holocaust in history, or none. Using those laws to elevate one ethnicity above the rest of humanity is racial supremacist tyranny.

In 633 the Fourth Council of Toledo condemned the use of force to convert non-believers.This was during a period when Christian heretics were subject to execution. In the Middle Ages both of the main statutes of Canon Law, the Decretum Gratiani of 1140 and Decretals of Gregory IX of 1235, stated that Jewish worship was not to be disturbed, on the ancient principle that “The judgment of those outside the Church was to be left to God.”

In 1272 St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica wrote referring to Jews, Muslims and pagans: “The non-believer must not be compelled to believe, because believing is a matter of free will.” Hence, those who had never been taught the truth of Christianity were to be educated to accept it, not forced. Aquinas believed that Islam and Talmudism were evil but that coercing the consciences of those believers would lead to wars and the hardening of hearts.

It has been 752 years and the coercion of the consciences of holocaust deniers remains firmly in place and has spread to Congress. The House of Representatives in late April approved the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which, if passed by the Senate, will make it an offense at colleges and universities, punishable by withdrawal of Federal subsidies, to follow one’s conscience and document Israeli racism.

Professors and students who have a good faith belief that Zionism is a racist settler-colonialist imperium will be under heavy pressure from administrators to self-censor and police their own expression. This is un-American.


It is pretended that these measures are purely political and secular. Yet they clearly reflect the conferring of special immunities and exemptions, consonant with Talmudic theology and its heavily promoted Noahide Laws.

II. The “Noahide” Law Deception and Talmudic Exceptionalism

The “Seven Laws” of the “Noahide”:

1. The prohibition against worship of false gods.

2. The prohibition against cursing God.

3. The prohibition against murder.

4. The prohibition against incest and adultery.

5. The prohibition against theft.

6. The command to establish laws and courts of justice.

7. The command not to eat flesh from a living animal.

As public relations the preceding list appears to be a winner. Doubly so when it is followed by the consoling assurance, “Any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as one of the righteous among the gentiles.”

Such a claim is ridiculous on its face since any Palestinian who adhered to the “Noahide Laws” and resided in Gaza would continue to be subjected to indiscriminate killing and starvation.

It is even more absurd to name these laws after the Biblical patriarch Noah. About him the Holy Bible teaches: Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9).

The “sages” of the Talmud interpret the phrase “in his generation” to mean that in any other generation Noah would not be holy or significant: “Noah was only righteous in his generation; had he lived in the generation of Abraham, he would not have been considered significant at all.” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108a).

In Hebrew, “blameless” denotes without flaw. Noah is a precursor of Abraham, not less than Abraham. What is required of Noah, God also required of Abraham: to walk before Him and be blameless. The Talmud is wrong to denigrate Noah. And it gets worse. The rabbinic Midrash declares that no good was found in Noah (Midrash Rabbah: Genesis I [Soncino 1983, vol. 1], p. 289). This Midrash also teaches that Noah was an alcoholic (pp. 290-291; 293).

The Babylonian Talmud goes even further in degrading and defaming Noah. Ham was the son of Noah and the father of Canaan. The Talmud teaches the following obscenity, “All agree that Ham castrated Noah and some say Ham also sodomized him” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a).

The Old Testament has no record of these disgusting events having taken place.

The rabbinic texts testify to the fact that Talmudism’s “Noahide Laws” are not a reference to the Biblical Noah, despite public dissimulation to the contrary. Talmudism’s misnamed “Noahide Laws” are a subterfuge. They are not of Noah or the Old Testament. They refer to a fantasy Noah conjured  from the imagination of men and the system of falsification they authored and ascribed to God as His “oral Torah” (Torah sheBeal peh).


The icon of Moses Maimonides displayed in a place of honor in the U.S. Congress


The “Noahide” claims are a fraud. For instance, let us examine the first “Noahide Law,” the prohibition against the worship of false gods. Rabbi Moses Maimonides (the “Rambam”), is regarded as the supreme legal (halachic) authority in Orthodox Ashkenaz Talmudism. His Mishneh Torah is second only to the Mishnah and Gemara (Talmud) as a source of the law.

In the uncensored text of his Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 9:4, Maimonides declares, “The Christians are idol worshippers and Sunday is their festival.”

In Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Melachim 11:4 he refers to Jesus as the “lawless” one who “imagined that he was the Messiah.”

In the same Hilchot Melachim 11:4 Rabbi Maimonides stated, “Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity?”

According to Herbert A. Davidson in Maimonides: The Man and His Works (Oxford University Press), pp. 293 and 321: “He (Maimonides) rules in his rabbinic works that there is a religious commandment to kill Jesus of Nazareth and his students.…When he (Maimonides) had occasion to refer to Jesus, he appends a tag reserved for the arch enemies of Israel and the wicked of mankind; he calls him: ‘Jesus of Nazareth, may his bones be crushed… May the name of the wicked rot.”



The penalty the Talmud of Babylon decrees for those Noahides who engage in idolatry is death: “A descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing any of the seven Noahide mitzvot…” (Sanhedrin 57a).

Those who believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, was the Son of God, Messiah of Israel and Savior of sinners, are liable for execution under the Noahide Law.

Equally fraudulent is the appearance of Old Testament probity given to the anti-Biblical, Talmudic Noahide Laws. For example, no 5, “The prohibition against theft.”

OK all you lawless gentiles, it is incumbent on you to learn not to rob or steal. If you can observe this Noahide mitzvah and the other six you will be accounted a “righteous person” who will obtain “eternal life upon leaving this world.”

Let us discover who it is that does indeed have permission to thieve and rob as part of this supposed high-minded law code. Looking again at Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 57a we encounter a decidedly anti-Biblical precept: “With regard to the following types of robbery… if they are done by a gentile to another gentile, or by a gentile to a Jew, the action is prohibited, but if a Jew does so to a gentile it is permitted…With regard to robbery the term ‘permitted’ is relevant, as it is permitted for a Jew to rob a gentile.”

I didn’t write the Talmud. I wish it did not contain these reprehensible double standards which are subversive of justice at the most fundamental level, and which many Jewish people deplore.

The test of the justice of any law code is its universality. Does it apply equally to everyone? The Noahide Laws fail abysmally in this regard. They give the appearance of justice for all. It is entirely a deception and one that has born the imprimatur of every president since Jimmy Carter in connection with “Education Day USA,” institutionalized by Congress and the Chief Executive as a panegyric to the Grand Rabbi of Chabad-Lubavitch, Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

In an official proclamation of April 4, 1982, President Reagan declared, “One shining example for people of all faiths of what education ought to be is that provided by the Lubavitch movement, headed by Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, a worldwide spiritual leader who will celebrate his 80th birthday on April 4, 1982.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s work stands as a reminder that knowledge is an unworthy goal unless it is accompanied by moral and spiritual wisdom and understanding. He has provided a vivid example of the eternal validity of the Seven Noahide Laws, a moral code for all of us regardless of religious faith.”

The holy book of Schneerson’s Lubavitcher (Chabad) movement is the Tanya, compiled by its founder, Shneur Zalman of Lyady. In it the dogma that Gentiles are subhuman “supernal refuse” containing “no good whatsoever” is unapologetically taught.

III. The Antisemitism Awareness Act: The Beginning of the End for the First Amendment

Without these facts as background, the Antisemitism Awareness Act (H.R. 6090) cannot be fully comprehended and deconstructed. This bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Michael Lawler, with 61 co-sponsors, was passed by the House of Representatives on May 1. It awaits confirmation by the Senate.

It provides statutory authority for the requirement that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights take into consideration the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of antisemitism when reviewing or investigating complaints of discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.

Under the proposed law, colleges and universities that are determined to permit the speaking or writing by faculty or students of the following forms of expression will be liable to losing Federal funding:

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

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.

Claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus…) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

One of the forces pressuring Congress to adopt this law is the ADL. An investigation by the UK-based Guardian of May 16 reports, “The Anti-Defamation League has spent record amounts on lobbying in recent years, including on bills opponents say are meant to punish criticism of Israel and target Jewish peace and Palestinian rights groups….The lobbying surge coincides with a controversial 2022 speech by ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt in which he equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and promised the ADL will ‘use our advocacy muscles to push policymakers to take action.’

“The spending positions the ADL as the largest pro-Israel lobbying force on domestic issues. Records show the surge’s broader aim is to promoting a controversial definition of antisemitism across a range of federal agencies and mobilizing the government to enforce it…

“The House…approved the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which the ADL lobbied for and would codify a definition of antisemitism that would limit some speech around Israel. It would be used in federal civil rights investigations in schools and, critics say, could ultimately limit protests and criticism of Israel on campus.

“…The ADL also lobbied for a bill supporters say is aimed at pro-Palestinian protesters. It would grant the Internal Revenue Service power to eliminate the non-profit status of (these) groups…

“As anti-war protests proliferated in November, Greenblatt went on MSNBC and called for the IRS to investigate student groups…In its online antisemitism tracker regularly cited by mainstream media, the ADL often attributes ‘support for terror’ to anti-war and ceasefire rallies by Jewish groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace….Stefanie Fox, Jewish Voice for Peace’s executive director, said…the ADL has ‘set up the arguments through lies in the mainstream media…and on the lobbying side sets up the architecture by which those things can be laundered into real criminalization of the anti-war movement.”

It is from righteous Jews that the most potent opposition to this assault on freedom of speech is emanating:

“1,200 Judaic university professors have signed a strongly worded statement rejecting the antisemitism definition that the US Senate is considering codifying in Federal Law. The ‘Statement from Concerned Jewish Faculty Against Antisemitism’ was delivered to key congressional leaders on May 14, including Senate Democrats, members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce as well as Biden’s White House Liaison to the American Jewish community.

“The Jewish professors’ statement opposes any effort to enshrine into federal law the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which they say conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel. The professors’ statement reads: ‘Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not — in and of itself — antisemitic.” (RNS, May 14).


From “Genocide Denial Law” to Noahide Law and Talmudic halacha, a two-tiered justice system is amply on display:

1. There are no legal penalties in the West for the denial of the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Denial of the holocaust against the Palestinians and Lebanese is fully protected.

2. The Noahide Law uses the Bible as a prop for a draconian Talmudic system of subjugation of Gentiles.

3. Talmudic judicial decisions informed by hate speech contra Jesus Christ are immune from scrutiny by western governments and human rights organizations.

These three points offer evidence of the special prerogatives, immunities and considerations afforded a supremacist ethnostate.

There is no Anti-Arab Awareness legislation proposed in Congress, even though anti-Arab bigotry is rife among “Evangelical Christians” and Zionists, as evidenced by support for the indiscriminate mass murder of Arab civilians in Beirut in the summer of 1982 and in Gaza since October.

The aristocracy established by the Talmud, enshrined in Noahide and proprietary, one-sided Genocide Denial laws—and now by the House of Representatives—is increasingly visible.

Of all the anti beliefs extant in America—anti-Christian, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-German—only one, anti-Semitism, is likely to be outlawed in colleges and universities by order of Congress—unless an individual college or university receives no Federal funds.

That technicality however, is beside the point. Most universities do receive Federal money. The point is to establish a precedent, for the time being rooted in bureaucratic administration, for diminishing First Amendment protections for radically heretical speech and writing.

While anti-Christian hate speech in the Talmud is ignored, we are beginning to see the outline of a movement in the United States to abridge the First Amendment to make special exceptions for certain categories of hate speech and tightly circumscribed challenges to racist ideology.

The study of the documented record of Zionist racism is to be forbidden on campus and one day perhaps, throughout the United States.

The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is a bridge to that eventuality. The opponents of this Congressional attack on our freedom of expression and inquiry are advised to break out of the intellectual vacuum and fully articulate the largely unknown history of Talmudic exceptionalism which lies behind the legislation.

If we fail to do so, it is likely that we will see in our lifetime a radical erosion of the First Amendment, beginning on college campuses and creeping incrementally into other sectors of our society—in business, culture, media and the remnant of independent churches.

Copyright ©2024 by Independent History and Research •


I am grateful to the paid subscribers who make these columns possible.

Revisionist historian Michael Hoffman explicates the alchemical processing of humanity in his book, Twilight Language. He is the author of nine other volumes of history and literature including Usury in Christendom, The Occult Renaissance, Judaism Discovered, and Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People. Michael is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and a former consultant to the news department of the New York Times. His work is funded by donations from truth seekers, paid subscribers and the sale of his books, Revisionist History®newsletters and bulletins, and recordings.

Revisionist History® is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark office as the exclusive trademark of Independent History and Research, Post Office Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816.



By Michael Hoffman

Published by



Republished by The 21st Century

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of



Sharing is caring!

Leave a Reply