What Is Anti-Semitism?

The tragedy of our age is that the charge of “anti-Semitism” is routinely used to shield people who are not even Shemites, while silencing those who actually are. The world blesses the ungodly, fears their accusations, and condemns anyone who dares to defend the true covenant people God actually named. In the end, the label is weaponized not to protect Shemites, but to persecute them — and to muzzle the Gospel that exposes counterfeit authority.

Introduction — Why Definitions Matter

Few modern accusations carry the legal, political, and emotional weight of the term “anti-Semitism.” Yet despite—or because of—its power, governments have increasingly used it without clearly defining what it means. In recent years, U.S. federal and state legislatures have passed “anti-Semitism” laws and resolutions with overwhelming bipartisan support—even though the term remains undefined in the legislation itself. The U.S. House passed such a bill with 421 to 1 vote — without defining the term legally.

This creates a potentially dangerous environment where:

• Law is enforced based on perception, not precise definition

• Quoting Scripture may eventually be treated as hate speech

• Political dissent may be punished rather than debated

• Truth becomes subject to censorship

Therefore, the foundational question must be asked:

Who is a Semite? And what does “anti-Semitism” actually mean?

The Mainstream Definition — What We Are Told It Means

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) defines anti-Semitism as:

“Any belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish.”

This modern understanding assumes three things as universally true:

1️⃣ “Semite” = “Jew”
2️⃣ All criticism of Jews = irrational hatred
3️⃣ Historical treatment of Jews = the lens for defining modern laws

This is the definition commonly used by governments, media, and educational institutions. But what if the assumptions embedded in that definition are incorrect?

To address that, we must go back to the linguistic and biblical roots of the term.

The Word “Semite” — What It Actually Means

The word Semite originates from the Hebrew Shem, son of Noah (Genesis 10).
Linguistically, Semitic refers to a vast family of peoples and languages. All who descend from Shem are Shemites/Shemitic, including:

• Hebrews — Abraham → Isaac → Jacob/Israel → 12 Tribes (Anglo-Saxon nations)

• Arabs — Ishmael, Keturah’s sons (Indo-Aryans)

• Assyrians — from Asshur (a son of Shem)

• Arameans/Syrians — from Aram (a son of Shem)

• Chaldeans, Babylonians, Phoenicians

This means:

Not all Semites are Jews.
Not all Jews are Semites.

Most modern “Jewish” identity is ethnic-political, not biblical-linguistic, and includes multiple distinct racial and national origins—Ashkenazim (Japheth), Edomites (Esau),Canaanite, Mongol, Hamitic converts, proselytes, etc.

Thus historically and biblically:

• Semite = peoples from Shem

• Jew = those practicing or identifying with the religion or culture of Judaism

Those two categories do not overlap consistently.

Therefore, opposing modern Jewish political structures does not automatically equal hostility toward all Semitic peoples.

Key Greek Term: Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios)

Often mistranslated “Jew”

The problem of confusing two different Greek roots:

Many in Judea were not Israelites but converts (e.g., Idumeans/Edomites, proselytes)

Examples:

• Esther 8:17 “Many of the people of the land became Jews”
   → adoption of religion, not descent

• John 7:13 “no man spake openly… for fear of the Jews”

• 1John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us...”

Thus: “Jew” in the NT often refers to religious leadership of Judea (of Esau) — not the seed of Jacob.

The Late Invention of the Term “Anti-Semitism”

The term is not biblical, nor ancient. It was:

• First printed in 1879–1880

• Coined as a political-ideological term by German writer Wilhelm Marr

Designed to transform religious criticism into a racial accusation

Jewish Encyclopedia sources confirm:

• “Jews began calling themselves Hebrews and Israelites…in 1860”

• Coinciding with rise of “anti-Semitism”

Not an ancient term
Not a biblical concept
Not based in lineage of Shem

Instead, it created: A protective political category shielding modern Jewish identity from critique.

“Anti-Semitism” was introduced to create a new racialized concept distinct from traditional religious criticism of Judaism — placing modern “Jewishness” under protected status above ordinary civic scrutiny.

In other words:

“Anti-Semitism” is a 19th-century ideological invention, not a biblical or ethnic term.

This raises a critical question:

How can a law punish a crime that lacks a historical and definable meaning?

When Definition Becomes a Weapon

The same style of law enforced under totalitarian systems (such as the Jewish Bolshevik regime in Russia) is now emerging in Western nations:

• legal protection for one group

• fear of speaking truthfully

• criminalizing disagreement

“If you want to know who rules over you, find out whom you cannot criticize.”

This is not mere rhetoric. It is a legitimate constitutional concern:

• Freedom of religion includes the right to teach all of Scripture

• Freedom of speech includes political criticism

• Freedom of conscience includes disagreement with ideology

When those freedoms are suppressed by an undefined accusation, the accusation becomes authoritarian.

A Growing Biblical Conflict

The New Testament frequently records the religious leadership of Judaea reacting violently to disagreement:

• People “spake not openly… for fear of the Jews” (John 7:13)

• Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple “secretly for fear of the Jews” (John 19:38)

• The disciples hid behind shut doors “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19)

  Jesus directly opposed corrupt leadership: “Ye say you are Jews (Judah)…
  and are not”
  — Revelation 2:9; 3:9

John 8 shows direct confrontation between Jesus Christ and the ruling Jewish authorities.
Will passages like these one day be declared illegal to quote in public?

If biblical criticism is outlawed as “anti-Semitism,”
then the Word of God becomes hate speech.

This is the very problem we now face.

What Happens When Truth Is Silenced?

Legal accusations shift from:

Truth vs. Falsehood → Approved vs. Forbidden Speech

Christianity itself may be declared hateful if the State of Israel or modern Judaism objects to Scripture:

• John 8:44 — “Ye are of your father the devil”

• John 10:26 — “Ye are not of My sheep”

• Matthew 23 — Jesus denouncing Pharisees

Will the Bible be labeled anti-Semitic?
Will Christians face prosecution for quoting Jesus Christ?

This is not hypothetical. It is happening in nations today.

Therefore: A meaningful definition of “anti-Semitism” must align with linguistics, Scripture, and truth—not political sensitivity.

Identity and Law in Conflict

The Legal and Spiritual Front Collide

Modern “anti-Semitism” statutes reflect a fusion of civil and religious protection unprecedented in Western law. In earlier centuries, Church or Crown guarded religion; today, the State guards ideology.
Yet biblical faith depends on freedom to reprove error (2Tim 4:2). When that freedom is restricted by a term with no fixed meaning, truth itself stands trial.

After 1917 Russia’s Jewish Bolsheviks enacted laws criminalizing “anti-Semitic speech,” which then shielded their revolution from scrutiny.
That same pattern—protective law → fear → silence—echoes in today’s democracies.

Scripture vs. Speech Codes

Jesus Christ and His apostles confronted religious powers boldly:

If quoting such passages becomes “hate speech,” the Church will face the same charge its Founder did.

Who Is a True Semite and Israelite?

a. Biblical Lineage

From Genesis 10–11 → Shem → Eber (ancestor of the Hebrews) → Abraham → Isaac → Jacob (Israel).
Thus, Semitic = the family of Shem; Hebrew = line of Eber; Israelite = descendants of Jacob.
The Bible nowhere uses “Jew” as synonymous with Israelite before the Babylonian return.

The Jewish people in Scripture descend from Esau, the brother of Jacob, who married Hittite Canaanite women, “a grief to Isaac and Rebekah”.

“Edom is in modern Jewry.” —The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol.5, p.41

Genesis 36:8 ​​ Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom.

“No one can deny that the Jews are a most unique and unusual people. That uniqueness exists because of their Edomite heritage. You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of Edomitish character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews.”—Manifesto of the “World Jewish Federation,” January 1, 1935, through its spokesperson, Gerald Soman

"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew."
(1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3).

b. Post-Exilic Mixture

After the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, many non-Israelites inhabited Judaea and adopted the Judaean religion (2Ki 17:24; Est 8:17). By Jesus Christ’s day the term Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios) denoted citizens of Judaea, not pure tribal descent.
Herod the Great, for example, was an Idumean (Edomite) convert (see Josephus, Ant. XIV.1.3).

c. Spiritual Israel

Paul clarifies the distinction (Rom 2:28–29):

“He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly … but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart.”

Paul never erased Israel’s identity

Paul does speak of inward obedience (Romans 2:28–29), but he never says Gentiles literally become Israelites. Instead, he distinguishes:

• Israel after the flesh (1Corinthians 10:18)

• Israel of God (Galatians 6:16)

One denotes lineage; the other denotes covenant-faithfulness within Israel.
He never taught:

“Anyone can become Israel.”

That idea is simply not found in Scripture.

A further confusion arises when people assume that anyone practicing circumcision or claiming to keep the Torah automatically becomes an Israelite or Judahite. This was the exact argument used by the Edomite Pharisees of Christ’s day. After the Maccabean period, John Hyrcanus (c. 121 BC) forcibly incorporated Idumea (Edom) into Judaea and compelled the Edomites to adopt:

• circumcision,

• Temple observance,

• and outward Torah ritual.

(Josephus, Antiquities XIII.9.1)

Prior to this forced merger, the Edomites were not practicing Israel’s covenant sign at all. Their sudden adoption of circumcision was not a sign of Abrahamic lineage — it was an act of political assimilation. As a result, a large population who were not descendants of Jacob began calling themselves Ioudaios (Judeans/Jews) and held authority in the religious establishment.

Thus, by the time Jesus Christ appears:

• most Pharisees were not Judahites

• Temple leadership was ethnically mixed

• claiming Jewish ritual did not equal Jacob-Israel descent

This is why Jesus confronted them sharply on ancestry, not ritual:

“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed… but if ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” (John 8:37, 39)

Christ acknowledges their claim, then denies their legitimacy.

Solid, citable places that explicitly connect today’s Judaism with the Pharisees:

• Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1939–43), vol. VIII, p. 474, “Pharisees.”
  “The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent… The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature….”

• Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), “Pharisees.”
  “With the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees. Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the Pharisees… Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future.”

• Jewish Virtual Library, “Pharisees, Sadducees & Essenes.”
  “The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism.”

• Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Pharisee.”
  Notes that Pharisaic teaching on the Oral Law “remains a basic tenet of Jewish theological thought,” and after 70 CE “it was the synagogue and the schools of the Pharisees that continued to function and to promote Judaism,” underscoring the Pharisaic-to-rabbinic continuity.

• Society of Biblical Literature (Bible Odyssey), “Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism.”
  “Conventional wisdom says that the rabbinic movement was born of the Pharisaic [movement]… Later rabbinic sages espoused teachings… ascribed to the Pharisees….”

Ritual Does Not Create Lineage

Church Error Mirrors Pharisee Error

Modern church doctrine teaches: “We believe ⇒ therefore we are Israel.”

But the Pharisees already tried the older version: “We ritualize ⇒ therefore we are Judah.”

Christ refuted them both.

Paul refuted them both.

Scripture nowhere teaches that ritual, belief, or profession can:

• change ancestry,

• rewrite covenant lineage,

• or convert someone into Jacob’s seed.

Romans 2:28–29 Does NOT Create Gentile Israelites nor confirms Jews are Judahites.

Paul elevates obedience and faith within Israel,
not external ritual among pretenders.

He is saying:

• Not all who claim Judah are Judah

• Not all outward Judahites are inward Judahites

This applies against Edomite claimants, not for church replacements.

If forced circumcision could not turn Edomites into Israelites, then mere belief cannot turn the modern church into Israelites either.

Need some proof of what the Jewish people did with Israelite circumcision?

SUCKING BLOOD FROM CIRCUMCISION

The candidates for New York City mayor have offered their positions on an unexpected issue -- an ancient Jewish ritual in which blood is sucked from the recently circumcised penis of a baby boy.

The ritual, called metzitzah b'peh, is controversial because infants can contract herpes when the mohel, or circumciser, sucks the blood to "cleanse" the circumcision wound. Current New York City law says parents must sign a consent form acknowledging the dangers of metzitzah b'peh before it is performed, a measure passed by the Bloomberg administration.

Zionism and the Redefinition of Israel

The modern term “Zionism” appeared in the 19th century to describe a political movement aimed at establishing a Jewish state.
It was never a spiritual renewal of covenant faith.
By equating Zionism with biblical Israel, governments and churches merged a political entity with a spiritual people (John 18:36).

“My kingdom is not of this world.” — Jesus Christ

Hence, laws against “anti-Semitism” often protect political Zionism, not Shem’s lineage or God’s covenant.

Language, Truth, and Censorship

When a word’s meaning is corrupted, truth itself is confused (Isa 5:20). The modern world’s semantic shift — “Semite” → “Jew” → “Israelite” — has erased biblical boundaries. This redefinition serves a larger program of universal social control through international law and U.N. conventions.

Every law built on a false definition becomes a tool of tyranny (Prov 17:15).

The True Target of “Anti-Semitism” Laws

Once the definition is corrected, we see who the real Semites are biblically — those within Shem’s covenant line who bear God’s law and testimony (Deut 7:6-9; Psa 147:19-20). The laws called “anti-Semitic” often turn against these very people, branding them haters for defending truth.

Modern “Anti-Semitism” Laws — A Threat to Scripture

The term anti-Semitism has evolved far beyond its linguistic meaning.
Today, many governments enforce laws that punish undefined accusations:

• U.S. Congressional resolutions

• State-level “hate speech” statutes

• International bodies such as the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance)

The IHRA’s working definition (2016) treats criticism of:

• the State of Israel

• Jewish nationalism

• Jewish political organizations

…as potential anti-Semitism, even if rooted in Scripture or historical analysis.

Thus, according to IHRA’s guidelines:

Disagreement = crime
Theology = hate
Historical debate = prohibited

This is a radical shift — speech laws now police criticism, not persecution.

“Speech vs. Hate” — Who Decides?

Biblical preaching has always confronted error:

• Jesus rebuked the ruling Judaean Jewish authorities (John 8:44; Matthew 23)

• Apostles defied speech restrictions imposed by the Jewish authorites (Acts 4–5)

• Paul reasoned with Jews, Judaeans and Greeks, refuting unbelief (Acts 18:4–6)

Yet today, these very passages can be labeled:

“hate speech”
“anti-Semitic”
“offensive to protected groups”

This creates a legal conflict:

When a government prohibits quoting the Bible, it claims supremacy over God.

Why Definitions Must Be Correct — The Identity Conflict

Because Semite ≠ Jew ≠ Israelite, lumping all critique under “anti-Semitism”:

• erases the biblical identity of Israel

• protects ideology rather than people

• criminalizes legitimate theological teaching

Thus, Christians defending biblical truth risk prosecution under political terms.

Historical Identity Confusion — Backed by Scholarship

Jewish Encyclopedia — Edomite Absorption

• Idumeans (Edomites) were absorbed into Judea during the 2nd century BC

• They were then called Jews, despite distinct origins
  (see Jewish Encyclopedia, “Edom”)

Jewish Encyclopedia — Khazar Conversions

• A large segment of Ashkenazi Jews descended from converts
  (from a Turkic people adopting Judaism in the 8th–9th centuries)

• The Jewish Encyclopedia: Khazar Jews- "Khazars, a non-Semitic, Asiatic, Mongolian tribal nation who emigrated into Eastern Europe about the first century, who were converted as an entire nation to Judaism in the seventh century by the expanding Russian nation which absorbed the entire Khazar population, and who account for the presence in Eastern Europe of the great numbers of Yiddish-speaking Jews in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Galatia, Besserabia and Rumania."

• About 95% of Jews today are from this non-Semitic nation of Khazar Jews.

Greek Lexicon Evidence (Thayer’s)

• Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios) — Judean (territorial, not lineage)

• Ἰουδάς (Ioudas) — Judahite (tribal)

Hebrew Lexicon Evidence (Brown-Driver-Briggs)

• שֵׁם (Shem) — “name, reputation”
  → progenitor of Semitic language group

Modern “Jew” is a term with religious, cultural, and historical ambiguity, not a precise biblical category.

Identity, Law, and Free Speech — The Clash

Modern laws treat religion and national identity as a protected race.
Thus:

Critiquing a nation-state is treated as racism.
Critiquing a religion is treated as hate.
Preaching Scripture becomes criminal liability.

This is inversion of justice (Isaiah 5:20).

Why This Matters to Christians

This issue is not about prejudice — it is about:

• defending the right to read Scripture as written

• preserving historical accuracy

• preventing political blasphemy laws

Paul warns: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16)

When truth is outlawed:

• the righteous become criminals

• the wicked become protected

• persecution becomes policy

Call for Truthful Definitions

A just society demands laws grounded in truth.
Therefore:

• “Semite” must mean descendant of Shem

• “Jew” must reflect religion or Judaean origin

• “Israelite” must reflect covenant lineage

• “Zionism” must be recognized as modern political ideology

Not one term can be used as if it were all three.

Without clarity: Legislatures enforce fear instead of justice.

And Christians, quoting the very words of Jesus, may be condemned as criminals.

Truth cannot be hate.
Scripture cannot be a crime.
Definitions must be restored.

A just definition of anti-Semitism must:

✔ Distinguish lineage vs. religion vs. nation-state
✔ Protect disagreement on theology and foreign policy
✔ Permit free academic and biblical discussion
✔ Guard against political censorship

If governments legislate speech that Scripture itself contains…

they are not defending justice —
they are criminalizing God’s Word.

Our calling remains: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

Behind the Mask of Respectability:
The truth about the Anti-Defamation League
of B'nai B'rith - THE RACIST JEWISH MAFIA! From holywar.org

1 - Introduction

The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, or ADL for short, presents itself as an organization against ethnic, racial or religious intolerance. It's very name suggests that it opposes "defamation."

In reality, the Anti-Defamation League is an organization that supports Jewish ethnic and religious supremacy, and relentlessly "defames" anyone who dares to point out its own hypocrisy. While supposedly opposing ethnic segregation and ethnic superiority, the ADL supports Israel and international Zionism which promotes not a vision of a "multi-cultural," "multi-ethnic" Israel, but of a "Jewish state." That state is openly dedicated to the advancement of the Jewish religion, culture, and even the genetic preservation of the Jewish people. This is, of course, the very opposite of the policies it proposes for our American nation.

Consider the following:

The ADL supports forced integration of schools, neighborhoods, apartment complexes, clubs, churches and communities in America.

Yet, it supports Israel which has a policy of segregated schools, neighborhoods, apartment complexes and even whole towns for Jews and Gentiles.

The ADL has been instrumental in changing America's immigration policies that will result in European Americans becoming a minority in America by the middle of this century.

Yet, the ADL supports Israel, which has a "Jews only" immigration policy. In fact, it even keeps out Palestinians who were born there and then forced out during the Zionist takeover in 1948.

The ADL has condemned European Americans, such as the administrators of Bob Jones University, who oppose racial intermarriage, Yet, the ADL supports Israel, a nation that does not even recognize as a legal union, marriage between a Jew and Gentile, The ADL has also never condemned the extensive Jewish opposition to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews (every major Jewish organization around the world has openly stated policies opposing intermarriage).

The ADL has condemned Sadaam Hussein and any of his supporters around the world for his invasion of Kuwait, production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and for violating United Nations resolutions.

Yet, the ADL did not condemn Israel for the brutal invasion of neighboring Lebanon, resulting in at least 30,000 civilians dead, and lasting almost twenty years in violation of U.N. resolutions. Nor has the ADL condemned Israel for its extensive development of biological and chemical weapons.

The ADL has repeatedly condemned scientists who show that there are significant genetic differences in intelligence between Whites and Blacks, and they have condemned me for simply pointing out that scientific truth.

Yet, the ADL has not condemned the founder of Israel, David Ben Gurion, for his statement that he believed in the "intellectual and moral superiority" of the Jewish people.

The ADL is by its own definition a racist, supremacist organization, and recognizing that fact should not make someone deserve the label of "anti-Semite." The truth is that the ADL is anti-Gentile! They are not about anti-defamation, but their whole modus operandi is concerned with defaming anyone of any nationality who wants for their own people what the Jewish ADL leaders want for theirs. In other words, they are opposed to every other ethnic nationalism but their own! The whole organization is based on attacking, intimidating and defaming anyone who opposes their Jewish supremacism.

In fact, anyone who criticizes their hypocrisy and that of Israel, whether or not the critics are "racially aware" or "anti-racist," will be condemned by the ADL. For their real mission is simply to advance the Jewish Supremacist agenda in America and around the world.

2 - ADL of B'nai B'rith

The ADL was founded in 1913 as an adjunct to the international Jewish fraternal order and secret society, the "B'nai B'rith," whose name, translated literally from Hebrew means "sons of the cut" - referring to circumcision.

The ADL operates 28 offices domestically and 3 offices abroad. They bring in nearly $60 million a year.

Current ADL National Director is Abraham Foxman.

3 - Links to Organized Crime

For years, the ADL has been linked to Jewish organized crime.

The ADL gave Las Vegas Jewish gangster, Moe Dalitz, their "Torch of Freedom" award in 1985 for his donating millions of dollars to the state of Israel. Donations from Dalitz, who headed the Cleveland mob known as the Mayfield Road Gang, allegedly came from his ownership of Las Vegas casinos such as the Desert Inn.

Las Vegas Review-Journal article "The Double Life of Moe Dalitz" by John L. Smith, explains Dalitz' background in their series "The First 100 Persons Who Shaped Southern Nevada" (at <http://www.1st100.com/part2/dalitz.html>).

"Early in his life, Dalitz was a bootlegger and racketeer mentioned in the same breath as (Jewish) Meyer Lansky and (Jewish) Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel. In Cleveland, one longtime member of law enforcement would tell the Kefauver Commission, 'Ruthless beatings, unsolved murders and shakedowns, threats and bribery came to this community as a result of gangsters' rise to power.' Dalitz was considered part of that rise."

Theodore Silbert worked simultaneously for the ADL and the Sterling National Bank (a mafia operation controlled by the Lansky syndicate).

Mira Lansky Boland, the granddaughter of notorious Jewish mafia boss, Meyer Lansky, was described in a Village Voice article by Robert Friedman of May 11th, 1993, as the ADL's top 'fact-finder' in Washington.

4 - Spy Ring and Murder Squads?

An Article in the Los Angeles Times of 9th April, 1993, by Richard C. Paddock, detailed a police raid on ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles where the police seizing evidence of a nationwide intelligence network accused of keeping files on more than 950 political groups, newspapers, and labor unions and as many as 12,000 people.

Describing the spy ring in detail, San Francisco authorities simultaneously released voluminous documents telling how operatives of the Anti-Defamation League searched through trash and infiltrated organizations to gather intelligence on Arab-American, right-wing, and what they called "pinko" organizations...

Police alleged that the organization maintains undercover operatives to gather political intelligence in at least seven cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to police officials, groups that were the focus of the spy operation span the political spectrum, including such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, Greenpeace, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the United Farm Workers, and the Jewish Defense League. Also on the list were Mills College, the board of directors of San Francisco public television station KQED, and the San Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper.

In addition to allegations of obtaining confidential information from police, the Anti-Defamation League could face a total of 48 felony counts for not properly reporting the employment of its chief West Coast spy, Roy Bullock, according to the affidavit filed to justify the search warrant.

The Anti-Defamation League disguised payments to Bullock for more than 25 years by funneling $550 a week to Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I. Hochman, who then paid Bullock, according to the documents released in San Francisco. Hochman, a former president of the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles is one of the state's leading tax attorneys.

"Until 1990, Hochman, a former U.S. prosecutor, also was a member of a panel appointed by then-Senator Pete Wilson to secretly make initial recommendations on new federal judges in California."

Hochman is a former regional president of the Anti-Defamation League.

A second article from the Los Angeles Times, 13th April, 1993, also by Richard C. Paddock, details ADL spy Roy Bullock's possible role in death squads, torture and kidnapping.

The article introduces another ADL spy, Tom Gerard, a former CIA agent and San Francisco police officer was accused of providing confidential material from police files to the Anti-Defamation League.

Gerard fled to the Philippines after the FBI interviewed him, but left behind a briefcase in his police locker. Its contents, according to the Los Angeles Times, included passports, driver's licenses, and identification cards in 10 different names; identification cards in his own name for four different embassies in Central America; and a collection of blank birth certificates, Army discharge papers, and official stationery from various agencies.

Also in Tom Gerard's briefcase were extensive information on death squads, a black hood, apparently for use in interrogations, and photos of blindfolded and chained men.

Investigators suspect that Gerard and other police sources gave the ADL confidential driver's license or vehicle registration information on a vast number of people, including as many as 4,500 members of [just] one target group [of interest to the ADL], the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

5 - Service of a Foreign Government?

While posing as a community oriented group of American Jews working to combat bigotry, the ADL has been alleged to used its spy network to illegally provide the government of Israel with information.

In an article entitled "Spies for Zion," in the San Francisco Weekly for 28th April, 1993, police officials expose an illegal spy ring working for Israel. "For decades the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith has gathered secret files on critics of Israel. As the San Francisco District Attorney prepares criminal charges against the group, will pressure from prominent Jewish leaders derail the prosecution?"

The San Francisco Weekly described how the ADL spy network passed information to the Israeli government about a professor who made a negative remark about Israel in his class:

"Professor Dwight Simpson and the consul general of Israel stood in a corner at the Fairmont Hotel discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amid a bright tinkling of glasses and soft murmuring of voices. Halfway through the conversation at the cocktail party, the Israeli diplomat, Harry Kney-Tal, said: 'By the way, that was a very funny joke you told your class the other day.'

"The San Francisco State University international relations professor didn't think much of the comment at first. But later that night, he asked himself: 'How in the hell does the Israeli consul general know the jokes I tell in my class?"

"As a critic of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Simpson had been targeted by Jewish students in the past. They picketed his class on several occasions, handing out leaflets charging that he's anti-Semitic and opposes a Jewish homeland.

"So the professor didn't have to wrestle with the consul general's statement for long. He quickly surmised that Kney-Tal got his information from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith [or ADL for short] by way of Jewish students who do political surveillance work on campus for them. 'It's always confused me why they have to spy on me,' Simpson said, 'My work isn't secret. My whole life is an open book.'

"After a heated demonstration in 1989 that disrupted Simpson's class, the Jewish Student Action committee was expelled from campus for violating academic freedom. 'This is a serious problem in academia,' Simpson added. 'Whenever you have monitoring and surveillance, it stifles the free discussion of ideas...'

"Simpson is just one of thousands of people whose lives have been affected by the far-ranging spy activities of the ADL. An 80-year-old nonprofit, whose professed mission is to fight anti-Semitism, the ADL uses a less controversial term - 'fact-finding' - for its spying...

The article expressed concern that the ADL was above the law:

"Mark my words, this is going to be obfuscated, obliterated, and desecrated,' said one veteran police inspector. 'It's going to a classic study in how things get covered up. You don't do Jewish people in San Francisco. It's not PC. Especially when you have two U.S. Senators who are Jewish (Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein) and the city's chief of protocol is Dick Goldman (a prominent fundraiser in the Jewish community)."

Did Jewish interest work to protect the ADL? The San Francisco Weekly explains how:

"Last week, Goldman called Police Chief Tony Ribera about the police department's own internal investigation. After the call, the police decided to exclude the ADL and Bullock from the probe...

In a Village Voice article by Robert Friedman of 11th May, 1993, the ADL's top 'fact-finder' in Washington and granddaughter of notorious Jewish mafia boss, Meyer Lansky, Mira Lansky Boland, arranged a trip to Israel for Mr. Tom Gerard, the same man in who's briefcase was found information on death squads, a black hood, used in interrogations, and photos of blindfolded and chained men.

According to this same article, Boland admitted at a 1990 criminal trial that she had, in typical ADL Newspeak, "shared information" with members of the CIA at an invitation-only ADL conference.

The same article pointed to an ADL connection to the Jonathan Pollard spy affair:

"In 1987, the ADL came under FBI scrutiny in the wake of the Pollard spy scandal. While assigned to the Navy's Anti-Terrorist Alert Center, where he had access to the most closely-guarded U.S. secrets, Jonathan Pollard stole thousands of pages of classified documents for Israel, which, according to Federal prosecutors, 'could fill a room the size of a large closet ... ten feet by six feet by six feet.' Pollard's handler was Avi Sella, an Israeli air force colonel whose wife worked for the New York ADL as a lawyer. Pollard later wrote to friends that a prominent ADL leader was deeply involved in the Israeli spy operation."

Additional evidence of ADL cooperation with Israeli

Intelligence comes from a letter written by then National Director of the ADL, Benjamin Epstein on July 7, 1961, would indicate otherwise. Epstein was writing to Saul Joftes who was, at the time, the Executive Secretary of the International Council of B'nai B'rith, the ADL's parent organization, requesting additional funds.

"Our information", wrote Epstein, "in addition to being essential for our own operations, has been of great value and service to both the United States State Department and the Israeli government. All data have been made available to both countries with full knowledge that we are the source."

6 - Promotion of Thought Crime

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- Bill of Rights, Amendment I

The Anti-Defamation League has been leading the fight for thought crime legislation. It was through their efforts that the FBI began tracking "Hate Crimes" and it was the ADL who has lobbied hardest for state and federal hate crime laws. Under the Orwellian-sounding "hate crimes" laws, American citizens would receive different sentences for the same crime, depending on whether or not their thoughts are "Politically Correct" on issues relating to homosexuality, race, nationality, and politics. Ultimately, having certain "politically incorrect" opinions would become a crime in itself. These new laws would make it a crime to say or publish any fact or opinion that could "incite racial hatred and bigotry".

The promotion of Hate Crime legislation, which would designate Jews and other minorities as special classes of citizens, is a primary concern to the ADL. Top on the list in 1999 was the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" that would have given federal prosecutors new authority to prosecute crimes against minorities and circumvent the Constitution's protection against Double Jeopardy. Though the measure failed because of Republican opposition, the ADL vowed to fight on. A Jewish Telegraphic Agency story titled "Jewish groups did not get all they wanted in Congress" dated November 20, 1999 explains:

"But on their other top priorities, Jewish groups were not as successful."

"Tougher hate crimes legislation was dropped during the final days of negotiations over the budget bill."

"Michael Lieberman, the Anti-Defamation League's Washington counsel, said his group will push for the measure again when Congress comes back in January."

The ADL has pioneered Thought Crime and what they call "Hate Crime" legislation. The ADL web site proudly admits to the ADL's leading role in the introduction to their 1999 Hate Crime Laws article:

"ADL has long been in the forefront of national and state efforts to deter and counteract hate-motivated criminal activity."

"In June 1993, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin hate crime statute that was based on model legislation originally drafted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1981."

7 - Role in Internet Censorship

In an attempt to limit access to unapproved web sites on the world wide web, the ADL pioneered what they call their "Hate Filter". The ADL has promoted their Hate Filter to parents who want to limit what the ADL considers objectionable content. More insidious are efforts by the ADL to provide their Hate Filter to public institutions such as public libraries, schools and colleges. The ADL has also worked with major Internet carries like America Online (AOL) to create "Terms of Service" which would prohibit any speech the ADL finds offensive.

The ADL web site proudly claims that their Hate Filter:

".protects children by blocking access to World Wide Web sites of individuals or groups that, in the judgment of the Anti-Defamation League, advocate hatred, bigotry or even violence towards Jews or other groups on the basis of their religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other immutable characteristics."

Limiting facts or opinions the ADL find objectionable is not limited to their Hate Filter. ADL operatives now work with major Internet providers such as AOL to limit access to objectionable web site. Subscribers to these services that post opinions that the ADL doesn't like on their web pages or on Usenet are notified that their accounts are cancelled.

The ADL works to ensure that commercial ISPs create terms of service that limit what their users can read or say. By lobbying commercial carriers to censor their users, the ADL acheives their aim of outlawing free speech and expression without the contraints of the First Amendment's protections.

An ADL press release from October 21, 1996 titled "New ADL Report Documents Increased Use of Internet By Haters; ADL and AOL Explore Ways To Set Standards Against Hate Online," ADL National Director, Abe Foxman, explains typical ADL double-talk how they are working with AOL to set policies against politically incorrect speech. These policies, known as "Terms of Service" can then be used by commercial carriers to enforce speech regulations without concern for Constitutional Rights.

"We are working with America Online to create an atmosphere of responsibility on-line, to set standards within the framework of the First Amendment that will give assurances to parents, educators and communities that there is no tolerance for hate on-line."

In a follow-up press release from April 7, 1997 titled "ADL Calls On America Online To Adhere To Own Guidelines Regarding Hate Material" the ADL explains their relationship with AOL and what "standards within the framework of the First Amendment" means.

"In the past, the League has been gratified by the responsiveness of AOL to complaints about racism and bigotry but now calls on AOL to adhere to their terms of service regarding hate material with equal vigilance as those regarding pornography."

"While we strongly believe in freedom of speech and do not advocate censorship on the Internet," said Mr. Foxman, " we expect those companies which have created guidelines to adhere to them."

"AOL's terms of service state that AOL, Inc., its affiliates and ICPs have the right to remove content they deem, in their discretion, "harmful" or "offensive." The League calls on AOL to live up to its own commitments."

In the ADL article "Responding to Extemist Speech Online: 10 Frequently Asked Questions", the ADL explains how they work around the Constitution to stifle free speech. In this article, the ADL suggests the following:

"Commercial ISPs, such as America Online (AOL), may voluntarily agree to prohibit users from sending racist or bigoted messages over their services. Such prohibitions do not implicate First Amendment rights because they are entered into through private contracts and do not involve government action in any way.

"Once an ISP promulgates such regulations, it must monitor the use of its service to ensure that the regulations are followed. If a violation does occur, the ISP should, as a contractual matter, take action to prevent it from happening again. For example, if a participant in a chat room engages in racist speech in violation of the "terms of service" of the ISP, his account could be cancelled, or he could be forbidden from using the chat room in the future. ISPs should encourage users to report suspected violations to company representatives."

The ADL suggests in the same article that Universities limit the use of their computer systems to prevent students from promoting or reading objectionable material.

"Because private universities are not agents of the government, they may forbid users from engaging in offensive speech using university equipment or university services."

"Nonetheless, public universities may promulgate content-neutral regulations that effectively prevent the use of school facilities or services by extremists. For example, a university may limit use of its computers and server to academic activities only. This would likely prevent a student from creating a racist Web site for propaganda purposes or from sending racist E-mail from his student E-mail account. One such policy -- at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana -- stipulates that its computer services are "provided in support of the educational, research and public service missions of the University and its use must be limited to those purposes."

8 - Conclusions

Behind this mask of humanitarian public service hides an organization with links to organized crime, murder squads, a domestic spying ring used to “monitor” tens of thousands of Americans, and the Mossad, the secret police and assassination service of the Israeli government. With the help of a friendly media, the ADL has become the premier lobby for Jewish interests in America, and the source of hate crime legislation and curtailment of First Amendment freedom of speech through their attempted censorship of the Internet.

See also:

Esau Edom ​​ https://www.thinkoutsidethebeast.com/esau-edom/

Jew or Judah? ​​ https://www.thinkoutsidethebeast.com/jew-or-judah/

Revelation 2:9 3:9 https://www.thinkoutsidethebeast.com/revelation-29-and-39-those-who-say-they-are-jews-and-are-not/

Why IS it the Jews? https://www.thinkoutsidethebeast.com/why-is-it-the-jews/