Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Monday, December 26, 2016

Ecclesiastical Operations of the Occult

Untangling the Ecclesiastical Operations of the Occult


By Michael Hoffman


I. Anglicans contra Disraeli and the Rothschilds

II. Sovereignty of the Knights of Malta  

III. New “traditional Catholic" doctrine on the pope

IV. Roberto de Mattei’s Farce

Today is the feast of St. Stephen on the liturgical calendar, commemorating the first martyr of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Why did that Church of Jesus place the anniversary of a martyr’s bloody death immediately after the commemoration of His joyous birth? To remind us of the price to be exacted in this world for following the babe in the manger from Bethlehem to Calvary. What does it mean to follow Him? First and foremost, if Jesus is not the Truth then He is nothing. Therefore, to follow Him is to follow the truth wherever it leads, and however much one loses human respect, support, or life itself for having declared it.

On and on the wheels of deception roll and much of it centered on the fake reputation cultivated by the Church of Rome since the Renaissance, when it morphed from the Catholic Church into the occult Church.

One part of the propaganda campaign has been to paint Rome prior to Vatican II as the bulwark against Freemasonry and Judaism, and “the Protestants” as the enablers.

We recently received the following query from a researcher: 

On Dec 26, 2016, at 7:04, R.S. wrote: 

I have not read yet what you written about Benjamin Disraeli (Revisionist History Newsletter No. 85: “British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: Head of State and Head of the Rothschild Conspiracy”), but after reading a review in Chronicles Magazine, Aug. 2016, by Patrick J. Walsh of the biography, Disraeli: The Novel Politician, by David Cesarani, I came away with the thought that Protestantism, especially that of the Church of England, is more a heresy of Judaism than it is of Catholicism. 

Do you think there is any truth to that thought? Do you think that British Judaic Protestantism was what formed the impetus for British support for the creation of the state of Israel?

Our reply to R.S.

Dear Mr. S.

It’s more complicated that what you have briefly sketched. We hope Chronicles pointed out the formidable difficulty that Rothschild had in being seated in Parliament without swearing an oath to uphold Christianity. Conservative Anglicans put up a good fight, but it was Queen Victoria’s support for Disraeli that lost that battle.

There were several Anglican groups dedicated to converting Judaics to Christianity, and the foremost attack on the Talmud in the 19th century (The Talmud Tested) was written by the Rev. Dr. Alexander McCaul, an Anglican Professor of Hebrew at King’s College, London. Nothing comparable was written by any Catholic in that era.

The extent to which the occult (in the form of Freemasonry), influenced Anglicans after Disraeli, tells us much about the subsequent genesis of the Balfour Declaration in Palestine, but then the Church of Rome from the Renaissance onward was deeply enmeshed in the occult. In fact, as we demonstrate in our book (The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome), Rome’s Neoplatonic Hermeticism gave rise to Freemasonry. So who has clean hands in this arena?

(End quote from our reply to R.S.).

“Sovereign” Knights of Malta

The Church of Rome and the occult are back in the news with the jockeying for power within the necoon-warmonger Knights of Malta, who are self-advertised as the defenders of Christianity against “The Muslims.”  Whenever you observe the failure to distinguish between Shiite and Sunni-Wahhabist Muslims, you know you are in the realm of Zionist information-warfare (hasbara).

Though it is being presented to the public as a contest between anti-abortion and pro-abortion Knights of Malta, the actual rivalry underway takes us inside the corridors of the papal precincts where the battle is being waged between the two factions. According to Roger Peyrefitte (Chevaliers de Malte, Flammarion, Paris 1957): “...after the Second World War...the (Knights of Malta) Order was able to thwart an attempt to fuse them with the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre. This struggle came to a halt in 1953 with the sentence by a Tribunal of cardinals which recognized the sovereignty of the Order of Malta, but nonetheless affirming its dependence on the Holy See as far as concerned the religious life of the knights.  

“The Order of Malta accepted the sentence, conditioning it on some points:  1)  the recognition of  the rights due to it as subject of international law; 2) the limitation of religious independence of the Order only to professed knights and Chaplains; 3) the exclusion of subjection to the Vatican Secretary of State.”

End quote from Prof. Roberto de Mattei; emphasis supplied.

The Knights of Malta are “sovereign.” How is that? Why is this “sovereignty” limited to members of Rome’s secret society? After the founding of the United States, every American was sovereign and this sovereignty prevailed more or less intact until the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. The Knights of Malta also have recognition and rights under “international law.” How did the Church of Rome’s secret society gain these “rights” from the New World Order?

Prof. Mattei:

The Holy See’s competence does not involve then the internal and international governing of the Order, but limits itself to the strictly religious sphere. At this point one could imagine that the Pope, having identified deviations of a moral and doctrinal order among the knights, had thought of intervening to straighten out the situation.”

Prof. Mattei is a so-called “traditional Catholic” (so-called because Catholic tradition is most assuredly not preserved by the Renaissance papal legacy of usurious occultism which virtually every “traditional Catholic” embraces). 

“Conservative” and “traditional Catholics” have invented a new theology of papal power now that liberal Pope Francis is on the throne of Rome, whereby dissent from the pope is encouraged and limits on his power are delineated. 

Mattei's Farce
Before “conservative” Pope Benedict XVI abdicated however, nearly all of his papal powers were trumpeted and upheld by Right-wing Catholics. Consequently, Mattei can write the absurdity that the pope (“Holy See”) does not have the “competence” (legal authority) to govern the Malta Knights internally and internationally. What a farce. He is speaking of a papacy that once saw the pope wage war in armor, at the head of whole divisions of troops while ruling papal territories outside Vatican City. The legal authority (competence) of the pontiff in post-Renaissance Catholicism is unlimited. Here is why: no matter what the supposed “Vicar of Christ on earth” does or pronounces, he cannot be deposed by any Catholic. Now that a liberal is pope the “traditional” and “conservative” Catholics have forgotten their own history.


“It was brought to light that (Grand Chancellor) Albrecht von Boeselager, during his time as Grand Hospitaller of the Order, had abused his power, promoting the distribution of tens of thousands of condoms and contraceptives, also abortifacients, (see the reports related to the United Nations’ program against HIV/AIDS in Myanmar document), [so] the (Knights of Malta) Grand Master Matthew Festing intervened to bring an end to the scandal and asked Boeselager to resign, appealing to the vow of obedience made to him.

The Grand Chancellor, strong in his friendship with the Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin and of his brother George’s recent appointment to the board of the IOR (Institute for the Works of Religion -- the Vatican Bank) rejected the request arrogantly, laying claim to his ‘liberal Catholic’ stance.” (End quote; emphasis supplied).

It’s fascinating to observe these mafia-like clans jockeying for power as the Vatican Secretary of State and his brother, who is on the board of the pope’s own usury bank (which bears the disingenuous name, “The Institute for Religious Works”), is lobbying to assist Grand Chancellor von Boeselager against Grand Master Matthew Festing. This of Christ? 

Tribal and clan rivalries (“Never go against the family, Sonny”), invoke Pavlovian brand names to gain allies. When we read the word “liberal” in connection with Boeselager we’re supposed to automatically hiss on cue and join in the denunciation of his “arrogance.” Had he been a “conservative” Knight of Malta however, then it is likely that his defiance would be put forth as noble. Christians who take sides in these secret society affairs are lost before they take even one step into the fray.


The creation on the part of the Secretary of State of an investigative group of five members, all of them more or less connected to Boeselager, constitutes a serious case of interference in the governing of the Order. The Holy See should limit itself to watching over the religious life through its Cardinal Patron, Cardinal Burke, appointed by Pope Francis himself. The Pope has every right to be informed with regard to the Order’s internal affairs, but it is irregular for this to take place through a commission which bypasses the pontifical representative, unless there is the desire to accuse the latter.”

“The Holy See should limit itself...” What a joke coming from a Right wing “traditional Catholic."

“Cardinal Burke” is the American Raymond Burke, who leads a movement challenging Francis over the pontiff’s view that those who are divorced without a Church annulment may in some circumstances receive the Eucharist. Burke, who enjoys parading in garb worthy of Herod the Great (the cappa magna shown at the top of the page here), is the hero of the “conservatives” who are ignorant of the fact that the Church of Rome’s “traditional Catholic” Right wing opposition to Francis is (like the pope himself), heavily implicated in defense of the Talmud and usury as we demonstrate in our study, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. 

Mattei writes:

“A Cardinal, however, can be judged only by his peers and not by Vatican bureaucrats.”

But a liberal pope can be judged by seemingly anyone, including Roberto de Matttei? This is another joke, bordering on an insult to our intelligence.


“Equally improper is entrusting a Vatican Commission with the judgement of matters regarding not the religious life, but the governing of the Order, accusing, in this case, the Grand Master. The latter has done well to reject the bogus actions by the commission. Unfortunately not only is the procedure bogus, but the judgment in particular coming from the Vatican Authorities regarding it.” (End quote).

Under the popes who the “traditional Catholics” admire fervently, such as Leo XIII and Pius IX, words of defiance like the preceding would have been crushed, to hearty cheers from the Right. Now it is the Right that is doing the defying. 

The scenes and the costumes change so fast it is difficult to keep track of the players  and the play —  or is that the whole point of this alchemical theatre?

In the much maligned Middle Ages, the true Catholic Church hewed to principle and dogmatic truth with unbending loyalty and rigor. Usury, situation ethics, Talmudism, Kabbalism and the occult were suppressed. Now they flourish on the Left and the Right, in the ebb and flow of Thesis and Antithesis, empowering a Synthesis first set into motion by a certain Greek at the Council of Florence, marking the start of the new dark age for Christ’s Church.

Copyright©2016-2020 by RevisionistHistory.org

For further reference
Roberto de Mattei, “The Pope and Malta: A bogus commissioning,Corrispondenza Romana, (Italy) December 24, 2016. Translated by Francesca Romana.

The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (Softcover, 723 pages, dozens of rare plates, many in color)

These columns by M. Hoffman, an independent scholar without institutional support, are made possible solely b donations from you, the reader. If you would like to see these columns appear less frequently, or disappear altogether, then do nothing and rest assured that your wish will be fulfilled.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Facebook and Fake News: The New Inquisition

by Michael Hoffman

"Facebook says it is testing technology so that a story shared on its site that is flagged by users, among unknown other indicators, will be checked out by the Associated Press, ABC News, PolitiFact or others. If these high priests declare a story fake, it will be denoted as 'Disputed by 3rd Party Fact-Checkers' and perhaps demoted in a news feed. Behind this is the conceit that political debates could be settled if ideologues' (Republicans) would only accept what the liberal consensus defines as 'facts.” (Wall Street Journal).

The New York Times reported during the campaign that Hillary’s Vice Presidential running mate, Tim Kaine, was a devout Catholic, ignoring the glaring fact that he supports abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy in complete contempt of his Church’s dogmatic teaching. Fake News. 

The Washington Post reported about two weeks before Nov. 8 that Trump’s chances of being elected were near zero. Fake News.

There are dozens of additional examples. The “Russian hacking hijacked the election" conspiracy theory has snowballed into enormous proportions based on hearsay from Obama on down; not one substantive fact has been produced in support of this fake news which has been decreed as unassailable fact.

Meanwhile, Wikileaks' Julian Assange told Fox News that his organization did not obtain Podestas e-mails from Russia. Assange’s statement was mostly suppressed by the liberal media. Fake news is maintained as much by omission as commission. 

The suddenly respectable CIA (now termed by the cozy descriptive, “the intelligence community), which has sought "regime change" in Russia and Syria and achieved it in Ukraine with the overthrow of the elected government, is not neutral. It has a partisan interest in bringing Putin down and delegitimating Trumps presidency. Hillary was the CIA's choice for Commander-in-chief and a costly and reckless new cold war with the Russians was the objective.

Let’s grasp the epistemology of the “liberal” media’s Brahmin class: it is the same as that of the Inquisition. The latter body ruled that “error has no rights.” Our country was founded on the principle that error does indeed have rights. 


Because of the question that inevitably follows upon the supposition: who decides what is error? Once the alleged “deciders” establish their opinions and prejudices as fact, tyranny over the mind begins to arise.  Mainstream media like Facebook are imposing a new inquisition in the name of liberal values. The hypocrisy stinks.

Distributed by U-the-Reader

Thursday, December 08, 2016

Text of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act [S.10]

Text of the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act" Passed by the U.S. Senate


As a follow-up to our December 7 report, we are here reproducing the actual text of the bill (S. 10) passed by the US Senate, the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.”

It appears here precisely as published in the Congressional Record, with one exception.  The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act does not contain a definition of what constitutes criminal violations of Federal Civl Rights law. Rather, the bill refers to — and adopts — a definition of criminal anti-Semitism devised by the U.S. Department of State. Consequently, we have highlighted in the color blue, the portion of the text of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that refers to the State Department definition, and then reproduced that definition at the end of the document (also in text colored blue).

For our analysis of the Act and its implications for our Republic and the First Amendment, see our December 7 column, “The Gradual Erosion of the First Amendment: The U.S. Senate has passed the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.

United States Senate
Source: The Congressional Record, Dec. 1, 2016

Issue: Vol. 162, No. 172 — Daily Edition

Pages S6649-6650

Research by Michael Hoffman 
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consider- ation of S. 10, introduced earlier today. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title. 
The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 10) to provide for the consideration of a definition of anti-Semitism for the enforcement of Federal anti-discrimination laws concerning education programs or activities.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise  today, along with my colleague from South Carolina, to talk about a bill we have introduced entitled the ‘‘Anti- Semitism Awareness Act of 2016.’’ 
Let me say first that I wish we were living in a time where we would not have to introduce legislation like this, but unfortunately what we have seen over a long period of time—and I think a problem that is getting worse—is the rising tide of anti-Semitism in substantial sectors of our society. We have, in fact, a rise in the incidence of religious discrimination and religiously motivated hate crimes. To say that is unacceptable, even un-American, is an understatement. 
We have to take action at long last to do what we can in the U.S. Senate, and I hope in the House as well, to not just speak out against anti-Semitism but to take action which will lead to a better strategy to deal with it. What do I mean by that? Well, it is simple. It is about definitions, and it is about making sure that Federal agencies, such as the Department of Education, do their job when it comes to combating anti- Semitism. We know that one piece of legislation is not somehow going to magically eradicate anti-Semitism. We don’t have that naive hope. But what we do believe is that if we don’t take action, this problem is only going to get worse. 
Some of the problem, frankly, is on our college campuses, and I know that  is true, unfortunately and regrettably, in my home State of Pennsylvania. We don’t have time to list every incident, every action, every terrible example of this, but I will just provide one for the record. 
In September, students at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania— one of our great institutions of higher education not only in Pennsylvania but across the country—Swarthmore is a great school, but here is what they found. They found swastikas spray-painted in a bathroom in the library. The college leadership did the right thing in swiftly condemning these actions and removing the graffiti, and I am glad they did that. 
I can only try to imagine—and I can literally only try to understand be- cause I have never been the victim of this kind of hate—the horror that was experienced by those students and their families. A person comes to a college or a university as a place where they are going to learn and grow and live in a community, and then there are people—for whatever reason, and I will never understand the reason anyone would do that—painting those images and using language and taking other actions that discriminate against people because of who they are. We have to be not just concerned about this, as I said, but we have to figure out a way to take action. 
This particular piece of legislation is aimed at a terrible manifestation of this problem. When anti-Semitic views lead to discrimination against students of Jewish faith or Jewish ancestry, that is the result, and they are the vic- tims of this. The intent here is simple and narrowly circumscribed to make sure we are getting at the problem as best we can to define anti-Semitism at long last—this hasn’t been done before—to define anti-Semitism so that the Department of Education can effectively investigate allegations of dis- crimination motivated by anti-Semitism under the Civil Rights Act. The bill does not infringe on the First Amendment. It does not infringe on those rights of free speech. It is intended to help protect students from discrimination on the basis of their faith. 
We all agree that religious discrimination has no place on campuses, has no place in our society, and we have to do more than just speak out against it. That is fundamental, but we can do more than just speak out; we can de- fine it and thereby give in this case one Federal Government agency one tool it needs to deal with this issue. This is a bill which is timely not only because of what is happening on college campuses but unfortunately what has happened in too many parts of our society. We want to make sure the Department of Education has at least one of those tools to deal with this problem. 
Because of the nature of this problem, we have people on both sides of the aisle here who are very concerned about it. I am particularly grateful that I am joined by my colleague from South Carolina, Senator SCOTT, who is joining with me. We are a Democrat and a Republican from different parts of the country and a different point of view on a lot of issues. On this issue we are unified, and we have a solidarity about not just the problem, but there is a solidarity and a consensus about one of the things we can do to take action on this issue. 
I am grateful to be joined by my colleague from South Carolina. 
I yield the floor to him. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. 
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator CASEY for joining me on the floor. 
There is no question that much of our country yearns for a day when Republicans and Democrats come together on issues that impact who we are as a nation. I am thankful that Senator CASEY has joined me in this objective of making sure hate is pushed out of this Nation every single day. 
Today I come to speak about an alarming issue—the issue of hate. It truly tears at the very fabric of our great Nation and should inspire all of us to stand up and be counted on the side of justice, on the side of common sense, and on the side of making sure this great American family remains one Nation. 
Over the past several years, there has been a sharp rise in religiously motivated hate crimes, particularly on our college and university campuses all over America. According to the FBI, close to 60 percent of these crimes were due to anti-Jewish sentiments. From 2014 to 2015, we saw the number of reported incidents double. Let me say that one more time. In a year, we saw a doubling of the incidence of religious discrimination on college campuses, and the vast majority of those issues and situations focused on the Jewish community. There were 90 anti-Jewish incidents reported at 60 schools last year, compared with 47 incidents on 43 campuses just the year before. These numbers are staggering. 
Senator CASEY noted that there have been college campuses and buildings on college campuses where we have seen swastikas. We have heard protests that call for Zionists to leave the school, and we have heard references being made to burning in Auschwitz. I am stunned and saddened by the careless and hateful reminders of such an incredibly dark and daunting time in our world’s history, but I also feel empowered and committed to taking a stand against hate. No one, not a single person should ever have to experience being singled out because of who they are or attacked based on the religion they choose to follow. There is simply no place in our country for this kind of intolerance, especially not in our country, the greatest country on Earth. 
As citizens of this great Nation, it falls on us to stand up and do more to protect our students from being targeted by any form of hate and bigotry.
It is important that we work together to stamp out anti-Semitism and other forms of religious discrimination. Our students should be able to go to school, to grow, to learn, and to develop without having to worry about being discriminated against. Although the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has stated that they will not tolerate incidents such as these, there exists a lack of firm guidance on what constitutes anti-Semitic acts. That is why Senator CASEY and I stand before you today to introduce the bipartisan Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. We have come together to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education has the necessary tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish discrimination. 
Our proposed legislation uses the very definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. This important clarification will provide necessary direction to assist officials and administrators to understand when anti-Semitic activities are occurring. By clarifying exactly what anti-Semitism is, we will leave no question as to what constitutes an illegal anti-Semitic incident. 
As we seek to tackle this concerning issue, it is important to note that this act will in no way infringe on any individual right protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. I think we have to emphasize that. Our legislation in no way, shape, or form infringes upon any individual rights protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It simply and specifically provides clarity on the definition that the Department of Education can and will use for defining anti-Semitic acts. 
We must act now. This increase in religiously motivated hate crimes must be addressed. It must be addressed by the entire American family, and it ought to start here. We will come together because we will not allow others to tear us apart. We must hold to the ideals that our Nation was founded on and promote freedom of religion. We must protect that freedom and encour-age it. We must—as a Nation, as an American family—call out hate wherever and whenever we see it. 
I thank Senator CASEY for his involvement and leadership on such an important issue. 
I yield the floor. 
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators SCOTT and CASEY for their work on the anti-discrimination legislation, particularly as it relates to anti-Semitism. I support them in that effort and look forward to getting something done in Congress to help address the definition of anti-Semitism for the Department of Education. 
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
The bill (S. 10) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows: 
S. 10 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016’’.
Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (referred to in the section as ‘‘title VI’’) is one of the principal antidiscrimination statutes enforced by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. 
(2) Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 
(3) Both the Department of Justice and the Department of Education have properly concluded that title VI prohibits discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and members of other religious groups when the discrimination is based on the group’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics or when the discrimination is based on actual or perceived citizenship or residence in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity. 
(4) A September 8, 2010 letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez to Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn H. Ali stated that ‘‘[a]lthough Title VI does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and members of other groups violates Title VI when that discrimination is based on the group’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics’’. 
(5) To assist State and local educational agencies and schools in their efforts to comply with Federal law, the Department of Education periodically issues Dear Colleague letters. On a number of occasions, these letters set forth the Department of Education’s interpretation of the statutory and regulatory obligations of schools under title VI. 
(6) On September 13, 2004, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague letter regarding the obligations of schools (including colleges) under title VI to address incidents involving religious discrimination. The 2004 letter specifically notes that ‘‘since the attacks of September 11, 2001, OCR has received complaints of race or national origin harassment commingled with aspects of religious discrimination against Arab Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish students.’’ 
(7) An October 26, 2010 Dear Colleague letter issued by the Department of Education stated, ‘‘While Title VI does not cover dis- crimination based solely on religion, groups that face discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics may not be denied protection under Title VI on the ground that they also share a common faith. These principles apply not just to Jewish students, but also to students from any discrete religious group that shares, or is perceived to share, ancestry or ethnic characteristics (e.g., Muslims or Sikhs).’’. 
(8) Anti-Semitism remains a persistent, disturbing problem in elementary and secondary schools and on college campuses. 
(9) Jewish students are being threatened, harassed, or intimidated in their schools (including on their campuses) on the basis of their shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics including through harassing conduct that creates a hostile environment so severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit some students’ ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by schools. 
(10) The 2010 Dear Colleague letter cautioned schools that they ‘‘must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment, and its effects, and prevent the harassment from recurring,’’ but did not provide guidance on current manifestation of anti-Semitism, including discriminatory anti-Semitic conduct that is couched as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. 
(11) The definition and examples referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 3 have been valuable tools to help identify contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism, and include useful examples of discriminatory anti-Israel conduct that crosses the line into anti-Semitism. 
(12) Awareness of this definition of anti- Semitism will increase understanding of the parameters of contemporary anti-Jewish conduct and will assist the Department of Education in determining whether an investigation of anti-Semitism under title VI is warranted. 
For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘definition of anti-Semitism’’— 
(1) includes the definition of anti-Semitism set forth by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism of the Department of State in the Fact Sheet issued on June 8, 2010, as adapted from the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (now known as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights); and 
(2) includes the examples set forth under the headings ‘‘Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism’’ and ‘‘What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?’’ of the Fact Sheet. SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TITLE VI  OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. 
In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of anti-Semitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the alleged practice was motivated by anti-Semitic intent. 
Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. 
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
U.S. Department of State
Fact Sheet 
Washington, DC 
June 8, 2010

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 

 Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

 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 interest of their own nations. 

What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include: 


 Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis 

 Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis 

 Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions


 Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation 

 Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.

Research by Michael Hoffman 

Donations or the purchase of our publications and/or CDs/DVDs is essential to the continuation of this blog.