Hoffman’s book censored by The New York Review of Books: details

In the summer of 2008 an advertisement for Michael Hoffman’s book Judaism Discovered was accepted by The New York Review of Books (NYRB) for its Independent Press advertising pages. We contracted for two insertions.

After one insertion in the Sept. 25 issue, the woman who accepted our ad was either demoted or fired and we received the following communication from the elite NYRB, which has so often raised its voice against the censorship of books:

"My name is Alice McGrath and from now on I will be handling the Independent Press listing in the New York Review of Books. I'm writing with regards to the Independent History and Research advertisement that ran in our September 25 issue, which was scheduled to run in the October 23 issue as well.

"It is with regret that I inform you that we will be unable to publish your ad a second time. We have received complaints from subscribers about the ad, and our editor and associate publisher have considered the matter, deciding that this particular advertisement is unsuitable for our publication. As noted in the disclaimer at the end of our publication, the Publisher reserves the right to cancel any advertising at any time. You will not be billed a second time. I am very sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused you."

Yours sincerely,
Alice McGrath
The New York Review of Books
435 Hudson Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014
(212) 293-1630 fax: (212) 333-5374

(End quote)

Dear Alice McGrath

In what way is our book unsuitable for an advertisement in NYRB?

Have the editor and publisher read it, or read a review of it?

Shouldn't they examine the book first, before banning an advertisement for it?

Is your advertising policy solely based on yielding to complaints from subscribers?

Would you ask the editor and publisher to accept an examination copy of Judaism Discovered from us, without cost or obligation, and make a determination on the suitability of an ad for the book based on an examination of it? That would seem normative and enlightened. The current policy is decidedly not.

Sincerely,
Independent History and Research

***

Sept. 19, 2011

Dear Independent History and Research

Of course you are welcome to send a copy of the book to the attention of the Editors at the address given below.  In the meantime, however, the listing will not be published.The Publisher is simply exercising the right to reject any advertising at any time, as is stated on this publication's rate card.

Sincerely,
Catherine Tice
Associate Publisher
The New York Review of Books

(End quote)

We did not fully publicize the details of this act of censorship in 2008 due to so much other work we were tasked with at the time of the book’s publication. We are publicizing it now, for the record.

***

Read More

Here is the Link to the Russian TV segment with Hoffman

Watch Michael Hoffman analyzing the Libyan crisis on Russia's RT 

satellite television network. Click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvaJA8m8frI

 5 minutes 22 seconds long.

Michael Hoffman is the author of seven books of history and literature. 

He operates a website, two blogs and a twitter account, as well as 

serving as the editor of Revisionist History newsletter. He is writing 

a new book, "Usury in Christendom." To raise funds for his truth mission 

he moonlights as a freelance copy editor and antiquarian book dealer.

www.revisionisthistory.org

***

Read More

Ultra Orthodox Judaism’s Ultra Molestation

I was discussing pederasty in the Talmud yesterday on the RBN radio network with Deanna Spingola. I found the following letter to the Baltimore City Paper today. 

 --Michael Hoffman

Ultra Pedophiles

Andrea Appleton’s “Silent No More” (Feature, March 9) was a fine treatment of Phil Jacobs’ “several-year quest to expose sexual abuse within Baltimore’s insular Orthodox community,” an effort that resulted in huge repercussions for him personally.

The pedophilia question is a particularly sensitive matter, especially since, as the article indicates, the tendency of the insular (=ultra) Orthodox is to dismiss it or wish to cover it up, even going so far as to invoke Jewish law (Halacha) to chastise Mr. Jacobs for “embarrassing” the Jewish community by exposing it. As though Jewish law trumps American law in Baltimore!

As New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind (who, like Phil Jacobs, is himself Orthodox) observed, “If you’re a pedophile, the best place for you to come to are some of the [ultra-Orthodox] Jewish communities. Why? Because you can be a pedophile and no one’s going to do anything.” (The Jewish Daily Forward, March 13, 2009).

One is prompted to ask : Might there be something in the culture of this community that fosters such outrageous permissiveness? Sadly, there is.

Orthodox Jews strictly follow all the dictates of the Talmud (the non-Orthodox do so critically and selectively). According to the Talmud, “a girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse.” (Niddah 44b, Yebamoth 57b). For the Talmud, the legal age of sexual maturity for girls is 3 years and one day—and for boys 9 years of age.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is currently holding hearings in Washington because it is his position that the religion of Islam predisposes its followers to engage in terrorist acts against the United States.

Just as the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists, so the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews are not pedophiles.

But fair is fair. If the American Muslim faith community can be faulted as being “soft on extremism” (per Rep. King), then the ultra-Orthodox contingent (per Assemblyman Hikind) can be accused of being “soft on pedophilia.” Certainly, as Rep. King insists, if there are “too many mosques in this country,” then—if Baltimore is any indication—there are also far too many ultra-Orthodox institutions that are pedophilia-friendly.

Therefore, it seems to me that if a Congressional investigation of Islam is valid, then by the same token, should not, perhaps on the local or state level, a similar probe be launched exploring ultra-Orthodox Judaism’s apparent predisposition toward sexual abuse of children? In the words of Rep. King: “It is our responsibility to put aside political correctness and define who our enemy truly is.”

By all means. Especially for the sake of the children. Of Pikesville.

Or is the trump card quashing any such inquiry going to be that, while the American Muslim community is not politically well connected, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community definitely is—especially in Baltimore. 

Luke Sanders

Baltimore

***

Read More

Pope Benedict’s new book and the conversion of the “Jews"

by Michael Hoffman

The pope's new book on Jesus Christ and the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, has been published. I will be reading it early next week and my full review will appear in "Revisionist History" newsletter.

From excerpts I have read online, the book is written in the classic mode of casuistry, the post-medieval Roman Catholic lawyer’s corollary to the Talmud’s lawyerly pilpul.

By means of this casuistry the pope is saying one thing to the Left and the rabbis, but provides enough cover for his thesis so that the Right and conservative Catholics can allow themselves to believe that he really didn't say what the rabbis and the Left are saying he did say.

What a tangled web! Whatever happened to plain speech? “Let your yes be yes, and your no be no; anything else is of the evil one” (Matthew 5:37).

The Vatican and the rabbis do not heed Christ's sage admonition, that's for sure. For example, Purim, the Talmudic feast of revenge, is just around the corner on the rabbinic calendar, Adar 14 (March 19-20). On Purim, every Judaic male is required to get so drunk he can't tell the difference between Haman and Mordechai. The Talmud obligates adult Judaic males to become intoxicated at Purim, then warns them of the potential dangers of such inebriation (Babylonian Talmud, Megila 7b). The Talmud provides a plausible denial loophole for its own command to Judaic males to become intoxicated with alcohol. Bottom line: for centuries Judaic males have gotten hopelessly drunk on Purim.

Pope Benedict's casuistry reflects the plausible denial stratagem exhibited in Megila 7b: while the pope does not affirm in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week the theory holding that “Jews” will be saved independently of Christ, he does suggest the Church should not be targeting “Jews" for conversion efforts.

Observe this tangled web of papal casuistry: [1] "Don't convert the ‘Jews,’ [2] but they do need Christ to be saved."

[1] Don't convert the “Jews” — absolutely delights Pharisaic Judaism and the Left.

[2] "Jews" still need Christ to be saved — provides a face-saving escape clause for the pope’s Right-wing.

Benedict "approvingly quotes" Cistercian abbess and "Biblical writer" Hildegard Brem: “The church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God.”

I'm going to "approvingly quote" the founder of the Christian Church (just in case His words count for anything next to those of abbesses and pontiffs): “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Let's see now, at the beginning of His ministry Jesus focused his conversion efforts solely on the House of Israel, but since then, that focus has been abrogated? Or would the casuists prefer to employ the word "derogated"?

The charge given by Jesus later in His ministry, to carry the Gospel to the gentiles, to the ends of the earth, Pope Benedict reverses, in favor of what the pontiff terms a “sequence": first the “full number” of the Gentiles comes to the faith, and only then the Jews.

So Jesus had it wrong. He sought to convert the Jews first. He wasn't aware of the "sequence"!

The pope quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s advice to one of his predecessors, Pope Eugene III, that “a determined time has been fixed” for the conversion of the Jews “that cannot be anticipated.”

Clever! The pope has switched gears and is alluding to eschatology, the Pauline prediction of Judaic conversion in general, in some form and to some extent (we know not the particulars), at the end of time.

This process would, however, never forbid the conversion of individual "Jews" before the end time, and it never did. Ecclesiastic history testifies to militant missionary efforts toward Judaics.  Otherwise, what were Peter and Paul doing in the Church in the first place? Why didn't Christ just convert the Roman Centurion, the Samaritan woman and any other gentile He chose, and make them apostles and disciples, leaving His call to the Simons and Sauls to the time when the "full number" of the gentiles would be converted?

No doubt Dr. Scott Hahn and other august PhD. theologians beholden to the Novus Ordo Seclorum, will resolve these “seeming" contradictions and tie them into a neat traditional package, exactly corresponding to "what the Church has always taught."

But the Church has always taught that from motives of charity and compassion we should free Judaics from the shackles of bondage to the religious system based on the Babylonian Talmud, and lead them to the love, grace and mercy of Jesus.

Catholic Saints like Vincent Ferrer responded heroically to the call to convert Judaics. Among Protestants, international missionary organizations were founded, such as the London Society for Promoting Christianity Among the Jews. In the space of a few decades of the 19th century, nearly 1800 Judiacs were converted and baptized in the Society's London chapel in Palestine Lane, and thousands more were converted throughout Germany and eastern Europe. One of the leaders of the Society, Rev. Dr. Alexander McCaul, warned of the sins which Judaics commit as long as they remain in Judaism:

"Every man who uses the prayers of the synagogue, there confesses himself to God as a believer in the oral law, and consequently ready to execute all its decrees of cruelty, fraud and persecution...That is his profession in the synagogue; when he then comes forth from the solemn act of Divine Worship and tells me that he is...charitable and that he abhors persecution, how can I possibly believe him?..so long as their words and their deeds contradict each other, a mist hangs over them...There is falsehood somewhere and the only possible mode of removing this appearance is by a public renunciation of the oral law...To their God they owe it, for by the blasphemies of the oral law, His character is misrepresented and His name blasphemed."

Judaism is an offense to God — now — at this moment! Pope Benedict XVI, by "suggesting" that Jews need not convert to faith in Jesus Christ "at this time in history," is abandoning them to their sins, and ultimately to damnation, for no one is saved by their race!

Who then is the "Jew hater"? Is it the Christian evangelist who converts Judaics, or the Catholic casuist who leaves them to die without Christ?

The rabbis claim to be the defenders of the "Jews." Are they not actually their worst enemies? And what of a pope who, by retarding missionary efforts, cooperates with the Christless agenda of rabbinic Judaism?

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered, an 1100 page textbook and reference work. He is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press.

***
...Benedict sensitively touches upon a major problem that has plagued Catholic-Jewish relations all throughout history: converting Jews. This topic has been the focus of considerable discord in Catholic-Jewish relations in recent years...As a theological conservative, Benedict has written previously that the Jewish covenant at Sinai has been superseded. But his supersessionism has always been focused on the end of time, and he has maintained that Jewish unification with the church is “hardly possible, and perhaps not even desirable before the eschaton.” In his latest book, he expands this idea, insisting that for now “Israel retains its own mission” and that saving Israel “is in the hands of God” — meaning, presumably, not in the hands of Christian missionaries. Had Christians followed this doctrine throughout the millennia...Jews would have been freer to practice their faith with dignity. Benedict’s expectation of the future acceptance of Christian faith by everyone takes the practical threat out of Christian supersessionism for Jews today."

— Rabbi Eugene Korn, "Benedict’s ‘Jesus’ and the Jews”
Forward newspaper, March 9, 2011

(Korn is American director of the Israeli "Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation" in Efrat and Jerusalem, and editor of Meorot: A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse).

***

Read More

The riddle of the Phrygian cap of the initiate

"Stéphane Hessel at a pro-Palestinian rally. He is wearing a Phrygian cap, an icon of the French Revolution.” (NY Times picture caption, from the front page of section C, "A Resistance Hero Fires Up the French,” by Elaine Sciolino, March 10, 2011)

by Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

It is not often that one sees the red Phrygian cap of the initiate being worn by a prominent person these days, in this case a hero of the French Resistance in World War II, Stéphane Hessel.

The Phrygian cap was worn by the insurgents of the masonic French Revolution, in the 18th century. Its ancient roots in ritual occult costume are seldom mentioned.

Those who have read my book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare are aware of my interest in the detection of public and civic ritual “magic," which, together with Twilight Language, form a principle tool of the Cryptocracy for the recondite processing of humanity.

The Phrygian cap is at the root of some of the most striking and sacred ceremonial headwear in the West.

The god Mithras wore a red Phrygian cap. In volume two of his seminal work, The Rosicrucians: Their Rites and Mysteries (1870), Hargrave Jennings argued for the common ancestry of the Phrygian Cap, as the classic cap of the god Mithra; this Mithraic or Phrygian Cap being the origin of the priestly miter in all faiths. The Phrygian Cap was worn by the priest in sacrifice. When worn by a male, it had its crest, comb, or point set jutting forward.

Jennings informs us that the Phrygian Cap is a most recondite antiquarian form; it comes from the highest antiquity. It is displayed on the head of the figure sacrificing in the celebrated sculpture called the "Mithraic Sacrifice" in the British Museum, London.

When a Phrygian Cap, or Symbolizing Cap, is blood red, it stands for the crown or tip of the phallus, whether human or representative. It has its origin in the rite of circumcision; an emblem of the rite of circumcision, standing for the excised husk of the phallus born aloft as a trophy or cap of “liberty” on the head of the secret society member, or dupe.

The Phrygian Cap stands as the sign of sacrifice. The sacrificer in the sculptured group of the “Mithraic Sacrifice," among the marbles in the British Museum, has a Phrygian Cap on his head. He performs the act of striking the bull with a dagger, which is the office of the immolating priest.

The bonnet conique is the miter of the Doge of Venice. Cinteotl, a Mexican god of sacrifice, wears such a cap made from the thigh-skin of a sacrificed virgin. This headdress is shaped like a cock's comb. The Scotch Glengarry cap also seems, upon examination, to be "cocked."

Besides the "bonnet rouge," the Pope's miter and other miters and conical head-coverings derive their names from the terms "Mithradic," or "Mithraic," and the origin of the whole class of names is Mittra, or Mithra.

What is the solution to the modern riddle of the Phrygian cap?

It is this: when the “cap of liberty,” the Phrygian cap of the initiate, raised its severed prepuce in revolutionary France, its wearers simultaneously raised, to the raucous cheers of the Paris mob, the human heads severed by the guillotine.

It is perhaps not so much a riddle, as an inside joke.

***

Michael Hoffman’s latest book is Usury in Christendom, due to be published in July. He edits Revisionist History newsletter and lives in the foothills of Idaho’s Bitterroot mountains.

***

Read More

White Nationalist Professor Calls for "Deal" with Israeli Far Right

By Michael Hoffman

Copyright © 2011

In a radio interview with Croatian academic Dr. Tom Sunic, broadcast on Dr. Sunic’s online "Race and Reason" program on Dec. 21, 2010, White nationalist Professor Kevin MacDonald of California State College at Long Beach, called for a "deal" with the Israeli "Far Right" for the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, in return for the expulsion of Muslims from Europe.

Prof. MacDonald is the editor of the racialist periodical, Occidental Observer: White Identity, Interests and Culture.

The following are quotes from a transcript of the broadcast:

Prof. Kevin MacDonald:

"...People like (Holland's) Geert Wilders is the prototype of this type of politician...Yeah, they're very pro-Zionist and they're not only pro-Zionist, they're in favor of the most radically Right-wing segments of the Israeli political spectrum, so you're talking about the settler movement, this sort of radical ethno-nationalist, and, of course, what they have in common is that they are very critical of Islam. Actually, from my point of view I wish these people well. If they are successful in developing political parties that are opposed to Muslim immigration and are opposed to Muslim culture becoming mainstream in Europe, I think that's all to the good.

...Wilders' statements on Islam are accurate and on the money...I think he's doing a really good job...

"...What they want in Israel is this apartheid society, this racialist society...There's increasing tension. Israeli is being delegitimized everywhere in the world...There is this element on the Far Right in Israel that want to make alliances with similar-minded people in Europe or wherever. Uh, they can find this common ground. It's a good development over all...

"...If we could get the Muslims out of Europe as a deal where Israel survives and throws out the Palestinians to Jordan, I would take that deal in a heartbeat..."

Dr. Sunic: "Excellent. Well, Kevin, I always enjoy talking to you..."

(End quote)

Hoffman’s Comment 

The pursuit of racial purity or racial geo-political (“blood and soil”) policies, when divorced from truth and justice, is an accessory to evil. It is no mystery that Right-wing nationalists like Prof. MacDonald view Islam as far more deadly to the West than Judaism. Though he claims to markedly differ with the neocons, MacDonald’s views are consonant with theirs, at least in this respect, and no wonder: if you are any type of racist then you are already Talmudic, whether you know it or not. The Babylonian Talmud is a fount of racism. What is this writer’s definition of racism? Self-worship. It is the elevation of the carnal above ideals; the idolization of the corporeal, and the corrosion of the spiritual.

Kevin MacDonald forgets or perhaps does not even know that Orthodox Judaism, the Judaism practiced by the Israeli Far Right, despises western civilization with an intense hatred. In Judaism, western civilization is secretly execrated as kochi ve’otzem yadi  (cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 932-939).

Who was it that lobbied in the 1970s, 80s and 90s for Muslims to enter Britain and Europe? Numerous Zionist organizations and media were behind this effort. Who aided the Muslim armies with intelligence and through internal subversion of western nations in places like Spain in the fifteenth century? Judaism and Islam were united for hundreds of years. The medieval Catholic Church was at war with both. It is short-sighted in the extreme to view the current Muslim presence in Europe as a circumstance that can be ameliorated by a western alliance with the Christ-hating Talmudic butchers in the Israeli settlements and the Likud and Shas parties.

—Michael Hoffman

Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit (Independent History and Research, 2008)

Race and Reason Radio Interview

Tom Sunic interviews Prof. Kevin MacDonald

Remarks on Israeli Far Right, Geert Wilders and Palestinians begin approximately 47 minutes into the broadcast. The interview was online as of 11:30 a.m. Pacific time, March 10, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/4je28wt

or

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20101221/the-sunic-journal-kevin-macdonald

***

Read More

Peter King endorses Irgun terrorists who wiped out the village of Deir Yassin

Congressman: Muslim Terror Bad; Judaic Terror Good

In the last paragraph of this article you will see Mr. King’s endorsement of the Irgun terrorist organization that wiped out the village of Deir Yassin in 1948, slaughtering approximately 100 villagers. Mr. King believes that this atrocity was “legitimate."

For Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past

By Scott Shane | New York Times | March 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and sometimes pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.

A judge in Belfast threw him out of an I.R.A. murder trial, calling him an “obvious collaborator,” said Ed Moloney, an Irish journalist and author of “A Secret History of the I.R.A.” In 1984, Mr. King complained that the Secret Service had investigated him as a “security risk,” Mr. Moloney said.

In later years, by all accounts, Mr. King became an important go-between in talks that led to peace in Northern Ireland, drawing on his personal contacts with leaders of I.R.A.’s political wing, Sinn Fein, and winning plaudits from both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, the former president and the British prime minister.

But as Mr. King, 66, prepares to preside Thursday as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee at the first of a series of hearings on Muslim radicalization, his pro-I.R.A. past gives his many critics an obvious opening. The congressman’s assertions that 85 percent of leaders of American mosques hold extremist views and that Muslims do not cooperate with law enforcement have alarmed Muslim groups, some counterterrorism experts and even a few former allies in Irish-American causes.

Mr. King, son of a New York City police officer and grand-nephew of an I.R.A. member, offers no apologies for his past, which he has celebrated in novels that feature a Irish-American congressman with I.R.A. ties who bears a striking resemblance to the author.

Of comparisons between the terrorism of the I.R.A. and that of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, Mr. King said: “I understand why people who are misinformed might see a parallel. The fact is, the I.R.A. never attacked the United States. And my loyalty is to the United States.”

He said he does not regret his past pro-I.R.A. statements. The Irish group, he said, was “a legitimate force” battling British repression — analogous to the African National Congress in South Africa or the Zionist Irgun paramilitary in British-ruled Palestine. (End quote; emphasis supplied).

***

Read More

Purim 2011: Some Facts Rep. Peter King Doesn't Want to See

by Michael Hoffman | March 8, 2011

Copyright © 2011 www.revisionisthistory.org

On March 10, nine days before the rabbinic holy festival of Purim, dedicated to revenge, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) will convene a Congressional investigation into "radical Islam."

King, of Long Island, New York, can't see the Israeli terror apparatus for what it is, an illegal, immoral, Nazi colonial state of thieves, torturers, murderers, and consummate liars; "the Nazis of our time," as Khalid Amayreh terms them.

Rep. Peter King doesn't see the seven million Palestinian refugees waiting for justice -- waiting to return to their own land; he doesn't want the Talmudic, Judaic-supremacist criminals against humanity prosecuted, or the Palestinians and Lebanese to obtain reparations for the war crimes that the Zionists have committed against them.

Rep. King doesn't see Orthodox Judaism's terror network in the U.S., or the network of veterans of the Israeli army in New York and Los Angeles ready to bomb and assassinate. He doesn't see the Judaics who videotaped the destruction of the World Trade Center and cheered as it fell. He doesn't see the Arab-Americans such as Alex Odeh bombed by Judaic terrorists in California.

Rep. Peter King doesn't care to investigate the degree to which American "collateral damage" bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan, and support for Israeli bloodshed and Israeli puppet regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, contribute to Islamic armed resistance against America.

The Congressman from New York doesn't know or doesn't care to know that the Arabs and Muslims of the world view the Israeli government as a Nazi regime and believe that any tactic of armed resistance can be justifiably employed against it and its supporters.

Like the western media, King calls this resistance terrorism. Yet he accepts the validity of the Allied dogma on World War II: that no tactic employed against the Nazis, however gruesome, including the bombing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, was immoral. Mr. King subscribes to the Allied World War II doctrine that anything done to a Nazi or the German people living under Nazism, was justified, including tactics which in other eras and contexts are called terrorism.

Rep. King will surely reject our analogy of the Israeli Reich and the Nazi one, but this rejection -- also shared by the U.S. government, New York media and Hollywood moguls -- has little or no effect on Arabs and Muslims, who continue to believe that the Israelis are Nazis. Arabs and Muslims have been exposed to enough "Holocaust" movies and a sufficient amount of World War II Allied doctrine, to have imbibed the belief --from the West (not Islam) -- that terrorism when employed against "Nazis" is well-deserved and completely justifiable.

This is the unacknowledged two-edged sword which the Peter Kings of America refuse to countenance -- thereby dooming our nation to perpetual, no-win foreign wars which are bankrupting the U.S. budget.

Anyone who believes that Peter King really wants to lessen the Islamic vs. The West enmity needs their head examined. King envisions "perpetual war" in the name of fighting Islamic terrorism, in line with former Vice-President Dick Cheney's script. In this way, the national security state continues to arise on U.S. soil, with more of our immemorial rights eroded, as we saw with the misnamed "Patriot Act.”

A police state is being built in America using the specter of Islamic terror. It is not hard to see that in this connection, the Cryptocracy needs this terror and has a symbiotic relationship with it.

One positive aspect of Mr. King's Congressional hearings into "radical Islam" is the precedent he and his enablers in Congress and the media are establishing for the future, when we may one day witness long overdue Congressional hearings on "radical Judaism," beginning with the calls for extermination of Palestinians by former Israeli Chief Sephardic Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, proceeding to the murderous racism of the Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud, the anti-Black bigotry of the Midrash and Maimonides, and concluding with the racist supremacy of the Tanya, the sacred text of the Chabad-Lubavitch and the killer-settlers in the occupied territories, whose patron saint is mass murderer Baruch Goldstein, the yellow-star wearing terrorist who slaughtered forty Palestinians at prayer at a mosque in Hebron, on the Talmudic festival of vengeance, Purim, 1994.

Michael Hoffman, a target of numerous Zionist death threats, is the author of Judaism Discovered, an 1100 page hardcover book of investigative scholarship. He has distributed hundreds of copies of his documentary film, "Goldstein's Massacre at the Mosque." He was educated at the State University of New York and is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press. His work is entirely reader-funded, through donations and the purchase of his books, recordings and newsletters.

www.revisionisthistory.org

Independent History and Research

Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

***

Read More

The Pope Exonerates and Tennessee Excoriates

Contents

1. Readers have asked Michael Hoffman to comment on: 

The Pope "exonerates Jews for the death of Jesus" 

http://tinyurl.com/4sab35n

 

I'm going to wait until the pope's new book is published before I give an assessment. I distrust jump-the-gun encapsulation/sensationalism, for which the mainstream media is justly notorious.

Having said that, it will not surprise me to learn, after studying his forthcoming book, that the pope has contributed another installment in his long career of treasonous Judaization, which, together with his tolerance of high level child molestation facilitators (Bernard Law, Roger Mahony ad nauseum, who live in retired luxury), have stained his white garments with the blood of Palestine and the blood of raped Catholic children. Behold, the day comes when the proud shall be reduced to stubble.

The Associated Press (http://tinyurl.com/4sab35n) reports: "Benedict has said that had he known Bishop Richard Williamson's views about Jews he never would have lifted his excommunication, which was imposed in 1988 because Williamson was consecrated without papal consent."

If this is an accurate quotation, it signifies that Church office is now bestowed or withdrawn based on one's attitudes pro or contra toward the "Jews." 

Since Williamson has never said anything unscriptural about "Jews," but only doubted that they were gassed to death in Auschwitz, we see a revolutionary standard being imposed by this pope — clerics who offer an opinion about a detail of official World War Two propaganda are deserving of excommunication, while criminals like Cardinals Bernard Law and Roger Mahony, who facilitated and protected child molesters, retire with the full pomp of their office (Mahony is still eligible to cast a vote for a new pope, should the current one die). Truly we are dealing with a shameless pontiff for whom dereliction in the duty of Jew-worship is magnitudes of sinfulness above peccadillos such as harboring child rapists.

A papal proclamation absolving the Pharisees and the Jewish mob in first century Jerusalem, or the spiritual heirs of the Pharisees who comprise modern Orthodox Judaism, of the murder of Jesus Christ, is not worth the paper on which it is written. 

The Talmud states that Jesus got what He deserved, and the highest legal authority in Judaism, Rabbi Moses Maimonides, not only confirmed the Talmud's judgment, he urged the murder of Jesus' followers, if such killings could be made to look like an accident. So what's to absolve? The Talmud and Maimonides are "witnesses against themselves." A papal proclamation to the contrary has the same credibility as an absolution issued by the Masonic Lodge or the U.N. 

If idolatry of counterfeit "Israel" is your bag, then the pope's words will make an impression. For the rest of us, Pope Benedict XVI lacks moral authority, to say the least.

The fact that the ADL and the Orthodox rabbis beseech Rome for official declarations of their innocence shows the inherent weakness of their position. Their insecurity reminds this writer of the 1980s and 1990s when the same suspects were running to judges demanding they take "judicial notice" of the homicidal Auschwitz gas chambers so as to make them real -- by judicial proclamation. Alice inWonderland was a paragon of logic compared with these Zionists.

2. Fighting Shariah Law in the Buckle of the Talmud Belt

In the face of this and other morbitities of our world, I did get a laugh today -- discovering that Republican yahoos in Tennessee are trying to pass legislation banning Shariah law in the U.S. (http://tinyurl.com/4vf62fb), because they imagine it represents an imminent threat to the Constitution. Their model legislation was crafted by an Arizona attorney named David Yerushalmi.

It is a shame that we no longer have a satirist with the rapier-wit of a Twain or a Mencken to puncture this charade, mounted by the lowest dregs of Tennessee's "Buckle of the Talmud Belt."

Judaism's Babylonian Talmud long ago subverted the Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court, but few Tea Party "patriots" seem to have noticed. 

The Talmudic Noachide Law is already Federal Law (Public Law 102-14), but "Christian Republicans" are oblivious. It would take a real mensch to proclaim the truth about it, and I do not expect any to emerge from the zombie ranks of Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Daniel Lapin, Limbaugh or Beck. 

Consequently, while the six pointed star of the Synagogue of Satan is embedded on the front of the Thomas S. Foley Federal Courthouse building in Spokane, Washington (in the form of the misnamed "Great Seal of the United States"), alleged "Christian evangelists" are feverishly hunting down the Shariah law, which would threaten America's subservience to the House of Rothschild's house of usury.

Like many of you, in this work I can always use a laugh. I have to thank the Judeo-Churchian Shariah-hunters of Tennessee, such as Grand Golem Bill Ketron and Grand Golem Judd Matheny, and Tennessee "Eagle Forum" (http://www.tneagleforum.org) for providing a hearty one this day.

Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Hoffman's research and writing are entirely reader-supported

___________________________________________________

Read More

Wall Street Journal Reporter Responds to Hoffman’s charges

In yesterday’s On the Contrary column we took the Wall Street Journal to task for omitting important contextual facts in  the newspaper’s reporting on the “opposition movement” in Iran ("Iran opponents said to be jailed," Wall Street Journal, March 1).

The reporter who wrote the "Wall Street Journal" article has responded. Our rejoinder follows the reporter’s reply.

On Mar 1, 2011, at 6:59, Fassihi, Farnaz wrote:

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your note. The points that you refer to as being omitted are not facts, they are theories mostly put forth by Iran's government in defense of its crackdowns on the opposition. The reason we don't elaborate on Iran's charges that opposition are agents of U.S. and Israel is because Iran has given no evidence for us to elaborate. It has not presented or proved these charges in court or trial or made public any evidence to back these claims.

We diligently report our stories and try to stay away from conspiracy theories and repeating rhetoric.

Regards,
Farnaz

On Mar 2, 2011, Michael Hoffman wrote:

Dear Farnaz Fassihi

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that Iranian scientist Majid Shahriari was killed by a bomb and a second scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi, was seriously injured in Tehran on Nov. 29 and that Dr. Abbasi's wife was also killed in the bombing?

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that Seymour Hersh reported in "The New Yorker":

"Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership...The Finding was focussed on...trying to undermine the government through regime change...in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions (is) the pursuit of 'high-value targets'..." (--"The Bush Administration Steps Up Its Secret Moves Against Iran," The New Yorker, July 7, 2008).

Is it “Iran’s government” that put this forth, or Seymour Hersh?

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States government?

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that the Israelis are on record seeking the overthrow of the Iranian government?

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that "The Telegraph" newspaper reported:

"Israel has launched a covert war against Iran as an alternative to direct military strikes against Tehran's nuclear program...The most dramatic element of the 'decapitation' program is the planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran's atomic operations...Reva Bhalla, a senior analyst with Stratfor, the US private intelligence company with strong government security connections, said the strategy was to take out key people....'Without military strikes, there is still considerable scope for disrupting and damaging the Iranian program and this has been done with some success,' said Yossi Melman, a prominent Israeli journalist who covers security and intelligence issues for the Haaretz newspaper." ("Israel launches covert war against Iran," The Telegraph [UK], Feb. 16, 2009).

Is it “Iran’s government” that put this forth, or “Haaretz" newspaper and "The Telegraph" newspaper?

By pretending that the U.S. and Israel have no programs in place to overthrow the government of Iran, you give the false impression that Iran is secure from foreign subversion and terror and that the controversy over the opposition movement is an internal matter.

You are reporting the Iranian opposition movement in a vacuum. You serve the neocon agenda, not the truth.

Shame on you!

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman

***

Hoffman's writing and research is entirely reader-supported - through donations and the purchase of his books, newsletters and recordings.

***

Read More

Wall Street Journal reporting on Iran Omits Important Facts

Dear Farnaz Fassihi

re: "Iran opponents said to be jailed" (Wall Street Journal, March 1)

In your article in the Wall Street Journal on the arrest of Iranian opposition figures Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, why didn't you elaborate on charges by pro-government forces that the dissidents are agents of, or at the very least, used by American and Israeli Zionism?

Surely you are aware that the overthrow of the Iranian government is a high priority in Jerusalem and Washington, and that both George W. Bush and Obama have authorized CIA covert operations inside Iran, as well as the fact that the Iran government is being targeted by terrorists. For example, Iranian scientist Majid Shahriari was killed by a bomb and a second scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi, was seriously injured in Tehran on Nov. 29. Dr. Abbasi's wife was also killed in the bombing.

None of these facts are mentioned in your reporting.

By omission, you give the false impression that Iran is secure from foreign subversion and terror and that the whole controversy is an internal matter.

Sincerely, 

Michael Hoffman

For Further Research:

Terrorist Bomb Attack on Iranian Scientists:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/11/terrorist-bomb-attack-on-iranian.html

Media continues its Amnesia over Terrorist Bomb Attack:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/12/media-continues-its-amnesia-over.html

National Public Radio (NPR) Propaganda System Against Iran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bf-FAhIkE0

***

Read More