Before the Six Million there were the 24,000

By Michael Hoffman
www.revisionisthistory.org

I am currently writing the introduction, compiling the bibiliography and designing the cover for our forthcoming book, Testing the Talmud, which was written by a professor of Hebrew at a major university. Judaism is again on my mind therefore, after writing three books on the subject (in 2000, 2008 and 2011) and then pursuing other revisionist history, most recently, Usury in Christendom.

Yesterday was Lag B'omer, an Israeli holdiay in honor of Rabbi Shimon Ben Yohai, the reputed founder of the Kabbalstic system of magic and superstition in Judaism, and the Mishnaic theologian who declared, "Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed."

In honor of this sweet guy, tens of thousands of Orthodox Judaics converged at his grave April 28, for supplication, dancing and the usual occult bacchanal.

While Yohai is the main attraction, a sideshow revovles around another Talmudic "sage," Rabbi Akiva, who was the chaplain to the murderous, sicarii type of zealots of the first two centuries A.D. who are incarnate today in occupied Palestine as "the Israeli settlers" -- receiving cash payments and lavish laurels from Churchianity's Protestant Fundamentalist mountebanks.

Akiva supported the Jewish terrorist Bar Kokhba in his drive to expel the Romans from Palestine by terror and force of arms. The Jewish defeat was so calamitous that for the next eighteen centuries, until the dawn of the Zionism of Moses Hess and Theodore Herzl, the Talmudic sages counseled deception, stealth, subversion and treachery as the means by which the despised gentiles could be overcome, rather than Judaic force of arms. These tactics, as perfected by "the Rambam," the eminent medieval rabbi, Moses Maimonides, physician to the sultan's family, included forming a sly alliance with the Muslims in order to use them against the Christian powers (even though Maimonides privately execrated Muslims, as he did all gentiles of every religion).

According to the Talmud, Rabbi Akiva saw 24,000 of his students die during the Omer period until the 33rd day, now known as "Lag B'Omer. "

I ask you to ponder the significance of this self-advertised casualty figure. As some readers may know, if you are sketpical about the Six Million casualty figure officially promulgated with regard to Judaic deaths under the Nazis, you will be branded by the media (and even the "alternative” Wikipedia media), as a devil/heretic, i.e. as a "Holocaust denier."

Every year this writer is denied speaking engagements, advertising space and serious consideration for his  books by means of the magical invocation of this stigma by all and sundry, from the post-Renaissance Roman Catholic authorities (for whom the heavily financed and highly organized international campaign to deny the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is simply not an issue of comparable concern), to movements and intellectuals on the conservative Right and the liberal Left. If one desires to feel what it is like to be treated as a heretic in the Age of Agnosticism, just dare to say you don't believe Six Million "Jews" died at the hands of the Nazis. You and your reputation will soon be parted like a drunken sailor and his money.

Asking for evidence of the sacred Six Million World War II casualty figure is offensive, because history has nothing to do with it. We are in the realm of religious faith under the mask of historiography. One can draw a parallel with the Boston marathon bombings: the case is still developing, the investigation has just begun, yet it is already a sign of gravely disordered "whacko conspiracy theorizing" to dare to ask questions about Boston and invoke blasphemous terms such as "false flag" and "FBI patsy."

The way the hypocrisy functions is that certain chosen people have the right to deny or minimize the extent of the Allied holocaust against German civilians. No less a figure of authority than the lady who coined the "Holocaust denial" Newspeak, Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, has reduced the number of Germans murdered in the city of Dresden by British and American firebombs, by tens of thousands. As one of the Holy People and an author of "Holocaust" liturgy, the media and academia accord her the solemn right (and duty!) to curb any notion that German civilians suffered a holocaust in World War II.

As a heretic these many years (I was a voracious and reasonably precocious reader as a kid, and 44 years ago, in 1969, I stumbled upon a booklet published by Willis Carto, The Myth of the Six Million -- my career as a thought criminal was launched). The main problem with The Six Million figure is that it is a religious statistic derived from Kabbalistic numerology. It has cropped up repeatedly on the Talmudists' peregrination through time, along with other intriguing casualty figures, such as the eight million Jews and even, the eight billion.

Lag B'omer centers on a more modest pile of mythical corpses, "The 24,000," a figure that was concocted just as the Mishna, the first portion of what has come to be known as the Talmud, (the laws and traditions of the Phairsees committed to writing), was being compiled. Consequently, it is at the very root of what has come to be known as Orthodox Judaism.

I hope I will be forgiven for doubting The 24,000 of Rabbi Akiva. I don't think I can can get into any more hot water than I am already boiling in (the Talmud has Jesus Christ boiling in another, less salubrious substance), for having added 24,000 to Six Million as two sacred casualty figures that do not impel belief from my horribly heretical soul.

There is no more factual basis for the 24,000 than for the Six Million, and hardly anyone outside of Talmudists, and researchers like yours truly, have even heard of it. But its utility for revisionist history is that it testifies to an eternally recurring Talmudic mentality. A "don't bother me with the facts" attitude of mendacity, together with an imperious, ipse dixit psychology that is threaded through the Mishnah, Gemara, Midrash, Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch, Mishna Berurah and all the rest of the halachic hooey by which the heirs of the Pharisees have deluded themselves these many centuries. Now, since every religion has a right to its own story (in a First Amendement sense), who would care whether the rabbis believed these numbers, were it not for the fact that these wild imaginings are enforced by the US State Department, US Holocaust Museum, President Obama (and all presidents prior to him beginning with Reagan); the mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches, and 99% of all university faculty and corporate employers.

Somehow, in our 21st century atheists' elysium, where Copernicus and Darwin and Dawkins are the tutelary gods of scientism, we are all required to believe whatever the Kabbalah and the Talmud tell us to believe. The New Testament? A mere fairy tale. Christ's resurrection? A shoddy hoax. But only a satanic cretin would scruple to deny The 24,000 or The Six Million.

Michael Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History Newsletter and the author of seven banned and damned history books.

Lag B'Omer: Rethinking the Rabbi Akiva Narrative

The sudden deaths of so many thousands of Rabbi Akiva's disciples, which according to the Talmud stopped on the day that is now known as Lag B'Omer, can potentially be thought of as casualties of Hadrian’s push to crush Jewish revolutionary activity once and for all, writes Binyamin Kagedan.

By Binyamin Kagedan 

The Algemeiner | April 28, 2013

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/28/lag-bomer-rethinking-the-rabbi-akiva-narrative/#

As is the case for many holidays in the Jewish calendar cycle, Lag B’Omer (April 28 this year) carries within it not one, but multiple and distinct layers of meaning. Mystical significances, historical memories, and moral reflections all meld together into the contemporary notion of what makes this day special, the product of nearly two millennia of overlaid and interwoven innovations in tradition and observance.

One of the most prominent themes describes that the 33rd day of the Omer period brought the sudden cessation of a calamity of national proportions in ancient Judea—the death of 24,000 students of the sage Rabbi Akiva. The mourning practices that have become a standard part of counting the 50 days between Passover and Shavuot likewise cease on Lag B’Omer for most traditional Jews, corresponding to the end of the catastrophe.

The Rabbi Akiva narrative can be traced back to a single, rather ambiguous passage in the Talmud that identifies neither the timing of the event nor how the scholars died. It does, however, specify a cause—namely that Akiva’s students had made a habit of treating each other with disrespect. The Talmudic narrators reviewing the anecdote then supply more detail, placing the event chronologically between Passover and Shavuot, and attributing the mode of death to a divinely ordained plague, punishment for the pupils’ collective lapse in behavior.

While it has often been interpreted at a literal level, the vague and mystifying nature of the account, coupled with the immensity of loss of life it describes, demands that we think critically about what is being conveyed. It seems quite unlikely that the rabbis would have contented themselves with explaining such unthinkable devastation as an act of divine justice necessitated by widespread academic hubris. Instead, it is helpful to understand the narrative against the social and political backdrop of the times and the persona of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Akiva’s life coincided with period of violent upheaval that resulted in the fall of the Judean state. Beginning in the year 70 CE, radical Judean militias staged a series of revolts against the Roman Empire, on the basis of religious repression, heavy taxation, and the desire for independence. Each time, the rebellions held out successfully for a few years, only to be eventually overwhelmed and put down by Rome’s determined leaders and immense military machine.

It is said that Rabbi Akiva began his rabbinic career at the late age of 40, but his brilliance, charisma, and creative interpretation of the law propelled him to fame, wealth, and a spot in the highest echelons of Jewish leadership. He was also, it seems, an ardent Jewish nationalist. The Jerusalem Talmud depicts Rabbi Akiva as throwing his influential support behind the leader of the final revolt, known as Bar Kochba, and publicly designating him the long-awaited Messiah who would restore Israel to political and religious freedom! A tradition associated with Rabbi Akiva’s death is that he was executed for continuing to teach Torah publicly, defiantly flouting a Roman prohibition against it that came in the aftermath of the last revolt.

In light of the fact that Talmudic lore associates Rabbi Akiva with the Jewish rebellion movement, we might consider an alternative reading of the story of his dying pupils. Not every rabbi in Rabbi Akiva’s day supported armed resistance against Rome, some seeing the probability of Roman retribution as too great a cost. But we can conjecture that Rabbi Akiva’s many students across Judea would have been loyal to him, and would have taken up arms against the imperial forces at his suggestion. In that case, the sudden deaths of so many thousands of his disciples can be thought of as casualties of Emperor Hadrian’s push to crush Jewish revolutionary activity once and for all. Hadrian was largely successful, and no effort was made to reclaim the province as a Jewish state until modern times.

Why then would the Talmud be so sparse with detail, and why would later rabbis composing the Talmud come up with such a different explanation? Francince Klagsbrun, in her book Jewish Days: A Book of Jewish Life and Culture, offers the idea that since those compilers may still have been living under Roman rule, it would have been unwise to refer openly to Jewish rebellions in the recent past.

Another possibility is that changing or leaving out the details of the true cause of the students’ demise was a silent repudiation of Rabbi Akiva, or alternatively an effort to protect his reputation from being tarnished by a connection to a failed war and a false messiah. In any case, whatever actually happened to Rabbi Akiva’s students, Lag B’Omer continues to be celebrated as the day on which the tragedy ended and the hope of peace was restored.

Binyamin Kagedan has an MA in Jewish Thought from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

***

Read More

Williamson contre les zélateurs de l’Holocaustianisme

On April 12 we penned an essay which appeared here, in On the Contrary, "Bishop Williamson contra the Votaries of Holocaustianity."

A lady volunteer in Paris, France translated that essay into French. She wishes to remain anonymous. We are grateful for her unselfish and very fine work. 

Sincerely,

M. Hoffman

_________________________

Michael Hoffman contre la suprématie de l'Holocaustianisme

Monseigneur Williamson contre les zélateurs de l’Holocaustianisme

Elie contre les prêtres de Baal

Par Michael Hoffman

On trouvera ci-après [nos correspondants voudront bien se reporter au site],

publiée pour la première fois, une lettre de huit pages, stupide et bornée,

envoyée en 2011 à Mgr Richard Williamson par l'un de ses subordonnés, le

Père Niklaus Pfluger, "premier assistant" du supérieur général de la

Fraternité St Pie X (SSPX), Bernard Fellay. Pfluger est un prêtre catholique

allemand de la fraternité SSPX à laquelle appartenait Mgr Williamson. Mgr

Williamson, on s'en souvient, a fait les manchettes des journaux du monde

entier pour avoir refusé de renier des propos tenus à une chaîne de

télévision suédoise où il avait déclaré que la persécution des juifs avait

été exagérée, que personne n'avait été gazé dans des chambres homicides et

que le nombre de Six Millions de morts était une exagération inconcevable.

Pour ces propos il a été expulsé par Fellay du séminaire de la Fraternité en

Argentine dont il était le recteur, et expulsé d'Argentine par le

gouvernement. Il est régulièrement poursuivi devant un tribunal pénal en

Allemagne (où a eu lieu son interview à la télévision suédoise).

  

 N'ayant pas le courage des prêtres catholiques réfractaires qui étaient

torturés, étirés, écartelés et décapités dans l'Angleterre élisabéthaine

pour s'en tenir à la vérité que la règle de Dieu est supérieure à la règle

des monarques, les Allemands de la SSPX ont fait dans leurs pantalons,

terrorisés à l'idée que s'ils reconnaissaient à leur propre évêque le droit

d'avoir un avis, en tant que Berger, sur ce que saint Paul a appelé "les

fables juives" (Tite 1:14), ils auraient à subir toute la fureur du

gouvernement allemand qui aurait fermé leurs écoles et les aurait mis en

prison. N'importe quel Amish, n'importe quel Vieux Mennonite de ma

connaissance, et j'en ai bien connu une centaine au cours de ces 25

dernières années, serait prêt à endurer la prison, ou à fuir avec les

enfants de l'école si nécessaire, pour braver l'Etat et défendre une vérité

contre des mensonges, mais pas la Fraternité allemande, ni la Fraternité en

général sous la direction de l'évêque Bernard Fellay.

Dans leur frilosité, les dirigeants de la SSPX ont adopté la théologie

rabbinique de l'Holocaustianisme des papes Jean-Paul II et Benoît XVI, tout

en prétendant défendre "le catholicisme traditionnel". Où était

l'Holocaustianisme sous le pontificat de Pie XII? Le Français Robert

Faurisson a abondamment écrit sur le sujet de Pie XII et démontré que ce

pape avait refusé de cautionner le mensonge de ces légendes de chambres à

gaz d'extermination.

On verra que dans la missive moralisatrice qu'il adresse à Mgr

Williamson, le révérend Phluger lui fait la leçon en lui citant certaines

sources infaillibles de l'existence de "l'Holocauste", comme celles de

(Jean-Claude) Pressac, lequel a abandonné de désespoir et reconnu sa défaite

dans sa tentative de prouver l'existence de chambres à gaz d'exécution à

Auschwitz-Birkenau, et, le plus drôle de tout, en mentionnant Raul Hilberg.

Mgr Williamson ne peut pas croire ce que dit Hilberg ou penser qu'il soit

fiable, puisque Williamson a pris la peine de lire l'ouvrage de l'auteur de

ces lignes, The Great Holocaust Trial (Le Grand Procès de l'Holocauste)

qui rend compte des réponses fournies par Hilberg aux questions que lui

posait le regretté avocat de la défense, catholique traditionaliste, Doug

Christie, lors du procès d'Ernst Zundel à Toronto en 1985. Devant le

tribunal, M. Christie a mis Hilberg au défi de fournir un seul rapport

scientifique sur des gazages à Auschwitz. La réponse de Hilberg a été: "J'en

suis incapable." Il ne pouvait pas! Lors du second procès Zündel, en 1988,

Hilberg avait été invité par l'accusation à témoigner et à se soumettre une

nouvelle fois à un contre-interrogatoire de Christie (s'appuyant, là encore,

sur les recherches de Faurisson). Hilberg a refusé, pour des raisons

évidentes.

Les défenseurs "catholiques traditionalistes" de la Fraternité SSPX de

Fellay qui sont des détracteurs de Mgr Williamson ont dit à l'auteur de ces

lignes que l'histoire profane n'avait rien à voir avec la mission de la

Fraternité. Si tel est le cas, pourquoi le secrétariat d'Etat du Vatican et

Mgr Fellay ont-ils fait pression sur Mgr Williamson pour qu'il rétracte ses

doutes sur les histoires de chambres à gaz homicides? Si Mgr Williamson

avait mis en doute le nombre de personnes mortes dans le Trou noir de

Calcutta en Inde britannique, ou dans le camp de prisonniers d'Elmira à New

York pendant la Guerre civile, ou sous les tapis de bombes envoyées par

Ariel Sharon sur le centre-ville de Beyrouth, au Liban, en août 1982, ni le

Vatican ni Fellay n'auraient prononcé un mot de censure ou de reproche. Et

pourtant, dès qu'on parle de ce que J.-M. Le Pen a qualifié à juste titre de

"détail de l'histoire" - les allégations sur les "chambres à gaz

d'extermination" d'Auschwitz - Williamson doit s'incliner devant le

consensus séculier, ou bien se voir refuser l'exercice de sa charge

épiscopale (selon le secrétariat du pape) et être menacé d'expulsion de la

Fraternité (par ordre de Fellay).

Pourquoi cette sollicitation particulière pour un détail de l'histoire

profane placé au-dessus de tous les autres? Le seul "Holocauste" du monde

(ou "Shoah", comme le pape Jean Paul II a été le premier à le nommer pour

rester dans la ligne des mystifications talmudiques) est devenu une fausse

religion, une religion de judaïsme à l'usage des gentils. Il s'agit d'une

stratégie de marketing diaboliquement rusée destinée à judaïser l'Occident

et à transformer les militants de l'Eglise du Christ en un tas de gelée

tremblante.

Lorsque le cinéaste multimillionnaire d'Hollywood James Cameron a mené

son action concertée pour nier la Résurrection de Jésus-Christ, on n'a rien

entendu de la part de Mgr Fellay et du Père Pfluger qui soit comparable aux

discours qu'ils ont proférés sur le shoah-bizness [sic]. L'organisation

mondiale de ce mouvement de négation de la Résurrection, qui a ses origines

dans l'Etat d'Israël, n'est pas un vrai sujet de préoccupation pour les

papes catholiques modernes ni pour le "catholique traditionaliste" qu'est

Mgr Fellay. Ce qui les soucie, ce qui les motive frénétiquement, c'est la

montée de tout mouvement entravant la marche vers le remplacement du

Calvaire par Auschwitz comme point central ontologique de la souffrance dans

l'histoire de l'Occident. L'utilisation de "l'Holocauste" comme marque ou

appellation du judaïsme et de l'Etat d'Israël ne laisse aucune place

intellectuelle, sociologique ou culturelle à quelque autre holocauste. Il

éclipse, d'abord, l'holocauste sur le Calvaire, et puis tous les autres

holocaustes de l'histoire, y compris l'holocauste judéo-communiste de

millions de chrétiens en Russie et en Europe de l'Est à partir de 1917.

On donne le nom d'Holocauste à la mort tragique de centaines de milliers

de juifs sous les Nazis alors que très peu de gens, même chez les partisans

les plus frénétiques du sionisme et du talmudisme, prétendent que des juifs

ont péri par le feu dans les camps de concentration. En revanche, la mort

par le feu de ceux qui ont péri dans les incinérations massives de Japonais

à Tokyo, d'Allemands à Dresde et d'Arabes à Beyrouth ne sera sous aucun

prétexte sanctifiée du mot "holocauste" - qui est la dénomination que donne

le dictionnaire de l'immolation par le feu. Même l'assassinat massif

d'enfants à naître par l'avortement n'a pas le droit de figurer dans le

sanctuaire linguistique et être qualifié d'holocauste sans encourir les

hurlements de rage et l'indignation des sionistes et des rabbins.

Les amis de la Fraternité SSPX nous disent que tout ce processus

dégénéré n'a rien à voir avec la mission de Mgr Marcel Lefebvre (fondateur

de la Fraternité). Mgr Williamson ferait mieux de croire, sur la Deuxième

Guerre mondiale, ce que croient les ignorants de la direction de la

Fraternité, en conformité avec leur avocat Mr M. Krah, qui est lié à l'armée

israélienne, à savoir que le chiffre cabalistique de Six Millions et les

allégations de gazages d'extermination massifs dans les magiques chambres à

gaz d'Auschwitz-Birkenau sont Paroles d'Evangile. Ces êtres humains supposés

réfléchis de la Fraternité, qui sont censés être les héritiers de saint

Thomas d'Aquin, ne se sont pas donné la peine de lire le Dr. Arthur Butz, le

Dr. Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Fred Leuchter, Richard

Widmann, Samuel Crowell, la transcription du second procès Zündel, mon livre

sur le premier procès Zündel, ou un quelconque ouvrage dissident,

alternatif, de scepticisme scientifique qui contredise la Liturgie

Holocaustique Officielle de la Nouvelle Eglise des Chambres à Gaz, à

laquelle doivent croire tous les catholiques sous peine de partager le même

sort que Mgr Williamson : expulsion, difficultés financières, poursuites

pénales, et les rituelles atteintes à la réputation de la part des médias et

de confrères catholiques.

Dans ces premières années du nouveau millénaire nous assistons avec

horreur à la réalisation par les révolutionnaires de chacun de leurs

objectifs: le "mariage" homosexuel, les femmes au combat, la violence à

l'état pur et la pornographie hard qui se déversent sans retenue de la

télévision et de l'Internet, et, partout en progression, le judaïsme

talmudique et l'Etat antichrist d'Israël. Mois après mois les ennemis de

Dieu réussissent à inverser, en quelques années seulement, quatre mille ans

de loi divine et d'héritage occidental. Peut-on être à ce point obtus pour

ne pas voir que, liée à ce processus de dégradation de l'alchimie humaine,

il y a la propagande "holocaustique" qui fait de la souffrance des juifs de

la Deuxième Guerre mondiale une idole cosmique devant laquelle tout le monde

en Occident doit s'incliner?

La papauté, le Vatican, et la Fraternité SSPX se sont tous inclinés, ont

tous consenti à cette idolâtrie. En ces temps obscurs, Mgr Williamson et une

toute petite poignée de prêtres exclus (les Pères Pfeiffer, Hewko, Chazal et

quelques autres) se lèvent comme Elie contre les prêtres de Baal.

+ + +

Read More

What about the other American terrorism?

While we congratulate ourselves on how noble we and our “pluralistic democratic” nation are, there is another terrorism, seldom the subject of investigation by the FBI, and never by the corporate media. It is a virtually silent terrorism against the most helpless Americans, and it undercuts our self-righteous image of ourselves as blameless targets of other people’s senseless wrath. Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s alleged atrocities are being minimally reported by the corporate media.

Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2013, p. A8
_________________________________

Read More

Bipartisan study concludes US Government used widespread torture after 9/11

When will we see war crime prosecutions of torturers George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo and their fellow thugs?Are war crime trials only for those who lose a war?  The University of California at Berkeley hired John Yoo as a professor and pays him a handsome salary. Mr. Yoo pontificates on Constitutional Rights in monthly columns in the Wall Street Journal. Putin was right to ban Yoo from Russia.   --Michael Hoffman

___________________

U.S. Practiced Torture After 9/11, Nonpartisan Review Concludes

By Scott Shane, NY Times online, April 16 2013, (emphasis supplied)

WASHINGTON — A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.

The sweeping, 577-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”

The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.

Debate over the coercive interrogation methods used by the administration of President George W. Bush has often broken down on largely partisan lines. The Constitution Project’s task force on detainee treatment, led by two former members of Congress with experience in the executive branch — a Republican, Asa Hutchinson, and a Democrat, James R. Jones — seeks to produce a stronger national consensus on the torture question.

While the task force did not have access to classified records, it is the most ambitious independent attempt to date to assess the detention and interrogation programs. A separate 6,000-page report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s record by the Senate Intelligence Committee, based exclusively on agency records, rather than interviews, remains classified. “As long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United States could again engage in torture,” the report says.

The use of torture, the report concludes, has “no justification” and “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive.” The task force found “no firm or persuasive evidence” that these interrogation methods produced valuable information that could not have been obtained by other means. While “a person subjected to torture might well divulge useful information,” much of the information obtained by force was not reliable, the report says.

Interrogation and abuse at the C.I.A.’s so-called black sites, the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and war-zone detention centers, have been described in considerable detail by the news media and in declassified documents, though the Constitution Project report adds many new details.

It confirms a report by Human Rights Watch that one or more Libyan militants were waterboarded by the C.I.A., challenging the agency’s longtime assertion that only three Al Qaeda prisoners were subjected to the near-drowning technique. It includes a detailed account by Albert J. Shimkus Jr., then a Navy captain who ran a hospital for detainees at the Guantánamo Bay prison, of his own disillusionment when he discovered what he considered to be the unethical mistreatment of prisoners.

But the report’s main significance may be its attempt to assess what the United States government did in the years after 2001 and how it should be judged. The C.I.A. not only waterboarded prisoners, but slammed them into walls, chained them in uncomfortable positions for hours, stripped them of clothing and kept them awake for days on end.

The question of whether those methods amounted to torture is a historically and legally momentous issue that has been debated for more than a decade inside and outside the government. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote a series of legal opinions from 2002 to 2005 concluding that the methods were not torture if used under strict rules; all the memos were later withdrawn. News organizations have wrestled with whether to label the brutal methods unequivocally as torture in the face of some government officials’ claims that they were not. In addition, the United States is a signatory to the international Convention Against Torture, which requires the prompt investigation of allegations of torture and the compensation of its victims...

Read more at NY Times online:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world/us-practiced-torture-after-9-11-nonpartisan-review-concludes.html?hp

The Constitution Project’s report is online here:

http://detaineetaskforce.org/

_____________________

Read More

Bishop Williamson contra the Votaries of Holocaustianity

Elijah against the Baal priests

By Michael Hoffman

April 12, 2013 • www.revisionisthistory.org

Enclosed (below) is the publication for the first time of an obtuse and ignorant eight page letter sent to Bishop Richard Williamson in December, 2010, by his subordinate, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, "First Assistant" to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) Superior General, Bernard Fellay.  Pfluger is a German Catholic priest of Bishop Richard Williamson's former SSPX fraternity. Bishop  Williamson, you may recall, made international headlines by refusing to recant his statement to a Swedish television station that the persecution of Judaic persons had been exaggerated, that no one was gassed in homicidal chambers, and that the Six Million death toll was an unconscionable exaggeration. For his remarks, he was expelled by Fellay from the SSPX seminary in Argentina where he was rector,  and expelled from Argentina by the government. He faces continuing prosecution in criminal court in Germany (where he gave the interview to Swedish TV).

Lacking the courage of the recusant Catholic priests who were racked, drawn and quartered and beheaded in Elizabethan England for holding to the truth that the rule of God is higher than the rule of monarchs, the German SSPX have been soiling their pants in terror over the prospect that if they embraced their own Bishop Williamson's right to have an opinion, as a Shepherd, on what St. Paul called "Jewish fables," (Titus 1:14), they would have to suffer the full fury of the government of Germany in closing their schools and imprisoning them. Any Amish or Old Order Mennonite of my acquaintance, and I have known about one hundred or so of them these past 25 years, would willingly suffer imprisonment, or flee with school children if necessary, in order to defy the state on a point of truth vs. lies, but not the German SSPX, or the SSPX in general under Bishop Bernard Fellay.

In their timidity, the SSPX leadership have adopted the rabbinic Holocaustianity theology of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, while claiming to uphold "traditional Catholicism." Where was Holocaustianity in the pontificate of Pope Pius XII? Robert Faurisson of France has written at length on the subject of Pope Pius XII refusing to uphold the lie of the extermination gas chamber legends.

In Rev. Pfluger's hectoring missive to Bishop Williamson, reference will be seen to certain infallible "Holocaust" sources with which he upbraids Bishop Williamson, such as (Jean-Claude) Pressac, who gave up in despair and admitted defeat in his goal of proving the existence of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and most amusingly of all, to Dr. Raul Hilberg. Bishop Williamson cannot believe Hilberg or think him credible, because Williamson took the trouble to read this writer's book, The Great Holocaust Trial, which documents Hilberg's response to questions put to him during the 1985 trial in Toronto of Ernst Zundel, by the late traditional Catholic defense attorney Doug Christie. In court, Mr. Christie challenged Hilberg to furnish one scientific report of gassings in Auschwitz. Hilberg's response: "I'm at a loss." He couldn't do it! At the second Zundel trial in 1988, Hilberg was invited by the prosecution to testify and face cross-examination one more time by Christie (backed again by Faurisson's research). Hilberg refused, for obvious reasons. 

"Traditional Catholic" defenders of Fellay's SSPX who are traducers of Bishop Williamson, have told this writer that secular history has nothing to do with the SSPX's mission. If that is the case, why was Bishop Williamson being forced both by the pope's Vatican Secretariat of State and Bishop Fellay to recant his doubts about the homicidal gas chamber allegations? If Bishop Williamson had doubted the number of people who died in the Black Hole of Calcutta in British India, or at Elmira Prison Camp in New York during the Civil War, or under Ariel Sharon's carpet-bombing of downtown Beirut, Lebanon in August of 1982, neither the Vatican nor Fellay would have uttered a word of censure or reproach. Yet when it comes to what J.-M. LePen rightly termed "a detail of history" -- the claims of Auschwitz "extermination gas chambers," Williamson must bow to the secular consensus, or be denied exercise of his episcopal office (according to the pope's Secretariat), and face expulsion from the SSPX ( by order of Fellay).

Why the special solicitation for one detail of secular history above all others? The world's only "Holocaust" (or 'Shoah' as Pope John Paul II started to term it in line with Talmudic mystification), has become a false religion, a religion of Judaism for gentiles. It is a fiendishly sly marketing strategy for Judaizing the West and rendering Christ's Church Militant a pile of quivering jello. 

We have heard nothing from Bishop Fellay or Fr. Pfluger comparable to the windage they have exhaled concerning the shoah-bizness, concerning the concerted movement led by multi-millionaire Hollywood movie director James Cameron to deny the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The worldwide organized movement of Resurrection-denial, with its origins in the Israeli state, is not a subject of anxious concern for modern Catholic popes or "traditional Catholic" Bishop Fellay. What does passionately concern and engage them, is the rise of any movement that obstructs the march to replace Calvary with Auschwitz as the central ontological point of suffering in the history of the West. The use of "Holocaust" as a brand and trademark of Judaism and the Israeli state leaves no intellectual, sociological or cultural room for any other holocaust. It eclipses, first, the holocaust on Calvary, and then every other holocaust throughout history including the Judaic-Communist holocaust of millions of Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe from 1917 onward. 

The tragic deaths of hundreds of thousands of Judaic persons under the Nazis is given the name of Holocaust though very few of even the most frenzied partisans of Zionism and Talmudism claim Judaic persons died by fire in concentration camps. However, the mass incineration of Japanese in Tokyo, Germans in Dresden and Arabs in Beirut may not, under any circumstances, have their deaths by fire hallowed by the dictionary denotation of immolation by fire -- holocaust. Even the mass murder of unborn children by abortion is not permitted to enter the linguistic sanctuary and be titled a holocaust, without incurring rabid howls of outrage from Zionists and rabbis.

This whole degenerate process, the friends of the SSPX tell us, has no bearing on the mission of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (SSPX founder). Bishop Williamson had better believe about World War II what the ignoramuses of the SSPX leadership believe, in line with their Israeli army-connected SSPX lawyer, Mr. M. Krah, that the Kabbalistic Six Million figure, and the allegations of mass extermination gassings in the magic gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau, are Holy Writ. These alleged thinking human beings in the SSPX, supposed heirs of St. Thomas Aquinas, have not bothered to read Dr. Arthur Butz, Dr. Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf,  Carlo Mattagno, Fred Leutchter, Richard Widmann, Samuel Crowell, the transcript of the second Zundel trial, my book on the first Zundel trial, or any other dissenting, alternative, skeptically scientific work that contradicts the Official Holocaust Liturgy of the New Church of the Gas Chambers, which all Catholics must believe on penalty of sharing the same fate as Bishop Williamson -- expulsion, financial hardship, criminal prosecution, and ritual assassination of reputation by the media, and by fellow Catholics.

In the first years of the new millennium we watch in horror as revolutionaries accomplish every one of their objectives: homosexual "matrimony," women in combat, raw violence and hard-core pornography spilling from the TV and the Internet unobstructed, and Talmudic Judaism and the Antichrist Israeli state everywhere on the rise. Month after month the enemies of God succeed in reversing, in just a few years' time, four thousand years of divine law and western heritage. Can anyone be so dense as to fail to see that, connected to this decay process of human alchemy, is the "Holocaust" propaganda that enshrines Judaic suffering in World War II to the level of a cosmic idol to which everyone in the West must bow? 

The papacy, the Vatican, and the SSPX have all bowed, have all consented to this idolatry. In these dark times, Bishop Williamson and a tiny handful of cast-off priests (Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko, Chazal and a few others) stand like Elijah against the Baal priests.

[Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not]

______________________________

Letter of Fr Nicholas Pfluger to Bishop Richard Williamson

Dec. 27,  2010

Your Excellency,

Dear Bishop Williamson,

For months I have been meaning to write to you in order to bring up everything so to speak incomprehensible and also false in the things you have been saying over the last few years. I put it off since you never brought up arguments and obviously feel personally hurt – rather unusual for a free-thinking man. But after I could not help reading in your latest “Eleison Comments” that “World War III may not be far off”, I am now writing before time becomes short, because one never knows when time will run out.

This prophecy of yours took my mind back to the after-dinner speeches at the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, After the main event all four newly consecrated bishops said a few words. Bishop Tissier as usual was very theological and dogmatic. Bishop de Galarreta was short and discrete. Bishop Fellay was pastoral and balanced. But you were principally concerned with war. Perhaps you were already thinking of World War III when you cried out to the assembly, “It’s war, it’s war !”. At that time it was still the Russians who were due to attack. It would be quite a task to count up all the times in the last 22 years that you have prophesied with precise dates the Third World War and the Chastisement. At least a dozen times for sure. A task also to work out why you have never asked yourself the question whether your forecasting arises from objective analysis and not rather from subjective utopianism.

Alas, I know you do not ask yourself such questions. Nor do you ask why I, and with me Menzingen and almost the entire Society of St Pius X and the world while we are about it, why we merely shake our heads and are simply disappointed. (I attach extracts from two e-mails, the first coming from a former pupil of yours, the second from a German town mayor.) For you it is clear. Always somebody else is to blame. Everybody else is clueless, blind to reality, agents of some organization or other, be it Freemasonry or the Mossad or the CIA,  most recently and emphatically “the Jews” – the list is long. In brief, anybody who disagrees with you is either stupid or wicked or both. To any of the people who have rejected your constant warnings of war and your crude political and economic theories, and who have criticized you for them – there are many such people, and some have even been offended -- have you ever apologized ?  Have you apologized to one single one ?  Would you ever be capable of saying, “I was wrong” ?

In fact that is a blatantly semitic way of thinking: to pin one’s own faults on a scapegoat, which bears the guilty for everything. That is what Hitler did. The Germans’ own defeat of November 9, 1918 produced a hatred for international Jewry, which was responsible for all evil in the German nation and therefore had to be “fought openly and without mercy”.

This problem is to be seen at another point in the latest “Eleison Comments”. You wrote there: “Derivatives… act upon the delicate mechanisms of world finance like weapons of mass destruction, because they easily fabricate an unreal world of colossal and unpayable debt.”  To which one smart reader replied, “The Bishop is showing off – “delicate mechanisms of world finance” -- as though he sees through the mechanisms of world finance and could point out their weaknesses.” You could not do that. No more can you see through the highly complex connections of politics, or the Nazis’ mass-murder of Jews. You have an opinion, then you look around for a few unconnected details which somehow fit this opinion (for instance the “Leuchter Report”), and you hawk it all as the truth.

On September 11, 2001 you were beginning your Confirmations tour in Switzerland. That evening, when Islamic terrorists crashed hi-jacked aeroplanes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and brought the Towers down, we arrived at about 6pm in Littau and Brother Anthony showed you the new church of the priory still under construction. He also mentioned something of the Twin Towers in New York with 50,000 people killed. You asked me to listen to the news. At 6.30pm the Confirmation ceremony began and you declared it was “the Jews”. How could you know that so fast ?  You could not. You had no information leading to any such conclusion. Many of the faithful were disappointed that you had nothing spiritual to say, a few were impressed that you seemed to have the solution so fast. From that day on, if not sooner, my colleagues and I saw clearly that basically you are never looking for the historical truth, but only for what is true for you, what you want to be true. You have, as I formulated it last year, an idealistic view of history, And at table in a priory, I said you are an idealist. You were deeply offended, as someone told me. But actually the truth goes a little further. You are the caricature of an idealist.

There is a famous quotation attributed to you concerning the so-called “Protocols of the Sages of Sion”, namely : “God put it in men’s hands”. You thus raised the “Protocols” to the level of divine Revelation. That is inevitable if people want to believe in them, because the Tsarist government granted long ago that they were the product of its own secret service, and all further investigations led clearly to the same conclusion. Have you read any of these investigations, for instance the official account of the Berne Trial of 1934 ?  No, of course you have not. Yet you are certain that the “Protocols” are authentic. Why ?  Because you want them to be.

It is the same with the Nazis’ extermination of Jews. Did you read the book of Pressac which we had sent to you ?  Of course not. Have you read the standard work on the subject, Hilberg’s “The Extermination of European Jewry”?  Not either. Attorney Krah recommended to you at least once to ask David Irving, a recognized expert in archives and until recently your mentor, what the facts are. You would not listen. That is hardly surprising, given that in the meantime Irving is not calling in question the mass-murder of millions of innocent Jews, including by gassing. On a different tack he is upholding abstruse theories on the side, but he is not so blind as to deny the obvious. But why go in for studying history ?  You know it all without having to study, because you insist on your idea of reality. Idealism, as I said.

Thus there cannot have been any industrial mass-murder of Jews because you do not want there to have been. Because it does not fit your world-view. Therefore any document proving that there was such mass-murder, is a forgery, and any witness testifying that there was, even if it was SS perpetrators themselves, is suborned, and every scientific researcher coming to the same conclusion is a liar. Similarly anyone not subscribing to your theories on 9/11 is not Catholic. You have put as much in writing, indeed that is your key question : as you once asked the Superior General, “Do you believe in the Twin Towers ?”

I am sorry that I have to speak so harshly to you. I would have preferred to start this letter in a friendly and non-aggressive way, asking after your health and the weather in London. The weather has got to be bad in Paris because we have been waiting over five hours to take off, so I am writing this letter in a Boeing 777. I would prefer to be writing about Christmas customs in Asia and the wonderful people in particular that I had occasion to meet there, or to be writing with my thanks for having visited Japan as a Society priest as far back as 1978. At that time, by the way, only one thing mattered to you and that was to preach Jesus Christ, and him crucified; there was only one question, and that was the Truth which is Christ himself. But since then two other questions have arisen for you. The first, as you recently wrote to one of our priests, is: “Were six million Jews gassed, yes or no ?”  With all respect for your episcopal rank as bishop, that is not an “objective question”, it is not even a question, it is pure nonsense. Name me one serious historian, name me one single man who still claims today that six million were gassed. Not murdered, but gassed. You will not find one, is my impression. You are the one and only person who maintains any such thing. In psychology that is called a fixation. As for your second question, “Do or do not the Six Million have a religious importance ?”, your answer is unsatisfactory and false. It goes without saying that every historical question also has a religious dimension. Nobody disputes that, but our Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, gave us a clear standpoint from which to judge of history, politics, social doctrine and so on, and that is Jesus Christ himself, the Social Kingship of Christ. That is it. And no stupid ideological or idealistic theories. As I said, under normal circumstances, this letter would not be adopting such an approach or treating of such matters. But 2010 was not a year calling for any normal way to approach things. Unfortunately.

In exchanges with various people, colleagues, priests, relatives, friends, outsiders, I have frequently tried to understand you. I am terribly sorry to see how you are running to waste, how you are burying yourself in the most abstruse theories and then passing them off as divine truth. Were a good fairy to grant me three wishes, one would certainly be for you to come up with the strength to recognize reality. But there are no such fairies, and in their stead a quotation comes back to me from my Greek studies : whom the gods wish to destroy, they first strike blind.

Your Excellency, allow me a family reminiscence. You are well aware how highly my family held you in esteem, and how you enjoyed visiting our home. Back in the late 1970’s my parents were there, and you were a young priest spending the night with us, because you were celebrating Mass in the family Chapel nearby on the following morning. You were in a discussion with my father. Mother was also present. You surely remember my mother, a quiet, reserved woman, a still water running deep, at opposite poles to my father. That evening the discussion between my father and you was heated. Mother had kept quiet all evening so it was quite unexpected when she suddenly said in her quiet and almost shy way, “Father, remember your own mother was also a woman.” End of discussion.

Your scorn of women, your hatred of Jews, your lack of measure were always there, only we paid no attention. We were too busy defending the Faith, rescuing the Mass, battling with modernists in the Church, to pick up on these repulsive aspects of your behavior. You were the English gentleman, eccentric for sure, but cultured, unconventional, charming. Of course the doubts grew as time went on. How often you tripped up and let yourself be influenced by strange people and ideas (I think for instance of Fr. Urrutigoity, or your notion of the Tridentine seminary being “out-of-date”). But we pushed these doubts to one side. We rather felt than consciously knew that something was not quite right. Only in 2009 did we begin to think things over and check them out. At which point we realized how deep the problem ran – a veritable abyss !  Not to say that we were in no way responsible. A few months ago, a District Superior said to me who is not much younger than yourself, “The crazy ideas of Bishop Williamson were familiar to us, and we knew all about them.”

Long before 2009 a friend said to me that on reading the things you write, he is always asking himself if your ever gaining influence and power is something to be desired, and his answer is always, no. Moreover, were you to become influential or powerful, he, one of our active faithful, would join a Christian resistance group. Such were the doubts, such the feeling of unease.

In his latest book the Pope has talked about you in some detail. He says that in your case one notices a lack of experience of the mainstream Church. You went straight from Protestantism – or at any rate nominal Protestantism – into the narrow world of the Society of St Pius X. Of course we were upset and indignant. On behalf of the Society, Fr Gaudron criticized the Pope’s remark and pointed out that when you converted you were for a while in the official Church. However, the Pope may have been referring to something else. You converted in the middle of the confusion following on the Council, when the old religion was seen as being worthless and its collapse was visible. Everybody felt homeless. That may be why you lack this deep feeling of what it is to be a Catholic. How else is your love of provoking people to be explained, even in front of the Blessed Sacrament ?  Is it just to provoke, or is it something more ?  What would the Pope say if he knew how constantly you refuse to speak about the virtue of love ?  yet God is love, and we read in St Jerome’s Commentary for the Feast of St John Evangelist how at the end of St John’s long life all he would ever call for was love. And there go you, saying to a Superior who asked you on a priests’ Retreat not to talk only about politics and gas-chambers and the Twin Towers, “Love – I despise the word !” And just what would the Pope say if he heard you answering orders of the Superior General with a vulgar swearword, repeated three times ?  Call such a reaction sarcasm if you like, but it is not exactly Catholic. Genuine Catholicism can be recognized by breadth of thinking, by love of the Church, by generosity of outlook, if you like, but not by hurtful slander of people who think differently, such as you are now doing through your friends on the Internet. Whoever does not share your view of history is a “Jew”. And anyone drinking wine with Jewish colleagues is behaving like a Jew and undermining the Society of St Pius X. Even the Nazis did not go that far. Two years ago you told me that as Rector of the Seminary in Ridgefield you invited a Rabbi. Did that make you also into a Jew ? 

One of the first and most basic criticisms of the Council comes from the psychoanalyst Alfred Lorenzer, “The Book-keepers’ Council” (for a long time this book could be found in the book-racks of our chapels in Germany). One may or may not care for psychoanalysis, but Lorenzer gives a marvelous description of what religion, Catholicism in particular, means for man. It is something that one picks up even before language or rational consciousness. He calls it a “system of symbols”. It has something to do with liturgy, with song, with certainty. It precedes and follows all awareness. One is, quite simply, Catholic. Whatever the Pope says, whatever happens, one is Catholic. The most unlikely people keep finding it is there inside them, and then suddenly they are proud of it. The two  Spiegel reporters that you called “rats” and whose reporting was by the way most helpful to the Society, are a case in point. The older one, Wensierski, is Catholic, a man who has gone along with all the errors and confusion of the last 40 years. He has written nasty articles criticizing the Church, but as a reporter he also got himself thrown out of communist East Germany because he supported resistance groups. A difficult man for sure, and stolid, but fully convinced of his own Catholicism, enthused by the Society church of St Nicolas du Chardonet in Paris, and ever concerned to convert his younger colleague who at that point parts company with his elder. Simply being Catholic, belonging to this inconceivable, fantastic, great, unique Church, way beyond all human imagining, constantly being pronounced dead yet arising joyfully once more to life, ever ready to pick one up again, to forgive, to be generous, where one is always back at home – what is more beautiful on the face of the earth ? So when I read writings of yours, and remember various things you have said, then I am afraid you have no share in its happiness. That is what I think a colleague meant who has been a Superior in the Society for many years and esteems you as much as ever, when he said, “Gentlemen, why has nobody got the gumption to say that in what he says, in the provocative way he says it, in the freelance way he crashes around inside the Society, Bishop Williamson is a liberal ?  Why indeed ?

In your commentaries on the talks going on between the Society and the Curia you give the impression that the worst thing you can imagine is a re-union, a Catholic return to normal. When I read that, when cradle Catholics read that, we just do not understand. When it comes to living our religion, there is nothing we wish for more than to be able to live undisturbed like Catholics, and nothing makes us suffer so much as finding ourselves in a situation where our conscience, as enlightened by the centuries-old Magisterium, makes that impossible. Your very logic with regard to Rome is false, a vicious circle – “Because they are modernists, we cannot and may not talk with them.” Yet faith comes from hearing. Then can the Pope and the Curia never become Catholic, because nobody talks to them ?  What is the point of our praying and going on mission ?  Quite independently of your revolutionary attitude whereby, just because you are a bishop, you know it all, both what is Catholic and what is not, and how the Society should behave towards Rome, and forget the Superior General. Anyone would think the world turns

around you. As I said, maybe the Pope was referring to this unbending narrow-mindedness. For indeed the relation to reality alone makes something true, and not because one wants it to be true. I do not think one can be Catholic if one does not grasp with all one’s senses what that means. This grasp you obviously do not have. I repeat, your sermons against love in Zaitzkofen and St Nicolas de Chardonnet are legendary. The verdict is pronounced in Goethe’s “Faust, Part One”: “Unless you feel it, you will not get it.”

Our venerable Founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, fully embodied this Catholic way of being. How he would let loose, many an evening, against Cardinal Ratzinger !  Only to admit ruefully on the following morning that he had exaggerated, and then he would praise the Cardinal’s piety. But when did you yourself once admit that you were wrong ?  The Curia pushed its humiliating of the Archbishop beyond all limits, but he remained Catholic. That is what we hoped for from you.

The Society is cast for the role of an outsider. That tempts us to grant a measure of sympathy to any other outsiders. I consider this is a trap. We are not truly outsiders. There are many others, romping around the Internet, who are truly outsiders. Ever since your interview of November 1, 2008, on Swedish TV, I have had plenty of opportunity whether I wanted to or not, to confront Holocaust-deniers, or “Revisionists” as you call them. Goodness gracious, what miserable minds !  Precisely, not Catholic. When I think of the court case of Horst Mahler, supposedly converting because of you… That is pure Hegelianism, but certainly not Catholic. And then all the crazy ideas of your supposed friends, Butz, Faurisson and so on. Men neither nice nor Catholic. Be it Neo-nazism, “Third Position”, Antisemitism, or any kind of extremism, one has the impression that it is all about finding excuses to avoid having to hold down a regular job. When it comes to slandering, I repeat, they are fast on the uptake, as happens on the Internet too. Unfortunately you were not able to resist the temptation to join in. Morally speaking that has always been sinful. One of the people slandered has, to my way of thinking, neatly summed up what kind of people are behind the slandering : “Uneducated, unbalanced, sexually frustrated, male losers.” The one constant feature in the lives of such men is often their extremism. Yesterday they were tough British Nationalists opposed to North Irish Catholics, today they belong to the “Third Position”, tomorrow they will probably be followers of Islam. The solidarity between Nazis and Islamists became clear at the Holocaust-denying Conference in Teheran, and you too never tire of declaring that Western society, our own civilization, no longer deserves to exist. I find all that repulsive, but hardly surprising. Some time ago Hitler declared that National Socialism could not be understood without Wagner and Nietsche. But when it comes down to presenting such nonsense as though it were a religious duty to do so, then I step into the lists for the greater glory of God. I cannot and will not let the name of God be misused for such weak-mindedness. I have already written to you once that I certainly did not become a priest in order to preach hatred of Jews. Nor did I enter the Society to canonize Hitler. I am horrified to see you spreading around videos which justify the mass-murder by Hitler. And now you set up to be defending your honor ?  Just what honor ?  The honor of trampling on the historical truth ? Your Excellency, kindly defend the honor of the Society, the honor of Our Lord !

I admit that in the past we have been too negligent in this respect. We kept quiet when we should have spoken out, we looked away, we practised a false tolerance. We should have contradicted you much sooner. We might have brought you to think again at a moment when you could still turn back. The situation with the supposed “excommunications”, each day’s worries, our concern with the problems in the Church and our respect for your rank all distracted us from recognizing and correcting our own weaknesses and shortcomings. In 2009 we were punished for it. Instead of a triumph after the lifting of the excommunications we were humbled and pilloried. I am not complaining: those whom God loves, he chastises. But I hope that we are learning from our mistakes. There can be no more false tolerance. We are no longer looking away. We are speaking up. We are no longer letting political sectarians enter the Society as parasites to heat up their little brew on our stove, on the grounds that they are not allowed to do it anywhere else. You cannot really be claiming that the Society and the General Superior must share and promote your Nazi ideas !

The way to salvation is the truth. The Church was always generous in this respect, demanding the acceptance only of defined dogma. The Church leaves room for freedom. You are not so generous. You turn everything into a question of absolute truth. Well then, you are being measured by your own standard. You will not get around having to accept the truth as it really is, and you will have to take leave of your own fabricated version It is a difficult path to tread, because it leads to hurtful admissions, to turning off the path so far trodden, to a new beginning, involving the closing down of a previous life. As I sit here I pray and hope that you will nevertheless make the effort, and I promise you to help you on your way, but I cannot help sensing that, indignantly refusing to do so, you will distrust me, consider I am stupid or wicked or both, and not be able to see how far you have distanced yourself from what you are always invoking: the truth.

I am not here making myself out to be higher than you. I do not want to judge, I want to save. The way you have developed causes me endless grief. On reading some novels one constantly wants to get involved in the story oneself, to shake up the leading character and cry out to him to wake up before it is too late !  He does not do so, and the tragedy plays itself out. Radetzky March by Joseph Roth is one such novel, centering on the fall of the Austrian monarchy. The hero is a tragic figure so charismatic, intelligent and attractive that despite all his negative qualities one cannot help falling under his spell, so that one is constantly crying out to him to wake up. But he never does, and so the novel ends in catastrophe.

We have flown over Beijing and just passed Ulan Bator, so now we fly the length of Novosibirsk. The sun is setting to the west, it is a beautiful evening. I think back to our faithful in Japan and Korea, how their souls are thirsting for truth. And Ernst Hello comes into my mind : “There is only one tragedy, and that is that we are not saints.” Yet there you go, wanting us to talk about the length of chimneys in concentration camps. Goodness gracious !  And I am reminded of war rhetoric. And of how in the courtyard of Econe, after the Episcopal Consecrations, when journalists asked what should be done with enemies of the Church, you made clear gestures in front of the cameras filming to show that a machine-gun was the answer. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger as he then was also saw that. I do not know. But I do remember that on the way home a colleague expressed his concern about the future Bishop Williamson.

He did not turn out well. The damage you have done to the Society and to the entire Church with your false political ideas is immense. However I am personally convinced that graver than all your political theories is your un-catholic pessimism, your defeatism in face of the crisis of the Faith and the collapse of Church life. A colleague in the USA summed up your “theology” as follows: Bishop Williamson says, “Grace builds on nature (that is perfectly Catholic). Now the nature of modern man is completely ruined and corrupted. So forget the supernatural and firstly restore nature.” I am under the impression that your pessimism in religion and your “waiting for Godot” attitude in politics stem from this under-estimation of the supernatural. Your Excellency, allow me to remind you that grace exercises a function of healing nature. It is a dangerous temptation in the face of the present crisis to seek after untried natural solutions, and to think that the world can be overcome by worldly means. Faith alone conquers the world, says the Apostle, and for Pius X lack of faith and ignorance are the problem of modern times, not the Jews !  That is what was so fascinating in Archbishop Lefebvre: he believed in love, and believed that the tried and true means of grace are sufficient to spread the Kingdom of Christ.

All the above and much more as well came into my mind as I read your latest forecast of war. Maybe we should still “let the sparrows chirp”, as Don Bosco said, and concern ourselves with Christ and his Church, rather than busy ourselves with financial markets and chemical gas compounds. Do you not agree ?

That is why I am writing to you. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

God bless !  And Happy New Year !

Yours in Our Lord,

Fr. Niklaus Pfluger.

Post-scriptum 1  --  text of a former English-speaking pupil of Bishop Williamson.

What you wrote reminded me of your analysis of BW as a follower of Nietzsche. In my paper on BW I drew parallels between BW and Evola. I just read that Evola was heavily influenced by Nietzsche, which is very interesting. At the heart of this is a non-Christian answer to evils of modernity. Do you know a particular work of Nietzsche that resembles BW?

As for BW’s Catholicism, I have often been tempted to say what you have. But I always limited myself to his written works. The problem with analyzing BW’s writings is that he is not a Thomist and does not use his writings to define his thought. BW uses language in a very post-modern fashion. He uses words to move the listener to a desired action as opposed to defining his ideology. This makes it very difficult to sit down and say “BW believes this or that” because BW seldom succinctly tells you his ultimate ideology. 

One easy test that can be applied to BW is to sit down with his seminary letters on one hand, and on the other hand pick any book written by Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop will have constant references to “Our Lord Jesus Christ.” BW will have few, if any. This might sound trite, but I think this is a sign of a real problem. Without judging the BW’s internal forum, there is an appearance that he uses religion as a political tool. His recent and persistent actions support this conclusion.

P

ost-scriptum 2  --  text of a German town Mayor.

Allow me to make reference to Bishop Williamson. I know that it is not my business to judge. Take whatever I say as merely one opinion amongst many others :  the damage that Bishop Williamson has done to the Society of St Pius X, to the Church and to the Pope is enormous. Despite his great merits in the service of Tradition, to me personally it seems that to keep him in the Society is no longer to be endured. Even if on the Superior General’s orders Bishop Williamson lets go his extreme-right lawyer, having chosen him in the first place shows what he really thinks. If after the whole Swedish TV disaster his attitude is still to choose such a lawyer, his attitude is not going to change on the orders of the Superior General. On the contrary, he resembles somebody asleep who would appear to wake up, but whose inner attitude remains just as dangerous for Tradition as it was before. In weighing up the decision, can all his service to Tradition in the past be seen as merits that he could still gain for Tradition in the future ?  I would say, absolutely not. What service can Bishop Williamson still render Tradition ?  Where can he still be employed, and at what risk ?  What must happen first ?  He is unwelcome anywhere. With this inner attitude of the extreme right I do not think he can be tolerated inside the Society. The choice of an extreme right lawyer was no accident. Bishop Williamson is an intelligent man, and knew exactly what he was doing. The longer he is kept within the Society, the more he will pull the whole of Tradition over into the extreme right camp. Such a prospect is most painful for me when I consider the sacrifices made by middle-class families that want nothing to do with right-wing extremism, far from it !  Are you not ostracized enough as it is because of your Traditional way of thinking ?  You yourself say that families are often at the limit of what they can do. I am enclosing a local newspaper report and I can assure you that as town Mayor I am exposed to attack as much as ever. After this report I can count on having t undertake quite unnecessary defensive action. That Society Headquarters  have repudiated Holocaust-denial is no more being reported in the media. I ask Headquarters to consider how much longer the faithful precisely in Germany can go on being associated with the extreme-right attitude of Bishop Williamson. What is the reason why Bishop Williamson is being kept on regardless?

End quote from Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, "First Assistant" to Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) Superior General Bernard Fellay.  

____________

On the Contrary is funded by donations from truth-seekers. 

Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

________________

Read More

Debt relief for Europe and America: Deuteronomy 15

 Contents

I. Editorial: Stop Wasting Time

II. News: A Breakthrough
Also: Affirmation; Promotion; Radio program update
________________

EDITORIAL

Stop Wasting Time!

Make Deuteronomy 15 our Banner and Manifesto

By Michael Hoffman 

www.revisionisthistory.org

The only relief for a debt-racked and ruined world: the implementation of Biblical Law 

In our daily Scripture reading, let us give our meditation time to God's Law on the Sabbatical Year of Release from Debt; giving thought to contemplating what our debt-racked and ruined western society would be like if we obeyed God's Law in Deuteronomy 15: 1-10.

Right wing capitalists spiritualize this divine law in antinomian fashion, while rabbis nullify it. Meanwhile, agnostics, atheists and many other modern people sneer at  most anything written in the Old Testament, as a "troglodyte relic" from a "barbaric past." Behind these operations of error will be found the Spirit of Lies -- a spirit determined to misdirect seekers after justice from the only remedy that can possibly overthrow the Money Power and the rotten governments and churches that cooperate with it.

Of Christian believers we ask, if the sabbath rest every seven days on the Lord's Day signifies anything to you, how then can you ignore God's sabbath release from debt every seven years? How can the two sabbaths be separated, one to be observed and the other tossed aside?

God did not intend that "His True Israel" (the authentic followers of Jesus the Messiah of Israel), should be reduced to extreme penury, as many are today (Deuteronomy 15:4). God did not intend that we should be in bondage to bankers and "respectable" shylocks who approach the Table of the Lord to partake of His body and blood with mortal sin on their souls and the consent of priests and ministers who are as much implicated in the usury traffic as the sacrilegious defilers who, without shame, present themselves for holy communion.

Mark this: we will get nowhere, and the demons of avarice, delusion, criminal politics, violence against the innocent and homosexual "matrimony" will triumph over us, until such time as we confront the love of money that is the root of the Money Power, by demanding the Sabbatical Year of Release, and the reinstatement of God's law on the condemnation of all interest on loans of money. Anything less than to work for the preceding is doomed to failure --  a complete waste of time, effort and resources.

Be forewarned: on Judgment Day we will be called to give an account of the time and resources God blessed us with in this life. Did we Redeem the Time according to His Will, or were we seduced by pied pipers according to the will of men, pursuing their endless, dead-end palliatives masked as religion, or political struggle?  How can there be true religion without obedience to the Word of God? How can we ever elect worthy men and women to high office by compromising what God has commanded of us?

On the day we unite to proceed on sure and certain Scriptural lines of advancement, God Almighty will put strength in our arms. Cry unto the Lord against the hard-hearted (Deut. 15:9).

God's Eternal Law on Debt

At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 

This is how it is to be done: every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the Lord’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 

You may require payment from an alien, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. 

There need be no poor people among you, for in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the Lord your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today.  

For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you. 

If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward them. Rather, be open-handed and freely lend them whatever they need. 

Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near;” do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They will cry to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 

Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 

Deuteronomy XV: I - X

___________________

NEWS

BREAKTHROUGH: Many thanks are due to the American Free Press (AFP) newspaper for purchasing a quantity of our book, Usury in Christendom, for sale to their readers through the paper's AFP Bookstore. This national, weekly newspaper is based in Washington D.C. It describes itself as "Populist and Independent - Not Republican or Democrat." AFP has been a consistent voice for peace and an "America First" foreign policy. The paper's ideological mentor is populist elder statesman Willis Carto, founder of the Institute for Historical Review. To subscribe to American Free Press or request a sample copy, call toll free 888-699-6397, or visit www.americanfreepress.net 

AFFIRMATION: John Noonan is the author of the pioneering 1957 book, The Scholastic Analysis of Usury, which was the first history of usury to forthrightly document the fact that the Renaissance Church of Rome, which bears the name Catholic, radically altered the Sacred Deposit of Faith when it overthrew the Catholic dogma on what constitutes usury. We have substantial disagreements with Judge Noonan on several contentions in his book; but nonetheless, his work blazed the trail for our own research. The 87-year-old Noonan still affirms what had always been known and taught until the Renaissance revolutionaries seized control of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century -- usury is any interest on loans of money; period. The Judge Noonan interview is online here.

PROMO: A blurb from Christian blogger Glen Canaday, promotes the video of our impromptu lecture on usury given in a private home in Idaho, which we offer free of charge as a public service, on YouTube. To read what Mr. Canaday has to say, click here.

RADIO UPDATE: Our radio program "On the Contrary" is temporarily suspended while we attempt to raise funds for the goals we outlined in our Lenten Appeal for Alms, six of which remain unfulfilled (two of which are immediately pressing: the need to relocate our office to secure rented quarters, or quarters we could own; and the need to pay a decent wage to the lady who has loyally managed our office and ships our materials safely, securely and competently). When the need for funds arises and there are no other sources of income, we return to our vocation of scholar-bookseller -- offering investment-grade rare books to bibliophiles, collectors, and investors who want to do something with their funds other than have them collect usury-interest. The hunt for rare books is a time-consuming task which has much engaged us of late. We will resume our radio program as time and funds permit. Thanks to the listeners who have expressed encouragement and appreciation for the initial broadcast.

___________________

Read More

Conspiracy against a King: Michael Hoffman on Richard III

The Conspiracy against King Richard III - Why it still matters

An Interview with historian Michael Hoffman

Interviewer: Your newsletter in this April, 2013 issue is on the Plantagenet dynasty -- the suppressed English royal house.

Hoffman: Part of this issue is. King Richard III is our starting point.

Interviewer: Your readers are accustomed to Judaic, Zionist and occult-themed issues of your Revisionist History newsletter. What's the point of your new direction?

Hoffman: It is not a new direction. We are, as our title indicates, a newsletter of revisionist history. Hopefully people can understand that revisionist history teaches many lessons beyond subject areas such as Judaism, Zionism and the occult -- although I would not rule out a Neoplatonic factor in the events that brought down and then permanently blackened the reputation of the House of Plantagenet.

Interviewer: Why is this significant 500 years later?

Hoffman: Take a look at the recent headlines: King Richard III's remains found in Leicester, England and confirmed to be those of the deposed monarch. The finding of Richard's remains is rather miraculous in and of itself. It's as though he wanted to be rediscovered, now.

Interviewer: Why now, do you think?

Hoffman: In our time the Crown of England as well as the Anglican Church, have lost the hold they once wielded over the people of Britain; the propaganda line they maintained for centuries is held only by relatively few now, and a new retrospective is possible.

Youthful masses of avant-gardists are wearing Guy Fawkes masks and identifying with a 9/11 type of patsy who was fingered for the "Guy Fawkes conspiracy against Parliament," that was, in my opinion, a Reichstag Fire kind of set-up. Prior to our era, Guy Fawkes was universally despised in Protestant England, like Osama bin Laden is today in America because of his supposed role in 9/11. These developments --while certainly anticipated by the masonic imperium in Britain -- open a cubic centimeter of chance for those who wish to focus attention on hidden aspects of the British monarchy and its suzerainty.

Interviewer: King Richard III plays what part in this?

Hoffman: Richard was immensely attractive as a ruler of England in terms of his personal integrity and military courage. Beginning at age 17, he was in combat at the furious epicenter of horrendously bloody 15th century battles, but he was overthrown at Bosworth Field at age 32 by a wimpy intriguer, Henry Tudor (“Henry VII”), who defeated him by arranging for a betrayal of Richard by Lord Stanley's forces. King Richard's charge at the Battle of Bosworth is one of the iconic moments in English history. He led the last charge of English Knights -- against the Tudor faction and their French allies. He was the last king of England to die in battle. His final moments were spent fighting valiantly against overwhelming odds. Yet, the usurpers won the day and they've written the history books ever since, which is typical of victors in any age.

Interviewer: You call Richard the last legitimate king of England. How so?

Hoffman: The Plantagenets had the true title to the throne. They had ruled for 300 years. Meaning no disrespect to Wales, but the Tudors were Welsh upstarts. One generation later, Henry Tudor ("Henry VIII”), would dismantle the monasteries and a whole way of life. It could happen because the Plantagenets were the victims of a revolution which is not called a revolution.

Interviewer: You're saying the Plantagenets had a claim to the throne through most of the 16th century?

Hoffman: Yes, and it terrified the Tudor monarchs. Henry VIII had elderly Countess Margaret Plantagenet Pole butchered. He was also after her son Reginald, who had the strongest claim to the throne and was personally popular with the English people. Reginald was a very interesting Catholic aristocrat who, in his early career, took a dim view of Renaissance papal corruption and the theology of works-righteousness. He became a cardinal and could have been made pope if the Cryptocracy both Protestant and Catholic had not stood in his way. Throughout almost the whole time he was cardinal he never became a priest.

Interviewer: Extraordinary. Why not?

Hoffman: He had hopes of becoming the rightful King of England through marriage and when the Catholic Queen Mary Tudor succeeded to the throne, on the premature demise of the boy King Edward VI, Cardinal Pole had his chance.

Interviewer: What would the marriage of a Plantagenet and a Tudor have meant for England?

Hoffman: I would think you should ask, what would it mean for western civilization! It would have stabilized and cauterized the Anglican Catholic - Roman Catholic breach. Both religions would have had rights to worship and governance. Pole would never have instituted an inquisition against Protestants and he would have protected the Catholic majority from the inquisition that came under Elizabeth Tudor and James Stuart, which largely extirpated the Catholic religion in the sceptred isle.

Interviewer: What happened instead?

Hoffman: Instead of marrying Pole, agents of the Cryptocracy persuaded Mary to wed one of the men most despised by the English people, Phillip II of Spain. It was a disaster. Once Queen Mary took a husband, he knew his hopes were dashed and then, at long last, Cardinal Pole finally became a priest. He died of a broken heart a few hours after the death of Mary. It was the death as well of the hopes of the rightful rulers of England, the House of Plantagenet.

Interviewer: Why isn't this history better known?

Hoffman: Because of William Shakespeare, St. Thomas More and other calumniators of King Richard it is known, but it is known in the wrong way based on their false witness. More and Holinshed and Shakespeare and others set the stage for the permanent stigma on the Plantagenets that kept the Tudors on the throne for a century.

Interviewer: St. More was a Catholic, and Shakespeare is rumored to have been a crypto-Catholic.

Hoffman: Yes, and More would be executed by a Tudor. You reap what you sow. The Tudor/Plantagenet war did not start out as a Catholic-Protestant rivalry. The evil men who revolted and killed a legitimate king were Catholics. In 1485, beyond the marginal Lollard believers, there were few Protestants, as such, in England.

Interviewer: You're suggesting that More's writings and Shakespeare's play, "Richard III” were calculated to destroy the reputation of the Catholic House of Plantagenet?

Hoffman: As part of the rot that the Renaissance-Catholic degeneracy entailed, St. Thomas More, early in his career, was a committed Neoplatonist; and make no mistake, that network was synonymous with the Cryptocracy. St. Thomas woke up toward the end of his life, but it was too late for him, and too late for the reputation of King Richard and his rightful heirs.

Interviewer: More's alleged libel of Richard lived after him?

Hoffman: Treachery, revolution and usurpation when they prosper serve as a template for the future. Nothing succeeds like success. It's my hunch that Britain would have been much less likely to become the permanent masonic fiefdom which it became by 1700 and has remained ever after, had the lawful, rightful king and his line not been killed and overthrown.

Interviewer: What does this have to do with us now? As you admit, the Plantagenets are history's losers.

Hoffman: Why must history always be written by the victors? Why not write from the point of view of those with better claims to truth, whether or not they have lost in a venal material sense? These matters are surely germane at the present time. They are as relevant as the British Secret Service, which continues to be lionized in the "James Bond 007" film franchise, which is personally augmented by none other than Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, as we witnessed at the Olympics last summer. Winston Churchill  recommended Thomas More's writings against King Richard as a way of maintaining the propaganda against the House of Plantagenet far into the 20th century. Why was Churchill keen to uphold what was by then what appeared to be ancient history? Why is there now a fierce struggle over where to bury Richard's skeleton — in Leicester where his enemies dumped him, or in York, his dynastic home? Some see a burial in Leicester as a sub-rosa ritual defilement, continuing the original defilement. Churchill went so far as to assert that Richard III was a prototype for Hitler; which is only one of the slightly less absurd calumnies against the Plantagenet king. St. Thomas More exceeded Churchill in the malicious nonsense he put down on paper.

The story of King Richard III is one of the terrific edifying lessons in how propaganda is manufactured and maintained, and it is for this reason that the true history of a much maligned nobleman serves as the lead essay in the latest issue of our newsletter.

Revisionist History Newsletter: Who Killed the Reputation of King Richard III? Purchase it alone, or save by subscribing and starting your subscription with this issue

___________________

Read More