Tuesday, May 17, 2016

The Papal Grave-Digger of Europe

By Michael Hoffman

The ideology of Neoplatonic Hermeticism gained firm purchase among members of the Catholic elite in Florence, Italy circa 1450; after that it entered the Vatican toward the end of the 15th century, and the papacy itself by 1515. It predates Hegel’s concept of thesis-antithesis-synthesis by centuries. Among its most famous early Renaissance practitioners were Cosimo and Lorenzo Medici and Nicolo Machiavelli.

But what of the pope’s victory at Lepanto and the papal burning of the Talmud? Those events were akin to Pope Paul VI issuing Humane Vitae (his encyclical condemning artificial birth control) while suppressing the Tridentine Latin Mass. The thesis is visible but not the occult antithesis, and people are deceived.

The current thesis has Pope Francis announcing that a Muslim Mayor of London with connections to Sunni Wahhabist extremists, is good for Europe, while in the same interview he poses his antithesis: praising and offering support to the anti-Muslim Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

La Croix: "You received, on the past April 1st, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X. Is the reintegration of the Lefebvrists in the Church once again being considered?" 

Pope Francis: "In Buenos Aires, I always spoke with them. They saluted me, they asked for [my] blessing on their knees. They consider themselves Catholic. They love the Church. Bp. Fellay is a man with whom we can dialogue. It is not the case of other somewhat strange elements, such as Bp. Williamson, or others who have radicalized. I think, as I had expressed in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the path to full communion. During this Year of Mercy, it seemed that I should authorize their confessors to pardon the sin of abortion. They thanked me for this gesture...We dialogue well, we do a good work. (End quote).

To  the Right wing of the Church he gives this approbation to the “traditional Catholic” SSPX. To the Left he lends his support to mass Sunni-Salafist migration to Europe. 

Pope Francis to La Croix:

"Coming back to the migrant issue, the worst form of welcome is to ‘ghettoize’them. On the contrary, it’s necessary to integrate them. In Brussels, the terrorists were Belgians, children of migrants, but they grew up in a ghetto…. I am thinking here of Pope Gregory the Great (pope from 590 – 604), who negotiated with the people known as barbarians, who were subsequently integrated. This integration is all the more necessary today since, as a result of a selfish search for well-being, Europe is experiencing the grave problem of a declining birth rate.” (End quote).

The terrorists congregate in a ghetto because their brand of Salafism demands a ghetto. It is not the fault of Europe. Some terrorists have been shown to have attended European universities often at the taxpayers expense, and yet still they return to their ghetto mentality and spew blood and fire upon the hand that fed them so generously.

Furthermore, Pope Gregory did not oversee the “integration” of barbarians into Europe in the sixth century. They were already there. They were mostly indigenous. Pope Gregory helped to organize the conversion of the barbarians. Only after they were converted  to Catholicism were they integrated, and not before. Don’t imagine that Francis is not familiar with these facts. He is playing a game. 

In the La Croix interview he purports to lament the declining birth rate of Europeans. This is a macabre jest. The pontiff has admonished Catholics for allegedly talking too much about abortion and contraception. He refused  to campaign against laws in Ireland and under his nose in Italy, conferring state recognition of marriage upon practicing homosexuals. He is on record referring disparagingly to Catholics with many children, saying they breed like rabbits. On May 19, on learning that pro-abortion politician Marco Pannella had died, the Papal spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi praised  in a written statement, not off the cuff   the man who helped lead Italy in the 1970s to legalize abortion. [Rorate Caeli]

This writer will not be the only one to draw attention to the duplicity of Francis in these matters. But we will be mostly alone in raising the awareness that when the Pope issues these Janus-faced pronouncements and double-talk, he is doing so consonant with the 500-year-old tradition of Neoplatonic Hermeticism inside Rome. 

Because we have been sufficiently processed, the game is played now in the open, whereas in centuries past, of necessity it operated in a more clandestine context. In either case, the joke is on us.


Michael Hoffman's next book, “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome,” is due for publication this autumn.


Monday, May 16, 2016

Debating the History of White Enslavement

Across the pond a brouhaha has developed in the Irish media over popular books which assert that either the Irish were once chattel slaves, or that many white nations, including the Irish suffered enslavement.

The volumes under fire include To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland, by Sean O’Callaghan, and this writers book, They Were White and They Were Slaves.

Those who have taken up the mission of upholding the court historians’ Establishment dogma are Liam Hogan, an Irish librarian, Laura McAtackney, an associate professor of Sustainable Heritage Management  at Århus University,  Denmark, and Matthew Connor Reilly, a postdoctoral fellow in archaeology at Brown University. McAtackney recently admitted on social media that she has not read my book. Hogan appears to have read at least parts of it, describing it as follows: "The most influential book to claim that there was ‘white slavery’ in Colonial America was Michael Hoffman’s They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America

For more than a year articles attempting to deny the chronicle of the enslavement of white people have appeared in history magazines, websites and most recently the Irish Times newspaper.

The insistence that the entire epoch of brutal white bondage never happened —  from the thralls of the Vikings to the villeinage of Anglo-Saxon England and the massive kid-nabbing operations which criminalized and abducted young white paupers in 17th century Britain and swept them onto ships for bondage unto death in the West Indies and British America — is one of the myths necessary to the maintenance of the current system of things, in particular the crushing psychic disorder of white guilt. Covered up in part by means of the imposition of the misleading “indentured servant” euphemism for all cases of white bondage, it continues to demand irrational obeisance in colleges and universities and the mainstream media. 

Enter Jim Goad

Mr. Goad is the indefatigable journalist who wrote The Red Neck Manifesto. He is currently a columnist for Taki’s Magazine, an online weekly. He has chosen to give this writer, in an extensive interview which appears here, the opportunity to refute the deniers. I hope you will take the time to peruse the interview and publicize it.


Tuesday, April 26, 2016

GOP and the Talmud

The Republican Party and the Talmud

Here is my interview with Jonas Alexis of Veterans Today. It is published on their web page.
"In Talmudic Judaism, God must submit to the majority decision of the rabbis. Are we supposed to believe that because the decision need not be unanimous, that this diabolically prideful jurispridence has something to teach the Colorado GOP?” — Michael Hoffman
Veterans Today: You have recently examined Philip Maymin and Zakhar Maymin of the libertarian site Lew Rockwell. They write in their recent article “The Babylonian Talmud vs. the Colorado GOP”

“If Colorado’s GOP establishment had learned from the Talmud…they would have picked 33 delegates for Cruz and one to someone else.” 

What’s going on here? Has Lew Rockwell become Talmudic? Or they Talmudic all along?

Michael Hoffman: My guess is that Mr. Rockwell is probably not too familiar with the Bavli (Babylonian) Talmud. I won’t try to read his mind regarding why he published the absurd article in question. What I will say is that websites like his and The American Conservative, are interested in gaining some Judaic cover for their Libertarian or milquetoast “Conservative” views, and hence, they publish puff pieces for the hideous, Talmudic-supremacist ideology. It’s a kind of prostitution, and since you reap what you sow, by plying their readership with propaganda for the Talmud, which is mainly a rule book for self-worshiping racketeers, they sabotage their own mission; their compromise with Talmudism becomes the poisoned chalice that corrupts their entire enterprise. This may not be so critical with Mr. Rockwell’s operation, since the capitalism he promotes pursues the idol of money without compunction. In the case of The American Conservative however, which is one of many groups who imagine they are going to uphold rabbinic Judaism and western civlization, the compromise is a lethal one. 

Veterans Today: The authors of the article ends up by saying: “Remember the Talmud and beware unanimity. It often masks evil.” If we “remember the Talmud,” what does it tell us about the Goyim? How does it “mask evil”?

Hoffman: The article is a joke on the goyim. The fact is that unanimity is insisted upon in many facets of Talmudic Judaism. For example, in the matter of informing on the criminal activities of one’s fellow Talmudists, one commits the crime of the moser by breaking ranks and relating such activities to non-Judaic police forces. Orthodox Judaism demands a strict and suffocating unanimous assent to thousands of its petty halachos (rules and regulations). The idea of dissent from what Chazal, the corporate Talmudic legacy, has bequeathed, is completely alien. Yitzhak Rabin, the late prime minister of the Israeli state, was murdered by a Talmud student because he broke the unanimity demanded of all so-called “Jews.”

Where the Talmud enthusiasts will play semantic games (pilpul) is by means of their claim that the Talmud is just a series of Socratic-style debates. The truth is very different: Halachah (dogmatic rabbinic law) is comprised of the traditions found in the rabbinic Mishnah and Gemara and derivative texts. Those texts as a whole comprise the Oral Law, what Josephus termed, paradôsis  (“tradition”). Agreement on which texts have halachic status is by majority decision. While certain dogmas are inviolable (the superiority of the Judaic male and the inferiority of the goy, for example), other aspects of halacha reflect a situation ethics beholden to the zeitgeist, as the legal authority (and anti-Black racist) Rabbi Moses Maimonides established in his Mishneh Torah. He declared that in a time and place where adherents of the Talmud are supreme (such as in the Israeli state now), goyim may be killed openly and at will. 

Exceptions to these bigoted rabbinic laws are permitted where Judaics are in subjection to the goyim and where news of Judaism’s discrimination toward, and second class status of, the goyim, would cause an uprising of “potential animosity” (mishum eivah) toward Judaics.  Therefore, to avoid a rebellion by the goyim, devious exceptions to the rabbinic law are made in public, for the sake of pacifying (“mipnei darkhei shalom”) gullible goyim. Therefore, where Judaic persons reside in Christian or other non-Judaic societies which suspect them of criminal intent, under those circumstances killings of goyim, as Maimonides said, must be made to look like an accident, or postponed for a time. This is the exceedingly slippery nature of the Talmudic religion.

To maintain, as the article in question does, that Talmudic ethics would guarantee the fairness of Republican politics, is pure chutzpah. Underhanded schemes can be endorsed as long as a majority of rabbinic legal authorities agree on the scheme. The law in Judaism is made not by a legislature, but by majority judicial decision. It is true that this majority rabbinic consensus need not be unanimous. However, it is so arrogant and far-reaching that it abrogates to itself the power of God. Jefferson’s concept of inalienable rights that cannot be violated by man’s government because they are God-given, is totally alien to Orthodox Judaism. This is most famously demonstrated in the portion of the Talmud Bavli where the rabbis overrule God, and God is made to say, “My sons have defeated me! My sons have defeated me!” (cf. Bava Metzia 59b). Who can plumb the depths of a megalomania that portrays God himself celebrating his inferiority to the Pharisees of Babylon? In Talmudic Judaism, God must submit to the majority decision of the rabbis. Are we supposed to believe that because the decision need not be unanimous, that this diabolically prideful jurispridence has something to teach the Colorado GOP?

Former British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who is widely regarded in the Establishment media as a "liberal humanist light unto the gentiles,” singled out this portion of the Talmud for praise in his review of Jonathan Rosen’s book The Talmud and the Internet. Rabbi Sacks wrote, “Rosen loves, as do I, that extraordinary moment in the Talmud in which God is outvoted on a point of Jewish law and celebrates the fact that His children have defeated him.” (The Guardian, Dec. 21, 2001).

In the Babylonian Talmud there is nothing of the principles of our American Republic as the Founders envisioned it. Thom Jefferson execrated the Talmud with unremmiting hostility. It is a fraud on the American Libertartian and Conservative movements to pretend otherwise. If Lew Rockwell is what he claims to be, then he will invite someone with genuine knowledge of the subject to reply and refute the disinformation and misdirection which he published. (End quote from Veterans Today).

Michael Hoffmans work can only continue if you will purchase his books or recordings, or make a donation to our Truth Mission

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Latest genetic research on impostor Jews

Many so-called “Jews” are impostors with no rights to Palestine and no descent from Abraham

By Michael Hoffman

Turks in Jerusalem in 1855 masquerading as Jews.

The majority of the world’s "Jewish" population is descended mainly from people from ancient Turkey, rather than from the Middle East. New research suggests that the so-called “Jewish” population of eastern Europe – known as “Ashkenazic Jews” – are descendants of Greeks, Iranians and others who colonized what is now northern Turkey more than 2000 years ago, and were then converted to rabbinic Judaism. These findings have been put forth by Israeli-born geneticist, Dr Eran Elhaik of the University of Sheffield. 

Access Dr. Elhaik’s research here: http://www.eranelhaiklab.org/

A question for Protestant Fundamentalists and Catholic modernists
How does the Bible define the “synagogue of Satan”? [The answer is in the Book of Revelation, chapter 2, verse 9]. The answer cannot be "anti-semitic because true Jews are not in the synagogue of Satan. The synagogue of Satan is comprised of impostors  counterfeit Israel.

This vital information is brought to you by the donors who make our Truth Mission possible

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

A Holocaust Anniversary to Commemorate

A *Holocaust Anniversary to Commemorate in July 

Let us observe memorials to the forgotten holocausts

By Michael Hoffman

Yosef Haim Ben-David (center) with police and defense attorney

July 2, 2014: Israeli settler Yosef Haim Ben-David and his two nephews kidnap and burn alive a 16 year old Palestinian youth, Muhammad Abu Khdeir, in East Jerusalem. 

On July 1 the three Israelis had attempted to kidnap and murder an 8 year-old Palestinian child in East Jerusalem, but the boy’s mother heroically fought off his three would-be abductors. 

What happened in Palestine is nothing new. During the Middle Ages Ashkenaz Judaics kidnapped and ritually murdered Christian children, as documented by Israeli historian Ariel Toaff, the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, in his banned book, Blood Passover.

 Muhammad Abu Khdeir: Palestinian teenager abducted and burned alive by Israeli settlers

According to historian Sergio Luzzatto, Blood Passover "is a magnificent work of history...Toaff holds that from 1100 to about 1500, in the period between the First Crusade and the twilight of the Middle Ages, some crucifixions of Christian children really happened...Neither in Trent in 1475 nor in other areas of Europe in the late Middle Ages were the Jews always innocent.” 

“My research shows that in the Middle Ages, a group of fundamentalist Jews (had) a passion for revenge that in some cases led to responses, among them ritual murder of Christian children...I believe there is no room for doubt in terms of historiography” 
—Ariel Toaff, Bar Ilan University

One of the victims was an infant, Saint Simon of Trent. All pontiffs since Pope Paul VI have suppressed his memory and the testimony by Catholic witnesses of his victimization. All images and memorials commemorating St. Simon have been removed from Trent, Italy by order of the modern Church of Rome. 

The memory of the holocausts perpetrated against our children are suppressed. This is considered a positive moral act in the West today. 

Only one "Holocaust" is permitted to be recognized and remembered. It is considered a hate crime to recall what Talmudists have perpetrated against Christians, or the Israeli holocaust against Arabs.

*Holocaust: burnt offering. From the Latin, holocaustum, derived from the ancient Greek ὁλόκαυστος ‎(holókaustos). 


Michael Hoffmans Truth Mission is made by possible by donations and the sale of his publications and recordings.

Friday, April 15, 2016

Republican Party is told to follow the Talmud

By Michael Hoffman

Today the celebrated libertarian Lew Rockwell published a column advocating Talmudic ethics as a corrective for GOP corruption. No, this is not a joke. You read those words correctly. 

The essay, “The Babylonian Talmud vs. the Colorado GOP,” lectures gentile Republicans on the corrective they need to straighten their party out: the ethical integrity of Rabbi Moses Maimonides and the wisdom of the Talmud of Babylon! 

Here’s an excerpt:

“If Colorado’s GOP establishment had learned from the Talmud — and it would not have been hard, the Talmud has been around for thousands of years and is freely available online in multiple languages — they would have picked 33 delegates for Cruz and one to someone else. The fact that all of them were for Cruz is a clear indication understood from ancient times that something smells.” (End quote; the whole article is below).

Normally I would undertake a lengthy analysis to demonstrate the fallacies in paying homage to a rule book for racketeers.

But the reality is that lately we’ve been laboring under an awareness of the attitude of some   perhaps even many of you  who are online. I call it the Something-for-Nothing-Internet mentality. A lot of people are online to get as much as they can for nothing, with no exchange of energy. They take and independent journalists give. 

Unfortunately, in America, when you give something away it is often not highly valued. Increasingly, newspapers and other print publications are erecting pay-walls, and subscriber-only content, and this is an ongoing temptation with regard to this blog and our "Hoffman Wire e-mailed column. Our printed newsletter, Revisionist History, is by paid subscription and has thrived under that arrangement for 83 issues.

We publish the Hoffman Wire and our On the Contrary blog online free of charge mainly to attempt to reach and inform a worldwide audience of leaders and achievers beyond our paid subscriber base, and beyond those who buy our books and recordings.

Altruism is an important motivator for our work, in thanksgiving to God for tasking us with this Truth Mission. “The more people we can reach the better” has been our attitude, even if the return on our investment of time and energy has not always been tangible.

But what happens when our Internet activism becomes a one-way street? When it becomes diversion and entertainment for jaded persons, rather than for their edification and motivation? Then it’s a case of squandering resources in a non-reciprocating, one-way endeavor.

I will venture to say that it is the apathy and pessimism of some of you that has led the respected Lew Rockwell website to publish such demonstrably false bunkum as the column in praise of the Talmud for Republicans. 

If our work were better known, Rockwell might have had second thoughts, or an informed storm of protest and correction would at least be directed at him. Perhaps there would even be an invitation for us to pen a rebuttal which would be published at LewRockwell.com. Something like that could bear real fruit in helping to educate people who are passionately engaged with the serious issues that impact our nation, as are many of Mr. Rockwells readers.

Instead, the influence of the Talmud is growing in public, even as in private and semi-private utterances, for example by Gov. Kasich in New York at the rabbinic bookstore, there is considerable contempt for the Talmudic gestalt — and this defiance ought to be cultivated

But how do we go from private mumbling and bookstore defiance, to public challenges and changes in policy   and from that initial burst to building a sustained, national Christian movement sounding the alarm about the influence of Talmudic Judaism over not just our media, academia and Congress, but also in our court system, the Department of Defense and the Intelligence community? 

From his base in Montana, Rev. Dr. Chuck Baldwin is proceeding along those lines on the national scene, becoming ever more bold in his ministry. But we need more. We need the active engagement of everyone who “knows the score.” If you claim to be a Christian and yet you’re mired in pessimism and survivalism to the neglect of actively contending for the good and the right, you are committing what the Early Church Fathers termed a “sin against Hope.” One of the theological virtues, born of the Holy Spirit, is hope. Without it we can’t fight battles, much less win them.

At present I’m working day and night on my overdue book, “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.” This morning I could have, as I have done many times in the past, taken a couple of hours away from that work, to expose this pedagogic Talmudic drivel from Lew Rockwell’s website, and point his readers in the direction of light and truth, for Republicans and every American.

I’m not sure however, that such an effort would be approved by God if it was served up on the altar of the Something-for-Nothing-Internet, for people to consume merely for their own amusement. 

If you read the original New Testament Greek you will see that Jesus never said that the meek shall inherit the earth. He said the gentle-hearted would inherit it. The meek, the ones who let themselves be doormats, are not of God. They are masochists begging the indifferent to pay them attention. That’s not me, folks, and that’s not the Jesus of Matthew 7:6, either.

Here below is the Lew Rockwell column spreading Talmudism among American Conservatives. It is a tissue of absurdities that can be refuted to devastating effect by any true scholar conversant with the Gemara and the Mishneh Torah. Perhaps one of the writers you do support and publicize will answer it. (If he or she does so, I would appreciate receiving a copy of their confutation).  Will anyone with the chapter-and-verse knowledge and ability actually step forth to do so, or will the article remain unanswered? In Anglo-Saxon law silence connotes assent.

As for me, I’m returning to writing my book today. If I thought my Creator wanted otherwise, then I hope I would have the grace and vision to submit in conformity to His will. But it seems to me that He is saying that His laborers are worthy of their hire. Do you agree?

Those who do not should look elsewhere for a beast of burden to ride while giving nothing in return. 

A Something-for-Nothing Internet readership fits the Matthew 7:6 category too well for us to cooperate with a process Our Lord warns against

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit (paperback, 1102 pages).


The Babylonian Talmud vs. the Colorado GOP 
By Philip Maymin and Zakhar Maymin 

April 15, 2016

What does it take to make the decision by a governing body just?  Shouldn’t it be just that, “just”?

Then why was the 12th-century Jewish legal scholar Maimonides concerned about “the need for the law to guard itself in public perceptions, to preserve its majesty and retain the people’s respect”? [Moses Maimonides, The Commandments, Neg. Comm. 290, at 269-271 (Charles B. Chavel trans., 1967)].

In other words, should the decision be just or appear to people to be just? On the surface, this is a stupid question: the decision is either just or not, whether it appears just or not; and of course it’s much more important that it is just than that it merely appears to be just. And we are not talking philosophical hair-splitting like rationalism vs. empiricism here. In simple terms, would you prefer your food to be good or rather to appear to be good? Ridiculous, right?

Yet Maimonides rules that in certain circumstances, appearances trump: “If the Beth Din arrived at a unanimous verdict of guilty, the person was let go – the idea being that if no judge could find anything exculpatory about the accused, there was something wrong with the court.” [Maimonidies, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin, Chapter 9. Also,  Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, page 17a.]

Think about that. All the judges could be completely convinced that the defendant is a murderer, yet he might walk away because of this law. Suppose they are all judges of honor and integrity, and they are all certain beyond any doubt that the guy is a murderer. The guy committed the murder in broad daylight and all the judges were direct witnesses, and he doesn’t deny it, he is even bragging about it. There is genetic evidence, conspiracy blueprints, eyewitnesses, video recording, satellite imagery, everything. And suppose further that none of the judges wants to lie, and they all say that the guy is guilty, which he is. In that case, he walks. The murderer walks!

The verdict of guilty is clearly just. But the Talmud raises a red flag. The Babylonian Talmud, an ancient document of Jewish law, says that the very fact that it is unanimous is suspicious. For the Talmud, the decision doesn’t appear to be just.

So how could it be that the appearance of justice trumps justice? How could this make any sense?

It doesn’t. What is being hinted at is Deuteronomy 16:20, in Parsha Shoftim, often read around the end of summer: “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” Why does the Torah repeat the word justice? Because not only must we pursue justice, but we must pursue it in just means. Not only must we be just, we must also appear just.

It is not that the appearance of justice is more important than justice itself. It is that justice itself if it doesn’t also look like justice, isn’t justice at all. Sentencing a truly guilty man in a way that does not appear just is not justice.

As easy as it is to disagree on the merits of a particular case and decide whether something was just or not, it is infinitely easier to disagree about whether it appears just. So how does the Talmud deal with this issue? How can people see that a particular decision doesn’t appear to be just? What raises the red flag?

More generally, how can citizens see when their rulers are perpetrating fraud? Is it possible to have some kind of meta-protection? It would have to be based not on the merits of a specific act or a decision of a government or a ruling class, but on the way in which the decision was made, the manner it was decided, the appearance of justice.

Some meta-rules are obvious. For example: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” There’s more credence to a decision that is made in the open then if it is done behind closed doors. Partly for this reason, the Talmud recorded dissenting, minority, and dismissed opinions right alongside its accepted laws. People tend to accept even a bad decision when all of them were given a chance to participate or vote freely on it, or if they at least see that there was genuine dissent representing their views.

But some meta-rules could be more subtle.

The Talmud gives one such example: if the decision is unanimous, that’s a red flag.

Back to our daylight murderer: why? Because the Talmud essentially argues, it means the judges must not have spent enough time. And that is an injustice too.

It is easy to rush into a decision. On a personal, financial, or business level, if a decision appears to have absolutely no risk, no downside, then this Talmudic principle should raise a red flag in your head. You probably haven’t spent enough time thinking about it.

It is also easy to conspire to commit unanimous fraud. In a group setting, all you have to do is whisper a simple message: “vote no, pass it on.” But it is much more difficult to coordinate a more convincing, realistic outcome: “sixty percent of you vote no, the rest vote yes to make it look real.” Which sixty percent? Do I toss a coin? What if we all toss coins and randomly and accidentally vote yes? A unanimous vote is much easier to conspire towards. 

A unanimous vote is a signal, a Talmudic red flag, that something is rotten.

And something now appears to be rotten in the state of Colorado.
In the Republican primaries, voters in the Republican party think they are choosing who will represent them in the general election for President of the United States. But not in Colorado. In Colorado, they were, first of all, not even allowed to vote. This violated the common-sense sunshine meta-protection rule: they didn’t even let the residents of Colorado vote for who would represent their party in the election.

But then they didn’t even have the fortitude to make the results look reasonable. They brashly assigned all 34 delegates to Ted Cruz, every single one. That raises the unanimity red flag of the Talmud. 

Something is rotten.

Was it too hard to coordinate among the delegates to find a few who would pretend to support someone other than Mr. Cruz in order to make the results seem more reasonable? Or did they not even bother hiding their fraud? It may be a combination of both. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Of the 34 delegates claimed by Mr. Cruz, 30 were formally bound to him, which means they are obliged to vote for him on the first ballot at the national convention. Four others were officially unbound but have said they were supporting Mr. Cruz.” [http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-sweeps-up-delegates-in-colorado/] Sounds like coordination was likely not involved.

If Colorado’s GOP establishment had learned from the Talmud — and it would not have been hard, the Talmud has been around for thousands of years and is freely available online in multiple languages — they would have picked 33 delegates for Cruz and one to someone else. The fact that all of them were for Cruz is a clear indication understood from ancient times that something smells.

There was this tweet from the Colorado GOP immediately after the “selection” of the delegates: “We did it. #NeverTrump.”
The party deleted the tweet three minutes after it was posted and lied that the account was hacked [http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/colorado-gop-lied-nevertrump-tweet-account-not-hacked-posted-trump-hating-insider/]. No conspiracy is complete without a cover-up.

The party officials who made this decision and perpetrated this fraud may think they are doing this for all the right reasons. But then they must not have read the Bible closely enough. Because even when you are pursuing what you think is justice, you must also pursue it by just means.

Unanimous decisions are bad. They mean something in the process has broken down. There has not been enough thinking, enough dissent, enough justice.

In the Soviet Union, all of the Politburo’s decisions were always unanimous.

In Germany, the Reichstag convened for the last time 74 years ago this month, on April 26, 1942, to consider a decree proclaiming Hitler “Supreme Judge of the German People.” This decree would make Hitler the only and final decision-maker, with the power of life and death over every German citizen. The vote was unanimous. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_%28Nazi_Germany%29]
And now in the Colorado GOP.

Remember the Talmud and beware unanimity. It often masks evil.
Philip Z. Maymin [philip@maymin.com] has a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and is Associate Professor of Analytics and Finance at the University of Bridgeport Trefz School of Business.

Zakhar G. Maymin [zak@maymin.com] has a Ph.D. from MIT, spent several decades on Wall Street, and is the author of Publicani and Truth.

Reprinted from Lew Rockwell