by Michael A. Hoffman II
Copyright ©2006. All Rights Reserved
From a movie review by Stephen Whitty of Newhouse News:
"In the world of 'V for Vendetta,' government is permanent, corporate and ruthless. Purposely staging massive disasters, its leaders blame them on mythical terrorists, ratcheting up the terror with fake "alerts." Bullied into fear, its ill-informed citizens simply cede more of their rights and retreat, hiding behind a junk culture of ultra-violent cop shows and hard-right harangues. Everyone except the semi-anonymous V, who – in a tribute to the failed plans of that earlier revolutionary, Guy Fawkes – has announced his plan to blow up the Houses of Parliament on Nov. 5." (http://www.spokane7.com/movies/stories/?ID=2763)
The semi-official US media willl not tell us the truth about the 9/11 terror attacks in a straight-forward manner, but they will leak the truth when they can shroud it in the habiliments of myth and urban rumor, in this case, a scifi flick about a government that goes about "purposely staging massive disasters."
In "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare," I term this deliberate process of truth-thawing on the part of the perpetrators themselves (or their designated agents and assigns), "Revelation of the Method." The term originates with James Shelby Downard, who came up with it after gleaning references to Rosicrucian-alchemical manuscripts.
In the analog talking heads world, revelation of hidden crimes is almost always supposed to produce a predictable outcome: outrage, and then retributive action on the part of the victims/targets/percipients. That may have been the general reaction in previous times, but in the atomic, KingKill/33 bikini island Videodrome we now inhabit, revelations like this cause the masses to retreat deeper into a media junk culture, precisely because they learn the terrible truth and then do nothing about it.
For the record, Guy Fawkes was not a "revolutionary," he was a patsy like Tim McVeigh. We note, too, that the hidden dots behind McVeigh are also slowly being connected, from Michael Brescia and the Aryan Republican Army to neo-Nazi Dr. William Pierce, who received hundreds of thousands of dollars in stolen money from the "Order" but was never prosecuted by the US government, because they needed him to help stage manage the Oklahoma City bombing. It's all leaking, like sickly green swamp gas, but to what effect?
Here are we are, in the realm of that branch of psychological warfare dismissed as occultism by the Left, and hopelessly muddied with a thousand false leads and competing theories by the Right.
We are approaching the 2(00)1 gateway plus 5. The schedule requires the intensification of the Revelation. More and more in the corner of our eye, from the edge of the canvas, out of the center of the silver screen, we are being told that the government purposely stages massive disasters, and that includes Sept. 11. This revelation raises our subconsciousness. It deprives us of our alibi for inaction. We no longer possess the defense of being "ill-informed citizens."
The tension in the contradiction is exquisitely manipulated in order to produce an even lower form of compliant zombie, the one who knows his master is evil incarnate, but serves him anyway, for the dead-soul thrill of it.
This is Dee-Cecil-Walsingham doctrine. Actually, it predates those Elizabethans. They streamlined and turbo-charged it for our Skull-and Bones chimney-sweeper generation. This Elizabethan triumvirate was arch-Protestant. The Jacobean Guy Fawkes was a strict Papist. There is a predatory bird, it has two wings, left and right, Protestant and Catholic, Kabbalah and Talmud, Democrat and Republican, Communist and Fascist.
That bird killed Kennedy and announced that one lone gunman and one very talented rifle bullet did the deed. Years later, it permitted us to know that there were three "unworthy" assassins; one of whom, the father of a movie star, is still living, in prison and accessible, but at this point, we reach the terminus of their Revelation of the Method. A living-breathing perp who can name names, reopen the case, bring down the throne? That's not part of the script. That's not the way we are supposed to go. We are supposed to go watch V for Vendetta, and be further processed by R for Revelation (of the Method).
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
"Kill Arabs" Favorite expression of Sharon's advisers
'Give back territory and kill Arabs'
By Yossi Verter | Haaretz | March 15, 2006
"To return territory and kill Arabs" is a favorite expression of the "ranch forum" of Ariel Sharon's advisers. In 2000, when adman-strategist Reuven Adler and company reshaped and polished Sharon's image, a rule was made: The (Israeli) public likes leaders who show diplomatic moderation and military toughness, who return land and kill Arabs. Sharon followed the rule during his five-year reign, and his heir-apparent, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will do the same.
By Yossi Verter | Haaretz | March 15, 2006
"To return territory and kill Arabs" is a favorite expression of the "ranch forum" of Ariel Sharon's advisers. In 2000, when adman-strategist Reuven Adler and company reshaped and polished Sharon's image, a rule was made: The (Israeli) public likes leaders who show diplomatic moderation and military toughness, who return land and kill Arabs. Sharon followed the rule during his five-year reign, and his heir-apparent, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will do the same.
Alexander Cockburn's "Greatest Historian"
Today, on counterpunch.org, we read: "In his special report Alexander Cockburn interviews former Wiesel colleague and Holocaust survivor Eli Pfefferkorn. What Raul Hilberg, the Holocaust's greatest historian, really thinks about Wiesel's "Night". (End quote)
Raul Hilberg is the academic who gave evidence on behalf of the Crown prosecution in the 1985 trial in Toronto of publisher Ernst Zündel, for the "crime" of publishing the book, "Did Six Million Really Die?" Hilberg assisted the Canadian government in its attempt to send a publisher to jail for 15 months.
Cross-examined by defense attorney Doug Christie, Hilberg admitted he could not produce even one scientific report proving Judaics had been gassed during WWII. "I'm at a loss," Hilberg testified.
This is Cockburn's "greatest historian" of the "Holocaust."
For further research:
THE GREAT HOLOCAUST TRIAL
by Michael A. Hoffman II
Raul Hilberg is the academic who gave evidence on behalf of the Crown prosecution in the 1985 trial in Toronto of publisher Ernst Zündel, for the "crime" of publishing the book, "Did Six Million Really Die?" Hilberg assisted the Canadian government in its attempt to send a publisher to jail for 15 months.
Cross-examined by defense attorney Doug Christie, Hilberg admitted he could not produce even one scientific report proving Judaics had been gassed during WWII. "I'm at a loss," Hilberg testified.
This is Cockburn's "greatest historian" of the "Holocaust."
For further research:
THE GREAT HOLOCAUST TRIAL
by Michael A. Hoffman II
US Terrorists Murder Civilians in Isahaqi
Iraqis Say 11 People Killed in U.S. Raid
Associated Press | March 15, 2006 8:24 AM PST
ISAHAQI, Iraq -- U.S. forces flattened a house during a raid north of Baghdad early Wednesday, killing 11 people -- mostly women and children. Eleven bodies, wrapped in blankets, were taken in three pickup trucks to the Tikrit General Hospital, about 45 miles to the north, relatives said. Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, in nearby Samarra, said American warplanes and armor were used in the strike, which flattened the house and killed the 11 people inside.
An AP reporter at the scene in the rural Isahaqi area said the roof of the house collapsed, three cars were destroyed and two cows killed. Associated Press photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at the hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives. The victims were covered in dust with bits of rubble in their hair.
Riyadh Majid, who said he was the nephew of the killed head of the family -- Faez Khalaf -- told AP that U.S. forces landed in helicopters and raided the home early Wednesday. Khalaf's brother, Ahmed, said nine of the victims were family members who lived at the house and two were visitors.
"The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children," Ahmed Khalaf said. "The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."
Associated Press | March 15, 2006 8:24 AM PST
ISAHAQI, Iraq -- U.S. forces flattened a house during a raid north of Baghdad early Wednesday, killing 11 people -- mostly women and children. Eleven bodies, wrapped in blankets, were taken in three pickup trucks to the Tikrit General Hospital, about 45 miles to the north, relatives said. Police Capt. Laith Mohammed, in nearby Samarra, said American warplanes and armor were used in the strike, which flattened the house and killed the 11 people inside.
An AP reporter at the scene in the rural Isahaqi area said the roof of the house collapsed, three cars were destroyed and two cows killed. Associated Press photographs showed the bodies of two men, five children and four other covered figures arriving at the hospital accompanied by grief-stricken relatives. The victims were covered in dust with bits of rubble in their hair.
Riyadh Majid, who said he was the nephew of the killed head of the family -- Faez Khalaf -- told AP that U.S. forces landed in helicopters and raided the home early Wednesday. Khalaf's brother, Ahmed, said nine of the victims were family members who lived at the house and two were visitors.
"The killed family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children," Ahmed Khalaf said. "The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Israeli Assassins Assault Jericho Jail in Pursuit of Assassins
PURIMFEST, 2006--Other than in some equatorial banana republic, where else could an image like this one be seen, than in Israeli occupied territory? An Israeli tank blitzkrieging a Palestinian jail for no reason other than to display Israel's barbaric might and rub the nose of the Palestinians deeper into the ground of their humiliation and occupation, in the hope that the Palestinian victims will retaliate and strike back with armed resistance, which the western media will then play up to Israeli advantage.
Savagery
On Israel Radio, Israeli leader leader Avigdor Lieberman urged Israel's military to use its air force to "erase" the jail complex, and to topple its structures onto the Palestinian prisoners trapped inside."There is no point in drawing this out," Lieberman said. "The air force should do something. There is no point in endangering IDF (Israeli) soldiers. We should simply erase that building, bring it down on all those hiding out there." [Cf. Haaretz, "As siege went on, Lieberman urged: Bomb prison, erase it," March 14, 2006, http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/694156.html]
This being Purim, the Palestinian prisoners were forced to strip to their underwear in front of cameras. Even partial nudity is considered a deep shame in Arab cultures. It is not a coincidence that these Palestinian men were stripped of their humanity during the festival of Purim, Judaism's barbaric celebration of eternal vengeance. The Israelis are out to get the imprisoned Palestinian assassin of an Israeli cabinet member? But the Israelis are themselves assassins to the core, although the infantalized American media almost never terms Israeli assassination by that naughty word, preferring "targeted killing" instead.
The Israelis have assassinated hundreds of Palestinian leaders and this mass assassination is applauded by Hillel Halkin in the Wall Street Journal, by Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine and by George W. Bush, whose ally, Ariel Sharon, used a missile to blow a crippled sheik out of his wheelchair. That act of bloodthirsty cowardice was good for a hearty laugh among the thugs in the White House. But now the world is called upon to summon a "steely resolve" as the "noble Israelis strike a blow in the war on terror" in assaulting a jail "full of vicious Palestinian assassins."
One has to be a retard to accept the official story of this despicable assault on a prison, but the ranks of American neo-cons are full of bona fide retards.
"Against stupidity," said Nietzsche, "even the gods fight in vain."
For further research
ASSOCIATED PRESS PROVIDES ISRAEL WITH PROTECTIVE CAMOUFLAGE
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2006/03/associated-press-provides-israel-with.html
THE ISRAELI HOLOCAUST AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS
by Michael Hoffman and Moshe Lieberman
Books from the Arab Press
Here is a short list of books allegedly recently published in Arabic. They are not available in English. The freedom in Islamic countries to publish books critical of Judaism (not just of Zionism or Israel) is one of the reasons why the Zionists want to wipe radical Islam off the face of the earth. This desire to annihilate is only a cause for anxiety with regard to wiping Israel out. To wipe out Iran or the religion of Islam is a mitzvah (holy act) according to Bush and Cheney.
The neo-cons are ponting to the publication of these books as proof of a supposedly dreadful hatred lodged in the miserable soul of "the Arab." Yet for each of these Arab volumes there are dozens of books published in America by Judeo-'Christian' and neo-con houses attacking Islam and accusing it of every possible vice. This anti-Muslim literature is not a subject of indignation for the neo-cons since they promote it. So the issue is not one of fighting hate, as they claim, since they are promoters of hatred for Arabs and Islam. The issue at stake is the freedom to publish and just as importantly, to distribute nationally and internationally, information about Judaism's hatred of mankind and extreme epistemology of deception.
Books from the Arab Press:
•"Allah or Jehovah: Which One Is the God of the Jews?" by Abd al-Majid Hamo, a Syrian poet, historian, and researcher. Published by Syria’s Dar al-Awael publishing house.
•"The Day of Wrath: Did It Begin during the Intifada of the Month of Rajab? An Interpretation of the Torah Prophecies on the End of the State of Israel." This book describes Talmudists as “murderers of prophets” who are “cursed by David and Jesus, son of Mary..." It says “Allah’s ‘day of wrath’ against the Zionists is approaching” and predicts Israel’s destruction in either 2012 or 2022. The author is Safar Abd al-Rahman al-Hawali, a Saudi sheikh with a doctorate who was an opposition leader in Saudi Arabia.
•"The Characteristics of Jewish Personality and Its Nature as Reflected in Their Humor," by Dr. Sana Abd al-Latif Sabri, who lists Judaic traits as “...fraud, ...forgery...tendency to steal and loot, hatred and animosity...treachery, deception, deceit, , assassinations, murder . . . and disregard for others.” Sabri is an expert on modern Hebrew studies and teaches at the literature college at Helwan University in Egypt.
•"Talmudic Concepts: The Jews’ View of the World," published by Dar al-Awael in Syria.
•"The Blood Triangle, Sharon: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow" by Dr. Jamal al-Badri.
•"Quranic Signs in the Struggle against the Jews" asks: “Are we going to see a chain of people spreading in the form of the Israeli snake, with its tail in Jerusalem, continuing to twist round every capital of the world, until returning to Jerusalem to reinforce the connection?...” The author, Dr. Mustafa Muslim is a resident of Dubai, teaches at the University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, and is considered an expert on Islamic religious law.
•"The Jewish Woman between the Scandals of the Torah and the Domination of the Rabbis" has seen three editions in Syria in recent years.
The neo-cons are ponting to the publication of these books as proof of a supposedly dreadful hatred lodged in the miserable soul of "the Arab." Yet for each of these Arab volumes there are dozens of books published in America by Judeo-'Christian' and neo-con houses attacking Islam and accusing it of every possible vice. This anti-Muslim literature is not a subject of indignation for the neo-cons since they promote it. So the issue is not one of fighting hate, as they claim, since they are promoters of hatred for Arabs and Islam. The issue at stake is the freedom to publish and just as importantly, to distribute nationally and internationally, information about Judaism's hatred of mankind and extreme epistemology of deception.
Books from the Arab Press:
•"Allah or Jehovah: Which One Is the God of the Jews?" by Abd al-Majid Hamo, a Syrian poet, historian, and researcher. Published by Syria’s Dar al-Awael publishing house.
•"The Day of Wrath: Did It Begin during the Intifada of the Month of Rajab? An Interpretation of the Torah Prophecies on the End of the State of Israel." This book describes Talmudists as “murderers of prophets” who are “cursed by David and Jesus, son of Mary..." It says “Allah’s ‘day of wrath’ against the Zionists is approaching” and predicts Israel’s destruction in either 2012 or 2022. The author is Safar Abd al-Rahman al-Hawali, a Saudi sheikh with a doctorate who was an opposition leader in Saudi Arabia.
•"The Characteristics of Jewish Personality and Its Nature as Reflected in Their Humor," by Dr. Sana Abd al-Latif Sabri, who lists Judaic traits as “...fraud, ...forgery...tendency to steal and loot, hatred and animosity...treachery, deception, deceit, , assassinations, murder . . . and disregard for others.” Sabri is an expert on modern Hebrew studies and teaches at the literature college at Helwan University in Egypt.
•"Talmudic Concepts: The Jews’ View of the World," published by Dar al-Awael in Syria.
•"The Blood Triangle, Sharon: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow" by Dr. Jamal al-Badri.
•"Quranic Signs in the Struggle against the Jews" asks: “Are we going to see a chain of people spreading in the form of the Israeli snake, with its tail in Jerusalem, continuing to twist round every capital of the world, until returning to Jerusalem to reinforce the connection?...” The author, Dr. Mustafa Muslim is a resident of Dubai, teaches at the University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, and is considered an expert on Islamic religious law.
•"The Jewish Woman between the Scandals of the Torah and the Domination of the Rabbis" has seen three editions in Syria in recent years.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Physicist: World Trade Center Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition
Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist at Brigham Young University in Utah. He maintains that the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001 due to internal explosive devices placed inside the buildings. You can watch an amateur video of his brilliant presentation, online, free of charge, here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=Steven+Jones
However if you can afford to spend just a few bucks, a better, professionally-filmed verson of his lecture is available on DVD, for only $10 here:
http://www.911truth.org/store/dvd85.htm
Dr. Jones' presentation is of the utmost urgency and is highly recommended to all who wish to prevent another government-sponsored terror attack, and who care about the survival of our Constitutional Republic against dictatorship and martial law, and the bringing to justice of the hidden perpetrators who killed some 3,000 people in New York in 2001.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=Steven+Jones
However if you can afford to spend just a few bucks, a better, professionally-filmed verson of his lecture is available on DVD, for only $10 here:
http://www.911truth.org/store/dvd85.htm
Dr. Jones' presentation is of the utmost urgency and is highly recommended to all who wish to prevent another government-sponsored terror attack, and who care about the survival of our Constitutional Republic against dictatorship and martial law, and the bringing to justice of the hidden perpetrators who killed some 3,000 people in New York in 2001.
Secret PSYOPS Plans of the US Government
The US Media have plenty of broadcast-time and column inches for trivial stories about celebrities, fashion, sports and other fluff but little or no time to pursue and publicize the research of Brigham Young University physicist Dr. Steven Jones, or Claremont College Prof. David Ray Griffin concerning the US government terrorists who were behind the 9/11 attacks.
The US government's mouthpiece media, by their passivity and acquiescence to the official propaganda line on 9/11 are helping to create a situation that fosters another US government-sponsored 9/11 attack.
Part of the planning for another attack is the manipulation by the US government of American public opinion. This includes planting fake stories, telling lies and distracting attention from vital truths. Portions of secret Pentagon plans for these psychological warfare operations against the American people, "Operations Roadmap" have been made public and can be accessed here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/info_ops_roadmap.pdf
The US government's mouthpiece media, by their passivity and acquiescence to the official propaganda line on 9/11 are helping to create a situation that fosters another US government-sponsored 9/11 attack.
Part of the planning for another attack is the manipulation by the US government of American public opinion. This includes planting fake stories, telling lies and distracting attention from vital truths. Portions of secret Pentagon plans for these psychological warfare operations against the American people, "Operations Roadmap" have been made public and can be accessed here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/info_ops_roadmap.pdf
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Neturei Karta: Talmud-True Khazars Ally with Iran
United Press International reports: Members of New York's Neturei Karta anti-Zionist group are currently visiting Iran to express their solidarity. Neturei Karta are Haredi ultra-Orthodox Jews who reject Zionism and the state of Israel and last year hosted a demonstration in Lafayette Square across from the White House denouncing Israeli policies.
Neturei Karta's doctrine derives from a belief that Jews cannot use human force to establish a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah and that the state of Israel is therefore illegitimate and opposed to Divine Will.
The Jerusalem Post reported that members of the delegation, headed by Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, met with Iranian Vice-President Ahmad Moussavi March 5. Moussavi also chairs the Iranian Committee in Support of the Palestinian Revolution.
Iran's official IRIB radio broadcast a statement by the group calling for "the disintegration of the Zionist regime," and defended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying that it "is a dangerous deviation to pretend that the Iranian president is an anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic personality."
The statement continued that the group was "upset about the recent ploys, propaganda and tensions which have been created by the West regarding the statements of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about a world free of Zionism, since this is nothing more than wishing for a better world dominated by peace and calm." Source: UPI, March 8, 2006
HOFFMAN's COMMENT: This is politics (ugh) and I guess it is supposed to help the Islamic Republic of Iran burnish its image and fend off the usual charges of being insects ("antisemites"). But Muslims beware: if you are going to reconnect your old, tired alliance with Talmud-True Khazars who pose as Torah-True Jews you are going to end up like Turkey under Attaturk, Egypt under Nasser, or like the "sick man of Europe"--the tottering, wheezing Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century.
Neturei Karta regards Jesus Christ as a dog. When they want to swear at someone, they preface the target's name with Jesus, as in "Jesus Arafat" and "Jesus Herzl" etc.
All orthodox Judaics prior to the late 19th century were like Neturei Karta, anti-Zionist. Did that fact somehow expunge their Talmudic creed of its hatred, racism, misogyny, totalitarian mind control, homicide and child rape? In Christian terms an alliance with Neturei Karta would be impossible. Muslims of Iran beware: he who sups with Neturei Karta must have a long spoon.
Neturei Karta's doctrine derives from a belief that Jews cannot use human force to establish a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah and that the state of Israel is therefore illegitimate and opposed to Divine Will.
The Jerusalem Post reported that members of the delegation, headed by Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, met with Iranian Vice-President Ahmad Moussavi March 5. Moussavi also chairs the Iranian Committee in Support of the Palestinian Revolution.
Iran's official IRIB radio broadcast a statement by the group calling for "the disintegration of the Zionist regime," and defended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying that it "is a dangerous deviation to pretend that the Iranian president is an anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic personality."
The statement continued that the group was "upset about the recent ploys, propaganda and tensions which have been created by the West regarding the statements of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about a world free of Zionism, since this is nothing more than wishing for a better world dominated by peace and calm." Source: UPI, March 8, 2006
HOFFMAN's COMMENT: This is politics (ugh) and I guess it is supposed to help the Islamic Republic of Iran burnish its image and fend off the usual charges of being insects ("antisemites"). But Muslims beware: if you are going to reconnect your old, tired alliance with Talmud-True Khazars who pose as Torah-True Jews you are going to end up like Turkey under Attaturk, Egypt under Nasser, or like the "sick man of Europe"--the tottering, wheezing Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century.
Neturei Karta regards Jesus Christ as a dog. When they want to swear at someone, they preface the target's name with Jesus, as in "Jesus Arafat" and "Jesus Herzl" etc.
All orthodox Judaics prior to the late 19th century were like Neturei Karta, anti-Zionist. Did that fact somehow expunge their Talmudic creed of its hatred, racism, misogyny, totalitarian mind control, homicide and child rape? In Christian terms an alliance with Neturei Karta would be impossible. Muslims of Iran beware: he who sups with Neturei Karta must have a long spoon.
Research Leads from Charles Saunders 3/12/2006
by Charles Saunders ©2006. All Rights Reserved
Editor's note: I first met Mr. Saunders in James Shelby Downard's Airstream trailer many years ago. Don't expect to find Charles Saunders in any of the legion of politically-correct Jack Kerouac biographies from the Kerouac industry, in spite of the fact that Kerouac was heavily influenced by Saunders and spent the last months of his life in his company (biography is bunk). Charles' father, Prof. Alexander Saunders, was an expert on the Hicksite Quakers and the Henty novels, whereas Charles is a polymath with a working knowledge of ancient Greek, Latin and French and an impressive command of occult lore. His writing is more like jottings from a research notebook, rather than formal essays or journalism. As we approach the anniversary of Mr. Downard's birth (3-13-1913) I am pleased to present material from one his ablest quondam colleagues:
In the DVD, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" in the beginning of the movie, Harry and his friends, the Wheaslies etc., have just gone thru the "portkey" to the "Tri-Wizards" match....Krim (Russian?) or Krum is seen flying over the coliseum on his broom. For a brief moment, you can see on the field, a distinct "Square & Compass" with an elyptical oval (where the G is normally in Masonry's design of the S&C).
At the conclusion of the Movie, "Wild-Eye" Moody (Alastor Moody) is revealed to be an agent of "Voldemort" (or, at least, has been replaced by someone who has taken on his appearance). Notice the name, "ALASTOR." Satanist Aleister Crowley said his first name was really "ALASTOR." Look up "Alastor" on the Internet. Note especially the WIKIPEDIA entry on "ALASTOR" (Nemesis) in Greek Mythology. Is this an "inside" message from J.K.Rowlins, who is from Scotland?
Needless to say, most of the Scots are of high caliber and not mixed up in sorcery, but James I ("Brother James" VI/I of England/Scotland, home of witchcraft as no other place is, except Mexico, as Shakespeare intimated in Macbeth), introduced Raphaelite "Speculative Masonry" to England. James VI/I is quoted in the "Man,Myth and Magic" encyclopedia as saying, "I will not have my Kingdom become a Devil's Fiefdom" (alluding to witchcraft in Scotland). Of course, James was paranoid about the "CRAFT" (except when his own staffers and allies used it).
Which brings us to the British aristorcracy. Read Montague Summers on the Duke of Buckingham (he was the "éminence grise" behind James I and Charles I). Rosicrucian/Mason Bulwer Lytton trained the Mason, John Ruskin and his "Pre-Raphaelite Brethren" from which came the Cryptocracy's diplomatic arm, "The Round Table," RIIA/CFR, Israeli/UN etc (see "Controversy of Zion" by Douglas Reed). Also, check the Internet on "Old George" Pickingill and his connection to Bulwer Lytton (supposed descendant of the sorcery-oriented, Duke of Buckingham), Aleister (Alastor) Crowley, Bennett, and 19th Century Freemasons (they even supposedly invited Pickingill to lecture at the "Mother Lodge of World Masonry" on Great Queen Street.
Editor's note: I first met Mr. Saunders in James Shelby Downard's Airstream trailer many years ago. Don't expect to find Charles Saunders in any of the legion of politically-correct Jack Kerouac biographies from the Kerouac industry, in spite of the fact that Kerouac was heavily influenced by Saunders and spent the last months of his life in his company (biography is bunk). Charles' father, Prof. Alexander Saunders, was an expert on the Hicksite Quakers and the Henty novels, whereas Charles is a polymath with a working knowledge of ancient Greek, Latin and French and an impressive command of occult lore. His writing is more like jottings from a research notebook, rather than formal essays or journalism. As we approach the anniversary of Mr. Downard's birth (3-13-1913) I am pleased to present material from one his ablest quondam colleagues:
In the DVD, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" in the beginning of the movie, Harry and his friends, the Wheaslies etc., have just gone thru the "portkey" to the "Tri-Wizards" match....Krim (Russian?) or Krum is seen flying over the coliseum on his broom. For a brief moment, you can see on the field, a distinct "Square & Compass" with an elyptical oval (where the G is normally in Masonry's design of the S&C).
At the conclusion of the Movie, "Wild-Eye" Moody (Alastor Moody) is revealed to be an agent of "Voldemort" (or, at least, has been replaced by someone who has taken on his appearance). Notice the name, "ALASTOR." Satanist Aleister Crowley said his first name was really "ALASTOR." Look up "Alastor" on the Internet. Note especially the WIKIPEDIA entry on "ALASTOR" (Nemesis) in Greek Mythology. Is this an "inside" message from J.K.Rowlins, who is from Scotland?
Needless to say, most of the Scots are of high caliber and not mixed up in sorcery, but James I ("Brother James" VI/I of England/Scotland, home of witchcraft as no other place is, except Mexico, as Shakespeare intimated in Macbeth), introduced Raphaelite "Speculative Masonry" to England. James VI/I is quoted in the "Man,Myth and Magic" encyclopedia as saying, "I will not have my Kingdom become a Devil's Fiefdom" (alluding to witchcraft in Scotland). Of course, James was paranoid about the "CRAFT" (except when his own staffers and allies used it).
Which brings us to the British aristorcracy. Read Montague Summers on the Duke of Buckingham (he was the "éminence grise" behind James I and Charles I). Rosicrucian/Mason Bulwer Lytton trained the Mason, John Ruskin and his "Pre-Raphaelite Brethren" from which came the Cryptocracy's diplomatic arm, "The Round Table," RIIA/CFR, Israeli/UN etc (see "Controversy of Zion" by Douglas Reed). Also, check the Internet on "Old George" Pickingill and his connection to Bulwer Lytton (supposed descendant of the sorcery-oriented, Duke of Buckingham), Aleister (Alastor) Crowley, Bennett, and 19th Century Freemasons (they even supposedly invited Pickingill to lecture at the "Mother Lodge of World Masonry" on Great Queen Street.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Masonic leader killed by Communists in San Francisco?
Masonic leader in San Francisco killed by Communists agents?
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-3-10/39110.html
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-3-10/39110.html
Rabbis & Imams United
''Freedom of speech shouldn't be absolute,'' said Habib al-Jaffry, an Islamic scholar from Yemen, noting that many European countries don't allow anti-Semitic speech. 'We must come to an understanding of rules governing freedom of expression.''
-The Associated Press, filed at 10:03 a.m. ET, March 10. 2006
-The Associated Press, filed at 10:03 a.m. ET, March 10. 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Lévy and Rushdie's Masterpiece of Hypocrisy
Collaborators with the "old totalitarianism" mount a contemptible charade
by Michael A. Hoffman II
Orthodox Judaism's tyranny over the mind is not challenged anywhere to the degree that Islam is confronted by western intellectuals. The campaign against Islam allegedly based on a desire for freedom of speech and women’s rights, is a sham, since the religion of Orthodox Judaism, about which those who burn with indignation against "Islamism" are largely quiescent, is fervently opposed to both free speech and women's rights.
The leading Orthodox Judaic rock star, Matisyahu, will not shake hands with women, in keeping with Talmudic law. Women are discouraged from driving automobilies in certain Judaic communities. One can make a list of almost every “male chauvinist vice" practiced by Muslims and discover the same being practiced among Judaics, with the exception that Judaic sexism is not an issue with western elites.
On Feb. 28, the pompous Judaic-French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy issued, together with Salman Rushdie and ten others, a “Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism," as follows: “...Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others....
“...We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia,’ an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers. We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.”
This manifesto would be more aptly titled, Masterpiece of Hypocrisy. In the final paragraph, for "Islamophobia," substitute anti-semitism, and for "Islam," Judaism. Now what happens to the campaign for "universality of freedom of expression"? The silence of the grave!
Lévy does everything he can to snuff out the rights of Robert Faurisson and other writers in France who have been repeatedly prosecuted, fined and beaten for scrutinizing in their books and pamphlets the gas chamber icons. Lévy wishes to excoriate Islam to his heart’s content, while protecting Judaism from any similar harsh treatment. Levy’s double-standard thrives thanks to the milieu of Judaic theocratic supremacy which permeates the media salons and government bureaus of Europe.
Writers such as David Irving, Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf are imprisoned in Europe on what amounts to blasphemy charges and Lévy and the other manifesto signers have nothing to say in protest. The claim that these are intellectuals who desire to criticize “all dogmas,” is the joke of the month.
They can only get away with their flaming phoniness because a media monopoly with roots in a Judaic theocracy protects them, by ensuring that radical criticism of their nonsense is limited to obscure blogs and other cobwebbed corners of the Internet. No “credentialed” European mediacrats so much as holler the words “David Irving” at Lévy and Rushdie, those disgusting poseurs. Instead, they encourage them to primp and preen for the cameras, posing as the daring exponents of human freedom -- as defined by the rabbis.
Germar Rudolf, a research scientist, is in jail in Germany solely for having probed too deeply into the shrines and icons of Holocaustianity. But Monsieur Lévy and his co-signatories to the illustrious "manifesto" have not a single word of solidarity for this imprisoned heretic, precisely because they agree that he should be in jail.
The empty talk, shameless affectation and puffed-up sanctimony of Rushdie, Lévy and the other signers of the “manifesto,” is beyond nausea. We would wish to vomit out of our souls these scoundrels who mock freedom, but they are so vacuous and spectral, one cannot locate them even in a puddle of vomit.
Muslims of the world! Do not believe for a moment that Chafiq, Fourest, Ali, Lévy, Manji, Mozaffari, Namazie, Nasreen, Rushdie, Sfeir, Val and Warraq care anything for freedom of expression for "anti-semites" (critics of murderous, racist, sexist rabbinic doctrines), for "negationists" (revisionist researchers who doubt the theology of Holocaustianity); for Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf and other "apostates." The twelve fakers who signed the "manifesto" desire only the freedom to silence, penalize, assault and and jail, if possible, the opponents of reactionary Judaism, and nothing else.
Copyright©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
by Michael A. Hoffman II
Orthodox Judaism's tyranny over the mind is not challenged anywhere to the degree that Islam is confronted by western intellectuals. The campaign against Islam allegedly based on a desire for freedom of speech and women’s rights, is a sham, since the religion of Orthodox Judaism, about which those who burn with indignation against "Islamism" are largely quiescent, is fervently opposed to both free speech and women's rights.
The leading Orthodox Judaic rock star, Matisyahu, will not shake hands with women, in keeping with Talmudic law. Women are discouraged from driving automobilies in certain Judaic communities. One can make a list of almost every “male chauvinist vice" practiced by Muslims and discover the same being practiced among Judaics, with the exception that Judaic sexism is not an issue with western elites.
On Feb. 28, the pompous Judaic-French intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy issued, together with Salman Rushdie and ten others, a “Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism," as follows: “...Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others....
“...We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia,’ an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers. We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.”
This manifesto would be more aptly titled, Masterpiece of Hypocrisy. In the final paragraph, for "Islamophobia," substitute anti-semitism, and for "Islam," Judaism. Now what happens to the campaign for "universality of freedom of expression"? The silence of the grave!
Lévy does everything he can to snuff out the rights of Robert Faurisson and other writers in France who have been repeatedly prosecuted, fined and beaten for scrutinizing in their books and pamphlets the gas chamber icons. Lévy wishes to excoriate Islam to his heart’s content, while protecting Judaism from any similar harsh treatment. Levy’s double-standard thrives thanks to the milieu of Judaic theocratic supremacy which permeates the media salons and government bureaus of Europe.
Writers such as David Irving, Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf are imprisoned in Europe on what amounts to blasphemy charges and Lévy and the other manifesto signers have nothing to say in protest. The claim that these are intellectuals who desire to criticize “all dogmas,” is the joke of the month.
They can only get away with their flaming phoniness because a media monopoly with roots in a Judaic theocracy protects them, by ensuring that radical criticism of their nonsense is limited to obscure blogs and other cobwebbed corners of the Internet. No “credentialed” European mediacrats so much as holler the words “David Irving” at Lévy and Rushdie, those disgusting poseurs. Instead, they encourage them to primp and preen for the cameras, posing as the daring exponents of human freedom -- as defined by the rabbis.
Germar Rudolf, a research scientist, is in jail in Germany solely for having probed too deeply into the shrines and icons of Holocaustianity. But Monsieur Lévy and his co-signatories to the illustrious "manifesto" have not a single word of solidarity for this imprisoned heretic, precisely because they agree that he should be in jail.
The empty talk, shameless affectation and puffed-up sanctimony of Rushdie, Lévy and the other signers of the “manifesto,” is beyond nausea. We would wish to vomit out of our souls these scoundrels who mock freedom, but they are so vacuous and spectral, one cannot locate them even in a puddle of vomit.
Muslims of the world! Do not believe for a moment that Chafiq, Fourest, Ali, Lévy, Manji, Mozaffari, Namazie, Nasreen, Rushdie, Sfeir, Val and Warraq care anything for freedom of expression for "anti-semites" (critics of murderous, racist, sexist rabbinic doctrines), for "negationists" (revisionist researchers who doubt the theology of Holocaustianity); for Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf and other "apostates." The twelve fakers who signed the "manifesto" desire only the freedom to silence, penalize, assault and and jail, if possible, the opponents of reactionary Judaism, and nothing else.
Copyright©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
Associated Press Provides Israel with Protective Camouflage
by Michael A. Hoffman II
©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
This morning's Associated Press (AP) report ("Mofaz: Hamas PM Could Be Israeli Target"), on Israeli threats to assassinate the Palestinian Prime Minister-elect, is twenty-four paragraphs long but never once mentions the words "assassinate" or "assassination."
Instead, in line with Israel's own propaganda rule-book, the AP, one of the most staunchly Zionist wire services in the West, describes Israeli assassination by every protective camouflage it can summon, however awkward, terming assassination by the Zionist government, "Israeli pinpont attack."
Israeli assassinations are also called "air strikes," "targeted attacks" and "pinpointed Israeli killings" by the AP.
Western media policy directs that Israeli state murder of Palestinian suspects is seldom to be called assassination, even though similar allegations against Syria in Lebanon, are constantly reported by the western media and the AP in particular, as "assassination" and "murder."
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, himself a terrorist responsible for numerous massacres of Palestinian civilians, including in Jenin in April of 2002, is allowed by AP to refer to Hamas as a terror organization twice in one paragraph: "...Hamas, a terror organization...presents us with the challenge of having to confront a terror organization..."
And while the Palestinian Hamas party is described by the AP itself in no uncertain terms as possessed of a "violent, anti-Israel ideology," no similar assessment of the violent, anti-Palestinian ideology which prevails in Israel, is offered by the AP.
Finally, the Palestinian civilians killed in the March 6 terror bombing by Israel in Gaza City, including two children, are referred to by the Associated Press as "bystanders," not civilians, a bland euphemism which also conforms to the Israeli government's guidelines on how its actions are to be reported in the media.
In a majority of recent Associated Press stories, Israel's murder of Palestinians suspected of engaging in armed resistance against Zionist occupation is not called assassination; and the victims of Israeli terror bombings ("air strikes"), including children, are not described as civilians.
Why these dainty euphemisms on the part of the Associated Press when describing Israeli depredations? The protection of Israel's image is priority number one with the Associated Press. The AP does not want future historians to research AP dispatches on Israeli actions and find any significant citation of Palestinian "civilians" killed or leaders "assassinated."
Terrorists kill civilians and conduct assassinations. Israelis, by definition, are not and cannot be terrorists. The record must not be allowed to contradict the image.
[Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press]
MOFAZ: HAMAS PM COULD BE ISRAELI TARGET
by Amy Teibel | Associated Press Writer
4:10 AM PST, March 7, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top10mar07,0,2013629,print.story
JERUSALEM — Israel's acting prime minister vowed on Tuesday that his Kadima Party would shave billions off settlement spending, while his defense minister advised the incoming Palestinian prime minister to fear for his life if Hamas militants start attacking Israel again.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's comments marked the first time he said explicitly he would scale back funding for Israel's 40-year-old settlement enterprise, which has cost the state tens of billions of dollars.
Polls show Kadima significantly outstripping rivals in Israel's March 28 elections.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz's warning to Hamas, recently elected to rule the Palestinian Authority, was the first to identify Hamas' prime minister-designate, Ismail Haniyeh, as a potential target for an Israeli pinpoint attack.
"No one is immune," Mofaz told Army Radio, a day after an Israeli air strike on an ice cream truck killed two Islamic Jihad militants and three bystanders in Gaza City. Two of those killed were children, ages eight and 14.
Olmert, in a speech in Tel Aviv, said "billions" in settlement spending would be diverted to Jerusalem and to the Negev Desert and Galilee, underdeveloped areas in southern and northern Israel.
"It's no secret that we won't invest in coming years the same sums we once invested in construction and infrastructure development in areas over the Green Line," Olmert said, referring to Israel's frontier before the 1967 Mideast War.
Olmert took over from Ariel Sharon after the Israeli prime minister suffered a stroke Jan. 4. Olmert spoke just days after his main security adviser, Avi Dichter, said Kadima plans more unilateral withdrawals in the West Bank and hopes to draw its final border within four years.
Kadima, formed by Sharon in November to push ahead territorial pullbacks, has been slipping in the polls, and the recent policy disclosures were seen as an attempt to shore up support. Reducing Israel's presence in the West Bank after its summer pullout from the Gaza Strip is the key plank in Kadima's platform, and the party's main appeal to voters.
Settler leaders said Israel should invest more money in the settlements, not less.
"For the state of Israel to survive and exist, it has to deepen its presence and invest more in the settlements," said Noam Arnon, a spokesman for the small Jewish community in the West Bank city of Hebron.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat urged Israel to resume negotiations on a final peace deal immediately after the Israeli election.
"If they withdraw from the West Bank, and if we have the two-state solution, we can devote so many of the resources that now go to war and conflict, to reconciliation and peace," Erekat said.
Negotiations broke down years ago, and did not receive the hoped-for momentum from the Gaza withdrawal.
Prospects for renewing talks grew even dimmer after Hamas militants sworn to Israel's destruction won January parliamentary elections, reducing the maneuvering power of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected separately last year and favors a negotiated accord.
Hamas, which is in the process of forming a Cabinet, has rejected international calls to renounce its violent, anti-Israel ideology, but has maintained a year-old moratorium on suicide bombings.
On Tuesday, Mofaz warned that Hamas leaders, including the incoming prime minister, Haniyeh, could be targets of pinpointed Israeli killings.
Israel's policy of targeted killings has proven effective, and will continue, the defense minister said.
"There is no question about its efficacy," Mofaz said. "Look what happened to Hamas in the years it conducted an untrammeled suicide bombing war against us. When we started the targeted killings, the situation changed, he said, referring to Hamas' suspension of attacks.
Asked if Haniyeh would be a target if Hamas were to resume attacks, Mofaz replied: "If Hamas, a terror organization that doesn't recognize agreements with us and isn't willing to renounce violence, presents us with the challenge of having to confront a terror organization, then no one there will be immune. Not just Ismail Haniyeh. No one will be immune."
Haniyeh brushed aside Mofaz' warnings, and accused Israel of trying to disrupt the formation of a Hamas-led government. "The continued escalation aims to shed more Palestinian blood, confuse the situation and hamper ... the formation of the Palestinian government," he told The Associated Press at the Palestinian parliament.
Hamas headed into a domestic confrontation on Monday by voting to strip Abbas of powers his then-ruling Fatah Party granted him in its last session.
Fatah delegates walked out of parliament in protest, charging that Hamas was twisting the rules. On Tuesday, they boycotted the parliamentary session, and filed suit in the Palestinian Supreme Court to overturn Hamas' action.
The conflict between the two parties has been simmering since Hamas swept Fatah out of office in January.
[End quote]
©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
This morning's Associated Press (AP) report ("Mofaz: Hamas PM Could Be Israeli Target"), on Israeli threats to assassinate the Palestinian Prime Minister-elect, is twenty-four paragraphs long but never once mentions the words "assassinate" or "assassination."
Instead, in line with Israel's own propaganda rule-book, the AP, one of the most staunchly Zionist wire services in the West, describes Israeli assassination by every protective camouflage it can summon, however awkward, terming assassination by the Zionist government, "Israeli pinpont attack."
Israeli assassinations are also called "air strikes," "targeted attacks" and "pinpointed Israeli killings" by the AP.
Western media policy directs that Israeli state murder of Palestinian suspects is seldom to be called assassination, even though similar allegations against Syria in Lebanon, are constantly reported by the western media and the AP in particular, as "assassination" and "murder."
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, himself a terrorist responsible for numerous massacres of Palestinian civilians, including in Jenin in April of 2002, is allowed by AP to refer to Hamas as a terror organization twice in one paragraph: "...Hamas, a terror organization...presents us with the challenge of having to confront a terror organization..."
And while the Palestinian Hamas party is described by the AP itself in no uncertain terms as possessed of a "violent, anti-Israel ideology," no similar assessment of the violent, anti-Palestinian ideology which prevails in Israel, is offered by the AP.
Finally, the Palestinian civilians killed in the March 6 terror bombing by Israel in Gaza City, including two children, are referred to by the Associated Press as "bystanders," not civilians, a bland euphemism which also conforms to the Israeli government's guidelines on how its actions are to be reported in the media.
In a majority of recent Associated Press stories, Israel's murder of Palestinians suspected of engaging in armed resistance against Zionist occupation is not called assassination; and the victims of Israeli terror bombings ("air strikes"), including children, are not described as civilians.
Why these dainty euphemisms on the part of the Associated Press when describing Israeli depredations? The protection of Israel's image is priority number one with the Associated Press. The AP does not want future historians to research AP dispatches on Israeli actions and find any significant citation of Palestinian "civilians" killed or leaders "assassinated."
Terrorists kill civilians and conduct assassinations. Israelis, by definition, are not and cannot be terrorists. The record must not be allowed to contradict the image.
[Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press]
MOFAZ: HAMAS PM COULD BE ISRAELI TARGET
by Amy Teibel | Associated Press Writer
4:10 AM PST, March 7, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top10mar07,0,2013629,print.story
JERUSALEM — Israel's acting prime minister vowed on Tuesday that his Kadima Party would shave billions off settlement spending, while his defense minister advised the incoming Palestinian prime minister to fear for his life if Hamas militants start attacking Israel again.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's comments marked the first time he said explicitly he would scale back funding for Israel's 40-year-old settlement enterprise, which has cost the state tens of billions of dollars.
Polls show Kadima significantly outstripping rivals in Israel's March 28 elections.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz's warning to Hamas, recently elected to rule the Palestinian Authority, was the first to identify Hamas' prime minister-designate, Ismail Haniyeh, as a potential target for an Israeli pinpoint attack.
"No one is immune," Mofaz told Army Radio, a day after an Israeli air strike on an ice cream truck killed two Islamic Jihad militants and three bystanders in Gaza City. Two of those killed were children, ages eight and 14.
Olmert, in a speech in Tel Aviv, said "billions" in settlement spending would be diverted to Jerusalem and to the Negev Desert and Galilee, underdeveloped areas in southern and northern Israel.
"It's no secret that we won't invest in coming years the same sums we once invested in construction and infrastructure development in areas over the Green Line," Olmert said, referring to Israel's frontier before the 1967 Mideast War.
Olmert took over from Ariel Sharon after the Israeli prime minister suffered a stroke Jan. 4. Olmert spoke just days after his main security adviser, Avi Dichter, said Kadima plans more unilateral withdrawals in the West Bank and hopes to draw its final border within four years.
Kadima, formed by Sharon in November to push ahead territorial pullbacks, has been slipping in the polls, and the recent policy disclosures were seen as an attempt to shore up support. Reducing Israel's presence in the West Bank after its summer pullout from the Gaza Strip is the key plank in Kadima's platform, and the party's main appeal to voters.
Settler leaders said Israel should invest more money in the settlements, not less.
"For the state of Israel to survive and exist, it has to deepen its presence and invest more in the settlements," said Noam Arnon, a spokesman for the small Jewish community in the West Bank city of Hebron.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat urged Israel to resume negotiations on a final peace deal immediately after the Israeli election.
"If they withdraw from the West Bank, and if we have the two-state solution, we can devote so many of the resources that now go to war and conflict, to reconciliation and peace," Erekat said.
Negotiations broke down years ago, and did not receive the hoped-for momentum from the Gaza withdrawal.
Prospects for renewing talks grew even dimmer after Hamas militants sworn to Israel's destruction won January parliamentary elections, reducing the maneuvering power of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected separately last year and favors a negotiated accord.
Hamas, which is in the process of forming a Cabinet, has rejected international calls to renounce its violent, anti-Israel ideology, but has maintained a year-old moratorium on suicide bombings.
On Tuesday, Mofaz warned that Hamas leaders, including the incoming prime minister, Haniyeh, could be targets of pinpointed Israeli killings.
Israel's policy of targeted killings has proven effective, and will continue, the defense minister said.
"There is no question about its efficacy," Mofaz said. "Look what happened to Hamas in the years it conducted an untrammeled suicide bombing war against us. When we started the targeted killings, the situation changed, he said, referring to Hamas' suspension of attacks.
Asked if Haniyeh would be a target if Hamas were to resume attacks, Mofaz replied: "If Hamas, a terror organization that doesn't recognize agreements with us and isn't willing to renounce violence, presents us with the challenge of having to confront a terror organization, then no one there will be immune. Not just Ismail Haniyeh. No one will be immune."
Haniyeh brushed aside Mofaz' warnings, and accused Israel of trying to disrupt the formation of a Hamas-led government. "The continued escalation aims to shed more Palestinian blood, confuse the situation and hamper ... the formation of the Palestinian government," he told The Associated Press at the Palestinian parliament.
Hamas headed into a domestic confrontation on Monday by voting to strip Abbas of powers his then-ruling Fatah Party granted him in its last session.
Fatah delegates walked out of parliament in protest, charging that Hamas was twisting the rules. On Tuesday, they boycotted the parliamentary session, and filed suit in the Palestinian Supreme Court to overturn Hamas' action.
The conflict between the two parties has been simmering since Hamas swept Fatah out of office in January.
[End quote]
Friday, March 03, 2006
Writing and Reading Schedule for the Weekend of March 3, 2006
Writing:
I am working on Revisionist History Newsletter no. 40, "The Judaic Who Founded Communism (It wasn't Karl Marx)."
I am also writing an essay on Martin Luther which will serve as an introduction to a critical Luther anthology to be published soon. Toward that end, I am reading Heiko Oberman, Roland Bainton and Richard Marius, and on the High Church side of the aisle, Richard Rex.
Reading (for relaxation):
I often must read hundreds of pages a day in my professional work and when I feel I cannot look at another page, I look at a different page: the leaves of books that I find so utterly fascinating or profound that they relax or refresh me, allowing, after a time, my return to my professional pursuits with renewed zeal (or, failing that, at least attention).
I'm dipping into a marvelous illustrated history of Alcatraz Prison: "Alcatraz: A Definitive History of the Penitentiary Years" by Michael Esslinger. In the autumn of 2004 I haunted most of my favorite bookstores in Berkeley (Calif.) for this one and came up empty. I finally had to order it by mail. It's utterly enjoyable. I don't know if there's a moral to the story except perhaps that, compared with the inhuman conditions at Federal super-max prisons today (such as Florence, CO), Alcatraz was a decent place.
Dante I read for many reasons (does one need a reason to read Dante?!), not the least of which is the manner in which he handles corrupt churchmen. There have been a rum lot of popes and prelates lately. Dante affords the aggrieved satisfaction in many passages, for example in Canto 7 of The Inferno: " ...e papi e cardinali, in cui usa avarizia il suo soperchio."
Sitting in my office, I pronounce these words aloud, and more than once, and then a delicious sensation of being a co-conspirator with Maestro Alighieri comes over me, and Ratzinger troubles me no longer.
I am working on Revisionist History Newsletter no. 40, "The Judaic Who Founded Communism (It wasn't Karl Marx)."
I am also writing an essay on Martin Luther which will serve as an introduction to a critical Luther anthology to be published soon. Toward that end, I am reading Heiko Oberman, Roland Bainton and Richard Marius, and on the High Church side of the aisle, Richard Rex.
Reading (for relaxation):
I often must read hundreds of pages a day in my professional work and when I feel I cannot look at another page, I look at a different page: the leaves of books that I find so utterly fascinating or profound that they relax or refresh me, allowing, after a time, my return to my professional pursuits with renewed zeal (or, failing that, at least attention).
I'm dipping into a marvelous illustrated history of Alcatraz Prison: "Alcatraz: A Definitive History of the Penitentiary Years" by Michael Esslinger. In the autumn of 2004 I haunted most of my favorite bookstores in Berkeley (Calif.) for this one and came up empty. I finally had to order it by mail. It's utterly enjoyable. I don't know if there's a moral to the story except perhaps that, compared with the inhuman conditions at Federal super-max prisons today (such as Florence, CO), Alcatraz was a decent place.
Dante I read for many reasons (does one need a reason to read Dante?!), not the least of which is the manner in which he handles corrupt churchmen. There have been a rum lot of popes and prelates lately. Dante affords the aggrieved satisfaction in many passages, for example in Canto 7 of The Inferno: " ...e papi e cardinali, in cui usa avarizia il suo soperchio."
Sitting in my office, I pronounce these words aloud, and more than once, and then a delicious sensation of being a co-conspirator with Maestro Alighieri comes over me, and Ratzinger troubles me no longer.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Free David, but Don't Ignore Goliath
by Michael A. Hoffman II
Copyright©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
Peter Singer in yesterday's edition of the Jerusalem Post called for the release of imprisoned historian David Irving:
"Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: 'We apply the principle of freedom of expression evenhandedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews or anyone else."
My response to Mr. Singer is, that's a good start but it will take much more than that to convince the Muslims of a level playing field, because the constellation of Judaic censorship and repression extends far beyond the person of Mr. Irving.
To teach a lesson in democracy to Muslims, Google Video would have to reinstate "Deborah Lipstadt, 'Amalek' and David Irving" and well as "World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan" to its online video broadcasting.
Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf would have to be released from their jail and prison cells in Germany. Spielberg's poster girl would have to rescind her call for the expulsion of Prof. Arthur Butz from his classroom at Northwestern University. The ADL would have to lift its condemnation of the student newspaper at Northwestern for having published an essay by Butz which enraged the ADL.
That's one side of the coin. The other consists in creating a western culture that observes voluntary standards of respect for Jesus Christ and His mother. First, by ending Hollywood's routine ritual degradation of Jesus by taking His name in vain (using it as a swear word) upwards of ten or fifteen times in the average PG-13 or R-rated action-adventure movie. Even supposed 'family values" films such as Akiva Goldsman's script for "Cinderella Man" exhibit this putrid propensity.
The western media will also have to decide whether they wish to permit, as they do now, scathing attacks only on "radical Islam" while heavily censoring and attacking as "hate speech" detailed exposés of Judaism. As for example the Barnes and Noble book chain which, as a result of its relationship with ADL thought cops, refuses to stock or sell "Judaism's Strange Gods," while lying to inquirers by telling them "it is not available."
A colleague of mine, a graduate student at a university in the Midwest, writes:
"Just came across this Web site while doing research for my paper:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
To add to what you have recently written, writings like these are permitted while similar writings directed at Judaism and Judaics is strictly forbidden and usually dealt with swiftly and harshly. Imagine taking the quote below and contrasting it with quotes from the Talmud, Shulchan Aruch, etc. to expose rabbinic laws regarding non-Jews. Although there is some truth to this quote, my research has revealed that the laws regarding dhimmis were quite often enforced with great laxity in the Ottoman Empire and were dependent upon a number of factors, including who was in charge and the general state of affairs of the Empire."
Quote from Jihadwatch: "Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, 'protected people,' are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they 'feel themselves subdued' (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race."
The much-discussed Dhimmi status cannot hold a candle to the sub-human status accorded gentiles in the sacred writings of Judaism, including halakha. For example, the sacred book of the politically-powerful Chabad-Lubavitch movement, which is closely allied to Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff and President Bush, teaches that gentiles are soulless garbage. Judaism's teaching entails not merely second-class citizenship, as for Dhimmis in Islam, but sub-human status for non-Judaics who are then liable to mass murder and society-wide robbery.
In the infantilized playpen of the neo-cons, this information cannot be broached, must less freely discussed or studied, a fact of which the Muslims are fully cognizant. Judaism protects its racism and hate with an extensive taxonomy based on repeated invocation of tried and true name-calling intended to obstruct unfettered intellectual inquiry: anti-semitism; anti-semite.
Islam has no such Pavlovian vocabulary of accusation and intimidation pounded into our heads. Leftist accusations of "bias" are tame compared with the ferocity of the "antisemite" stigma, which effectively terminates discourse, speaking engagements, careers and reputations on the part of those who dare to apply the methods of a Daniel Pipes or a Franklin Graham to Judaism.
Singer's editorial in the Jerusalem Post is a welcome if toddling baby step on a vast peregrination away from the kind of Talmudic and Soviet-style Judaic tyranny now predominate in the West, toward the freedom that Judaic scholars and neo-con agitators enjoy with regard to both anti-Islamic agitation and their own holocaust denial -- of the February, 1945 Allied slaughter in Dresden and the August, 1982 Israeli slaughter in Beirut, to cite but two examples among many.
An absolutely, perfectly calibrated level playing field is neither likely or necessary. I would settle for a Western milieu in which Google Video tells Judaic commissars to go to hell, Arthur Butz is vigorously criticized for his views but lionized for his courage, and books like "Judaism's Strange Gods" are reviewed and debated from the pages of the New York Times to the halls of Stanford University.
We have nothing approaching that in contemporary America. In the past, Muslims were only dimly aware of the disparity. Now they are burning with indignation over the extent to which it is open season on "radical Islam's subjugation of women," but if Michael A. Hoffman II elucidates the Talmud tractate that advocates the poisoning of wives, he is a vile, vicious, virulent insect species of "antisemite."
By all means free David, but don't ignore Goliath.
Browse an extraordinary collection of Michael A. Hoffman's books, pamphlets, newsletters, speeches and films
Copyright©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
Peter Singer in yesterday's edition of the Jerusalem Post called for the release of imprisoned historian David Irving:
"Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: 'We apply the principle of freedom of expression evenhandedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews or anyone else."
My response to Mr. Singer is, that's a good start but it will take much more than that to convince the Muslims of a level playing field, because the constellation of Judaic censorship and repression extends far beyond the person of Mr. Irving.
To teach a lesson in democracy to Muslims, Google Video would have to reinstate "Deborah Lipstadt, 'Amalek' and David Irving" and well as "World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan" to its online video broadcasting.
Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf would have to be released from their jail and prison cells in Germany. Spielberg's poster girl would have to rescind her call for the expulsion of Prof. Arthur Butz from his classroom at Northwestern University. The ADL would have to lift its condemnation of the student newspaper at Northwestern for having published an essay by Butz which enraged the ADL.
That's one side of the coin. The other consists in creating a western culture that observes voluntary standards of respect for Jesus Christ and His mother. First, by ending Hollywood's routine ritual degradation of Jesus by taking His name in vain (using it as a swear word) upwards of ten or fifteen times in the average PG-13 or R-rated action-adventure movie. Even supposed 'family values" films such as Akiva Goldsman's script for "Cinderella Man" exhibit this putrid propensity.
The western media will also have to decide whether they wish to permit, as they do now, scathing attacks only on "radical Islam" while heavily censoring and attacking as "hate speech" detailed exposés of Judaism. As for example the Barnes and Noble book chain which, as a result of its relationship with ADL thought cops, refuses to stock or sell "Judaism's Strange Gods," while lying to inquirers by telling them "it is not available."
A colleague of mine, a graduate student at a university in the Midwest, writes:
"Just came across this Web site while doing research for my paper:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
To add to what you have recently written, writings like these are permitted while similar writings directed at Judaism and Judaics is strictly forbidden and usually dealt with swiftly and harshly. Imagine taking the quote below and contrasting it with quotes from the Talmud, Shulchan Aruch, etc. to expose rabbinic laws regarding non-Jews. Although there is some truth to this quote, my research has revealed that the laws regarding dhimmis were quite often enforced with great laxity in the Ottoman Empire and were dependent upon a number of factors, including who was in charge and the general state of affairs of the Empire."
Quote from Jihadwatch: "Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, 'protected people,' are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they 'feel themselves subdued' (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race."
The much-discussed Dhimmi status cannot hold a candle to the sub-human status accorded gentiles in the sacred writings of Judaism, including halakha. For example, the sacred book of the politically-powerful Chabad-Lubavitch movement, which is closely allied to Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff and President Bush, teaches that gentiles are soulless garbage. Judaism's teaching entails not merely second-class citizenship, as for Dhimmis in Islam, but sub-human status for non-Judaics who are then liable to mass murder and society-wide robbery.
In the infantilized playpen of the neo-cons, this information cannot be broached, must less freely discussed or studied, a fact of which the Muslims are fully cognizant. Judaism protects its racism and hate with an extensive taxonomy based on repeated invocation of tried and true name-calling intended to obstruct unfettered intellectual inquiry: anti-semitism; anti-semite.
Islam has no such Pavlovian vocabulary of accusation and intimidation pounded into our heads. Leftist accusations of "bias" are tame compared with the ferocity of the "antisemite" stigma, which effectively terminates discourse, speaking engagements, careers and reputations on the part of those who dare to apply the methods of a Daniel Pipes or a Franklin Graham to Judaism.
Singer's editorial in the Jerusalem Post is a welcome if toddling baby step on a vast peregrination away from the kind of Talmudic and Soviet-style Judaic tyranny now predominate in the West, toward the freedom that Judaic scholars and neo-con agitators enjoy with regard to both anti-Islamic agitation and their own holocaust denial -- of the February, 1945 Allied slaughter in Dresden and the August, 1982 Israeli slaughter in Beirut, to cite but two examples among many.
An absolutely, perfectly calibrated level playing field is neither likely or necessary. I would settle for a Western milieu in which Google Video tells Judaic commissars to go to hell, Arthur Butz is vigorously criticized for his views but lionized for his courage, and books like "Judaism's Strange Gods" are reviewed and debated from the pages of the New York Times to the halls of Stanford University.
We have nothing approaching that in contemporary America. In the past, Muslims were only dimly aware of the disparity. Now they are burning with indignation over the extent to which it is open season on "radical Islam's subjugation of women," but if Michael A. Hoffman II elucidates the Talmud tractate that advocates the poisoning of wives, he is a vile, vicious, virulent insect species of "antisemite."
By all means free David, but don't ignore Goliath.
Browse an extraordinary collection of Michael A. Hoffman's books, pamphlets, newsletters, speeches and films
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Jesus the Israelite, or Jesus the Jew?
A reader has questioned the "Never Treat Me Like a Gentile" column, as follows:
"This article also seems to differ in definitions than JSG ("Judaism's Strange Gods") did. I understood JSG to mean that the historical Jesus was an Israelite, but not what the New Testament refers to as part of the 'Jews'. That 'Jew' in its New Testament biblical usage referred to the temple click (clique) and the Pharisees and their 'oral tradition."
Hoffman replies:
No, that is not my opinion. Jesus and the Pharisees of the first century A.D. were of the same blood. The issue was not genetic, but spiritual and ideological, and remains so to this day, as evidenced by the exchange in John 8, where Jesus concedes that the Pharisees are physically descended of Abraham but not spiritually. Carnal Israel is not qualified to be called the children of Abraham.
Jesus was certainly both a Jew and an Israelite. Jew in its New Testament usage did not inherently denote or connote oral tradition. "Salvation is of the Jews" (i.e. of Jesus).
The oral tradition was a spiritual and ideological option that physical Israel could choose or reject. A few Pharisees (Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Saul of Tarsus) as well as many am-ha'aretz (peasant Jews) chose the Torah of YHVH and His Son, the Messiah of Israel, over Pharisaic Judaism's man-made oral tradition (committed to writing beginning in the third century AD, forming the Mishnah, the basis of the Talmud, the rival of the Torah for the allegiance of Israel).
I have not altered my views since writing "Judaism's Strange Gods." I continue to insist on the distinction, often missed by modern exegetes, that Jews (i.e. Judeans) were not the only ancient Israelites. Too often nowadays "Jew" or "Jews" is mistakenly used to describe all of the covenant people of the Old Testament. In the past, our forefathers invoked the terms "Hebrews" or "Israelites" as a more accurate general description for those people. Today, a combination of intellectual laziness and political correctness has led to the erroneous denomination of all Israelites as Jews.
But in this case, Jesus the Jew (Judean) is an authentic identification of the Messiah of Israel.
Michael A. Hoffman II
©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
Browse an extraordinary collection of Michael A. Hoffman's books, pamphlets, newsletters, speeches and films
"This article also seems to differ in definitions than JSG ("Judaism's Strange Gods") did. I understood JSG to mean that the historical Jesus was an Israelite, but not what the New Testament refers to as part of the 'Jews'. That 'Jew' in its New Testament biblical usage referred to the temple click (clique) and the Pharisees and their 'oral tradition."
Hoffman replies:
No, that is not my opinion. Jesus and the Pharisees of the first century A.D. were of the same blood. The issue was not genetic, but spiritual and ideological, and remains so to this day, as evidenced by the exchange in John 8, where Jesus concedes that the Pharisees are physically descended of Abraham but not spiritually. Carnal Israel is not qualified to be called the children of Abraham.
Jesus was certainly both a Jew and an Israelite. Jew in its New Testament usage did not inherently denote or connote oral tradition. "Salvation is of the Jews" (i.e. of Jesus).
The oral tradition was a spiritual and ideological option that physical Israel could choose or reject. A few Pharisees (Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea and Saul of Tarsus) as well as many am-ha'aretz (peasant Jews) chose the Torah of YHVH and His Son, the Messiah of Israel, over Pharisaic Judaism's man-made oral tradition (committed to writing beginning in the third century AD, forming the Mishnah, the basis of the Talmud, the rival of the Torah for the allegiance of Israel).
I have not altered my views since writing "Judaism's Strange Gods." I continue to insist on the distinction, often missed by modern exegetes, that Jews (i.e. Judeans) were not the only ancient Israelites. Too often nowadays "Jew" or "Jews" is mistakenly used to describe all of the covenant people of the Old Testament. In the past, our forefathers invoked the terms "Hebrews" or "Israelites" as a more accurate general description for those people. Today, a combination of intellectual laziness and political correctness has led to the erroneous denomination of all Israelites as Jews.
But in this case, Jesus the Jew (Judean) is an authentic identification of the Messiah of Israel.
Michael A. Hoffman II
©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
Browse an extraordinary collection of Michael A. Hoffman's books, pamphlets, newsletters, speeches and films
Never Treat Me Like a Gentile
by Michael A. Hoffman II
Copyright©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
"Never treat me like a gentile" -- that's what crooner Dean Martin used to sing in the 1950s, during his lounge act in Las Vegas, and Dino Crocetti was no Khazar.
Here below I have reprinted a NY Times report ("Poor and Muslim? Jewish? Soup Kitchen Is Not for You"), on clever political theater in France, by nationalists who for once include Zionists in their sights and not just Muslims, signifying that this is a protest not secretly sanctioned by the Cryptocracy, unlike so much of the patriot agitation in the United States, which can find no fault with Judaic aliens, only Muslim ones.
The Times tells of a soup kitchen that has been established for indigent gentile and Christian Parisians that has pork as the main ingredient, in order to keep away "Jews" and Muslims. But I would not eat this soup, and the fact that pig meat is the national dish of poor whites from Appalachia to the banks of the Seine is testimony to a certain amnesia.
I will not gainsay the panache of this pig soup street theatre, which uses the famous Gallic gastronomie to affirm and defend the rights of the natives with humor and wit.
Having conceded that ground, however, amid the levity I find it almost sad that a French patriot group named "Identity Bloc" imagines that pig meat consumption is an affirmation of their ancient heritage. I notice they fly the fleur-de-lis, not the Tri-Color, so in that respect at least they have a memory that predates Napoleon, Robespierre, Danton and the establishment of the masonic "Republic." By why go back only two hundred some years? Why not go all the way back, to our collective alpha?
When Mel Gibson cast a homely Khazar in the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in his movie, "The Passion" I protested and was denounced for it. I have since discovered that he produced a puppet theater version of Christ's life that has Jesus looking like someone from the Lower East Side. Poor Mel, like France's "Identity Bloc," he has forgotten his own identity and that of Jesus and Mary.
The occult has forever been trading on a great secret in Christendom and it didn't start with the distorter Dan Brown. Dr. John Dee put his own distorting spin on this buried truth to great advantage in Elizabethan England, thereby inventing the idea of the British empire with his "British Israel" concept, which Irish Catholics were taught to mock even though Gaelic has some startling Hebrew resonances. But the Irish were offended by Dee's spin, "British" Israel. Had they been told that they too were descended of the lost tribes of Israel, had the Catholic priests taught a concept of Irish Israel, things might have been different.
In the Book of Revelation at verse 2:9 and again at 3:9 there is a mysterious statement warning against "them who say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan." Who are these masqueraders? And while pondering that question, meditate on this: it was Jesus Christ who proclaimed, "Salvation is of the Jews."
So who made the term "Jew" a dirty word in western civilization? Who planted the double-mind schizophrenia that we worship a Jew but in the name of our ancient heritage we create a soup line where no Jews are allowed? A movement like that is bound to fail, as Hitler's failed and spectacularly so, for a house divided against itself cannot stand.
And what of the flesh of the Gadarene that Jesus chose to send the devils into and who subsequently rushed headlong into the sea and drowned themselves? What food was it that hastened the death of actor Yul Brynner? What flesh is loaded with parasites? The answer in every case, is the pig, an intelligent though not very noble creature, and a pitiful choice for totemic animal of resurgent white Christendom.
The fact is, as a host of Judaic and Khazar researchers from Paul Wexler to Kevin Alan Brook have demonstrated, today's so-called Jews aren't -- true Jews, that is. They have been grafted onto the stock of the genetic stew that has been boiling since the legions of Titus and Hadrian put paid to the earthly ambitions of Jerusalem; a stew that chose to be not the people of The Book, but the people of the books (of the Talmud), and who eschew pork not because the Old Testament proscribes it, but because in Khazaria the pig is a sacred animal.
France's "Identity Bloc" have forgotten their identity as true Jews, descendants of the lost tribes, the people responsible for the dissemination of the Scriptures and Biblical civilization throughout the world.
Pork soup? Never treat me like a gentile.
--------------------------------------------
Poor and Muslim? Jewish? Soup Kitchen Is Not for You
New York Times | February 28, 2006
By Craig S. Smith
PARIS — More than 200 political demonstrators defied a police ban here on Thursday, scurrying across Boulevard St.-Germain and under the sycamore trees of Place Maubert to engage in their forbidden action: eating "pig soup" in public.
With steaming bowls of the fragrant broth soon passing through the crowd, Odile Bonnivard, a short-haired secretary turned far-right firebrand, climbed atop a dark sedan with a megaphone in hand and led the crowd in a raucous chant: "We are all pig eaters! We are all pig eaters!"
Identity soup, as the broth has come to be called, is one of the stranger manifestations of a growing grass-roots backlash against the multiculturalism that has spread through Europe over the past 20 years. People are increasingly challenging the care taken in Nazi-chastened Europe, and in France in particular, to avoid the sort of racial or religious insults that led to widespread protests in the Muslim world this month after wide publication of cartoons considered offensive to the Prophet Muhammad.
The movement began in the winter of 2003 when Ms. Bonnivard, a member of a small far-right nationalist movement called the Identity Bloc, began serving hot soup to the homeless. At first, she said, the group used pork simply because it was an inexpensive traditional ingredient for hearty French soup. But after the political significance of serving pork dawned on them and others, it quickly became the focus of their work.
Made with smoked bacon, pigs' ears, pigs' feet and pigs' tails together with assorted vegetables and sausages, the soup is meant to make a political statement: "Help our own before others."
The "others," Ms. Bonnivard explained, are non-European immigrants who she and her colleagues on the far right say are sopping up scarce resources that ought to be used for descendants of the Continent's original inhabitants. In other words, the soup is meant to exclude those who do not eat pork — for the most part, Muslims and Jews.
"Other communities don't hesitate to help their own, so why can't we?" she asked, noting that Europe's Islamic charities serve halal food to disadvantaged Muslims and that its Jewish charities operate kosher soup kitchens.
Fair enough, one might argue, but this is France, where there is little tolerance for anything that challenges the republic's egalitarian ideals.
The authorities initially left the pork-soup kitchen alone, shutting it down only once to avoid an altercation with a group of indignant French leftists. Then came the riots that swept France in October and November last year, waking the government to the deep alienation felt by Muslim youth. As winter closed in and other pork-soup kitchens run by similar-minded groups popped up in Strasbourg and Nice — and in Brussels, Antwerp and Charleroi in Belgium — authorities worried that they might be witnessing the start of a dangerous racist-tinged trend.
In December, Ms. Bonnivard said, a van of plainclothes police chased her soup-bearing car through the streets, and several busloads of officers arrived to stop her group from setting up at their usual spot near the Montparnasse train station, citing "the discriminatory nature of the soup."
She and her fellow soup servers filed an appeal. A Paris police spokesman said the appeal was pending and would be decided "on the basis of the current regulations, in particular concerning risks to public order and incitement to racial hatred."
They have been playing cat and mouse with the authorities since then.
Ms. Bonnivard talks glowingly of the camaraderie engendered by her group's gatherings, whose motive, she said, is to defend European culture and identity. "Our freedom in France is being threatened," she said. "If we prefer European civilization and Christian culture, that's our choice."
Even newly arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe are more welcome than Muslims from North Africa, she said, a sentiment shared by some of the diners.
"At least here there are people who are of the same mind as me," said a woman named Hélène, 61, who is not homeless but comes for soup because she has little money left for food after paying her rent. "The French, and the Europeans in general, roll over for foreigners, and particularly Islam."
This being France, most soup kitchens provide the downtrodden with a complete French dinner, including cheese and dessert. Ms. Bonnivard's group even throws in a glass of red wine with every meal.
"The only condition required for dining with us: eat pork," reads the group's Web site, which bears the image of a wanted poster for a cartoon pig in a pot framed by the words, "Wanted, Cooked or Raw, Public Enemy No. 1."
The police initially granted permission for the "European solidarity feast" that Ms. Bonnivard's and the other right-wing soup kitchens planned last Thursday. But the authorities called late Wednesday evening to say the permission had been revoked. Officers appeared at Ms. Bonnivard's apartment at 6 a.m. Thursday to deliver a written notice prohibiting the pork-eating rally.
By evening, four police vans filled with anti-riot police officers were waiting at the group's designated meeting point outside a conservative Roman Catholic church while Ms. Bonnivard and her associates huddled in a nearby cafe, plotting diversionary tactics so they could serve their soup before the police could intervene.
"They're more afraid of us than any march by Islamists or Jews," Ms. Bonnivard's husband, Roger, declared as people slurped soup around him. (In the end, despite the official ban, the police did not intervene.)
Bruno Gollnisch, the silver-haired No. 2 in the far-right National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen, mingled in the crowd, calling the "persecution" of the soup kitchen a "betrayal of the French identity." Others handed out slices of oily sausage as flags bearing the French fleur-de-lis fluttered overhead. There wasn't a police officer in sight. "We're not yet living in a land of Islam," Ms. Bonnivard bellowed from atop the sedan.
Browse an extraordinary collection of Michael A. Hoffman's books, pamphlets, newsletters, speeches and films
Copyright©2006 RevisionistHistory.org
"Never treat me like a gentile" -- that's what crooner Dean Martin used to sing in the 1950s, during his lounge act in Las Vegas, and Dino Crocetti was no Khazar.
Here below I have reprinted a NY Times report ("Poor and Muslim? Jewish? Soup Kitchen Is Not for You"), on clever political theater in France, by nationalists who for once include Zionists in their sights and not just Muslims, signifying that this is a protest not secretly sanctioned by the Cryptocracy, unlike so much of the patriot agitation in the United States, which can find no fault with Judaic aliens, only Muslim ones.
The Times tells of a soup kitchen that has been established for indigent gentile and Christian Parisians that has pork as the main ingredient, in order to keep away "Jews" and Muslims. But I would not eat this soup, and the fact that pig meat is the national dish of poor whites from Appalachia to the banks of the Seine is testimony to a certain amnesia.
I will not gainsay the panache of this pig soup street theatre, which uses the famous Gallic gastronomie to affirm and defend the rights of the natives with humor and wit.
Having conceded that ground, however, amid the levity I find it almost sad that a French patriot group named "Identity Bloc" imagines that pig meat consumption is an affirmation of their ancient heritage. I notice they fly the fleur-de-lis, not the Tri-Color, so in that respect at least they have a memory that predates Napoleon, Robespierre, Danton and the establishment of the masonic "Republic." By why go back only two hundred some years? Why not go all the way back, to our collective alpha?
When Mel Gibson cast a homely Khazar in the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in his movie, "The Passion" I protested and was denounced for it. I have since discovered that he produced a puppet theater version of Christ's life that has Jesus looking like someone from the Lower East Side. Poor Mel, like France's "Identity Bloc," he has forgotten his own identity and that of Jesus and Mary.
The occult has forever been trading on a great secret in Christendom and it didn't start with the distorter Dan Brown. Dr. John Dee put his own distorting spin on this buried truth to great advantage in Elizabethan England, thereby inventing the idea of the British empire with his "British Israel" concept, which Irish Catholics were taught to mock even though Gaelic has some startling Hebrew resonances. But the Irish were offended by Dee's spin, "British" Israel. Had they been told that they too were descended of the lost tribes of Israel, had the Catholic priests taught a concept of Irish Israel, things might have been different.
In the Book of Revelation at verse 2:9 and again at 3:9 there is a mysterious statement warning against "them who say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan." Who are these masqueraders? And while pondering that question, meditate on this: it was Jesus Christ who proclaimed, "Salvation is of the Jews."
So who made the term "Jew" a dirty word in western civilization? Who planted the double-mind schizophrenia that we worship a Jew but in the name of our ancient heritage we create a soup line where no Jews are allowed? A movement like that is bound to fail, as Hitler's failed and spectacularly so, for a house divided against itself cannot stand.
And what of the flesh of the Gadarene that Jesus chose to send the devils into and who subsequently rushed headlong into the sea and drowned themselves? What food was it that hastened the death of actor Yul Brynner? What flesh is loaded with parasites? The answer in every case, is the pig, an intelligent though not very noble creature, and a pitiful choice for totemic animal of resurgent white Christendom.
The fact is, as a host of Judaic and Khazar researchers from Paul Wexler to Kevin Alan Brook have demonstrated, today's so-called Jews aren't -- true Jews, that is. They have been grafted onto the stock of the genetic stew that has been boiling since the legions of Titus and Hadrian put paid to the earthly ambitions of Jerusalem; a stew that chose to be not the people of The Book, but the people of the books (of the Talmud), and who eschew pork not because the Old Testament proscribes it, but because in Khazaria the pig is a sacred animal.
France's "Identity Bloc" have forgotten their identity as true Jews, descendants of the lost tribes, the people responsible for the dissemination of the Scriptures and Biblical civilization throughout the world.
Pork soup? Never treat me like a gentile.
--------------------------------------------
Poor and Muslim? Jewish? Soup Kitchen Is Not for You
New York Times | February 28, 2006
By Craig S. Smith
PARIS — More than 200 political demonstrators defied a police ban here on Thursday, scurrying across Boulevard St.-Germain and under the sycamore trees of Place Maubert to engage in their forbidden action: eating "pig soup" in public.
With steaming bowls of the fragrant broth soon passing through the crowd, Odile Bonnivard, a short-haired secretary turned far-right firebrand, climbed atop a dark sedan with a megaphone in hand and led the crowd in a raucous chant: "We are all pig eaters! We are all pig eaters!"
Identity soup, as the broth has come to be called, is one of the stranger manifestations of a growing grass-roots backlash against the multiculturalism that has spread through Europe over the past 20 years. People are increasingly challenging the care taken in Nazi-chastened Europe, and in France in particular, to avoid the sort of racial or religious insults that led to widespread protests in the Muslim world this month after wide publication of cartoons considered offensive to the Prophet Muhammad.
The movement began in the winter of 2003 when Ms. Bonnivard, a member of a small far-right nationalist movement called the Identity Bloc, began serving hot soup to the homeless. At first, she said, the group used pork simply because it was an inexpensive traditional ingredient for hearty French soup. But after the political significance of serving pork dawned on them and others, it quickly became the focus of their work.
Made with smoked bacon, pigs' ears, pigs' feet and pigs' tails together with assorted vegetables and sausages, the soup is meant to make a political statement: "Help our own before others."
The "others," Ms. Bonnivard explained, are non-European immigrants who she and her colleagues on the far right say are sopping up scarce resources that ought to be used for descendants of the Continent's original inhabitants. In other words, the soup is meant to exclude those who do not eat pork — for the most part, Muslims and Jews.
"Other communities don't hesitate to help their own, so why can't we?" she asked, noting that Europe's Islamic charities serve halal food to disadvantaged Muslims and that its Jewish charities operate kosher soup kitchens.
Fair enough, one might argue, but this is France, where there is little tolerance for anything that challenges the republic's egalitarian ideals.
The authorities initially left the pork-soup kitchen alone, shutting it down only once to avoid an altercation with a group of indignant French leftists. Then came the riots that swept France in October and November last year, waking the government to the deep alienation felt by Muslim youth. As winter closed in and other pork-soup kitchens run by similar-minded groups popped up in Strasbourg and Nice — and in Brussels, Antwerp and Charleroi in Belgium — authorities worried that they might be witnessing the start of a dangerous racist-tinged trend.
In December, Ms. Bonnivard said, a van of plainclothes police chased her soup-bearing car through the streets, and several busloads of officers arrived to stop her group from setting up at their usual spot near the Montparnasse train station, citing "the discriminatory nature of the soup."
She and her fellow soup servers filed an appeal. A Paris police spokesman said the appeal was pending and would be decided "on the basis of the current regulations, in particular concerning risks to public order and incitement to racial hatred."
They have been playing cat and mouse with the authorities since then.
Ms. Bonnivard talks glowingly of the camaraderie engendered by her group's gatherings, whose motive, she said, is to defend European culture and identity. "Our freedom in France is being threatened," she said. "If we prefer European civilization and Christian culture, that's our choice."
Even newly arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe are more welcome than Muslims from North Africa, she said, a sentiment shared by some of the diners.
"At least here there are people who are of the same mind as me," said a woman named Hélène, 61, who is not homeless but comes for soup because she has little money left for food after paying her rent. "The French, and the Europeans in general, roll over for foreigners, and particularly Islam."
This being France, most soup kitchens provide the downtrodden with a complete French dinner, including cheese and dessert. Ms. Bonnivard's group even throws in a glass of red wine with every meal.
"The only condition required for dining with us: eat pork," reads the group's Web site, which bears the image of a wanted poster for a cartoon pig in a pot framed by the words, "Wanted, Cooked or Raw, Public Enemy No. 1."
The police initially granted permission for the "European solidarity feast" that Ms. Bonnivard's and the other right-wing soup kitchens planned last Thursday. But the authorities called late Wednesday evening to say the permission had been revoked. Officers appeared at Ms. Bonnivard's apartment at 6 a.m. Thursday to deliver a written notice prohibiting the pork-eating rally.
By evening, four police vans filled with anti-riot police officers were waiting at the group's designated meeting point outside a conservative Roman Catholic church while Ms. Bonnivard and her associates huddled in a nearby cafe, plotting diversionary tactics so they could serve their soup before the police could intervene.
"They're more afraid of us than any march by Islamists or Jews," Ms. Bonnivard's husband, Roger, declared as people slurped soup around him. (In the end, despite the official ban, the police did not intervene.)
Bruno Gollnisch, the silver-haired No. 2 in the far-right National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen, mingled in the crowd, calling the "persecution" of the soup kitchen a "betrayal of the French identity." Others handed out slices of oily sausage as flags bearing the French fleur-de-lis fluttered overhead. There wasn't a police officer in sight. "We're not yet living in a land of Islam," Ms. Bonnivard bellowed from atop the sedan.
Browse an extraordinary collection of Michael A. Hoffman's books, pamphlets, newsletters, speeches and films
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Revenge of the censored
Prior to Google's censorship of two of our three videos online at "Google Video" (see previous blog entries) our sole remaining online Google video, "The Judaic Role in the Black Slave Trade" was averaging 35 viewers a day. Since the suppression of the other two, it is averaging nearly 500 viewers a day, more than ten times the previous figure!
As visitors to our website are aware, the suppressed videos are now available for purchase on DVD, as well.
If the Zionist thought cops imagined that their clout with Google Video would intimidate us into inaction or depair, they were wrong, as usual!
As visitors to our website are aware, the suppressed videos are now available for purchase on DVD, as well.
If the Zionist thought cops imagined that their clout with Google Video would intimidate us into inaction or depair, they were wrong, as usual!
Monday, February 27, 2006
Just when you thought Judaic supremacy couldn't get any more surreal...
...along comes news that Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has been suspended from office for four weeks "...for comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard." The mayor refused to apologize to the reporter since the exchange with journalist Oliver Finegold a year ago. A powerful Zionist organization, the Board of Deputies of British "Jews," lodged an official complaint that Mr. Livingstone had broken the ethical code of conduct covering his office. The British government ruled that Mayor Livingstone had been "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive" to Mr. Finegold. (Cf. "Court Suspends London's Mayor for 4 Weeks," New York Times February 24, 2006).
We have been mindful for some years of the emergence of a caste of Holy People with whom the normal give-and-take of rough and tumble political discourse is no longer possible, and now their ego-inflation has reached such stratospheric heights that the democratically-elected mayor of one of the world's great cities loses his post for a month because he slighted one of these Holy Personages.
Be mindful too, that this horrid little turn of mental midgetry is perpetrated in the name of the Jews by a British "board of deputies" (who's the sheriff?). Since Thom Jefferson swore eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man, it would be a truly American and quintessentially Jeffersonian act to feel hostility toward this so-called "Board of Deputies of British Jews."
No matter how much the hate-sniffing squad of correct politics tries to point an opposite finger in this case, every Jeffersonian in his or her heart is going to feel hostility toward those who have tyrannized this mayor (who is no angel by the way, he once banned Prof. Tony Martin from speaking at a London conference; but it is the principle which is the issue, not "Red Ken" himself).
The suspension of the mayor for using strong language in an exchange with Mr. Finegold, which, had similar invective been directed at the rest of us mere plebes, we would have had to grin and bear it, surely stirs some smoldering antipathy towards "Jews" in society at large.
But don't be gulled! Who says "Jews" in England are represented by this "Board of Deputies" who speak in the name of "the Jews"? This is the equivalent of a black ops campaign in which Zionists and Talmudists front ever more outrageous Orwellian thought control against a Gentile in the name of "the Jews." Why don't they call themselves the Board of Deputies of British Talmudists, or Zionists?
The Board would then draw the resulting simmering hostility of the Gentles toward Zionism and Judaism, rather than toward the Jews, whose self-apponted spokesmen they are. Here we see the mechanism of "Jew hate" concocted by Zionists and rabbis. So who are the actual "Jew haters" and who is it that fuels so-called "anti-semitism"? Don't be one of the robots. Be aware of this manipulative mechanism on the part of people who are usually anything but Jews --Khazars, Turko-Mongolians and mamzerut of every shade and hue--who seek to latch on to the prestige of the name "Jew" to propel the hidden agenda of their poisonous Talmudic-Hegelian-Zionist ideology, in the name of the Jews.
When others come along who actually do something positive for the defense of the reputation of the Jews, like Prof. Norman Finkelstein or the late Prof. Israel Shahak, they are labeled a "Nazi collaborator" (that is the latest disgusting Zionist smear against Finkelstein's mother), or in Shahak's case, accused by Talmudists of consorting with neo-Nazis, even though it is the Zionists and the Talmudists who fulfill a Nazi-like function by damaging the name of the Jews by associating that name with intellectual tyranny.
Israeli-Gemany (or whatever one wishes to call a nation hostage to a government whose spies helped the US military penetrate Iraq's defenses at the start of Bush's invasion of Iraq ["German Intelligence Gave U.S. Iraqi Defense Plan, Report Says," NY Times, Feb. 27, 2006], now has its prosecutors working on an indictment charging Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the "crime" of "Holocaust denial."
Zionist Ervin Eran Shahar filed the indictment against the Iranian President on behalf of the Civil Coalition, a "civil rights" (whose rights?) NGO active in Israel. The 56-page indictment was delivered to the German Federal Prosecutors Office in Karlsruhe, Germany, on Feb. 21. It charges that President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly expressed doubt that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War Two, a crime in Germany punishable with up to five years in prison.
The President of Iran "should be investigated for inciting racial hatred, defiling the dead and denying the Holocaust. He should also be investigated according to international conventions and international law for violating the rights of Jews to security, to life and to freedom," the indictment says. The prosecutors office in Karlsruhe was not immediately available for comment. The German prosecutors will have to assess legal questions like jurisdiction, possible immunity from prosecution and whether Ahmadinejad could be tried in absentia.
Although Ahmadinejad has not publicly "denied the Holocaust" on German soil, Shahar argues in his indictment that there are firm legal grounds for bringing charges in Germany. "In the case of the actual criminal indictment - the crime as described is directly linked to Germany, committed among others, against German nationals of Jewish descent -- so it is expected that the Federal Prosecutor will decide to prosecute." (Cf. Reuters and Haaretz, "Israeli lawyer files charges in Germany against Iranian leader," Feb. 22, 2006).
Finally, there is a call for the suppression of an anti-American, anti-Zionist movie made in Turkey, "Valley of the Wolves," now showing in German movie theaters among Turkish immigrants. Cinemaxx, one of Germany's largest cinema chains, announced that it was withdrawing the film. Bavaria's interior minister admitted last week that he had dispatched intelligence service agents to cinemas showing the film to "gauge" audience reaction and identify potential radicals. (cf. "Outcry in Germany as anti-Semitic film sells out," Telegraph [UK], Feb. 26, 2008).
To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, "There mark what ills the revisionist’s life assail— poverty, toil, the censor, and the jail."
We have been mindful for some years of the emergence of a caste of Holy People with whom the normal give-and-take of rough and tumble political discourse is no longer possible, and now their ego-inflation has reached such stratospheric heights that the democratically-elected mayor of one of the world's great cities loses his post for a month because he slighted one of these Holy Personages.
Be mindful too, that this horrid little turn of mental midgetry is perpetrated in the name of the Jews by a British "board of deputies" (who's the sheriff?). Since Thom Jefferson swore eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man, it would be a truly American and quintessentially Jeffersonian act to feel hostility toward this so-called "Board of Deputies of British Jews."
No matter how much the hate-sniffing squad of correct politics tries to point an opposite finger in this case, every Jeffersonian in his or her heart is going to feel hostility toward those who have tyrannized this mayor (who is no angel by the way, he once banned Prof. Tony Martin from speaking at a London conference; but it is the principle which is the issue, not "Red Ken" himself).
The suspension of the mayor for using strong language in an exchange with Mr. Finegold, which, had similar invective been directed at the rest of us mere plebes, we would have had to grin and bear it, surely stirs some smoldering antipathy towards "Jews" in society at large.
But don't be gulled! Who says "Jews" in England are represented by this "Board of Deputies" who speak in the name of "the Jews"? This is the equivalent of a black ops campaign in which Zionists and Talmudists front ever more outrageous Orwellian thought control against a Gentile in the name of "the Jews." Why don't they call themselves the Board of Deputies of British Talmudists, or Zionists?
The Board would then draw the resulting simmering hostility of the Gentles toward Zionism and Judaism, rather than toward the Jews, whose self-apponted spokesmen they are. Here we see the mechanism of "Jew hate" concocted by Zionists and rabbis. So who are the actual "Jew haters" and who is it that fuels so-called "anti-semitism"? Don't be one of the robots. Be aware of this manipulative mechanism on the part of people who are usually anything but Jews --Khazars, Turko-Mongolians and mamzerut of every shade and hue--who seek to latch on to the prestige of the name "Jew" to propel the hidden agenda of their poisonous Talmudic-Hegelian-Zionist ideology, in the name of the Jews.
When others come along who actually do something positive for the defense of the reputation of the Jews, like Prof. Norman Finkelstein or the late Prof. Israel Shahak, they are labeled a "Nazi collaborator" (that is the latest disgusting Zionist smear against Finkelstein's mother), or in Shahak's case, accused by Talmudists of consorting with neo-Nazis, even though it is the Zionists and the Talmudists who fulfill a Nazi-like function by damaging the name of the Jews by associating that name with intellectual tyranny.
Israeli-Gemany (or whatever one wishes to call a nation hostage to a government whose spies helped the US military penetrate Iraq's defenses at the start of Bush's invasion of Iraq ["German Intelligence Gave U.S. Iraqi Defense Plan, Report Says," NY Times, Feb. 27, 2006], now has its prosecutors working on an indictment charging Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the "crime" of "Holocaust denial."
Zionist Ervin Eran Shahar filed the indictment against the Iranian President on behalf of the Civil Coalition, a "civil rights" (whose rights?) NGO active in Israel. The 56-page indictment was delivered to the German Federal Prosecutors Office in Karlsruhe, Germany, on Feb. 21. It charges that President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly expressed doubt that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War Two, a crime in Germany punishable with up to five years in prison.
The President of Iran "should be investigated for inciting racial hatred, defiling the dead and denying the Holocaust. He should also be investigated according to international conventions and international law for violating the rights of Jews to security, to life and to freedom," the indictment says. The prosecutors office in Karlsruhe was not immediately available for comment. The German prosecutors will have to assess legal questions like jurisdiction, possible immunity from prosecution and whether Ahmadinejad could be tried in absentia.
Although Ahmadinejad has not publicly "denied the Holocaust" on German soil, Shahar argues in his indictment that there are firm legal grounds for bringing charges in Germany. "In the case of the actual criminal indictment - the crime as described is directly linked to Germany, committed among others, against German nationals of Jewish descent -- so it is expected that the Federal Prosecutor will decide to prosecute." (Cf. Reuters and Haaretz, "Israeli lawyer files charges in Germany against Iranian leader," Feb. 22, 2006).
Finally, there is a call for the suppression of an anti-American, anti-Zionist movie made in Turkey, "Valley of the Wolves," now showing in German movie theaters among Turkish immigrants. Cinemaxx, one of Germany's largest cinema chains, announced that it was withdrawing the film. Bavaria's interior minister admitted last week that he had dispatched intelligence service agents to cinemas showing the film to "gauge" audience reaction and identify potential radicals. (cf. "Outcry in Germany as anti-Semitic film sells out," Telegraph [UK], Feb. 26, 2008).
To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, "There mark what ills the revisionist’s life assail— poverty, toil, the censor, and the jail."
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Lipstadt Claims to Support Broadcast of Hoffman's Videos
In the wake of the removal by Google of two of my videos from their online broadcasting service, Deborah Lipstadt in her Feb. 23 blog is now pretending that my video (Deborah Lipstadt, "Amalek" and David Irving) never troubled her. See:
http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2006/02/google-censors-antisemitic-video-and-i.html
She claims to have showed segments of it to her students (not the whole speech, of course) in order, it seems, to give them a zoological exhibition of species antisemiticus: "blatant example of the venomous hatred... a prime illustration of...delusional conspiracy theories."
These are the stock-in-trade cliches in which any original thinker is branded when any radical critique of a votary of Holocaustianity, Judaism or the alleged Auschwitz execution gas chambers obtains an audience.
Thus far Prof. Lipstadt has written in her weblog on three separate occasions concerning my now suppressed video, "Lipstadt/Amalek/Irving," beginning with her Jan. 27 entry and running through today, Feb. 23.
While my video was still online and being broadcast, she was not nearly so comfortable, or cavalier about the audience it was gaining.
Only after her partisans successfully pressured Google to remove it (Google had no problems with it initially; Google has admitted it removed the videos only in response to complaints), she relaxed and posed as a champion of Google's broadcast of it. Note bene: these are sentiments she did not express while the video was online, only after it was censored and it looked as though the onus for the censorship might fall on her, did she state her opposition to the censorship.
Lipstadt does not want this censorship laid at her door or even within her camp, so she behaves as though the video of my speech never troubled her in the least, in fact it is an advertisement for the neanderthal spirit against which she and the forces of goodness are arrayed!
There are a couple of problems with this pose. Anyone who examines her two extended descriptions of my speech (the third is a brief allusion) will note a central evasion on her part. She never deals even tangentially with the main point of my talk, her identification of Mr. Irving as "Amalek" (more properly, an Amalekite). The understanding of how this term is applied to revisionists and Palestinians is a key to the comprehension of the Zionist-supremacist mentality.
Who is Amalek? What is required that Judaics do with Amalek? How is this requirement implemented today?
Lipstadt has not entertained these questions. Instead she puts me in the Judaic zoo where they keep on display the delusional conspiracy theorists, the haters of the Jewish people etc., where my humanity and intellect can be denied, where no one need confront the issues I raise or answer the points I make, where I am a species (antisemiticus), rather than an an eccentric but sincere researcher, a delving investigator, a thought-diver, as Melville called it.
As a species, we are all alike and we therefore have nothing to say. My study of Lipstadt and Amalek is just standard fare. All the anti-semites talk that way, as Lipstadt implies: "At least I know that there is lots more of this kind of stuff out there and I will easily find a replacement for this video."
That is how her public is to relate to me, in contemptuous psychiatric and criminological terms. No decent member of her audience is supposed to wander outside those boundaries, to ask, "Prof. Lipstadt, why did you and your colleagues label David Irving Amalek at a time when Orthodox Judaics were labeling Arabs as Amalek, the better to drive them from their land and kill them? Moreover, what does Orthodox Judaism require that Judaics do with Amalek?"
These are the serious and provocative questions that are not answered or even mentioned by Lipstadt and without being prodded by this writer, Lipstadt dares not broach. This is why, when my video was being broadcast and it was not certain that Google would withdraw it, she was not quite so sanguine about it as she is now, calling it a "revolting video attack...dripping with hatred... but, if you want to see what these people are like, it's worth watching. Just be forewarned: you need a strong stomach."
The accusation of "dripping with hatred" is Pavlovian. It is cited without proof or evidence because it is certain to evoke an automatic response from the votaries of Holocaustianity. My speech is an exposé of hatred, a jeremiad against assassination, dehumanization and "the howl of the primitive."
If Lipstadt's claim that she is sorry to see that my video has been removed by Google is sincere, she can write to Dr. Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO and request that the video be restored to online broadcast status.
I do not believe she will do this however, based in part on her approach to the trial of David Irving. She went on record as being opposed to his prosecution and then did nothing meaningful to prevent it. It seems to me that she relished his conviction and prison sentence, all cant to the contrary, as evidenced by the following statement in her Feb. 20 blog; "David Irving brought this down on himself....He knew the law in that country and yet he flagrantly violated it. As my friend Ken Stern said: if you don't like Thai drug laws, don't go to Thailand."
I think this is probably the real face of Janus Lipstadt. Her sentiments trivialize Irving's martyrdom in the cause of freedom of speech. Because he tested the Orwellian Austrian laws against "Holocaust" dissent he "brought it (three years imprisonment) on himself." In other words, he should have turned tail and ran and left the dictatorial status quo in Austria in place. Is this how freedom has been extended in the past? By truckling servility?
Observe the mocking quality of Stern's remark: comparing a writer to a drug trafficker, and Austria's mind control law to a narcotics law.
I am willing to appear in Deborah Lipstadt's classroom on camera, for the videotaped record. She need not violate her self-imposed taboo and debate me. I will simply answer questions from her students about Amalek, Irving and Lipstadt. Then let's submit the unedited videotape of the discussion to Google, with Lipstadt's imprimatur (which will tend to guarantee its broadcast and longevity).
If my work represents no threat to your house of cards, then accept the challenge, Prof. Lipstadt.
Meanwhile, your noblesse oblige, exhibited after my video has been safely placed in the trash by Google, is transparent dissimulation.
That's what Yiddsh would describe as "a sheyne mayse."
I am a true Jew. Zionism, the Talmud and "Holocaust" victimology are the enemies of the Jews. The big lies you retail about me do not alter the facts.
It was Jew-haters who wrote the Talmud and concocted Zionism.
My ideas should be a subject for healthy curiosity, honest inquiry, dialogue and contemplation and I am ready to engage with anyone of good will on those terms.
Or will the response be ever more supercilious jargon about "delusional conspiracy theories" and "hate," as a means for obstructing the free exchange of ideas, personal growth and genuine learning?
For further reference:
Catch Hoffman and Martin's last surviving video on Google before Jonathan Schorsch and David Goldenberg's partisans have it suppressed!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3435039175602962781&q=Michael+A.+Hoffman+II
http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2006/02/google-censors-antisemitic-video-and-i.html
She claims to have showed segments of it to her students (not the whole speech, of course) in order, it seems, to give them a zoological exhibition of species antisemiticus: "blatant example of the venomous hatred... a prime illustration of...delusional conspiracy theories."
These are the stock-in-trade cliches in which any original thinker is branded when any radical critique of a votary of Holocaustianity, Judaism or the alleged Auschwitz execution gas chambers obtains an audience.
Thus far Prof. Lipstadt has written in her weblog on three separate occasions concerning my now suppressed video, "Lipstadt/Amalek/Irving," beginning with her Jan. 27 entry and running through today, Feb. 23.
While my video was still online and being broadcast, she was not nearly so comfortable, or cavalier about the audience it was gaining.
Only after her partisans successfully pressured Google to remove it (Google had no problems with it initially; Google has admitted it removed the videos only in response to complaints), she relaxed and posed as a champion of Google's broadcast of it. Note bene: these are sentiments she did not express while the video was online, only after it was censored and it looked as though the onus for the censorship might fall on her, did she state her opposition to the censorship.
Lipstadt does not want this censorship laid at her door or even within her camp, so she behaves as though the video of my speech never troubled her in the least, in fact it is an advertisement for the neanderthal spirit against which she and the forces of goodness are arrayed!
There are a couple of problems with this pose. Anyone who examines her two extended descriptions of my speech (the third is a brief allusion) will note a central evasion on her part. She never deals even tangentially with the main point of my talk, her identification of Mr. Irving as "Amalek" (more properly, an Amalekite). The understanding of how this term is applied to revisionists and Palestinians is a key to the comprehension of the Zionist-supremacist mentality.
Who is Amalek? What is required that Judaics do with Amalek? How is this requirement implemented today?
Lipstadt has not entertained these questions. Instead she puts me in the Judaic zoo where they keep on display the delusional conspiracy theorists, the haters of the Jewish people etc., where my humanity and intellect can be denied, where no one need confront the issues I raise or answer the points I make, where I am a species (antisemiticus), rather than an an eccentric but sincere researcher, a delving investigator, a thought-diver, as Melville called it.
As a species, we are all alike and we therefore have nothing to say. My study of Lipstadt and Amalek is just standard fare. All the anti-semites talk that way, as Lipstadt implies: "At least I know that there is lots more of this kind of stuff out there and I will easily find a replacement for this video."
That is how her public is to relate to me, in contemptuous psychiatric and criminological terms. No decent member of her audience is supposed to wander outside those boundaries, to ask, "Prof. Lipstadt, why did you and your colleagues label David Irving Amalek at a time when Orthodox Judaics were labeling Arabs as Amalek, the better to drive them from their land and kill them? Moreover, what does Orthodox Judaism require that Judaics do with Amalek?"
These are the serious and provocative questions that are not answered or even mentioned by Lipstadt and without being prodded by this writer, Lipstadt dares not broach. This is why, when my video was being broadcast and it was not certain that Google would withdraw it, she was not quite so sanguine about it as she is now, calling it a "revolting video attack...dripping with hatred... but, if you want to see what these people are like, it's worth watching. Just be forewarned: you need a strong stomach."
The accusation of "dripping with hatred" is Pavlovian. It is cited without proof or evidence because it is certain to evoke an automatic response from the votaries of Holocaustianity. My speech is an exposé of hatred, a jeremiad against assassination, dehumanization and "the howl of the primitive."
If Lipstadt's claim that she is sorry to see that my video has been removed by Google is sincere, she can write to Dr. Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO and request that the video be restored to online broadcast status.
I do not believe she will do this however, based in part on her approach to the trial of David Irving. She went on record as being opposed to his prosecution and then did nothing meaningful to prevent it. It seems to me that she relished his conviction and prison sentence, all cant to the contrary, as evidenced by the following statement in her Feb. 20 blog; "David Irving brought this down on himself....He knew the law in that country and yet he flagrantly violated it. As my friend Ken Stern said: if you don't like Thai drug laws, don't go to Thailand."
I think this is probably the real face of Janus Lipstadt. Her sentiments trivialize Irving's martyrdom in the cause of freedom of speech. Because he tested the Orwellian Austrian laws against "Holocaust" dissent he "brought it (three years imprisonment) on himself." In other words, he should have turned tail and ran and left the dictatorial status quo in Austria in place. Is this how freedom has been extended in the past? By truckling servility?
Observe the mocking quality of Stern's remark: comparing a writer to a drug trafficker, and Austria's mind control law to a narcotics law.
I am willing to appear in Deborah Lipstadt's classroom on camera, for the videotaped record. She need not violate her self-imposed taboo and debate me. I will simply answer questions from her students about Amalek, Irving and Lipstadt. Then let's submit the unedited videotape of the discussion to Google, with Lipstadt's imprimatur (which will tend to guarantee its broadcast and longevity).
If my work represents no threat to your house of cards, then accept the challenge, Prof. Lipstadt.
Meanwhile, your noblesse oblige, exhibited after my video has been safely placed in the trash by Google, is transparent dissimulation.
That's what Yiddsh would describe as "a sheyne mayse."
I am a true Jew. Zionism, the Talmud and "Holocaust" victimology are the enemies of the Jews. The big lies you retail about me do not alter the facts.
It was Jew-haters who wrote the Talmud and concocted Zionism.
My ideas should be a subject for healthy curiosity, honest inquiry, dialogue and contemplation and I am ready to engage with anyone of good will on those terms.
Or will the response be ever more supercilious jargon about "delusional conspiracy theories" and "hate," as a means for obstructing the free exchange of ideas, personal growth and genuine learning?
For further reference:
Catch Hoffman and Martin's last surviving video on Google before Jonathan Schorsch and David Goldenberg's partisans have it suppressed!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3435039175602962781&q=Michael+A.+Hoffman+II
Google Says "Holocaust Revisionism is Hate Speech"
Here below is a copy of a response from Google concerning the censorship of two of my revisionist videos.
The Google corporation defines Holocaust revisionism as "hate speech," and on that basis withdrew the Lipstadt and Provan videos from broadcast (see yesterday's blog entry).
The censored Charles Provan video consisted of an interview with a researcher who believes in the gas chambers and differs with mainstream historians only on certain details. Hence, even belief in the gas chambers, when it is not total belief, in every single detail of the "Holocaust" story, now constitutes "hate speech." If this is not totalitarianism, what is?
This enforcement of intellectual dictatorship comes from Google, the Internet powerhouse that advertises to its young enthusiasts its aspiration to be the world's digital information archive, free of all intellectual walls and barriers.
Recall that Google initially approved these two videos and broadcast them for approximately one month. The videos were removed only due to outside pressure.
Deborah Lipstadt has publicly labeled my "Amalek" video about her, "revolting."
In today's Washington Post, William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz chastise the American media for having failed to publish the cartoons about Muhammad which first appeared in Denmark: "...radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists..."
Radical Judaics are also winning a war of intimidation. They have cowed Google into censoring videos critical of Deborah Lipstadt, and maintaining that gas chambers existed, but that they were operated mainly by Judaics. Are "intimidation" and "capitulation" only wrong when they result from Islamic coercion? What about Judaic intimidation of the media? It must be at a higher level of power and control, because unlike the Islamic version, Judaic intimidation is not publicized or protested in the US media.
Memo to American editors and journalists: if I am wrong, prove it by reporting Google Video's capitulation to the partisans of radical Judaism.
FROM: GOOGLE VIDEO SUPPORT
To: Michael A. Hoffman II
Date: Wed Feb 22, 2006 08:00:17 PM PST
Subject: Re: [#47515979] Re: Google Video Policy Violation
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your email. We received complaints that your content violates our posted policy against hate speech.
Because the videos appear to promote Holocaust Revisionism, in violation of our policy against hate speech, we have removed the videos.
We appreciate your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Google Video Team
(End quote)
--------
If you haven't already done so, I ask you to write a letter or send a fax to the CEO of Google, Inc. to protest the censorship. His address and fax number are at the bottom of yesterday's blog entry, "Google Censors Revisionist Videos."
"A Failure of the Press" by Bennett and Dershowitz, can be read here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202010.html
The Google corporation defines Holocaust revisionism as "hate speech," and on that basis withdrew the Lipstadt and Provan videos from broadcast (see yesterday's blog entry).
The censored Charles Provan video consisted of an interview with a researcher who believes in the gas chambers and differs with mainstream historians only on certain details. Hence, even belief in the gas chambers, when it is not total belief, in every single detail of the "Holocaust" story, now constitutes "hate speech." If this is not totalitarianism, what is?
This enforcement of intellectual dictatorship comes from Google, the Internet powerhouse that advertises to its young enthusiasts its aspiration to be the world's digital information archive, free of all intellectual walls and barriers.
Recall that Google initially approved these two videos and broadcast them for approximately one month. The videos were removed only due to outside pressure.
Deborah Lipstadt has publicly labeled my "Amalek" video about her, "revolting."
In today's Washington Post, William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz chastise the American media for having failed to publish the cartoons about Muhammad which first appeared in Denmark: "...radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists..."
Radical Judaics are also winning a war of intimidation. They have cowed Google into censoring videos critical of Deborah Lipstadt, and maintaining that gas chambers existed, but that they were operated mainly by Judaics. Are "intimidation" and "capitulation" only wrong when they result from Islamic coercion? What about Judaic intimidation of the media? It must be at a higher level of power and control, because unlike the Islamic version, Judaic intimidation is not publicized or protested in the US media.
Memo to American editors and journalists: if I am wrong, prove it by reporting Google Video's capitulation to the partisans of radical Judaism.
FROM: GOOGLE VIDEO SUPPORT
To: Michael A. Hoffman II
Date: Wed Feb 22, 2006 08:00:17 PM PST
Subject: Re: [#47515979] Re: Google Video Policy Violation
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your email. We received complaints that your content violates our posted policy against hate speech.
Because the videos appear to promote Holocaust Revisionism, in violation of our policy against hate speech, we have removed the videos.
We appreciate your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Google Video Team
(End quote)
--------
If you haven't already done so, I ask you to write a letter or send a fax to the CEO of Google, Inc. to protest the censorship. His address and fax number are at the bottom of yesterday's blog entry, "Google Censors Revisionist Videos."
"A Failure of the Press" by Bennett and Dershowitz, can be read here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202010.html
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Google Censors Revisionist Videos
For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael A. Hoffman II (click on "View my complete profile" at left for e-mail address)
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, February 22, 2006 -- Two days after dissident historian David Irving was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Austria, Google Video removed two of revisionist Michael A. Hoffman II's three videos from its free video online website (http://video.google.com).
Hoffman received the following e-mail from Google: Google has been notified that your videos violate our Program Policies. The titles of the videos are listed at the end of this message. According to our policy, we are removing the following videos:
World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan [and] Deborah Lipstadt, "Amalek" and David Irving. To review our Program Policies please visit: http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=27737&topic=1490
Hoffman's videos passed Google's review process and were approved for broadcast by Google last January. The finding of a "violation" almost a month later, can only be due to behind-the-scenes pressure that was exerted on Google.
Hoffman's video, which consists of a speech about Lipstadt introduced by David Irving, had been broadcast on Google since January 24, 2006 with, according to Google, 1708 "page views" in that time.
Writing on January 27, three days after the video debuted, Deborah Lipstadt lost no time in attacking it in her blog: "While I am generally reluctant to send people to antisemitic sites [why increase the traffic to these purveyors of hate?], I was recently alerted to a video from David Irving's Real History conference in which Michael Hoffman II, someone well known to those who are aware of the cohort of racists, antisemites, and deniers, engages in a virulent attack on me."
http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2006/01/revealing-and-revolting-video-attack.html
In her blog, she carefully skirts the issue of Amalek, while making it seem as though Hoffman accuses her of hiring hit men to get Irving. What Hoffman analyzed in his speech was the assassination chic that runs the gamut from the dehumanization of Irving as an "Amalek," to the perverse celebration of the state terror that Israelis perpetrate with their assassinations of "suspect" Palestinians who are also labeled "Amalek," and which contributes to an atmosphere of hatred and intimidation.
Hoffman's video of an interview with Charles D. Provan, "World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan" was also removed by Google, again for failing to "comply with our guidelines." The Provan video had been on Google Video the longest of Hoffman's three videos-- since Jan. 19--registering 1668 "page views" in that time.
Hoffman states, "There is nothing that can be construed as illegal or 'hateful' in the interview with Provan, who believes in the Nazi gas chambers." However, Provan also believes that the execution gas chambers were operated in certain cases by Judaic collaborators. "I am not certain if Provan's video was censored by Google for that reason, or in order to muddy the waters by distracting attention away from the censorship of the video of my Lipstadt speech," Hoffman added.
Another video, "The Judaic Role in the Black Slave Trade" a speech by Prof. Tony Martin with an introduction by Hoffman, remains online at Google, as of this writing. Viewers who wish to see it before it too is censored by Google, can access it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3435039175602962781
Dr. Martin's speech has had 1699 page views since it was first broadcast on Google Video on January 21, 2006.
Hoffman observed, "Goggle prides itself on being at the cutting edge of Internet freedom, yet in the case of the censorship of two of my three Google videos, it has shown itself to be just as beholden to the fears, prejudices and superstitions of religious fanatics as any of the traditional print media. There is no nudity, pornography, racial invective or copyright violations in my videos.
"These videos are intellectual and ideological. They constitute a protest against racism and they contain radical critique, suppressed information and a unique perspective capable of inspiring original thinking and new approaches to perennial human issues. Google approved them a month ago. The grounds for removing them now ican only be a result of dictates from self-appointed thought police to which Google submitted.
"Google is supposed to be dedicated to providing access to the whole spectrum of human knowledge and inquiry. But with their self-censorship of the Lipstadt and Provan videos, they demonstrate to the world that Google is not an information provider but an information gatekeeper, similar to the tired, discredited model perpetuated by the old media," Hoffman concluded.
Letters and faxes concerning Google's censorship may be addressed as follows:
Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
Fax: Attention Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO (650) 963-3299
Contact: Michael A. Hoffman II (click on "View my complete profile" at left for e-mail address)
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, February 22, 2006 -- Two days after dissident historian David Irving was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Austria, Google Video removed two of revisionist Michael A. Hoffman II's three videos from its free video online website (http://video.google.com).
Hoffman received the following e-mail from Google: Google has been notified that your videos violate our Program Policies. The titles of the videos are listed at the end of this message. According to our policy, we are removing the following videos:
World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan [and] Deborah Lipstadt, "Amalek" and David Irving. To review our Program Policies please visit: http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=27737&topic=1490
Hoffman's videos passed Google's review process and were approved for broadcast by Google last January. The finding of a "violation" almost a month later, can only be due to behind-the-scenes pressure that was exerted on Google.
Hoffman's video, which consists of a speech about Lipstadt introduced by David Irving, had been broadcast on Google since January 24, 2006 with, according to Google, 1708 "page views" in that time.
Writing on January 27, three days after the video debuted, Deborah Lipstadt lost no time in attacking it in her blog: "While I am generally reluctant to send people to antisemitic sites [why increase the traffic to these purveyors of hate?], I was recently alerted to a video from David Irving's Real History conference in which Michael Hoffman II, someone well known to those who are aware of the cohort of racists, antisemites, and deniers, engages in a virulent attack on me."
http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2006/01/revealing-and-revolting-video-attack.html
In her blog, she carefully skirts the issue of Amalek, while making it seem as though Hoffman accuses her of hiring hit men to get Irving. What Hoffman analyzed in his speech was the assassination chic that runs the gamut from the dehumanization of Irving as an "Amalek," to the perverse celebration of the state terror that Israelis perpetrate with their assassinations of "suspect" Palestinians who are also labeled "Amalek," and which contributes to an atmosphere of hatred and intimidation.
Hoffman's video of an interview with Charles D. Provan, "World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan" was also removed by Google, again for failing to "comply with our guidelines." The Provan video had been on Google Video the longest of Hoffman's three videos-- since Jan. 19--registering 1668 "page views" in that time.
Hoffman states, "There is nothing that can be construed as illegal or 'hateful' in the interview with Provan, who believes in the Nazi gas chambers." However, Provan also believes that the execution gas chambers were operated in certain cases by Judaic collaborators. "I am not certain if Provan's video was censored by Google for that reason, or in order to muddy the waters by distracting attention away from the censorship of the video of my Lipstadt speech," Hoffman added.
Another video, "The Judaic Role in the Black Slave Trade" a speech by Prof. Tony Martin with an introduction by Hoffman, remains online at Google, as of this writing. Viewers who wish to see it before it too is censored by Google, can access it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3435039175602962781
Dr. Martin's speech has had 1699 page views since it was first broadcast on Google Video on January 21, 2006.
Hoffman observed, "Goggle prides itself on being at the cutting edge of Internet freedom, yet in the case of the censorship of two of my three Google videos, it has shown itself to be just as beholden to the fears, prejudices and superstitions of religious fanatics as any of the traditional print media. There is no nudity, pornography, racial invective or copyright violations in my videos.
"These videos are intellectual and ideological. They constitute a protest against racism and they contain radical critique, suppressed information and a unique perspective capable of inspiring original thinking and new approaches to perennial human issues. Google approved them a month ago. The grounds for removing them now ican only be a result of dictates from self-appointed thought police to which Google submitted.
"Google is supposed to be dedicated to providing access to the whole spectrum of human knowledge and inquiry. But with their self-censorship of the Lipstadt and Provan videos, they demonstrate to the world that Google is not an information provider but an information gatekeeper, similar to the tired, discredited model perpetuated by the old media," Hoffman concluded.
Letters and faxes concerning Google's censorship may be addressed as follows:
Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
Fax: Attention Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO (650) 963-3299
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Digest of News & Comment on the Irving Sentencing
Here's a first round of representative news and editorials on the sentecing of historian David Irving to three year' imprisonment. Caveat: almost all of the following are excerpts. For the complete report/editorial, follow the accompanying URL to the source.
There seems to be a hole in the dike...the Daily Telegraph newspaper, in the wake of Irving's sentencing, speaks of the "Holocaust" as a cult and a "priesthood." 20 years ago Bradley Smith, Lou Rollins and this writer were among the few to frame the issue in those candid terms. Progress!
Handcuffed to the memory of Hitler
By Michael Burleigh
Daily Telegraph (UK) Feb. 22, 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/22/do2203.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/22/ixportal.html
...television and publishing revert again and again to the Nazis, like the biblical dog returning to its own vomit. This works either to legitimise a lazy Left-wing view of the world, based on the creed of "anti-Fascism" or more disreputably, to tempt and tantalise audiences with the Nazis' sinister glamour. Why else constantly recycle the Nazis' own slickly produced images? Why does television consistently ignore the 120 million victims of communism or people murdered by various Third World dictatorships?
...By the 1980s...some Jews insisted on the ultimate significance of the Holocaust. "Holocaust studies" developed into a huge industry, with dedicated chairs, institutes, and a proselytising drive to create Holocaust museums in every American city.
This Holocaust industry amounts to a secular religion. Tony Blair's Government has encouraged establishing this cult through a wholly unnecessary Holocaust Day. The cult has its priesthood, ever ready with words of encouragement or censure from far away Los Angeles.
And it has nasty sectarian jealousies, with some Jews resentful of any mention of persecuted gipsies or homosexuals, and the latter resentful of compensation paid to Jewish people. It has several articles of faith and taboos. In these circles, it is taboo even to broach the fact that, in the 20th century, communism happened to kill many times more people than Nazism. It is not done to query such vulgar, anti-Catholic presumptions as the alleged culpability of Pius XII for his supposed silence during that period. It is also not done even to refer to "the Holocaust industry."
The industry is also not very good at asking such questions as why we need to know, down to the last pornographic detail, everything that happened to Jewish people in Hitler's gruesome imperium, or whether there should be university courses in Holocaust tourism (management thereof).
David Irving may or may not deserve to be in prison. The end of his story is as predictable as its beginning, namely a further press scrum when the chastened martyr emerges with his projected memoirs, which will in turn trigger a further orgy of interest. And the moral of this tale? There probably isn't one, except that few people emerge from this dreary saga with much credit or honor....
Michael Burleigh is the author of "The Third Reich: A New History"
Now, a mad-hatter editorial from the Jerusalem Post, salted with our own arch observations:
Jerusalem Post, Feb. 21, 2006: "Jailing Irving"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395460261&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Jerusalem Post emphasizes the dogmatic theology of the case: "...denying the murder of six million Jews is not an 'opinion,' but hate speech."
In other words, disagreeing with Allied and Zionist versions of history is not an option, not a point of view, but a crime.
The Jerusalem Post: "Holocaust denial has become the primary conduit for modern anti-Semitism."
There is no legitimate curiosity about the possible fallibility or errors in the enormous and innumerable allegations made against the Germans grouped under the "Holocaust" shibboleth. All doubt, scrutiny and investigation of these claims, all of the normal functions of the human mind, of the disinterested observer, are, in this case, a function of "modern anti-Semitism."
To claim that atrocity stories have been exaggerated; that allegations do not pass scientific muster is "anti-Semitism." There is no possibility of dissent from a good motive. All dissent from the execution gas chamber tale is inherently racist, anti-Semitic, diabolic.
Jerusalem Post: "The favorite theme of all Jew-bashers of whatever variety is to portray the Holocaust as a Zionist fabrication contrived to hold the world to ransom, usurp Arab land and facilitate the implant of an interloper Jewish state within the Muslim sphere."
"All" Jew-bashers "of whatever variety" (the Post has polled every single one of them and there must be millions), believe that the "Holocaust" has been misused by the Zionists.
Jerusalem Post definition of "Jew-basher": he who believes the "Holocaust" has been used to usurp Arab land. All Jew-bashers believe this, even Mexican lettuce pickers in Arizona who have never heard of Zionism, don't know where Arab land is, or what a "Muslim sphere" might be. Yep, they all believe it. It would be anti-Semitic not to agree that "all Jew-bashers" of "whatever variety" believe as the Jerusalem Post says they believe. So believe it, on pain of being branded an "anti-Semite" if you don't.
Jerusalem Post: "Holocaust denial is a common contention of those who seek to delegitimize Israel and promulgate Nazi-inspired bigotry."
Note to independent-minded journalists and academics: have a need to scratch a World War II-era itch? Desire to read one of Irving's books? How about Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf's "Auschwitz Lies"? If so, you seek to "promulgate Nazi-inspired bigotry," and with that tag stuck on your back, your career in the media or at the university is probably over. Don't ask questions. Don't doubt. Don't investigate. Those are "bigoted Nazi" activities.
Jerusalem Post: "The denial of genocide is a warning sign of movements that have genocidal goals and endorse genocidal acts."
Some truth at last. The denial of Israeli genocide against Palestinians by neo-cons and Zionists is surely an ominous sign of more killings to come. Deborah Lipstadt's denial of the Allied holocaust against the city of Dresden is also a warning about how easy it is to marginalize German survivors and eyewitnesses, something which is absolutely forbidden with regard to Judaic survivors and eyewitnesses.
Jerusalem Post: "Irving, therefore, wasn't sentenced for his 'opinions," but for disseminating hate and incitement. "
"Incitement" is used here in an Israeli context, as grounds for abridging freedom of speech. But it is used selectively. Rabbinic incitement on the part of Ovadia Yosef, the former chief Sephardic rabbi who calls the Palestinian people "snakes" and urges that they be given "missiles," is not an issue.
The "incitement" by Harvard's Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in stigmatizing the German people as a nation of hereditary exterminators, is not a focus of outrage. Rather, this is one of the purposes of "Holocaust" propaganda, to disseminate hate speech against out-of-favor nations and peoples under a mantle of human rights concerns.
Alluding to Iran, the Jerusalem Post states, " ...those entities most openly dedicated to a new genocide against the Jewish state are all closely allied... and vocally deny the Holocaust."
The old, routine genocide against Arabs and Muslims, the desire to wipe out the Islamic Republic of Iran, first attempted by Ronald Reagan using Saddam Hussein's forces, and currently transpiring with a host of US, British and Israeli-sponsored terrorists and assassins operating inside Iran, is of no consequence.
How many tens of thousands of Arabs in Lebanon have been murdered by the Israelis? How many Arabs in Iraq have been killed by UN sanctions and US bombs? Half a million? Genocide is a two-way street but there is no such thoroughfare in Judaism, as evidenced by the Jerusalem Post.
Next, a pleasant surprise, the Washington Post correctly identifies the religious fanatic aspect of the persecution of Irving.
Not-So-Free Speech in Europe
by Emily Messner | Washington Post
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/notsofreespeech.html
For the last couple of months, European newspapers have been taking heat for publishing cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammed. The newspaper editors say it was making a statement against self censorship and in defense of freedom of speech.
The rebellion against self-censorship is understandable. But free speech was never in question -- there was no danger that the newspapers would be sanctioned by their home governments for choosing to print the cartoons. Yet not all speech is equally free in Europe, and the conviction in Austria of British historian David Irving delivered a jarring reminder of that fact....
In both Irving's case and the cartoon controversy, the accusation is essentially that blasphemy has been committed -- "an irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct."
In countries like Pakistan, which has the death penalty for blasphemy, the Koran is an inviolable truth that must be protected by law. In Austria and elsewhere in Europe (and in Israel, which also has a law against denying the Holocaust), the tragedy of the Holocaust is also an inviolable truth that must be protected by law.
The trouble with laws like this is that they criminalize misinterpretation...it is it reasonable to make being wrong a criminal offense ...it seems unreasonable to limit freedom of speech only when it comes to the Holocaust. After all, where should the line be drawn?
There seems to be a hole in the dike...the Daily Telegraph newspaper, in the wake of Irving's sentencing, speaks of the "Holocaust" as a cult and a "priesthood." 20 years ago Bradley Smith, Lou Rollins and this writer were among the few to frame the issue in those candid terms. Progress!
Handcuffed to the memory of Hitler
By Michael Burleigh
Daily Telegraph (UK) Feb. 22, 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/22/do2203.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/22/ixportal.html
...television and publishing revert again and again to the Nazis, like the biblical dog returning to its own vomit. This works either to legitimise a lazy Left-wing view of the world, based on the creed of "anti-Fascism" or more disreputably, to tempt and tantalise audiences with the Nazis' sinister glamour. Why else constantly recycle the Nazis' own slickly produced images? Why does television consistently ignore the 120 million victims of communism or people murdered by various Third World dictatorships?
...By the 1980s...some Jews insisted on the ultimate significance of the Holocaust. "Holocaust studies" developed into a huge industry, with dedicated chairs, institutes, and a proselytising drive to create Holocaust museums in every American city.
This Holocaust industry amounts to a secular religion. Tony Blair's Government has encouraged establishing this cult through a wholly unnecessary Holocaust Day. The cult has its priesthood, ever ready with words of encouragement or censure from far away Los Angeles.
And it has nasty sectarian jealousies, with some Jews resentful of any mention of persecuted gipsies or homosexuals, and the latter resentful of compensation paid to Jewish people. It has several articles of faith and taboos. In these circles, it is taboo even to broach the fact that, in the 20th century, communism happened to kill many times more people than Nazism. It is not done to query such vulgar, anti-Catholic presumptions as the alleged culpability of Pius XII for his supposed silence during that period. It is also not done even to refer to "the Holocaust industry."
The industry is also not very good at asking such questions as why we need to know, down to the last pornographic detail, everything that happened to Jewish people in Hitler's gruesome imperium, or whether there should be university courses in Holocaust tourism (management thereof).
David Irving may or may not deserve to be in prison. The end of his story is as predictable as its beginning, namely a further press scrum when the chastened martyr emerges with his projected memoirs, which will in turn trigger a further orgy of interest. And the moral of this tale? There probably isn't one, except that few people emerge from this dreary saga with much credit or honor....
Michael Burleigh is the author of "The Third Reich: A New History"
Now, a mad-hatter editorial from the Jerusalem Post, salted with our own arch observations:
Jerusalem Post, Feb. 21, 2006: "Jailing Irving"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395460261&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Jerusalem Post emphasizes the dogmatic theology of the case: "...denying the murder of six million Jews is not an 'opinion,' but hate speech."
In other words, disagreeing with Allied and Zionist versions of history is not an option, not a point of view, but a crime.
The Jerusalem Post: "Holocaust denial has become the primary conduit for modern anti-Semitism."
There is no legitimate curiosity about the possible fallibility or errors in the enormous and innumerable allegations made against the Germans grouped under the "Holocaust" shibboleth. All doubt, scrutiny and investigation of these claims, all of the normal functions of the human mind, of the disinterested observer, are, in this case, a function of "modern anti-Semitism."
To claim that atrocity stories have been exaggerated; that allegations do not pass scientific muster is "anti-Semitism." There is no possibility of dissent from a good motive. All dissent from the execution gas chamber tale is inherently racist, anti-Semitic, diabolic.
Jerusalem Post: "The favorite theme of all Jew-bashers of whatever variety is to portray the Holocaust as a Zionist fabrication contrived to hold the world to ransom, usurp Arab land and facilitate the implant of an interloper Jewish state within the Muslim sphere."
"All" Jew-bashers "of whatever variety" (the Post has polled every single one of them and there must be millions), believe that the "Holocaust" has been misused by the Zionists.
Jerusalem Post definition of "Jew-basher": he who believes the "Holocaust" has been used to usurp Arab land. All Jew-bashers believe this, even Mexican lettuce pickers in Arizona who have never heard of Zionism, don't know where Arab land is, or what a "Muslim sphere" might be. Yep, they all believe it. It would be anti-Semitic not to agree that "all Jew-bashers" of "whatever variety" believe as the Jerusalem Post says they believe. So believe it, on pain of being branded an "anti-Semite" if you don't.
Jerusalem Post: "Holocaust denial is a common contention of those who seek to delegitimize Israel and promulgate Nazi-inspired bigotry."
Note to independent-minded journalists and academics: have a need to scratch a World War II-era itch? Desire to read one of Irving's books? How about Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf's "Auschwitz Lies"? If so, you seek to "promulgate Nazi-inspired bigotry," and with that tag stuck on your back, your career in the media or at the university is probably over. Don't ask questions. Don't doubt. Don't investigate. Those are "bigoted Nazi" activities.
Jerusalem Post: "The denial of genocide is a warning sign of movements that have genocidal goals and endorse genocidal acts."
Some truth at last. The denial of Israeli genocide against Palestinians by neo-cons and Zionists is surely an ominous sign of more killings to come. Deborah Lipstadt's denial of the Allied holocaust against the city of Dresden is also a warning about how easy it is to marginalize German survivors and eyewitnesses, something which is absolutely forbidden with regard to Judaic survivors and eyewitnesses.
Jerusalem Post: "Irving, therefore, wasn't sentenced for his 'opinions," but for disseminating hate and incitement. "
"Incitement" is used here in an Israeli context, as grounds for abridging freedom of speech. But it is used selectively. Rabbinic incitement on the part of Ovadia Yosef, the former chief Sephardic rabbi who calls the Palestinian people "snakes" and urges that they be given "missiles," is not an issue.
The "incitement" by Harvard's Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in stigmatizing the German people as a nation of hereditary exterminators, is not a focus of outrage. Rather, this is one of the purposes of "Holocaust" propaganda, to disseminate hate speech against out-of-favor nations and peoples under a mantle of human rights concerns.
Alluding to Iran, the Jerusalem Post states, " ...those entities most openly dedicated to a new genocide against the Jewish state are all closely allied... and vocally deny the Holocaust."
The old, routine genocide against Arabs and Muslims, the desire to wipe out the Islamic Republic of Iran, first attempted by Ronald Reagan using Saddam Hussein's forces, and currently transpiring with a host of US, British and Israeli-sponsored terrorists and assassins operating inside Iran, is of no consequence.
How many tens of thousands of Arabs in Lebanon have been murdered by the Israelis? How many Arabs in Iraq have been killed by UN sanctions and US bombs? Half a million? Genocide is a two-way street but there is no such thoroughfare in Judaism, as evidenced by the Jerusalem Post.
Next, a pleasant surprise, the Washington Post correctly identifies the religious fanatic aspect of the persecution of Irving.
Not-So-Free Speech in Europe
by Emily Messner | Washington Post
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/notsofreespeech.html
For the last couple of months, European newspapers have been taking heat for publishing cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammed. The newspaper editors say it was making a statement against self censorship and in defense of freedom of speech.
The rebellion against self-censorship is understandable. But free speech was never in question -- there was no danger that the newspapers would be sanctioned by their home governments for choosing to print the cartoons. Yet not all speech is equally free in Europe, and the conviction in Austria of British historian David Irving delivered a jarring reminder of that fact....
In both Irving's case and the cartoon controversy, the accusation is essentially that blasphemy has been committed -- "an irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct."
In countries like Pakistan, which has the death penalty for blasphemy, the Koran is an inviolable truth that must be protected by law. In Austria and elsewhere in Europe (and in Israel, which also has a law against denying the Holocaust), the tragedy of the Holocaust is also an inviolable truth that must be protected by law.
The trouble with laws like this is that they criminalize misinterpretation...it is it reasonable to make being wrong a criminal offense ...it seems unreasonable to limit freedom of speech only when it comes to the Holocaust. After all, where should the line be drawn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
