Thursday, May 06, 2010

Michael Hoffman on “Holocaust Denial” - interviewed by Kourosh Ziabari

Michael Hoffman On 'Holocaust Denial' And More
Interviewed by Kourosh Ziabari


"There should be no Talmudic hierarchy of victimhood"

Israel's ongoing conflict with Palestine, Iran's opposition and antagonism to Israel, American support for Israel and its inseparable alignment with Tel Aviv, Barack Obama's intentions of isolating Iran as an "existential threat" to Israel and Holocaust denial as a debate which was rejuvenated by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all the interlinked stories which are floating around the Middle East these days.

The equations of Middle East are determined upon these themes and numerous people, including the historians, journalists, diplomats, politicians, authors and even artists are entangled in this circle: the circle of solving the question of Middle East.

Middle East has been historically a region of incredible and astonishing incidents. It's the region of Abrahamic religions, prophets, ancient civilizations, immeasurable natural resources, great men of history and unending conflicts over power, sovereignty, influence and wealth.

Michael A. Hoffman has joined us in an exclusive interview to discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran-U.S. proxy war in the Middle East and Holocaust as a historical incidence and its connection to the current affairs in the Persian Gulf region.

Hoffman is an American journalist, novelist writer and historical revisionist who introduces himself as a conspiracy theorist...He doesn't deny the incidence of Holocaust as a historical fact; however, he raises doubts regarding the extent and degree of it as described by the mainstream historians. Hoffman runs the website RevisionistHistory.org

Here is the  text of the interview with Michael A. Hoffman

Kourosh Ziabari: Iran is seemingly the most stringent enemy of Israel, having called for the demolition of the state of Israel on various occasions. On the other hand, everyone knows that Washington is the most fervent advocate and the closest ally of Tel Aviv, considering the security and "sovereignty" of Israel its priority of foreign policy. Is there any ideological affinity which makes the United States an unconditional superintendent of Israel? Does the White House believe in the mystical prophecy of extending Israeli borders from Nile to Euphrates?

Michael Hoffman: The White House at the policy level is not embracing a mystical vision of the Israeli imperium, rather President Obama and his inner circle are aware that the U.S. Congress is Israeli-occupied territory, along with the U.S. media, therefore they are driven to support the Israelis by the application of raw political and media power.

There is a deeper level of function behind the U.S. government however, which we call the "Cryptocracy" and which has a masonic orientation that came to the fore in the West during the Renaissance via the neo-Platonists within the Catholic Church, namely Ficino, Mirandola, Reuchlin, who were deeply imbued with the concepts of the rabbinic Kabbalah. In terms of the western secret societies, support for Zionism's mystical pretensions is high and the support continues to be exerted covertly.

Ziabari:: Why has the state of Israel been practically and ideologically consecrated by the international community? IAEA is simply unable to inspect the nuclear facilities of Israel, despite the fact that the Federation of American Scientists and a number of other authentic sources have confirmed that Israel possess up to 200 nuclear warheads. Why the influential voices of human right don't hold Israel accountable for the mass atrocities it committed during the Gaza massacre?

Hoffman: If you are referring to the European Union and the European segment of the UN Security Council, then it is clear that the Israeli hubris that Judaic life is worth more than the lives of non-Judaics, is their standard. Nothing like the terror bombing and atrocities which the Israelis perpetrated against Beirut in the summer of 1982, in Jenin in 2002, in Lebanon as a whole in 2006, and in Gaza in December 2008 through January 2009, would be tolerated for five minutes by the "international community" if these crimes had been committed against Judaic people. There would already be museums and movies graphically documenting the slaughter and sanctions and war crimes trials for the perpetrators.

In the aftermath of the Israeli slaughter in Lebanon, on Sept. 12, 2006, Pope Benedict gave a keynote speech at the University of Regensburg in which he indicted Islam for being violent. It was as though the just concluded massive Lebanon slaughter had never happened.

The Vatican boasts of its ties to the Israeli rabbinate, the same rabbinate which encouraged the savagery in Gaza, 2008-2009. These are symptoms of the infiltration of Talmudic standards into the West. Judaics are a higher sort of humanity. Muslims, Persians and Arabs are not completely human.

The new "weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) accusations against Iran are only restrained by the fact that a similar hoax was only recently foisted on Iraq. Without the loss of credibility the U.S. suffered from its Big Lie about Iraqi WMD, it would have probably already led a naive American public into war on Iran.

Ziabari: Upon their inauguration, U.S. Presidents usually go to Israel and attend the AIPAC meetings punctually. What happens if a U.S. president refuses to do so and abandons support for Israel? Does the U.S. corporate system allow such an individual to qualify and become president?

Hoffman: If any president of the United States were to pass up paying obeisance to the Israeli lobby and its numerous front groups, he would be the target of relentless opprobrium in the media and very likely driven from office, unless he was an absolutely remarkable leader who called on God to assist him against the onslaught. Since God is all-powerful, a president who was doing the will of God could prevail against the Israeli lobby in America. But otherwise, that U.S. president would be defeated for reelection and might cause his party to be defeated in the Congressional and gubernatorial elections.

Ziabari: European states usually avow their commitment to freedom of speech, respect for humanity, democracy and liberty. They usually condemn the third world countries who imprison the journalists and academicians for expressing their viewpoints and ideas; however, there are a number of prominent people whom we know have been jailed for simply questioning holocaust and the credibility of its extent as being claimed. Is the Western world a realistically free society for miscellaneous voices and thoughts?

Hoffman: I am writing a book on freedom of conscience. One of the findings has been that during the European wars of religion when Protestants and Catholics murdered, censored and defamed one another, a martyr to freedom of conscience was only considered as such by Protestants if he or she was one of the Protestants; by the same standard, Catholics regarded a person who was censored or killed for their faith only a martyr if they were of the Catholic faith. This mentality of religious hatred which occluded objective judgment has a long history in the West. Even though the people of Europe, for example, are today mostly agnostic or atheist, they seem to have inherited this old criterion from the European wars of religion. Consequently, a Muslim who quits the faith and turns against it and is persecuted, is a martyr in the eyes of the West, but a Judaic who does the same with regard to Judaism is not a martyr but a psychologically troubled person, a "self-hating Jew."

Intellectuals who challenge the claims of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau are not regarded as martyrs to freedom of conscience when they are arrested, fined, beaten or jailed. They are like Catholics in Anglican England or Huguenots in Catholic France; they are of the devil's party and therefore freedom of speech does not apply to them; neither are they martyrs to freedom; only criminals.

In the United States freedom of speech is guaranteed in the public sphere by virtue of the Founding Fathers who forbade the fratricidal wars of religion on American soil and banned the establishment of a state religion. Without a heritage of religiously demonizing adversaries in the war of ideas, Americans refused to permit the jailing of heretics.

There have been some exceptions to this: President John Adams jailed Congressman Matthew Lyon for "sedition." Abraham Lincoln jailed his opponents and closed newspapers. President Woodrow Wilson's administration locked up war critics such as Eugene Debs. But the American people never approved of this repression, it was viewed as something foreign - the despotism of kings. George W. Bush tried to alter that perception after the 9/11 attacks, when he and Vice President Cheney attempted to enact king-like powers for the Executive branch of government. It remains to be seen if, in the name of "National Security," Americans will surrender their birthright of freedom.

In Britain and Europe the slogan of the state church was "error has no rights." They were certain that the state, either in the person of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the pope of Rome, the Bourbon kings of France, the Lutheran establishment in Germany or Calvin's theocracy in Geneva, had the competence to legally decide and declare what thoughts were true and what was error. Though Europe today would scorn Calvin and the pope, many Europeans are dutiful sons and daughters of this dictatorship over the mind. Hence, when France and Germany declare that those skeptics who question the homicidal gas chambers have no rights, they are acting on behalf of a European religious mentality, as did their ancestors, only in the modern instance the mentality is not Catholicism or Calvinism, it is Holocaustianity.

One has only to look to Denmark where the artists who created the cartoons mocking Mohammed are protected and celebrated and even paid sums of money. Now compare this with the two men who are in jail in Britain for having distributed a cartoon satire of the gas chambers titled, Tales of the Holohoax. They are serving long prisons sentences. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Ziabari: What's the main argumentation of Holocaust deniers such as Bishop Richard Williamson, Roger Garaudy and David Irving? What's your personal opinion regarding the accuracy of the accounts of Holocaust? Is its extent being exaggerated unjustifiably? What about those who are alive today and we know them as Holocaust survivors who explain the stories of their family members being killed terribly in the bone-crushing machines? What about the pictures which portray heartrending scenes such as the concentration camps and mass cemeteries, like the one which shows former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Ed V. Izac inspecting the crematorium at Buchenwald concentration camp?

Hoffman: One cannot say "The Holocaust did not happen." To affirm that highly ambiguous generalization is to fall into an epistemological trap. One must be specific about what it is that is to be challenged concerning a vast corpus of history. You will notice that Bishop Williamson did not fall into this trap and as a result the better and more careful journalists refer to him only as a "Holocaust minimizer," not a "denier." Williamson asserted that something like 300,000 Judaic people were massacred by the Nazis. This is a terrible crime even without it having been perpetrated by poison gas.

The word "Holocaust" can mean anything, from persecutions to horrendous gassings. The Nazis certainly did viciously persecute Judaic people and there were instances of brutal, Nazi-inspired riots and killings which qualify as a pogrom. Note well however that many nations throughout history have been subject to a pogrom. The "Holocaust" is supposed to be an unprecedented act of monstrosity; one without parallel in world history. This claim is usually based on the notion that millions of Judaics were "gassed" to death in places like Auschwitz-Birkenau.

If someone cannot in good conscience believe in the stories of mass murder by poison gas, that fact does not prevent us from affirming that very bad things befell Judaic people at the hands of the Nazis. Moreover, holocaust is defined as death by fire. Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were burned alive, deliberately, on the orders of Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. Stalin also killed millions. They are all as bad as Hitler. I do not understand how Hitler occupies a special category of evil, except as a function of the Talmudic mentality of exaggeration and Judaic supremacy.

Unlike Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, Hitler killed the Holy People, therefore Hitler is supposed to be the most evil of all. Since I do not subscribe to the religion of Judaism with its megalomania, neither do I subscribe to this special view of Hitler. He was a criminal like the others.


Everyone who approaches this subject must think outside the "Holocaust" Newspeak that was artificially imposed, beginning in the 1970s, to sow precisely the kind of confusion which is exhibited when denial of the "Holocaust" is equated with denying that innocent Judaics died in large numbers during World War II. The constant question asked by Zionists, "How can you deny that the Holocaust happened when the Nazis wiped out my entire family?" is a function of Orwellian Newspeak. In this connection, the study of George Orwell's book, 1984, including the appendix, is imperative.


I don't "deny" the "Holocaust" because I don't traffic in Orwellian “Holocaust” Newspeak. I doubt that millions of Judaics died in execution gas chambers. The science and technology ascribed to such a mass gassing operation is highly questionable. The homicidal gassing claims mostly rest on a small body of eyewitness "testimony" that was never subjected to cross-examination; and upon confessions from Nazi personnel extracted under torture and threat of execution.

I reported on the trial of Ernst Zundel in 1985 wherein "eyewitnesses" to supposed gassings, such as Rudolf Vrba and Arnold Friedman, recanted their testimony under cross-examination by Zundel's defense lawyer, Doug Christie. There are two sides to every argument. Here, in this area, the defense side has almost never been heard. The post-war German government has been captured by Zionism, in certain respects to a greater extent than the US; Germany today is an arm of Zionism.

If a Zionist lost his entire family under the Nazis, then I am sorry for him or her; just as I am sorry for the Palestinians who have lost their entire families at the hands of Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin; and for the Iranians gassed to death by the military of Saddam Hussein at the behest of the administration of President Ronald Reagan. There should be no Talmudic hierarchy of victimhood. I reject that kind of sneaky racism put forth under cover of human rights "Holocaust" activism.


Ziabari: Is Israel employing the Holocaust as an instrument to obtain international recognition and reinforce its position in the region? Why do the European countries hold commemorations and special ceremonies to memorialize Holocaust victims? Why some fourteen countries have officially branded Holocaust denial a crime which can be followed by a judicial punishment?

Hoffman: There is too much onus placed on what the Israelis exploit in this regard. The Muslims and Arabs have failed to build even one museum dedicated to the Israeli holocaust against Palestine and Lebanon. They should have preserved the El Khiam concentration camp that was operated by the Israeli proxies of the SLA in Lebanon, which was eventually liberated by Hizbollah. Muslim  and Arab boys and girls must preserve their memories of the horrors visited upon them by the Zionists by compiling them into diaries that will find publication. Ten percent of the population of the West Bank and Gaza should be trained and equipped to possess and use video cameras to record, secretly or otherwise, Israeli pogroms, shootings, bombings, harassment, racist invective. Video editing studios should be in place to collect and edit their time-coded footage.


Muslims, Persians and Arabs historically have had too much faith in the international community and the West generally as honest brokers and solvers of the crises facing the Middle East. Richard Goldstone's report on Gaza may never be acted upon. Let the Arabs compile their own expertly written Israeli war crimes books in English. Above all,  they must build a sophisticated, state-of-the art, world-class holocaust museum of their own, memorializing the victims of the Israeli holocaust against Palestine and Lebanon. 


May I make a prediction? I predict that such a museum would be the greatest weapon against Zionist and rabbinic-inspired violence, many more times powerful than any Arab army or air force. The Israeli state is an artificial construct. It is dependent on the good will of the U.S. and the West and acutely sensitive to public relations. 


Whether the question is the history of World War II or the fate of the Arab people since 1948, thus far the enshrined narrative has been almost entirely captive to a script concocted in New York and Hollywood. This must change if there is to be peace, justice and truth.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr Hoffman, this is the best introduction to your ideas that I've ever seen. It's an antidote to the labeling of "holocaust revisionism", in a concise and simple format that anyone with a brain can follow.
Nice work.

-Rizla

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hoffman. Have you read the Rev. Dr. Felix Sarda y Salvany’s most excellent treatise Liberalism is a SIN which traces the roots of the modern plague of Infidelity to the hell-fathered battle cry "Liberty of Conscience!" :

Protestantism naturally begets toleration of error. Rejecting the principal of authority in religion, it has neither criterion nor definition of faith. On the principle that every individual or sect may interpret the deposit of revelation according to the dictates of private judgement, it gives birth to endless differences and contradictions. Impelled by the law of its own impotence, through lack of any decisive voice of authority in matters of faith, it is forced to recognize as valid and orthodox any belief that springs from the exercise of private judgement. Therefore does it finally arrive, by force of its own premises, at the conclusion that one creed is as good as another ; it then seeks to shelter its inconsistency under the false plea of liberty of conscience. Belief is not imposed by a legitimately and divinely constituted authority, but springs directly and freely from the unrestricted exercise of the individual’s reason or caprice upon the subject-matter of revelation. The individual or sect interprets as it pleases, rejecting or accepting what it chooses. This is popularly called liberty of conscience. Accepting this principle, Infidelity on the same plea rejects all revelation, and Protestantism, which handed over the premise, is powerless to protest against the conclusion ; for it is clear that one, who under the plea of rational liberty has the right to to repudiate any part of revelation that may displease him, cannot logically quarrel with one, who on the same ground repudiates the whole. If one creed is as good as another on the plea of rational liberty, on the same plea no creed is as good as any. Taking the field with this fatal weapon of Rationalism, Infidelity has stormed and taken the very citadel of Protestantism helpless against the foe of its own making.

Anonymous said...

Very good interview Mr. Hoffman.
Thank you.

Steve

Elsa Zardini said...

Exactly Anonymous 4:02, exactly. Hence the anarchy we live in.

GodSend said...

Anon 4:02AM

The problem is not Protestantism - the problem is organized religion or 'Churchianity' (including Catholicism!). The sinful nature of Man (aided by the deceptive guile of the Devil) has made a mockery and travesty out of Jesus the Christ and His message. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is fully capable of working His miracle of spiritual rebirth in all those who truly SEEK (without the aid of organized religion)!

The SEEKING has to be desperate and 24x7.

Byron Bunch said...

" Elsa Zardini said...
Exactly Anonymous 4:02, exactly. Hence the anarchy we live in."

Several excellent points in the interview made by Mr Hoffman were apparently lost on some of his commentators.

Michael Hoffman said...

To: GodSend

The problem certainly is Protestantism, at least that major portion of it that persecuted "heretics" - including Catholics. If you absolve Protestantism and indict Catholicism you have inherited the mindset of the wars of religion which I decry in the interview.

GodSend said...

As I recall, the most pernicious persecution has been done by the RCC (Inquisition, among other activities - including persecution of their own flock of sheeple). Most organized religions, including Protestantism, practice(d) some sort of persecution at some time or other.

True followers of Christ are mostly found outside of Churchianity - and they do not persecute anyone, including Torah Jews and atheists.

I stated that the problem is not Protestantism but Churchianity, which includes both, Protestantism AND Catholicism. Ecumenism may be exempt from the charge of persecution but ecumenists are NOT true followers of Christ. Anon made it sound like the problem is only Protestantism. If pressed to compare Protestantism and Catholicism, I daresay that the RCC can claim more persecution (and of a more violent nature) than any other 'Christian' sect - not to mention corruption and vice within the RCC upper echelons, right up to the Vatican and Pope. Deception is a more fitting term than anarchy - and we all know where THAT originates!

Anonymous said...

Blaming various Christian denominations at this late date for the ills of the world is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic after it hits the iceberg.

So a Catholic should convert Protestants into the mainline Catholic church with its clown messes and lavender homosexual mafia - Vice versa - should Protestants be 'converting' Catholics into pulpit howling churches - or to mass media preachers like Kosher captain preacher Hagee - or should we all start rappen' to the Christian side hug video?

Turn your guns on Talmudic practices - blowup the iceberg and maybe the ship wont hit it. Drop the inter Christian bickering and get down to business.

Duke Mantee said...

Very disappointing to see the comments section deteriorate into a hateful attack on Protestants. This is right out of the talmudic playbook. I coexist with Roman Catholics even as I disagree on many points.

I beg to differ with Anon 4:02AM and Michael Hoffman. To say "The problem certainly is Protestantism" is a broadbrush statement that only a myopic scholar would make. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Church had been corrupted and infiltrated by Satan by the 4th Century A.D. Perhaps if Mr. hoffman turned his research spotlight on an honest investigation of the Roman Catholic Church, he would see that the problem is certainly not just Protestantism. Every great movement and institution is soon infiltrated and corrupted by Satan's minions.

The Reformation was necessary and long overdue to correct the extreme abuses and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. One could fill pages with the evils committed by dozens of Popes, enough to fill entire books, including Simony (selling of church offices, including the office of pope), sexual debaucheries of the most filthy kind, including adultery, sodomy, sex with underaged girls, fathering innumerable bastards, pedophiles, and then of course, the well known selling of indulgences, Tezel's "as soon as the coin goes into the coffer, another soul flies out of purgatory", and the blashphemy of calling the Pope "The Vicar of Christ", and much more, including the millions of faithful believers persecuted and murdered in the Inquisitions --the Hussites, Waldenses, Albigenians, Lollards, their entire families, including children, burned at the stake or other grisley cruel executions. The numbers murdered by the Catholic Church dwarfs the number killed by the Protestants.

It's true that while the Reformation solved some of the problems it also opened the door to others. Luther himself was shocked and brokenhearted to see how far and fast things went akilter. In our day none of the major denominations, Protestant or Roman, is a good place for the faithful to worship as a Christian. It disgusts me to see the number of "Judeo-Christians" and zionist Christians and the blind support for modern Israel, which I abhor. There is lots of pre-tribulation rapture nonsense and pro-military yahoos, and the television phony evangelicals, but they certainly don't represent the traditional protestant view. I would tend to agree with GodSend that neither group of institutionalized churches is faithful to the New Testament apostolic church and that one must follow the Word of God as given in scripture and not trust man and manmade institutions.

I'm sorry to see the comments section so often turn into a Protestant bashing forum. Anon 4:02AM immediately hijacked the section to make his ignorant and hateful diatribe. I thought this was about historical revisionism and the search for truth, not smallminded and ignorant attacks on brother christians. Meanwhile the Talmudists look on and laugh at their handywork. Perhaps the Protestant readers of this blog aren't welcome after all. I hope that's not the case as we need to fight our common enemies.

Michael Hoffman said...

To Duke Mantee

You haven't read my books or newsletters or you would not write as you do. Many Catholics attack me for being too hard on Catholicism.

The litany of Catholics crimes that you and "Godsend" recite are very familiar. Yet I seldom see Protestants accuse themselves of drowning Anabaptists, murdering anti-Trinitarians, burning Catholics, and in England, establishing an occult imperium under Queen Elizabeth I, the new Isis.

There was a great deal positive in Martin Luther, including the bulwark he established against Judaism. On the other hand Lutheranism, like Anglicanism, helped to deify the state. The supposedly "evil Jesuit" Robert Bellarmine promoted a theory of individual liberty against the divine right of kings as advocated by England's King James I. This shatters the Protestant "Orange" bigotry that has the Jesuits as always and everywhere evil incarnate. Have you read Algernon Sidney?

This is a complex issue. It can't be reduced to simplistic dichotomies. I am surprised that my very mild remarks in the interview calling for an end to fratricide and the mentality that leads to wars of religion among Christians, has proved so controversial. I see fanatic partisans on both sides of the Protestant-Catholic divide. The task of the revisionist scholar is to track the trail of Judaization within both Protestantism and Catholciism, wherever it may lead, and no matter whose toes are stepped upon.

The Cryptocracy has used Protestantism and, since the Renaissance, Roman Catholicism, to achieve its ends. Neither side is blameless and both are guilty to a greater or lesser extent.

Protestants may laugh at Catholic inquisitor types who proclaim that freedom of conscience "is a sin!" but if they do laugh, they are doing so out of ignorance. They should read Samuel Rutherford's "A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience" to gauge the extent to which the persecution of non-Protestants was a fervent movement on the Protestant side. The difference here is that Catholics did not exploit Rutherford and the Protestant inquisition with the fervor with which John Fox and brilliant propagandists like him exaggerated and memorialized the Catholic inquisition.

This blog is not for fanatical partisans of man-made ideologies. Such persons will usually be offended by I write on this subject, as rabbis are offended when I take on the Talmud or Holocaustianity. The mentality of what Eric Hoffer called, in his classic book of the same name, the "true believer" is a profile that has universal application across the spectrum of religion.

My inspiration is Jesus Christ who was, far from being a heresy-hunter, executed as a heretic.

I am suspicious of the fundamentalist Protestant campaign against Catholicism, because unlike early Lutheranism, it generally omits Talmudism from any opprobrium or outrage.

Indeed, the masonic "Orangemen" have it that the Jesuits and the Vatican control the world and this myth has spread in Protestant ranks today. These intrepid anti-Catholic campaigners cower in fear, however, at the mere mention of the word Judaism and indulge in no exposure of it that is in any way comparable to their relentless attacks on Catholicism. You will pardon me when I say that I smell a rat.

Anonymous said...

"It is the hope and prayer of all of us who profess the Catholic faith that heresy be refuted and individuals be converted." - St. Hieronymus (Against the Pelagians)

In the economy of Salvation Protestantism is bankrupt. Those adults who die as self-professed Protestants cannot enter the Kingdom of God. The Church has always taught that heretics have no share in eternal life. Would you, Mr. Hoffman, say that this is "the mentality that leads to wars of religion among Christians." ?

You say that "The task of the revisionist scholar is to track the trail of Judaization within both Protestantism and Catholciism, wherever it may lead, and no matter whose toes are stepped upon." It seems to me, that the work of a "Revisionist Scholar", so defined, is a house built upon sand, since it starts from a philosophy based upon the Negation of God, which is the omission of any mention of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, as the sole means of salvation for all human souls.

The only true revisionist scholar would be a man firmly grounded in the Catholic Faith, who, "comprehending all universality" was magnanimous enough to confront and attack judaization in the Church, and at the same time made sure that his readers knew that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church nor without personal submission to our Holy Father, the Pope. For anyone who does not believe this doctrine is a heretic.

Anonymous said...

To infer that freedom of conscience, as a theoretical postulate, is the ideal because religious wars are bad is in itself a glaring fallacy. We are not compelled to incite war or treat others unjustly because we understand that the truth about God is not up for discussion.

If a mere concrete particular historical fact is worth being jailed for, one wonders why divine truth, which is eternal, does not share the same esteem among "revisionists."

I'll say it again, religious indifferentism is the work of Masonic Judaism. A "revisionist" who adheres to any form of theoretical religious indifferentism necessarily promotes the very thing they work against.

Finally, to point out the sins of men as proof against their creed is an ad hominem that fails every time.

GodSend said...

Anon 7:02 PM

You're right, the proof against the Catholic creed are not the sins of popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, Jesuits, etc. BUT the New Testament itself and the Divine nature (spiritual) and perfection of Jesus the Christ!

"A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you!"

It's a shame how the RCC has been persecuted throughout its existence - all the way to its present state of immense worldly power, extreme wealth and occult ritual excesses. Talmudic Judaism doesn't even come close!

Dead Reckoning said...

It is absolutely amazing how much was just 'read' into Hoffman's interview. This is a case study in general why the society formerly known as Christendom has less and less influence year after year.

First; Hoffman says he is writing a book on Liberty of Conscience - he has not said what his conclusions will be and what his theological outlook will be and there are many angles on the question as to historical events as opposed to theological questions which the posters here insert into the discussion. For instance, the existence or non-existence of homocidal gas chambers at Aushwitz is a matter of history seperate and apart from anyone's religious convictions or theology. A religion's definition of truthood and falsity may be important. A Talmudic Judaic has a VERY LOOSE definition of truth.

Hoffman inserted his book project into the interview to make an allegory that things like gas chambers have been elevated to the status of theology with a Medieval era type civl and criminal legal code put in place by some civil governmnets in order to stop anyone from even investigating gas chamber stories. As the European wars of religion were successful in eradicating half the people on the continent over 500 years - with each side putting in criminal codes covering theological issues against the other - is that history not a good indicator of how modern laws protecting holocaust theology will go? Assuming Anon at 4:02 can put back into place any orthodox doctrinal regulatory framework - would not even he be interested to see how successful that code was?

Now we contrast Anon @ 4:02 with Protestant Godsend who is going to tell us who real Christians are - and that True Christians are mostly found outside Churchianity -

Then take Duke - he says "The Church had been corrupted and infiltrated by Satan by the 4th Century A.D" How the hell do you know that - you are all painting centuries of time and religious communities spread over tens of thousands of miles with comments that could mean anything.

Despite flowerly language and statement of principle - the comments just continue to deteriorate. Hoffman is going to negate God (you want to take a stab at explaining that) because he writes the best book in 300 years disclosing what Talmudic Judaics, who are the true spiritual heirs of the Sanhedrin, really think about is and how they operate and how their books are kept without dedicating the book to the Pope and the physical RC church structure?

Take this personally - if any authenitc Christianity spreads in the next 100 years - it will not be the ideas, mindset or paradigmatic view of the world and os the Gospels displayed by the posters I comment upon above. We pass this way but once - while you guys throw insults and argue over which religion caused the highest historical bodycount - I want to know and my children to have the tools and religious underpinning they need to understand and spot real diabolical activities.

George said...

I implore all heterodox christians to think outside the box, please. The catholic-protestant dichotomy is the disaster that has allowed judaism to gain power. The spiritual darkness of judaism has waxed only because the light of Christ has waned.

However, God has kept a remnant, which I urge all to research, study, and ultimately to join:

THE TRUE ORTHODOX (non-ecumenist and non-sergianist) CHURCH!

Anonymous said...

suneklektos (Matt. 23:9 and call no
man your father upon
the earth: for one is
your Father, which is
in heaven.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:59, what did YOU call the man who impregnated YOUR mother?

Patrick said...

As with most "sound-bites" of individual scripture, we need to also interpret this one in the context of the whole chapter. It is true that in I Cor 4:15, Paul admonishes the Corinthian Church that although they had many "masters" in Christ, they yet had not many "fathers": those who taught and admonished the flock as Paul did his "beloved sons". This is filial respect and recognition for experienced authority imbued with love. It is the preferred attitude for those seeking maturity after election.

However,in Matt 23:9, Jesus warns us from the outset of the chapter of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and those perceived sycophants who would CALL them Rabbi.There is a difference between perceiving someone as master, father, or rabbi, and CALLING them such. Such nomenclature reeks of a hierarchal social ascendancy that contradicts the bodily organism which must be based and fortified in self-effacing, sacrificial service to God and the bretheren.(Agape)This nips in the bud that Babylonian "roaring lion" seeking who he may devour.
(By the way, I called my FATHER: "dad". How about you?)