Tuesday, May 25, 2010

David P. Goldman's brazen buncombe about the roots of West's law

Practically every word Mr. Goldman has written below, in his article for Asia Times, is either a lie or a deception. Can you spot them? We invite readers of Michael Hoffman's Judaism Discovered to submit responses to Goldman's devious misrepresentation of Judaism, which is so patently fraudulent it constitutes an insult to the intelligence of the reader. We will publish in this blog one or two of the best refutations of Goldman's drivel. Our latest Revisionist History Newsletter issue no. 52 analyzes the concept of the "Hebrew Republic" in the West, and challenges the myth which Goldman (and Michael Novak and Eric Nelson) retail, that Judaism is synonymous with the Old Testament and that the heritage of freedom bequeathed to the West by Biblical jurisprudence is a legacy of Talmudic Judaism. Only an audience bereft of the most basic knowledge of the subject matter could be suckered by such brazen buncombe. Talmudic Judaism, with its Pharisee-derived Mishnah, and its Babylonian Talmud, is the very antipode of the law of Yahweh's Old Testament.

Mr. Goldman advances, with typical Pharisee conceit, the moral superiority of Talmudic Judaism over Islam, attempting what no con man before the modern era could achieve, a linkage between the murderous violence and rabbinic dictatorship of Talmudic Judaism, and the Christian West's heritage of freedom and liberty.

Wife-beating, sharia, and Western law
By David P. Goldman | Asia Times | May 25, 2010

...(Muslim) Sharia (law) resembles Halakha (Judaic law), but by construction, for the same reason the Koran resembles the Torah: it is derived from it, with self-serving adjustments (Ishmael becomes the heir of Abraham rather than Isaac). But the principles of the two legal systems are radically different. That is why Jewish observance of Halakha never has clashed with the legal systems of modern democracy while sharia inevitably must conflict, and in the most intractable and intimate way, that is, in matters of family law.

The term "law" applied to Judaism and Islam means entirely different things to radically different peoples. Civil law rests ultimately on the state's monopoly of violence. In Muslim states, civil and religious law are identical, such that sharia courts hold the sword of the state. No Jewish religious court has had the capacity to inflict violence since the 1st century CE; the first detailed codification of Jewish law appears in the 3rd century in the Mishnah. The rabbis of antiquity explicitly put in abeyance ancient applications of violence, such as the injunction to kill a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) states that no Jewish court ever handed down such a sentence. Killing of rebellious children, as noted, happens in Muslim countries, and is sadly frequent among Muslim immigrant communities in the West.

Jewish law, though, requires no adaptation to modern Western law, for modern Western law ultimately derives from Jewish principles, as Harvard's Eric Nelson most recently showed in his 2010 book The Hebrew Republic, and Michael Novak explained in his 2002 volume On Two Wings. Jewish law proceeds from God's Covenant with each member of the Jewish people. The notion of an intermediate sovereign, such as Islam's "governor" of the family, is inconceivable in Jewish law, for there is only one Sovereign, the King of Kings. The powers of the earthly sovereign derive from God and are limited by God's laws. The American founding notion of "inalienable rights" stems from the Hebrew concept of covenant: a grant of rights implies a Grantor, and an irreversible grant implies a God who limits his own sovereignty in covenant with mankind. (End quote)

Mr. Goldman is senior editor at First Things
***

Monday, May 17, 2010

Bishop Richard Williamson: "Murdered Truth"

ELEISON COMMENTS 
 CXLVIII (May 15, 2010)

THE SLEEPLESS POPE

Conciliar Rome's radical misunderstanding of what the Catholic Traditional movement is all about, was illustrated once more in Paris last Wednesday (May 12) when Cardinal Kasper, head of the Vatican department for relations with other Christian churches and with Jews, gave a press conference. From the Reuters report let me quote as faithfully as possible what the Cardinal thinks, summed up in five propositions, and then comment.

1)The doctrinal discussions presently taking place every two months between four theologians of Rome, and a bishop and three priests of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), are not proving easy. 2) The main problem is the concept of tradition. "Do we want a living tradition or a petrified tradition?" asked the Cardinal. 3) He said he is for this dialogue with the SSPX, but it has to be on Rome's conditions and not on those of the SSPX. 4) If an agreement is to be reached, the SSPX will have to make concessions, and it will have to accept the Conciliar reforms. 5) Without an agreement the SSPX will have no official status, its priests will not be recognized as Catholic priests, nor will they be allowed to exercise their ministry.

(1) Of course it is not proving easy to reconcile 2+2=4 (Tradition and the SSPX) with 2+2=4 or 5 (Vatican II and Conciliar Rome). We are in the presence of two profoundly different conceptions of arithmetic, of two just as profoundly different conceptions of Catholic Truth.

(2) 2+2=4 is truth, unchanging and unchangeable, therefore "traditional". 2+2=4 or 5 is a brand new arithmetic, as "living" as one likes, but utterly unreal, and so not traditional at all.

(3) If one is discussing true arithmetic, it will be on true arithmetic's terms and not on the terms of either party discussing, even if one of the parties takes its stand on those terms.

(4) Who wants, or needs, to arrive at an agreement that 2+2=4 or 5 (Vatican II) ? Only merchants of fantasy who no longer care for true arithmetic !

(5) If "official status", "recognition as priests" and "being permitted to minister" all depend on accepting that 2+2 can be 4 or 5, then all such "status", "recognition" and "permission" are being bought at the price of Truth. But if I sell off the Truth, how can I still have it to tell it? And if I can no longer tell the Truth, what kind of a priest can I be, with what kind of a ministry ?
Therefore in conclusion, it is not just on "tradition" but on the very nature of truth that these Romans and the SSPX part company. Changing truth, these Romans have lost the Truth, in fact they are, at least objectively speaking, murdering it, as Macbeth "doth murder sleep" (II, 2). 

Indeed in the same Reuters article the Pope is quoted as having said that the SSPX problem "robs him of his sleep." Holy Father, do believe that the Truth is far above the SSPX, which is no more than one of its tiny momentary defenders. Every one of us in the SSPX wishes you all kinds of well, especially to sleep well. It is not the SSPX, but murdered Truth, which is keeping you awake at night.

Kyrie eleison.

+Richard Williamson
***

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.