Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Italian philosopher Umberto Eco claims papacy was traditionally anti-German

Martin Luther's revolt against the Church of Rome gained firm purchase among the German people in part due to the perception that the papacy was traditionally biased toward the German nation.

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Eco published Sept. 28 in La Nacion, one of the main Argentinean dailies based in Buenos Aires:

"Responding to a question as to whether he was surprised that the pope, for the first time in more than a millennium, was not a European, Eco recalled that 'it (the papacy) went out of Italy' with the election of Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) in 1978, and prior to that the last non-Italian pope was Hadrian V from Utrecht in 1552.  “When it happened with Wojtyla it was something new that showed that the Church was no longer an Italian power against the Germanic empire, as it had been in the previous centuries, it was something universal."



Monday, September 23, 2013

Kingdom of Kidnappers: British Naval Enslavement of Whites

Now being mailed to subscribers -- Revisionist History Newsletter no. 68

Between 1688 and 1815 about a quarter million white people became the slaves of Britain's mercantile-military sea power. Michael Hoffman furnishes a fascinating new account of this suppressed epoch. Sections include: Enslaving British whites — a vestigial power of the Crown; Admiralty Law comes to shore; Capitalism's alibi for impressment-slavery exposed; State security trumps Liberty; Poor whites as hereditary naval slaves; the Legality of Impressing Seamen.

Also in this issue: NSA Surveillance — Treason to the 4th, 5th and 7 Amendments to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Plus: Machiavelli’s Ideology of Command; Washington Navy Yard Shootings; Wall Street Pays Petraeus; Hoffman’s “Usury” book reviewed by Economist Anthony Santelli, and more.


Thursday, September 19, 2013

Pope Francis reveals his true face

By Michael Hoffman

In an interview filled with what we can only term theological gobbledegook with nary a reference to the Bible, but loads of mystical vertiginous malarkey, Francis the pope of Rome has come out with unprecedented cold-hearted malice toward defenseless, unborn children.

Let us anticipate the response of his defenders and rejoin in advance: no, the pope was not quoted out of context, or misquoted. We’re going to give you his quote in context; and it is said he was handed a copy of his interview and allowed to check and edit it before its publication in the Jesuit magazine, America.

Here are the pontiff’s documented words, in context. First on homosexuality:

We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.  

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing.” (End quote).

Where in the catechism does it say the pontiff has no right to judge a homosexual?

What is this pope babbling about when he says, “...it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person”?

Furthermore, what is “gay” about sodomy? If God, as the pope claims, “endorses the existence” of a person who practices sodomy, how could God ever send that person to hell?

Nowhere does the pope mention a little something known as sin. He offers no reasons for the sodomite to stop sodomizing. After all, God Himself “endorses the existence” of the sodomite. So why not continue in one’s sins? What is the impetus for change?

The pontiff’s documented words, in context, on abortion and contraception:

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time...The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently...We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”  (End quote).

Perhaps someone should tell the pope it is not necessary for the post-Vatican II Church to insist only on issues related to the Nazi “Holocaust," anti-semitism and the defense of Talmudic Judaism as possessing an unbroken covenant with God. "We have to find a new balance." Does the pope agree? Would he be caught dead saying that the pastoral ministry cannot be “obsessed” with the Nazi “Holocaust”?

We don't believe, short of a divine miracle, Francis would ever make such a statement, for unlike the dehumanized and marginalized unborn children awaiting the executioner's invasion of their mother's womb, the Nazi "Holocaust" lobby has enormous power on earth. The victims of the abortion holocaust have no such lobby with comparable power on earth.

Let us also not forget that this coffin-rider who calls himself pope is declaring that too much has been said against birth control (contraception). The people who brought the Gospel to the world, who inhabit the nations of Britain, Ireland, Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States, are self-extinguishing due to contraception being winked at by their religious leaders — and now it is minimized by the pope himself. This is incredible. It is totally revolutionary. Even the pope of Vatican II, Paul VI, devoted himself to composing the encyclical Humane Vitae, closing the door forever on artificial contraception. But Francis declares, "We have to find a new balance.” Between what, life and death? (Rev. 3:15).

According to fake prophecies cooked up during the Renaissance and attributed to the medieval St. Malachy, the current Pope Francis is the last pontiff, dubbed, in that phony prophecy, “Peter Romanus.”

We propose a new name for him, Diabolus Romanus.

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


Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Russian newspaper: America wears the seal of Antichrist

Xavier Lerma, writing in the Russian newspaper Pravda:

 "Forgotten or ignored by the west are the Christian men and women of Russia who prayed, suffered and died for today's free and united Russia. Last century they were attacked by Hell itself yet they endured and rebuilt Christ's Church. Over 58 Million were killed in Communist Russia but the Faith survived. It is one of the greatest miracles in world history. 

The western media prefers to shriek like spoiled brats against Putin. "Evil dictator!" they shout, while they themselves have rejected the Holy Spirit and proudly wear the seal of the Antichrist.

 They laugh but God is not mocked. Christ is Victorious in Russia where homosexuality is still a sin; blasphemy a crime; where crosses and holy images are in public view. A renewed faith in Christ our King has become our fortress. This is the wall Putin stands on and the wall that will cause Obama's fall.” 


Friday, September 13, 2013

Lipstadt's lawyer Anthony Julius exposes Daniel Jonah Goldhagen

Deborah Lipstadt’s former lawyer, Anthony Julius, documents the intellectual dishonesty of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in today’s Wall Street Journal, Sept. 13, p. A13.

Goldhagen has published a delusional book of 485 pages, The Devil that Never Dies  ("antisemitism" is the devil), and Julius is afraid that it is so bad it will embarrass the Zionist thought police; ergo, he reveals Goldhagen's fraudulent quotes and dishes other dirt on Goldhagen and his book, which Julius terms "truly ludicrous."

If you can beg, borrow or buy a copy of today's Wall Street Journal, I would say, do so. 

Internecine warfare among the enemies of truth is a delightful spectacle.

Michael Hoffman

P.S. Here is my own critique (at Amazon.com) of a book by Anthony Julius himself:

9 of 20 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Gentiles forever on trial in Anthony Julius's Beth DinMay 18, 2010

CENSORSHIP ALERT: This review was first published May 18, 2010 and then removed by Amazon. It was re-published after negotiation with Amazon concerning censorship, on Jan. 30, 2011. The review was again removed the summer of 2012. I am resubmitting it on Aug. 3, 2012. When a review is removed all of the votes it received (pro or contra) are lost, as well as any debate in the comments section. Why has the review been repeatedly removed and then restored? Ask Amazon.

There are plenty of unintentionally funny bits in Harold Bloom's fulsome review in the New York Times (May 7, 2010) of Anthony Julius's tedious book, Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Antisemitism in England. The theme of Mr. Julius is that "the Jews are always on trial" and after whining thus, in the familiar full-blown paranoiac pattern, Julius and Bloom proceed to conduct their own Beth din (rabbinic court) inquisition: "Julius casts this huge book as a series of trials, not of the Jews but of the English." (Bloom).

No one may judge the Judaic people, but Julius and Bloom presume to judge the English people. This makes perfect Talmudic sense! Israeli leader Shimon Peres said something similar after the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Jenin in 2002, when there was a call for a U.N. war crimes investigaton. "No one judges Israel!" Peres shrieked. But counterfeit "Israel" will put western civilization on trial, or at least three of its most eminent writers, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, along with the English nation as a whole. According to Bloom:

"Trials of the Diaspora takes its title from its final epigraph, Philip Roth's pungent observation in his still undervalued novel Operation Shylock: `In the modern world, the Jew has perpetually been on trial; still today the Jew is on trial, in the person of the Israeli -- and this modern trial of the Jew, this trial which never ends, begins with the trial of Shylock.'...The best chapter in Trials of the Diaspora concerns the cavalcade of anti-Semitism in English literature, with its monuments in Chaucer's Prioress's Tale, Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice and Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist...

"As an old-fashioned bardolator, I am hurt when I contemplate the real harm Shakespeare has done to the Jews for some four centuries now. No representation of a Jew in literature ever will surpass Shylock in power, negative eloquence and persuasiveness....Shakespeare, still competing with the ghost of Christopher Marlowe, implicitly contrasts Shylock with Barabas, the Jew of Malta in Marlowe's tragic farce...It is Shakespeare's continuing triumph over Marlowe that such an exchange will not work. Shylock is darker and deeper forever. For Julius, The Merchant of Venice is both an anti-Semitic play and a representation of (attack on) anti-Semitism. I dispute the latter: the humanizing of Shylock only increases his monstrosity."

If you attend Yale University and seek to plumb the depths of the literature of the West, Prof. Bloom will be your guide --the Prof. Bloom who loves Shakespeare but despises The Merchant of Venice. We can learn an instructive lesson from what Bloom hates about the play. He writes, "No representation of a Jew in literature ever will surpass Shylock in power, negative eloquence and persuasiveness...." Then he relates to us the secret of Shakespeare's power: "... the humanizing of Shylock."

Shakespeare does not make Shylock a stock character of utter revulsion. Shylock is not presented as wholly evil or completely unsympathetic. The Christians in The Merchant of Venice are not completely blameless. The Bard acknowledges Shylock's humanity and presents him as a challenge to the flawed Christians.

Shylock's final arguments are persuasive and almost carry the day, until Portia's speech, wherein she contrasts the Judaic call for "justice" (i.e. vengeance, the "pound of flesh"), with Christ's call for mercy, after which a chasm materializes that Harold Bloom, Anthony Julius and all the Zionist professors and lawyers in the world cannot traverse.

Shakespeare attacked Shylock's ideals; lesser artists would have attacked Shylock himself. They hate the sinner. Shakespeare only hated the sin. Every drama, oration, book, movie or volume of history or theology that denies the humanity of Judaic persons and refuses to love them (Luke 6:27), cannot achieve what Shakespeare achieved: "...the humanizing of Shylock only increases his monstrosity." Call it the Shakespeare Factor, this approach toward enemies, so radically different from the rabbinic mentality which paints enemies, as Bloom and Julius do, in hateful shades of pure evil, is what is missing from many writings that oppose Judaism.

Bloom: "Dickens created the second most memorable Jew in his superb Fagin. There is no third figure to compete with Shylock and Fagin....How does one estimate the lasting harm done by Shakespeare's and Dickens's egregious Jews?...nothing mitigates the destructiveness of the portraits of Shylock and Fagin. The greatness of Shakespeare and of Dickens renders their anti-Semitic masterpieces more troublesome than the litany of lesser but frequently estimable traducers..."

Charles Dickens based Fagin on a real-life receiver of stolen goods, the notorious Ikey Solomons. In a statement after the book's publication, Dickens wrote, "Fagin in Oliver Twist is a Jew because it unfortunately was true of the time to which that story refers that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew." Shylock and Fagin are truth-types, not stereotypes, something the Juliuses and Blooms of the world can't accept. The efficacy of Dickens' portrayal of Fagin rests on the Shakespeare Factor: Dickens portrayed Fagin as fully human, animated and lively. The scene of Fagin in prison awaiting execution is suffused with pathos. He is evil, but Dickens puts forth gentiles who are at least as evil (Bill Sikes) or more so (Monks).

Lawyer Julius and Prof. Bloom have a bone to pick with Chaucer (for his testimony about ritual murder in "The Prioress Tale,"), and with Shakespeare and Dickens, and they are not reluctant to demean them out of deference for the offense their attacks may give to western civilization by sullying the memory of its literary giants. This is the one-way prerogative of the Talmudic mentality: they feel entitled to bash-in the faces of our heroes, but when we topple their cherished icons, we are guilty of filthy, stinking bigotry. There is no reciprocity or quid pro quo with imperious personalities like these. They assess our humanity and burnish or damn our reputation predicated upon the degree to which we are willing to succumb to their sense of entitlement.

Bloom engages in some stereotyping of his own: "Julius links anti-Semitism to sadism. He might have done even more with this, since sado-masochism is something of an English vice, and is so much a school-experience of the upper social class."

An English vice. To say that usury or fencing stolen goods are Judaic vices is rabid Shakespearean and Dickensian antisemitism, yet Bloom feels entitled to stigmatize the English as sadomasochist, as people who derive pleasure from extreme cruelty. As one of the Holy People, Bloom can libel the English nation with impunity, while the profound insights of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens constitute an "immemorial stench" (Bloom), out of a "sewer" (Julius).

In his chapter on "The Mentality of Modern English Anti-Semitism," Mr. Julius presents what Prof. Bloom terms, "the puzzle of what appears to be an incessant prejudice, never to be dispelled."

The concept of gentiles harboring never-to-be-dispelled prejudice toward Judaics is a troglodyte dogma taught to bochurim (yeshiva boys). They are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that any opposition to the religion of Judaism is irrational (based on no legitimate grievance) and ineradicable, the assumption being that all opposition to Judaism reflects a hereditary gentile predisposition toward hatred of the Holy People. This traditional rabbinic brainwash is expressed as follows: "Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov" ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob;" cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 463-466).

It will come as a shock to the acolytes of Julius and Bloom that despite their morally superior liberal pretensions, they are steeped in 2,000 years of Talmudic anti-gentile darkness.



To receive news briefs and special offers by e-mail via "The Hoffman Wire," send an e-mail to hoffman[at]revisionisthistory.org with the words "Subscribe Hoffman Wire" in the subject header. 

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Johnny Cash and his wife sought to convert their Judaic manager to Christ

Saul Holiff is the subject of his son Jonathan’s film documentary, “My Father and the Man in Black,” opening in New York and Los Angeles September 6. The Man in Black is of course country music singer Johnny Cash. Saul was associated with the superstar for 17 years, and for 13 of those as his manager. The movie is based on telephone conversations with Cash which the elder Holiff secretly recorded, unknown to the singer or his family.

Here is a portion of an interview with Jonathan Holiff concerning Saul Holiff which was conducted by Curt Schleier and published in the Sept. 3 edition of the Jewish Daily Forward.

Schleier: But finally June Carter Cash said something that broke the camel’s back. Was she an anti-Semite?

Jonathan Holiff: I can’t say that she was. But when John (Johnny Cash) started working with (the Rev. Billy) Graham she asked my Dad if he had some problem with Jesus and was only interested in money.

My father said, “I consider that remark anti-Semitic. I should not be expected to attend shows I did not book. I’m giving my notice.”

He’d quit Johnny four or five times before. He’s the only one to quit a superstar. In Hollywood we would sooner convert to Scientology than walk away from $1 million a year. This is something I respect about him...

His integrity was paramount and when Johnny tried to convert him to Christianity my father couldn’t take it any more. He walked away from all that money and retired at age 49 never to work again.

Read more:


Monday, September 02, 2013

Sample letter to your Senator or Rep. opposing Obama attack on Syria

Dear Senator (or Representative)

Next month the US treasury is slated to run out of money.

Some Republicans tell us there is little funding available for Social Security or health care.

If you choose to approve Mr. Obama’s intention to bomb Syria, please reveal the estimated cost of a cruise missile — or other attack — to taxpayers, and explain how America can afford to be world policeman when we have a sequester and a severe budget shortfall?

I would like our bridges, roads, and schools repaired and built, and social security and health care for Americans budgeted, before we intervene in yet another Muslim civil war on the other side of the world.

Sincerely, your taxpaying constituent,