Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Israeli Sanhedrin is considering killing President Obama

Israeli Sanhedrin in Jerusalem is considering killing President Obama

This Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, the Nasi (prince) of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem is clever because in his talk he peppers it with references to Moses and Deuteronomy. He also claims that rabbis are not allowed to lie. This is all misleading verbiage. His references to Maimonides are key because in Judaism the Old Testament is filtered through the doctrines of men, like Maimonides, who declared that King David asked for permission of the Sanhedrin before he went to war, which is a lie. So we dont blame the Old Testament. Judaism is not an Old Testament religion. Judaism is a Talmudic and Kabbalistic religion that wields the Old Testament as a prop.

In the video the head of the Sanhedrin also says that rabbis can’t make their own (divine) laws. This is another lie. Maimonides concocted his own laws, ascribed them to the Old Testament and persuaded rabbinic Judaism to believe him, which they still do of course as this video shows.

Rabbi Yisrael Ariel in the video calls for the death of our President Obama, if Obama does not follow the seven laws, one of which is against idolatry. By Maimonides’ own definition, worshipping Jesus is idolatry according to Orthodox Judaism. As Rabbi Ariel in the video noted, the Seven Noahide Laws, when enforced, do not permit churches of the true Christians (this is one basis of the alliance between the Israelis and the Saudis — the latter do not allow public churches in “the kingdom”); hence, where there are such churches the Israelis will, in the future, go to war to eliminate them, as they plan to make war in Iran, no doubt using John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson or Hillary Clinton to dispatch the American military as Israeli proxies; which is the role the US served in Iraq. 

We have seen nothing in the establishment news media about this prominent and influential rabbi in Jerusalem  with the connivance of the Sanhedrin   threatening the life of President Obama (he also casts the pope in an ominous light early in his talk). The U.S. corporate media have slammed the usual lid on this news about the death threat. Such news disrupts their mind control over the American people.

The members of the Sanhedrin are futurists. They would probably not kill Obama or the pope now, since those two are doing too much useful work for counterfeit-Israel. But when their usefulness is up, then their time on earth may also be up according to this Nasi, unless Obama and the pope convert to the Judaism-for-gentiles religion known as the Seven Mitzvoth of Noahs Sons (this is not a reference to the Noah of the Bible, but to the counterfeit Noah of the Talmud and Midrash, as we explain in our book Judaisms Strange Gods). 

— Michael Hoffman 


Our independent journalism depends upon donations from readers like you.


Friday, September 25, 2015

A Warning for Pope Francis

The Pope Francis Praxis • September 25, 2015
Compiled by Michael Hoffman • www.revisionisthistory.org

— Contents — 

1. A Warning for Pope Francis

2. On Yom Kippur 

3. In Congress

4. At the United Nations

5. Some of those opposing the pope are themselves suspect

6. Editor’s Note


1. A Warning for Pope Francis

 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”  Luke 6:26

2. On Yom Kippur
Pope Francis told those observing Yom Kippur to “continue in holiness.” If they can be holy without Christ what’s the point of Christianity?

3. In Congress:  Not a Word about Abortion while Planned Parenthood sells baby parts 

There’s an abortion holocaust underway and the pope mumbles a few veiled words in Congress than can be construed to be vaguely pro-life, but not the word (abortion). In the course of his visit to the United States Pope Francis has hugely energized  pro-abort “Catholics.” 

4. At the United Nations: the Pope decries Usury

In his speech today to the United Nations Pope Francis decries “usury” while operating the Vatican usury bank that enjoyed record profits last May:

"Beyond these achievements, the experience of the past seventy years has made it clear that reform and adaptation to the times is always necessary in the pursuit of the ultimate goal of granting all countries, without exception, a share in, and a genuine and equitable influence on, decision-making processes. The need for greater equity is especially true in the case of those bodies with effective executive capability, such as the Security Council, the Financial Agencies and the groups or mechanisms specifically created to deal with economic crises. This will help limit every kind of abuse or usury, especially where developing countries are concerned. The International Financial Agencies are should care for the sustainable development of countries and should ensure that they are not subjected to oppressive lending systems which, far from promoting progress, subject people to mechanisms which generate greater poverty, exclusion and dependence.”

— Pope Francis, United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 25, 2015 

 If Pope Francis was not a hypocrite, he would do more than mouth anti-usury rhetoric as his papal predecessors have been doing for centuries. He would restore the Churchimmemorial dogmatic ban on earning any profit from loans, and require that penitent Catholic usurers make restitution for their ill-gotten gains. Unrepentant Catholic usurers would be refused communion and a Catholic burial. This was the law of the Roman Catholic Church for one thousand five hundred years.  http://amzn.to/1KDztfS  and  http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/hoffmans-revisionist-history-store-dvds.html

5. Some of those opposing the pope are themselves suspect: Most prominently the Fox News pundit “Judge Andrew Napolitano who is disappointed by the fact that the pope criticizes the predatory capitalist god known as The Market." In other words, the judge doesnt want the pontiff to even mouth rhetoric against the mortal sin of usury which is the engine of the entire Money Power system that oppresses us. You will recall that in our study of Bill OReilly's The Last Days of Jesus opus (which blames Our Lord's death mostly on the Romans), we cite the fact that Mr. Napolitano makes the Romans entirely culpable. Kosher-“Conservatives” constitute false opposition intended to confuse and misdirect.

6Editor’s Note: Since earlier this month when we published our Revisionist History newsletter studying Adolf Hitler’s facilitation of the murder of Gregor Strasser, certain fans of Hitler have canceled subscriptions and pledged to stop sending donations. The continuation of our Truth Mission is in peril.

* * * 

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Revisionism as Socratic method or Hitlerian propaganda?

By Michael Hoffman

Copyright©2015 www.revisionisthistory.org 

While I was aware that the idolization of Adolf Hitler was a factor among World War II revisionists, among whom this writer is numbered, I had not gauged the depth of the cultic adoration of this man and the seeming hypnotic hold he continues to exert from the grave, though there’s nothing supernatural about it. One of the most monstrous vices of our human race is our capacity for worshipping another human being —  with all the irrational excuses and alibis associated with the adoration of god-like charismatic despots and messianic secular saviors.

Since we are doing a lengthy future newsletter issue on the relationship between Hitler and Stalin and the Führer’s invasion of Russia, I will not comment here, much less endeavor to refute, remarks concerning that aspect of the debate now in progress.

Some readers have speculated on my “motives” in writing, thus far, two Revisionist History issues re-appraising the Nazi dictator. Money certainly isn’t one of them. There is a distinct possibility that the loss of income resulting from our re-appraisal will severely curtail our Truth Mission (I was warned this past summer by one anti-Zionist patriot leader — who is privately anti-Hitler but dares not state his views in public for fear of loss of income among his nationalist following — that if I were to continue to publish my negative views of Hitler it would seriously erode support).

I’m no hero, but loss of income will certainly not deter us from the pursuit of truth; a pursuit which appears to be suspect in the eyes of some neo-Nazis who call themselves “revisionists.” In their case, revisionism exists mainly to rehabilitate Hitler. Pursuit of the harsh truth about Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, rabbis and Zionists, however unsparing, is welcomed in their ranks, and there is much rhetoric among them about the "glorious and courageous intellectual adventure that is revisionism” — as long as the adventure is confined to defying the idols of the Left. Pursuit of the harsh truth about Adolf Hitler is most unwelcome however for at least a substantial portion of the revisionist movement.

Why expose the Hitler cult? Because I believe the Cryptocracy is behind it — to condition us to mentally envision and then help to arise another god-like dictator for the white people, who will bring us into utter ruin, as did the Führer to the German nation.

As with all religions, the Hitler religion treats heretics roughly. The fact that my book The Great Holocaust Trial was banned in Canada and seized and destroyed by Canadian customs, or that my YouTube video, Academic Freedom and Holocaust Denial Newspeak" cannot be seen on computers in Germany because it has been blocked for the past five years by Merkel’s government, or that two men went to prison in Britain for distributing my Tales of the Holohoax satire, or that among my personal friends I was proud to number (and interview and record) WWII German combat veterans Hans Schmidt, Hans von der Heide and Otto Ernst Remer, and Auschwitz agronomist Thies Christophersen  none of this cuts the mustard with Hitlerite revisionists.  As will be noted from the following correspondence (see below), if one blasphemes their god, then one is persona non grata. 

If we penetrate the masquerade we find that for these Hitlerites little else about revisionism  and certainly not unfettered freedom of inquiry according to the Socratic method  matters, save for how revisionism can be manipulated to rehabilitate the reputation of Lord Adolf by means of propaganda that will brook no dissent.

There is a substantial number of revisionists like this writer who know that some of the crimes for which Hitler is accused (such as gassing millions in Auschwitz) are indeed outrageously false accusations. Moreover, Hitler had in certain unsung respects, a personal honor which Allied and Zionist caricaturists refuse to recognize (his refusal to be the first to bomb British cities, or the first to weaponize and employ advanced poison gases which the Germans possessed [such as Sarin and Tabun] and for which the Allies were virtually defenseless). 

These same independent-minded revisionists also appreciate that in the field of logic one can deduce that being exonerated of one charge does not render all charges groundless, and that this is true concerning some of the monumental crimes for which Hitler  like Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin  is indeed guilty. It is at this juncture that the cultists part company with the revisionists while claiming to be the only true revisionists. Then they boycott the revisionists who have doubts about the claims concerning Hitlers alleged basic decency, goodness, love of peace and democracy etc.

The shrill and sometimes hysterical nature of the outcry against Revisionist History issue no. 80, in whose pages Hitler is shown to have facilitated the murder of Gregor Strasser, one of the most storied German patriots of that era, suggests deep insecurity in the ranks of the Führer’s acolytes, many of whom, it would appear, mainly or exclusively read pro-Hilter propaganda and can’t begin to form anything approaching a rational skepticism toward neo-Nazi encomiums and legends abut him. This is particularly true in the study of Operation Barbarossa wherein "Victor Suvorov," and more frequently of late, Joachim Hoffmann (no relation), are the principal research pillars upon which the cherished exculpatory legends (promoted as irrefutable dogma) surrounding Mr. Hitler's catastrophic pre-emptive invasion of Russia, are predicated.   

That there could be a whole other side to Hitler and Barbarossa which leading revisionists have marginalized and ignored, similar to the way gas chamber skepticism has been marginalized and ignored by the Establishment media, is a frightful, indeed panic-stricken prospect for the true believers. There has been some suggestion that if this writer crosses the red line in this realm we will lose what is left of our readership. It is difficult to fathom the level of perversity in such a threat. The revisionist movement is self-advertised as an act of defiance against propaganda and cherished myths, but some of its most dedicated adherents intend to bankrupt anyone who actually takes this advertising hype at face value and then sallies forth to challenge the Standard Revisionist Account (SRA) of Hitler and Gregor Strasser, or Hitler and Russia.

Thank goodness that the revision of history is an individual act of independent scholarship and conscience, and not an “ism" wholly owned by the Fourth Reich. Hence, whether it bankrupts us or not, we fully intend to pursue our revision of the history of Hitler and Russia on the same classic revisionist  principles which — whether they agree or disagree with our Barbarossa thesis —  are shared and respected by revisionists like Bradley Smith, Prof. Daniel McGowan, Bruce Leichty, Ditlieb Felderer and others of independent mind who are without an ulterior ideological motive or axe to grind.

When pursuit of the Socratic method (“follow the evidence wherever it leads”) becomes grounds for being purged from revisionism when the evidence leads to icon-shattering revelations about Hitler, then there is something seriously perverse transpiring inside revisionism. 

Here's a bulletin for those who have their “Long Knives”out:

 I will not go quietly into the dark night of isolation and penury at the hands of self-appointed commissars of “correct” revisionism. Any threat of loss of income or "going out of business" has no effect whatsoever. I will research and publish even if I have to earn money by pushing a broom; and I will grin as I do so, meditating on how certain “revisionists” fear and hate the revision of their own idols. 

Michael Hoffman is the author of eight books of history and literature. In 1985 his "World War II Revisionists” television series was the subject of a Judaic riot in front of the studios of the local access cable company in Ithaca, New York. In the summer of 1998 he personally confronted “Jewish ‘Defense' League" terrorist Irv Rubin in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 

Letters representative of readers’ reactions to Revisionist History newsletter no. 80 (September, 2015 issue): 

Hitler Had Him Murdered: The Untold Story of Gregor Strasser, the German Visionary who could have lead his nation to a New Birth of Freedom.

Dear Michael Hoffman

We have as a result of your very distorted and false attack against Hitler and his handling of the attempted coup against his duly elected government, by Gregor Strasser, General Schleicher, and Ernst Roehm come to the parting of our ways.

 You praise Gregor Strasser but he was a traitor to his country and to its duly elected government. You seem never to read the works of Revisionist Historians like General Leon Degrelle and Willis A. Carto et al so as to get true information on the subject. In Hitler Democrat Degrelle gives all the details of the attempted coup by those infamous three and you surely must know that in all nations  those who try to launch a coup d’état face certain death. I do not know where you got your information but, it is false. 

I trust General Leon Degrelle who wrote about the entire episode in his book Hitler Democrat and he was a member of the Belgium Government at the time and knew Hitler personally. You use very harsh and bitter words in describing Hitler and those of us who believe he was a Great Leader of his people who led them out of the morass of their harsh and punitive treatment by the “victorious allies” (criminals) at Versailles must wonder where your bitterness towards him comes from, and you do not hesitate to call those of us who hold him in high regard names and speak disparagingly of us as though we do not know what we are talking about when we praise him. 

A grave injustice has been done to Hitler by his enemies who are “Legion” and you seem to be in their camp and have begun to call those of us who want the truth about his heroic leadership of his people when they had been prostrated by their enemies, to be extolled from the rooftops rather then sent to jail and called unworthy names.  

Willis Carto who fought in the American Army and was awarded the Purple Heart in WWII calls Hitler “one of the most remarkable persons in European history” and “from boyhood his friends knew that he was special. He says further, “What writers who are unfriendly do not wish to recognize, however, are his profound and detailed knowledge of history and historical personalities, his strong sense of fairness, his pronounced interest in art and architecture, his talent as a first-class military strategist, his idealism and his justified determination to redress the punitive Versailles Treaty that had crippled Germany after World War I.”  

He says further, “After the war, the British blockaded Germany in order to starve to death as many Germans as possible, and the Allies succeeded in killing at least 900,000 Germans.” These quotes are from Willis Carto’s little booklet, A Straight Look at the Second World War: The Final Truth About World War II. As far as I am concerned our Loving God seeing the plight of the heroic and God-loving German people sent them Adolf Hitler to lift them up from the depths of the despair meted out to them at Versailles and gave them back their courage and fortitude to rebuild their lives, but the evil ones who had plans for a One World Order (which is Tranny and Slavery, could not succeed unless they destroyed Germany once and for all and so, in spite of all Hitler’s efforts to work out solutions to the problems facing his country the war mongers were determined to destroy the Germans and their Leader...

You are listed as a contributing editor to The Barnes Review but it seems to me that you do not agree with most if not all of what is written therein and perhaps you should have your name removed. In any case, I am removing myself once and for all from subscribing to your newsletters and request that you do not send me any more of them upon receiving this letter. I no longer trust your work since I see how far from the truth you wander from all the Revisionist historians that I read and agree with.

British Columbia, Canada

Hoffman replies

Dear K.G: 

Strasser was not plotting any “coup." He was an innocent man murdered in cold blood. 

I worked for Willis Carto from three years, including as a columnist for Spotlight newspaper in Washington D.C. and Assistant Director of the Institute for Historical Review in California. I knew Leon Degrelle, having spoken with him (through a translator) on the phone, as well as through correspondence. With all due respect to these two intrepid men, when it comes to exonerating Hitler for the death of Gregor, their belief in the standard revisionist account does not make it true. 

Reciting the titles of a couple of neo-Nazi publications does not prove anything. Degrelle’s Hitler Democrat is a publication by a Nazi loyalist who sets out to prove Hitler was not guilty of murdering the innocent in the Night of the Long Knives. To proceed a priori like that is not history, it’s propaganda. I began my study of Gregor Strasser fully open to the possibility—or probability—that he plotted a coup. In the course of our research we discovered that no credible historian believes Gregor was plotting a coup. All the evidence we located pointed to his innocence. It is a stain on Col. Degrelle’s record that in blind allegiance to Hitler he spread falsehoods about Gregor Strasser, an eminent German statesman and patriot whose murder robbed the nation of the leader they needed most.

Bringing a quasi-religious faith in Hitler to the domain of history will never bring you enlightenment or persuade others who do not share your faith. Demanding that I believe in the goodness of Hitler is similar to the mentality that demands that I believe in the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz. Authentic revisionists worthy of the name reject demands for conformity of thought. We require facts. I presented my facts in Revisionist History no. 80. I have yet to see any tenable refutation of them. Until I do I will stick by them come hell or high water.

Refute my documentation specifically, and demonstrate in detail how it was that Gregor Strasser was a plotter, otherwise you have no case. 

Furthermore, in the matter of the slaughter known as the Night of the Long Knives of June 1934, Hitler gave a public, post-massacre speech in which he declared himself to be the supreme judge of the German people. If that’s the kind of leadership that serves as a template for our future renaissance then we are truly lost.

Dear Michael, 

You had already e-mailed me part of your philippic regarding Hitler and Strasser and I had quickly discarded it, thinking you must have been in some kind of bad mood or bad health…Then I received it by snail mail. Here are my comments: let’s forget about all the mistakes that I came across, and let’s suppose you were right: what on earth is the good of such a newsletter? Whom are you writing such a paper for? What do you want to prove now? I say: “Now.” That you are the best revisionist on earth because you are capable of criticizing Hitler? I can’t figure out the reason why you would write such a paper... If there are people who wish to see Hitler as a real saviour for Germany and certainly not the man guilty of bringing that country into ruins, well, why bother? How dare you write that Hitler brought utter ruin? Have you forgotten all that he did to avoid the war?

Paris, France 

Michael Hoffman,

Ive always read that Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm of the S.A. had tried to overthrow Hitler who then reacted to save his government. At any rate, I respect your scholarship and hold no ire toward you for your conclusion in this matter.

I do insist however that Suvorovs and J. Hoffmanns thesis is correct re: Stalins intention in 1941 to conquer all of Europe to the shores of PortugalBy thinking first, Hitler saved western Europe from Bolshevik tyranny.

Eugene, Oregon

Hoffman replies:

Dear Mr. R.

I don’t know what will happen when I write the newsletter on Hitler and Russia (in early 2016). Our people have such a strong certainty about the claim that Stalin was going to attack Germany first. 

If the facts say otherwise I can’t suppress them. The views are very strong because if Hitler attacked Russia needlessly then he is among the biggest fools in western history. 

Even you, who offer me respect in the aftermath of my biography of Strasser, insist on Suvorov and Joachim Hoffmann’s thesis that with his invasion of Russia Hitler preempted Stalin’s invasion of Germany and Europe. In the face of this insistence concerning what has become a dogma of revisionism (which insinuates that it has no dogmas), I will merrily proceed full speed ahead with the truth about this question wherever it takes me. I confess that I don’t want supporters who cannot endure the fire and heat of unfettered inquiry. The following words of Patrick Henry are my manifesto. Those who do not agree with them are welcome to depart for greener (or at least more comfortable), pastures: For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to hear the whole truth.” 

Dear Michael

I admire your courage. Keep telling the truth, come what may.
I am now on Social Security. I will try to help some next month. God bless you.

Bremen, Georgia


Friday, September 18, 2015

Dossier on Francis the Papal Judas

Michael Hoffman's
Counter-Intelligence dossier on the current Pope of Rome

Post-Vatican II definition of a good Catholic: someone who cooperates with Judaic self-worship and abandons Christ-rejecting Judaics to their damned condition. 

Is this not a virulent form of “Jew hate,” disguised as reconciliation? Is Pope Francis actually “good for the Jews”   or a terrible enemy who has abandoned them to eternal perdition? 

Why Jews Believe Pope Francis Feels Bond in His ‘Kishkes’ (insides)

By Nathan Guttman 
Forward • September 18, 2015



Jews are unlikely to line the streets of the nation’s capital when Pope Francis arrives September 22, just as Yom Kippur begins, but the pontiff’s visit to the United States has nevertheless stirred interest and excitement among many members of the Jewish community. 

Through his official statements and in his personal gestures, Francis has come to be viewed by many in the Jewish community as among the friendliest popes they have ever seen. During the two years of his papacy, Jews have been impressed by, among other things, his strong stance against anti-Semitism, his more flexible approach to some social and political issues on which most Jews take a liberal stand and even by his close Jewish friends.

“If the pope was up for election, it is likely he would get a strong majority of the Jewish vote,” said Adam Gregerman, assistant director of the Jewish-Catholic relations institute at Saint Joseph’s University, in Philadelphia. “He has many fans in the Jewish community because he is perceived as progressive, tolerant and not dogmatic.” 

Stories of the Argentine pope’s warm embrace of the Jewish community resemble at times the miraculous tales related about Jewish rabbis in Hasidic communities. Many recall how Francis, upon hearing that his close friend Rabbi Abraham Skorka from Buenos Aires was visiting Rome during the holiday of Sukkot, invited Skorka to stay at his Vatican residence so that the rabbi would not have to drive. Francis also made sure all his food was kosher. When Skorka stood up to recite the holiday blessings after the meal, the pope stood up, too, and answered, “Amen.”

A more recent story refers to Israeli president Reuven Rivlin’s visit to the Vatican in early September. Rivlin’s bureau chief, Rivka Ravitz, who is Orthodox, felt she could not bow to the pope, as custom requires (because he was wearing his pectoral cross  Ed.). Francis, according to the tale circulating in Orthodox publications, covered his cross with the palm of his hand and bowed to Ravitz. “He gets it in his kishkes,” said Rabbi Noam Marans, director of interreligious and intergroup relations at the American Jewish Committee. “It’s natural for him, it’s part of who he is.” 

American Jews will have only one opportunity to meet with Francis during his visit, at a multi-religious service he will hold at the 9/11 Memorial & Museum in New York on September 25.

“The Holy Father looked for a place where he could meet with leaders of other religions to give a common witness to peace,” said Bishop James Massa, auxiliary bishop at the Diocese of Brooklyn, who organized the event. Massa told the Forward that the event will be in the spirit of the 1986 World Day of Prayer for Peace, organized by Pope John Paul II in Assisi, Italy. “It will take place at the 9/11 Memorial, where religion was invoked to carry out a terrible act of terror and this meeting will counter it with a message of peace,” he said.

Out of consideration for the religious restrictions of some of the participants, including Orthodox Jews (who are dogmatic and intolerant  Ed.), there will not be a communal interreligious prayer. But Francis “will offer a prayer that is inclusive and not specifically Christian,” Massa said. 

Previous popes had held separate meetings with Jewish leaders while visiting the United States, but Francis’s tight schedule and the Jewish holidays made such an event impossible. A meeting, however, could take place in Rome in the near future, a Jewish official involved in ties with the Vatican said.

Ties between the Jewish community and the Vatican have been on a historic upswing since Vatican II, under the leadership of Pope John XXIII, rejected the doctrine of deicide, which held Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Pope John Paul II, who lived through the Holocaust in Poland, was also viewed as extraordinarily forthcoming toward Jews and Jewish concerns.

Rabbi Alan Iser, an adjunct professor of theology at Saint Joseph’s University and at nearby Villanova University, said Francis’ opposition to anti-Semitism stands on the foundations set by his predecessors. “I don’t think he has broken new ground,” Iser said. “He didn’t add much to the work his predecessors John Paul and Benedict had done.” But many experts and Jewish communal officials believe that Francis, whose papacy began in March 2013, has taken this relationship to a new level. His papacy, they say, is one that combines a strong commitment to eradicating anti-Semitism from the Catholic Church with a unique personal approach and closeness to the Jewish community. 

Francis is the first pope whose original ordination as a priest took place after Nostra Aetate, the seminal policy document that rejected the church’s charge of deicide against the Jews. “He had the chance to implement Nostra Aetate for decades,” Marans said. “It’s a different level of the process, compared to his predecessors.” 

It is not yet clear if Pope Francis will mention the 50th anniversary of the Nostra Aetate during his visit, but just before he arrives in Philadelphia, a symbolic event will take place at Saint Joseph’s University.

The school will unveil a new sculpture, “Synagoga and Ecclesia in Our Time.” The title is a reference to a sculpture that adorned many medieval churches. It depicted the victory of Ecclesia, the church, over Synagoga, a blindfolded woman who, looking down, represented Judaism. [1]

In the new sculpture (above), both women are equal, sitting together and looking at each other’s text. Rabbi Skorka, Francis’s close rabbinic friend, will unveil the statue.

...It is his forceful rejection of anti-Semitism combined with his personal ties to Jews that makes Francis stand out. “He follows the direction set in the Nostra Aetate in words and deeds,” said Rabbi David Sandmel, director of interfaith affairs at the Anti-Defamation League. Sandmel noted that Francis could have an impact on battling anti-Semitism, which is still relatively high in Latin America and among Latinos in the United States. “When there are pictures of the pope and a rabbi embracing, that is going to have an effect,” he said. 

...During his papacy thus far, Francis has...avoided most Middle East-related foreign policy controversies, although some supporters of Israel took issue with his recognition of a Palestinian state and with his prayer stop along the Israeli-built separation barrier during his visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories in May 2014.

“We can choose to have a dialogue of grievance on issues like Pius XII and so on, or we can choose to have a dialogue of working together,” said Rabbi Burton Visotzky, director of the center for interreligious dialogue at the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary. “This is a dialogue in which the Catholic Church and the Jewish community can do God’s work together.” 

Visotzky met Pope Francis while teaching at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, in Rome. “I told him, ‘I bring a blessing from the Jews of America,’ and he said, ‘Rabbi, pray for me,” Visotzky recalled. “So we’re all praying for him.” 

End quote. (Emphasis and photographs supplied). 

Read more: http://forward.com/news/321101/why-pope-francis-has-an-unlikely-jewish-fan-club/#ixzz3m67nIeuS 

Michael Hoffman’s Note:

The Church and the Synagogue
This ancient symbol of the Catholic Church (left) and Pharisaic Judaism (right) is now an embarrassment in the eyes of the pope and his followers. 

[1On medieval cathedrals, statues of the female allegorical figures of Church (Ecclesia) and Synagogue (Synagoga) portray the triumph of Christianity over Pharisaic Judaism. Ecclesia, representing the Catholic Church, is crowned, majestic and victorious. She holds a chalice containing the blood of Jesus and a staff shaped into a Cross. Synagoga, representing the religion of the Pharisees, is portrayed as defeated and blindfolded, her crown fallen at her feet. The Torah, falsified and therefore abandoned by rabbinic Judaism, is nowhere to be seen. 

This venerable iconic allegory is now being replaced by one ceremonially unveiled at St. Josephs University" depicting Judaism embracing the Old Testament. It is unveiled by Talmudic Rabbi Abraham Skorka, whose religion nullifies the Word of God by filtering it through the rabbinic traditions of men (Mark 7; Matthew 15). Rabbi Skorka is co-author, with Pope Francis, of the book Sobre el Cielo y la Tierra ("Between Heaven and Earth).

For Further research

Michael Hoffman's independent journalism depends on donations from readers like you.

* * *

Thursday, September 17, 2015

The Pope, the annulments and the carnival sideshow

The Pope, the Annulments and the Cryptocracy’s Carnival Sideshow

By Michael Hoffman

The following appeared on the website of Rorate Caeli, a prominent "Conservative Catholic" blog which is nostalgic for the pontificate of Pope “St." John Paul II. It is excerpted from Italian journalist Antonio Socci's article in the newspaper Libero of Sept. 12. (Socci's words were translated by Francesca Romana).

Socci begins with a quote from Newsweek magazine related to its cover story:

Newsweek recently had a photo of Pope Francis on their front-cover with the headline: “Is the Pope Catholic?” Subtitle: “Of course he is. You just wouldn’t know it from his press clips.”

Mr. Socci then adds, "Indeed, it is a legitimate question, seeing that the Argentine Pope has prayed in a Mosque..."

Pope John Paul II prayed in a synagogue! 

And he did so not as the apostles did, admonishing the sinners therein, but agreeing with them and encouraging them to continue in their sins as, in his words, "Our Elder Brothers in the Faith."

"Catholic Conservatives" like Socci and Rorate Caeli cannot admit the Judas character of their papal saint. The revolutionary change agent John Paul II is now the object of their longing compared with the pontificate of Pope Francis, just as Pius XII was longed for compared with John Paul II.  After Pius XII became responsible "for  some of the most drastic changes to the Roman liturgy in the Church’s history” [1] he in turn was contrasted to ill effect with Pope Pius X.

In every step of this incipient subversive gradualism (which is the hallmark of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic command ideology), a previous pontiff who had been a revolutionary destroyer becomes a hero to “ conservative Catholics" —  compared with the subsequent papal destroyer who is more extreme than the previous one.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we allow the synagogue of Talmudic Judaism to be passed over in silence, and Islam becomes the only villain in the piece, as the timidity typical of the neocon-Conservatives requires, Pope "St." John Paul II still flunks their test of orthodoxy: he kissed a copy of the Koran, leading Mel Gibson's father to famously brand him, "Garrulous Karolus the Koran-Kisser." (John Paul's baptismal name was Karol).

But all that's forgotten, just as, ten years from now, when Grand Rabbi Pinchas Lipshutz is elected Pope, Francis will be the object of Conservative nostalgia.

Centuries ago God’s enemies had stalwart and worthy opposition who were more than a match for the Cryptocracy’s puppet-masters: Dante, Aquinas, Savonarola. In our time there is no one with any national or international prominence or backing who has the wit and intestinal fortitude to decrypt and deconstruct the high hoax which rumbles on inexorably like the wheels of a death coach from hell.

One last guffaw: Rorate Caeli and its Italian journalists such as Roberto de Mattei and the aforementioned Socci, whine about the disastrous marriage annulment fiasco propelled by the current pontiff. They decry the alibi of "lack of faith" as grounds for nullity: "...lack of faith as cause for the invalidity of a marriage has always been excluded by the Church." They are enraged that the evolving liberalization of the annulment process is "without any magisterial and theological base."

How the Cryptocrats must smirk at this double-minded foolery. Surely Rorate, Socci and Mattei are aware of a little something known as the Vatican Bank, which in May posted record profits from its mortally sinful usury, which is "without any magisterial and theological base," and which "has always been excluded by the Church."

Members of the Church of Rome who charge 400% interest on "payday" loans are welcome at the communion rail of any "Catholic" Church in the world (including "traditional" ones).

The carnival sideshow continues.

The clown grins.

Christ on the Cross is sold for a dollar. 

In fact, everything is for sale except illusion, which is free of charge.

Copyright ©2015 Revisionisthistory.org

1. John Salza, "Sedevacantism and Pope Pius XII’s Liturgical Reforms" (The Remnant, August 15, 2015, p. 14).

Michael Hoffman is the author of the book, Usury in Christendom. His two hour speech, “The History of Catholic and Protestant Usury" is available on DVD.  His "Notes on the Occult Renaissance Church of Rome" is available on audio CD.

* * *