On Christmas Eve Talmudic Judaics are supposed to refrain from their studies to mourn the birth of evil Jesus. To demonstrate their contempt for Christ they are even encouraged to make toilet paper on Christmas Eve! I don’t know what other religion other than the Church of Satan would encourage such a disgusting custom, but as difficult as it is to believe,it's a documented fact. The cinematic equivalent of the rabbinic toilet-paper making tradition, is a 2015 Christmas movie, “The Night Before,”timed to appear in America’s theaters in the Advent season. The movie was produced by Seth Rogen and directed by Jonathan Levine. It stars Rogen and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Here’s an excerpt from the Los Angeles Times'review titled, "The Night Before’ Adds a Little Something Extra to Christmas movies and Midnight Masses”:
“...a curly haired Jewish boy has arrived to remind us of the reason for the season. I’m talking, of course, about Seth Rogen, who stars in and produces 'The Night Before,' a raucous and refreshing new take on the Christmas movie....From a cocaine-fueled diatribe of anxiety in a bar bathroom to a midnight Mass meltdown wearing a blue Hanukkah sweater, he somehow manages to convey vulnerability while behaving like a lunatic. It is Rogen’s particular gift to seem decent while puking in church.”
When do the media consider hate speech "raucous and refreshing”? Answer: when Christianity is the target, and the speech — in this case a movie — bears a remarkable affinity for the spirit behind the rabbinic “minhag” of degrading Christ during the season that commemorates the feast of His birth.
None of this would be possible in an Islamic nation or any civilized nation for that matter, but here it is on the big screen at your local movieplex, in the land of the “God bless America” bumperstickers, where super-patriots point fingers and accuse Russia and Iran of being founts of evil.
The fountsof evil who cooked up the toilet paper-making on Christmas Eve passed their mentality onto their spiritual children in Hollywood and “The Night Before” is the result, here in the land of el Cesspool grande.
Here is the latest of these interminable papal /Vatican-mainstream media conjunctions, wherein some patently ridiculous “justice and mercy" fuzziness is attributed to the merciless haters who comprise Talmudic Judaism. The media nincompoops who uncritically regurgitate this malarkey and the readers who believe it, know nothing — zero, nada — about the Babylonian Talmud, yet they present the spiel as the undoubted truth out of a pathetically credulous faith in all things rabbinic.
Here’s the latest Establishment media hokum about Talmudic Judaism:
For Jews, he (Rabbi Naftali Brawer) said, God’s justice and mercy go together. “There is a passage of Jewish teaching in the Talmud that states that if someone is merciful to the cruel, they will end up being cruel to the merciful. In other words, justice is important in Judaism; it is not just unadulterated mercy.” (end quote) Here’s our brief, two-fold response, which has yet to appear in any mainstream newspaper or other news medium in the West:
Where is the “justice and mercy" in Judaism?
Rabbi Ila’i said: If a person is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known, dress in black clothes, cover his head in black, and do what his heart desires so that G-d’s name will not be desecrated.
— Babylonian Talmud: Moed Katan 17a
“In his Avodah Zarah laws, the Avodat Kochavim, (Rabbi Moses) Maimonides issued formal halakhot concerning saving the lives of non-Judaics, that Judaics are not to save the life of a non-Judaic under the following conditions: ‘Show no mercy to a non-Jew. If we see a non-Jew being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him.”
[Michael Hoffman’s reply to Houellebecq immediately follows, below]
Paris — In the aftermath of the January attacks in Paris, I spent two days transfixed watching the news. In the aftermath of the Nov. 13 attacks, I hardly turned on the television; I just called the people I knew (no small number) who lived in the neighborhoods that were hit. You get used to terrorist attacks.
In 1986, there was a series of bombings in various public places in Paris. I think Hezbollah was behind those attacks. They occurred a few days, or maybe a week, apart; I’ve forgotten exactly. But I remember very well the atmosphere in the subway that first week. The silence inside the cars was absolute, and people exchanged glances loaded with suspicion.
That was the first week. And then, soon enough, conversations resumed, the mood returned to normal. The prospect of another imminent explosion was still there in everyone’s mind, but it had retreated into the background. You get used to terrorist attacks.
France will hold on. The French will hold on, without even needing a “sursaut national,” a national pushback reflex. They’ll hold on because there’s no other way, and because you get used to everything. No human force, not even fear, is stronger than habit.
Keep calm and carry on.” All right, then, that’s just what we’ll do (even though, alas, there is no Churchill to lead us). Despite the common perception, the French are rather docile, rather easy to govern. But they are not complete idiots. Instead, their main flaw is a kind of forgetful frivolity that necessitates jogging their memory from time to time. There are people, political people, who are responsible for the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in today, and sooner or later their responsibility will have to be examined. It’s unlikely that the insignificant opportunist who passes for our head of state, or the congenital moron who plays the part of our prime minister, or even the “stars of the opposition” (LOL) will emerge from the test looking any brighter.
Who exactly weakened the capacities of the police forces until they were totally on edge and almost incapable of fulfilling their mission? Who exactly drilled into our heads for years the notion that borders were a quaint absurdity, and evidence of a foul and rancid nationalism?
The blame, as one can see, is widely shared. Which political leaders committed France to ridiculous and costly operations whose main result has been to plunge Iraq, and then Libya, into chaos? And which political leaders were, until recently, on the verge of doing the same thing in Syria? (I was forgetting: We didn’t go into Iraq, not the second time. But it was close, and it looks as though Dominique de Villepin, then minister of foreign affairs, will go down in history for that reason — which is not nothing — for having prevented France, for the one and only time in its recent history, from participating in a criminal operation that also distinguished itself for its stupidity.)
The obvious conclusion is scathing, unfortunately. For 10 (20? 30?) years, our successive governments have pathetically, systematically, deplorably failed in their essential mission: to protect the population under their responsibility.
As for the population, it hasn’t failed at all. It’s unclear, at bottom, exactly what the population thinks, since our successive governments have taken great care not to hold referendums (except for one, in 2005, on a proposed European constitution, whose result they then preferred to ignore). But opinion polls are allowed, and for what they’re worth, they more or less reveal the following: that the French population has always maintained its trust in and solidarity with its police officers and its armed forces. That it has largely been repelled by the sermonizing airs of the so-called moral left (moral?) concerning how migrants and refugees are to be treated. That it has never viewed without suspicion the foreign military adventures its governments have seen fit to join.
One could cite many more examples of the gap, now an abyss, between the population and those supposed to represent it. The discredit that applies to all political parties today isn’t just huge; it is legitimate. And it seems to me, it really seems to me, that the only solution still available to us now is to move gently toward the only form of real democracy: I mean, direct democracy.
How Houellebecq, in his NY Times column, Has Failed France
By Michael Hoffman
I specify that Houellebecq has failed France “in his NY Times column," because in Submission he does a better job of providing context and apportioning responsibility for the terror crisis in France. But not in this column.
In the New York Times, Houellebecq, who has been compared to L.F. Céline, lets the French people off the hook for their low birthrate and selfish consumerism, which have contributed to a demographic gap that has been filled by migrants.
Céline often excoriated the French mercilessly as sybarites whose future was grim. Houellebecq puffs them up. It is all the fault of the political parties; and oh yes, let’s give the police and army our complete solidarity. Worries about a police state in the land of Thermidor? Perish the thought.
I agree that the dogma of multiculturalism has suffocated the will to defend national borders, and that governments in the West often do not represent the people. But the fault, dear “Horatio” Houellebecq, is in ourselves — we childless, sterile, luxury-loving consumers who demand a half-empty utopia for ourselves —and are profoundly dismayed when refugees and opportunity seekers from distant lands come knocking at our gates, ready to care for us in our lonely old age.
Terrorists? Kill as many as you can, legions of new recruits will keep coming. Until immigrants in France are offered alternatives to jihadist Islamic Fundamentalism more profound than sex and shopping, the terror will continue and the police state will metastasize.
"It’s a wretched yet predictable ritual after each new terrorist attack: Certain politicians and government officials waste no time exploiting the tragedy for their own ends. The remarks on Monday by John Brennan, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took that to a new and disgraceful low. Speaking less than three days after coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris killed 129 and injured hundreds more, Mr. Brennan complained about “a lot of hand-wringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists.”
"What he calls “hand-wringing” was the sustained national outrage following the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, that the agency was using provisions of the Patriot Act to secretly collect information on millions of Americans’ phone records...In his comments Monday, Mr. Brennan called the attacks in Paris a “wake-up call,” and claimed that recent “policy and legal” actions “make our ability collectively, internationally, to find these terrorists much more challenging.'
"It is hard to believe anything Mr. Brennan says. Last year, he bluntly denied that the C.I.A. had illegally hacked into the computers of Senate staff members conducting an investigation into the agency’s detention and torture programs when, in fact, it did.
"In 2011, when he was President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, he claimed that American drone strikes had not killed any civilians, despite clear evidence that they had.
"And his boss, James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has admitted lying to the Senate on the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of data."
— "Mass Surveillance Isn’t the Answer to Fighting Terrorism"
The crisis is a crisis of Faith. The war is a war between the Faithful and the faithless.
France can bomb ISIS in Syria back to the Stone Age and new recruits will repeatedly arise to replace the dead jihadists.
Ex-Catholic agnostic-consumers, stuffed full of masonic secularism ("Liberté, égalité, fraternité")will never defeat Muslims who believe they are doing God's work and fulfilling His Law.Never.
Several hundred Europeans are estimated to be fighting with ISIS; not all are naturalized Arab-Frenchmen or Arab-Belgians. More than a few have blue eyes, fair hair and French, German and English surnames. When their parents abandoned their Christian belief by the side of the consumer road, their children, now adults, were left spiritually destitute. They sought answers to profound existential questions which a society based on sex and shopping cannot provide. In the contest between Jihad vs. McWorld, Jihad will win in the end.
If what is left of the West wishes to survive and prevail, it must rekindle its allegiance to the spiritual genius of Christian civilization.
If not, it will at long last become a satrapy of the Caliphate which our Christian ancestors defeated time and again, in world-historic battles at Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna itself.
The hidden nemesis behind the more obvious one
Queen Isabella of Spain
Islam is only part of the picture. There is a hidden nemesis behind the more obvious one. Our most ancient of all enemies is not Islam. Christianity’s oldest foe is the one which, for all their chest-pounding bluster, timid Right wing super-patriots dare not mention, lest they lose their reputations and their jobs. Having lost both, this writer is free to name the arch-enemy: Orthodox Judaism, which declares that Palestinians (many of whom, science will eventually show, are genetically Israelites), have no rights in the land of Palestine and can be robbed and killed at will. The West's alliance with the killers of the Palestinians is a fatal one. "Conservatives" who drag the name of Jesus into their bloody alliance with the Rabbinic Antichrist are making common cause with the spiritual heirs of their Savior's killers (something as double-minded as this has about it the contours of the occult).
To campaign against the made-in-Saudi-Arabia Salafism of ISIS and al-Qaeda, while providing key support for the Israeli dispossession and mass murder of the Palestinians, is to do what no Christian saint or soldier of the medieval past ever did. When Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Muslims from Spain they expelled their Talmudic co-conspirators as well; a lesson in history we forget at our peril. A God-ordained victory over iniquity and barbarism will never come from an infernal marriage between a reborn Christian West and an Israeli nation of Talmud-rabbis.
During the Jack the Ripper murders, Warren, who was the Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, erased from a wall near one of the killings, masonic code words concerning the "Juwes" or "Three Unworthy Craftsmen," who in masonic lore, are the fabled assassins of Hiram of Tyre, “the Widow’s Son” — legendary architect of the Temple of Solomon. The words were evidence suggesting that the Ripper was a Freemason, or someone familiar with what were closely guarded masonic secrets at the time.
Though he has been heavily criticized for alleged mistakes in his research, the late author Stephen Knight remains one of the best sources on the masonic nature of the Jack the Ripper killings in his indispensable book, "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution.” Another valuable source is the graphic book From Hellby Alan Moore.
A judge has jailed a “Holocaust denier” for five months for using performance art in the public square in Ennis to further his claims that the Holocaust did not take place.
At Ennis District Court, Judge Patrick Durcan jailed 49-year old Dermot Mulqueen of Steele’s Terrace, Ennis for five months for the lunchtime public performance on January 23rd of this year where he put an axe through a TV at the Daniel O’Connell monument in Ennis town centre.
Judge Durcan jailed Mr Mulqueen for five months for breaching Section 9 of the Firearms Act and two months for breaching Section 6 of the Public Order Act.
Mr Mulqueen told the court that the performance art entitled ‘Liberation of the Mind’ was carried out to launch International Holocaust Hoax Day.
Prior to carrying out the performance in front a crowd of mainly teenagers in Ennis, Mr Mulqueen informed his Twitter followers what he was about to do.
In front of a crowd at the monument, Mr Mulqueen had erected a sign entitled ‘International Holocaust Hoax Day’.
Sentencing Mr Mulqueen, Judge Durcan said that Mr Mulqueen “may have a view and an interpretation of history, but it is an historical fact that the Holocaust was the greatest crime perpetrated against a section of mankind in the history of mankind”.
Judge Durcan said that by his actions, Mr Mulqueen "behaved in the most offensive way, not merely towards a particular section of society but towards society generally".
The judge said that Mr Mulqueen's behaviour on the day “would be regarded with abhorrence and repugnance by any reasonable minded human and by the vast, vast majority of people”.
Judge Durcan said that Mr Mulqueen “engaged in the most reckless behavior”.
He said: “Mr Mulqueen was reckless and offensive in the extreme. He was gratuitously insulting not merely to a section of society who we know were most directly affected by the Holocaust but he was gratuitously insulting to most reasonably minded men and women who maintain civic society.
The judge remarked: “I am only surprised that he has not been charged with other offenses."
He said: “I regard his behavior on this occasion as one of the most serious breaches of the Criminal Justice Public Order Act that I have come across."
Judge Durcan asked: "Does Mr Mulqueen have any comprehension of the huge sense of outrage and insult that his behaviour would cause to so many people?”
Solicitor for Mr Mulqueen, Patrick Moylan said that Mr Mulqueen “is not in any way racist and has no problem with the Jewish community. His views are based on something he has read and now believes and he created a work of art on the back of that."
Garda Michael Daniels said that Mr Mulqueen was taking photos of what the accused called ‘a conceptual work of art’ and uploading the photos on to his Twitter and Facebook accounts while at the monument.
Garda Daniels said that local Gardai were monitoring the event through CCTV and moved in to arrest Mr Mulqueen after he smashed the TV with the axe.
Mr Moylan said that his client “was taken aback” to be arrested in the first place. He said that his client is single with no children, has no previous convictions and is currently on social welfare after previously working in Dublin as a taxi-driver.
In his statement to Gardai, Mr Mulqueen said: “I found out that the Holocaust was a hoax in August 2013 after coming across a video by David Cole on Auschwitz on YouTube.”
Mr Mulqueen told Gardai: “I am not a racist but I have found out that the Holocaust was a hoax and I wanted to highlight this so that other people would realize this.”
He said that “people are not aware that Jews declared war first on Germany in 1933” and that putting the axe through the TV was an act against “Zionist Holocaust brainwashing.”
He said: “I had no intention to harm any member of the public.” He confirmed to Gardai that he was not on any medication or suffering from any mental illness.
Mr Mulqueen said that the Nazis had no plans to exterminate the Jews but had a territorial final solution to move the Jews from German held territory “and I have problems with this Holocaust religion.”
In evidence, Mr Mulqueen told Judge Durcan: “I never realized you could get arrested for swinging any axe into your own TV.”
Mr Mulqueen said that the YouTube video he watched show that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were actually a bomb shelter converted into a gas chamber after WWII.
Under cross examination from Insp. Tom Kennedy, Mr Mulqueen said: “I wasn’t breaking the law - I was breaking a taboo. There was nothing threatening about what I did.”
Asked by Insp. Kennedy did he realize how his “performance” would be so offensive in his claim that the Holocaust was a hoax, Mr Mulqueen replied: “There is a whole industry out there that have made a fortune out of putting forward the Holocaust hoax. The legal profession has made a fortune and it it offensive to all the people on the gravy train. The Germans never had a extermination final solution - they had a territorial final solution.”
In response to a plea by Mr Moylan to suspend the jail term, Judge Durcan refused by virtue of Mr. Mulqueen’s behavior.
After imposing sentence, Mr Mulqueen was released on bail pending his appeal to the circuit court.
Letter to the editor
News of the sentence of Dermot Mulqueen to five months imprisonment for smashing a television in the public square in County Clare has reached us in the United States.
This surrealistic jail sentence belongs in a novel by Franz Kafka or George Orwell; not in Irish jurisprudence.
It seems that presiding Judge Patrick Durcan based his ruling entirely on the principle that the defendant gave “offense.” The Irish people are allegedly so utterly offended by Mr. Mulqueen’s blasphemous action and speech concerning facets of World War II history, that he is to be confined in jail for five months.
Is the prevention of “giving offense” the foundation of truth-seeking? It seems to be more in line with the stifling conformity of Stalinist and Islamic-fundamentalist societies, where protest and satire are heavily repressed.
With all the hubbub in Irish media now about the alleged thought control and censorship of the Catholic Church of the past, how is it that the heresy-hunt continues in the present, only this time in the secular sphere, and waged by the government itself?
Shall Irish Zionists be imprisoned for giving offense due to negative characterizations of Palestinians, or has a special category of the offended been created for what the judge in this case hyperbolically termed, “the greatest crime perpetrated...in the history of mankind”?
It seems that formerly protected sacred Catholic dogma has been replaced with newly protected sacred World War II dogma. What does it say about the merits of any dogma when it requires the protection of the state in order to maintain its cachet?
Perhaps some day soon the Irish will purge themselves of the need to erect any doctrine maintained by the state, and instead tolerate all dissidents whose “offensive” behavior may actually lead humanity to an encounter with uncomfortable thoughts and new perspectives which advance knowledge and which government-enforced conformity can only suffocate.
Is there to be freedom only for daring to mock and satirize Catholic Christianity, while satire directed at Holocaustianity results in freethinkers being imprisoned by judges who have a religious-like awe for disputed aspects of secular history?
Two days after the Irish Independent reported Mulqueen’s conviction, your paper published an essay, “The menace of censorship still surrounds sexuality.”I quote, “It is 55 years since (Edna) O’Brien published The Country Girls....O’Brien’s literary debut challenged the sexual and social repression of 1950s Ireland. For daring to speak the truth to that culture of fear and repression, much of it aligned to the then omnipresence of the Catholic Church,The Country Girls was banned by the Irish Censorship Board and copies burned by her local church.”
Can Irish society be so blind as to issue encomiums for O’Brien’s right to offend conservatives, while handing down a jail sentence to Mulqueen for “daring to speak” what he believes is true? Who has the authority to sit in judgment and decide which controversial (“offensive”) expression is deserving of protection or imprisonment?
There should either be freedom of speech for all or freedom for none. The conviction of “Holocaust” heretic Dermot Mulqueen ought to be quickly overturned in the spirit of Irish independence of mind.