Ariel Sharon and the Talmudic Mentality

THE FILE ON ZIONIST WAR CRIMINALS

Ariel Sharon and the Media's Talmudic Mentality of Holocaust Denial

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

______________

The Butcher of Beirut is dead.

Ariel Scheinermann (known as “Sharon”) died January 11, 2014. He was born of parents who emigrated to Palestine from Belarus, in the heart of the Khazar diaspora of Eastern Europe. His face was a road map of Khazaria, sharing the physiognomy of the Kagans and the rest of the Turkic tribe who masquerade as the progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and are accepted as such by the “faithful" in the pews.

Scheinermann/Sharon is not infamous as the “Butcher of Beirut” in the way that certain Germans are universally derided as the “monster of Malmedy,” the “butcher of Warsaw” and other Allied and Judaic sobriquets. Talmudic Khazarians are a protected caste and war crimes cannot be laid at their door, no matter what the actual circumstances.

Sharon the mass murderer has landed on his feet in obituaries and eulogies throughout the West as a man who ended his career “seeking peace” and “angering the Israeli right wing.” What a masterful charade.

After Winston Churchill had gleefully instigated the incineration of all the major German cities during World War II, and 500,000 German civilians had been turned to ash, he had the wit to register his regret at the conflagration that engulfed Dresden, the Allies' last major German cosmopolitan crematory, which happened to have been perpetrated on Aschermittwoch (Ash Wednesday), by the good Christians in the American and English bomber planes. 

Most biographers and historians subsequently report that “Churchill regretted the bombing of civilians in German cities,” the way most journalists in early 2014 reported that Ariel Sharon was a  “hawk” (Israeli war criminals are styled by that mild euphemism), who supposedly turned toward peace. Actually, what Sharon did was engage in a little theatre for the benefit of the yahoos in America who are willing to accept that a token compulsory withdrawal of Israeli settlers from a few patches of stolen land, is tantamount to a "policy for peace."

The settlers, however, don’t go in for withdrawals, token or otherwise, and they arranged for Orthodox rabbis to place the pulsa d’nura Kabbalistic curse on Sharon, who succumbed to a coma afterward (like the victims of Haitian voodoo he may have fallen victim to his own belief in superstitious, rabbinic mumbo jumbo).

Ariel Sharon is presented in the media as not a villain, exactly, but an ambiguous, shades-of-gray, existential anti-hero, unlike the completely rotten, no-good Iranian and German war criminals. According sort the story line we are spoon-fed, no loyal “Jew” (so-called) can be wholly or even predominately evil. This is the dictate of the Talmudic mentality which governs the American media.

We anticipate the groans: Aw, c’mon, Hoffman, the media barely know what the Talmud is.

Perhaps. Nevertheless, with remarkable similitude the establishment media mirrored the Talmudic mentality. The “reasonable” and “august” exemplar of the American press, the New York Times, in its January 12, 2014 edition, devoted less than one sentence to Ariel Sharon's mass murder of civilians in Beirut in 1982:

"...the Israeli invasion seemed not to end but to take on an increasingly punishing nature, including the saturation bombing of Beirut neighborhoods..." 

That’s all the "newspaper of record" had to say about the Israeli terror bombing of a major Arab city for several weeks in the summer of 1982. (cf. "Israeli Hawk Sought Peace His Way, New York Times, Jan. 12, 2014, p. A12). 

Notice that no casualty figure is given (tens of thousands of Lebanese were killed). This is a callous form of holocaust denial — the denial of crimes directed by Ariel Sharon.

If tens of thousands of Israelis had been incinerated in Beirut, whatever non-Jew who perpetrated that “cosmic evil unparalleled in the annals of the modern history of the Middle East,” would be branded with the Mark of Cain for the rest of his life and in lurid detail in any obituary in the corporate media.

Not so with one of the bloodiest butchers in Israeli military history who “sought peace his way.” The “reasonable, liberal” New York Times wants us to remember “The Holocaust” (i.e. every detail of what they say happened to Judaic people, circa 1938-1945), while the Times devotes exactly twenty-two words to Sharon’s mass murder of Arabs in Beirut. Obviously the massive loss of Arab life doesn’t matter count.

In the Talmud, a special category of evil is reserved for goyim and Christians. Roman emperors are burned up, reanimated and burned again, perpetually. Jesus of Nazareth boils forever in hot excrement. Rabbis, meanwhile, give God orders and defeat Him in debate.

By now some readers may be banging their heads in frustration at the chutzpah, the sheerly wrong and unjust nature of the media's hypocrisy concerning Sharon’s savage crimes — similar to the hypocrisy which the man who the Talmud situates being macerated in feces — exposed on numerous occasions some 2,000 years ago. Yet, while frustration and anger can be motivators they are not educators. Therefore, let us peer deeper into the Talmudic dictatorship over the western media.

If we were to summarize the Talmudic mentality in one word, we would describe it as pilpul, which can be detected any time a New York Times editor or a Fox News pundit is committed to "prove" his point regardless of the evidence in front of him.

Reason is not the point when pilpul rules the rhetorical roost. What counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable position that can never be disputed: viz. Ariel Sharon cannot be a war criminal.

In this context, evidence is not primary; the status of the judge is what registers. 

Ergo, Michael Hoffman, offering evidence of the media’s double standard on Israeli war criminal Ariel Sharon doesn’t count, because Hoffman has zero status in the establishment media. 

Consequently, “history” as written by the New York Times or broadcast by Fox News, is extra-factual; it exists without regard for the documentary record. To protest this Wonderland phenomenon would be —  you guessed it —  “anti-Semitic."

The Talmudic mentality as embodied by pilpul makes rational analysis impossible. Any dissent is criminal because it casts doubt on a point that has already been established to the satisfaction of the Talmudic media. There is no use trying to dissent inside the perimeters established by the controlled press, because any contradictory points will be twisted to validate the already-fixed position, and demonize the dissenter as either a “closet” or a “blatant anti-Semitic extremist."

What makes this process possible, in part, is the cowardice of executives in the media who see through the double-standard and are privately infuriated by it. How do we know? We have letters from some of these executives. They give us an epistolary pat on the back on occasion. Someday (when they retire) they say that they will expose the Zionist enterprise. Yeah, well, after they retire there are their wives and husbands and adult children who will advise them "not to bring ruin on us,” so these executives, who know the score, may very likely go to their graves with their tails between their legs.

This is one reason why we have some respect for the Zionists. Though they are completely wrong, they fight for their errors with all their heart, soul and pocketbook, and risk everything for it. As William Butler Yeats observed, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.”

God Cried, pages 10 and 11

Tony Clifton's book God Cried, represents the main body of published photographic documentation of Sharon’s terror-bombing in Beirut in the summer of '82, when clearly marked schools, hospitals and apartment blocs were deliberately and mercilessly obliterated. Tens of thousands of civilians died in this now forgotten holocaust. There is still some notice taken of Sabra and Chatila, the September massacre of Palestinians by the Lebanese Phalangists under Israeli direction, but the far more horrid and extensive massacre represented by the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of the civilian neighborhoods of Beirut is almost completely forgotten, seemingly even by many Lebanese, and certainly by the US media. But until the last copy of God Cried is stamped out, the evidence of the ocean of blood on Sharon’s hands is in those pages, as it must also surely reside in the hearts of many of the unsung survivors.

In defiance of the Talmudic mentality, we protest this holocaust denial on the part of the pompous apportioners of German, Palestinian and Iranian guilt.

Post-script: Beloved children’s author Roald Dahl was appalled by Sharon’s savage bombardment. A year afterward, in August 1983, he wrote a review in praise of God Cried for the English magazine, Literary Review. If you pay a fee you can read his review online. Dahl was to be knighted by the Queen but the proposed knighthood was withdrawn after his review was published. A huge uproar against Dahl burst forth. You can read about it here.

For further research:

Dossier on Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s Bigotry, Racism and Incitement

Michael Hoffman is the author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare; Judaism Discovered;  They Were White and They Were Slaves; Usury in Christendom; The Great Holocaust Trial; Judaism's Strange Gods; The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians, and 107 issues of Revisionist History newsletter. 

Michael’s books are available here and here, as well as at this link 

Browse back issues of Michael's newsletter, Revisionist History® 

This column is financially supported by donations from readers

***

Guilt by association: Zionist smear-media specialty

The Anatomy of Smears

Goldberg smears Mearsheimer through guilt-by-association with Gilad Atzmon

How Jesse Jackson was smeared through guilt-by-association with the Hon. Minister Louis Farrakhan

Researched and compiled by Michael Hoffman 
www.revisionisthistory.org • Sept. 23, 2011

For the past two months, in between writing issue 58 of Revisionist History newsletter, I have been at work on a book that people have repeatedly asked me for since my 1100 page volume, Judaism Discovered, was published in 2008: a condensed summation of its research and thesis for the general reader, priced to sell in an affordable paperback. I did something like that in 2000 with a thin paperback entitled Judaism's Strange Gods that served as a groundwork for Judaism Discovered.

The new condensed book will take the form of a revived edition of Judaism's Strange Gods, though it will differ substantially from the 2000 edition, benefiting from my research into Judaism Discovered and subsequent material I have gathered since 2008. Judaism's Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded is now finished except for the index, which I am completing over this weekend. We will have details on a pre-publication sale offer in the near future.

In the midst of these publishing projects, it has been a while since I offered you a column. I thought I would give you a double-bonus and cram two columns into one.

The first is a hysterical libel of Gilad Atzmon, a Judaic who has written a new book (The Wandering Who?) that presses all the buttons on the aging propaganda machine that generates Jeffrey Goldberg's frenzied boilerplate ("self-hater, twisted and toxic hater, antisemitism, neo-Nazi, Holocaust denial, grotesque medieval calumnies, conspiracy theories"). This is the Talmudic pilpul that passes for journalism and substitutes for a reasoned argument in Goldberg's mental shetl. He plays to the choir but, admittedly, his choir is large. He's a columnist for The Atlantic magazine and is interviewed by NPR in spite of the fact that Mr. Goldberg helped to lie America into the Iraq war, an apparent venial sin which hasn't dented his media cred. (I did an analysis of Goldberg's relationship with NPR; a video of my brief talk is on YouTube).

We also offer part one of a transcript of a speech by Louis Farrakhan. There is a connection: Mr. Farrakhan talks of how Jesse Jackson was smeared because of his relationship with Farrakhan, and Mr. Goldberg, in his Atlantic column, uses Mr. Atzmon (through no fault of the latter) in a guilt-by-assocation smear of Prof. John Mearsheimer, one of the most reputable and courageous critics of Israeli racism and state terror in American academia. It is Goldberg's task to libel and stigmatize Mearsheimer. Mr. Goldberg exploits Gilad Atzmon in order to achieve this, in the same way Farrakhan's relationship with Jesse Jackson was used to damage the reputation of Mr. Jackson.

Pilpulistic tactics are tiresome -- but dependable as clockwork -- and often highly effective in ostracizing and silencing peace makers and thinkers who are independent of the propaganda requirements of Zionism and Holocaustianity.

Jeffrey Goldberg himself endorses apologists for Israeli killers, denies the holocaust against the Palestinians and helped fake America into the Iraq war, but let's not confuse people with the facts. Goldberg's tantrum is worth studying as counterintelligence, a way to gauge the hallaf of one of yiddishkeit's leading inquisitors.

The following information is brought to you by the donors who support this service. Without their donations this service cannot continue. Consider joining other truth seekers by sending a donation today.

Best wishes in this Great Battle,
Michael Hoffman
Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

Smear #1

John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist
By JEFFREY GOLDBERG

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz saxophonist who lives in London and who has a side gig disseminating the wildest sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He is an ex-Israeli and a self-proclaimed "self-hater" who traffics in Holocaust denial and all sorts of grotesque, medieval anti-Jewish calumnies. Here is a small sample of Atzmon's lunatic thoughts:

"I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place. Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbors? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents' plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity......The Holocaust  became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value." (End quote from Atzmon).

...Rather unbelievably (or believably, depending on where you sit)...The R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and co-author of "The Israel Lobby," John J. Mearsheimer...has written an endorsement of Atzmon's new book, "The Wandering Who?"...Mearsheimer is endorsing the writing of a man who espouses neo-Nazi views. In other words, he's not even bothering to make believe anymore -- he's moved from a self-described critic of Israel to a corrosive critic of Jewry itself. The blogger Adam Holland, like yours truly, didn't quite believe that Mearsheimer would endorse such a crude anti-Semite...

READ MORE OF GOLDBERG'S SCURRILOUS ATTACK ON ATZMON AND MEARSHEIMER HERE.

Smear #2

Minister Louis Farrakhan speaks of his relationship with Jesse Jackson and the Jews
Excerpted from NOI Research Group Weekly Report--Volume 2, Issue 37 (September, 2011)

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has been personally attacked for two decades by Caucasian Jews who have attempted to label him an “anti-Semite.” The charge is absurd and the accusers have been shown to be the biggest profiteers in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and other crimes against Black humanity. But in this lecture by Min. Farrakhan at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on March 9, 1994, the Minister explained in detail the real issues behind the controversy between Blacks and Jews. Here is the first of a three-part transcript of that historic lecture.

[....] So I would like to address in my closing some solutions, and the Black–Jewish dialogue, if you will, and Farrakhan’s being embroiled in the middle of this kind of controversy. And you can take it or leave it. I have never been anti-Semitic; I’m not now. I have never been anti-Jewish, and I’m not now. But if I recognize something, and what I recognize is not in the best interest of Jews or Blacks, I have to speak against it. And those who fear paint me in all kinds of positions. But I’m here now to defend myself. I never started any conflict with Jewish people. Never! Never. I stum- bled into it. (Laughter.) ’Cause I did.

SUPPORT FOR JESSE JACKSON

I fell in love with Jesse Jackson, my brother, and Jesse told me he wanted to run to be president. He asked me for my help. I said, “Brother, I don’t know anything about politics.” He said, “Would you help me?” I said, “I’ll think about it and I’ll let you know.” We thought about it, we in the Nation of Islam, we talked about it, and we agreed that we would help Reverend Jackson. When Jesse Jackson gave up his position at PUSH to consider running for the nomination of his party for president, he made the announcement, everybody stood and applauded. Farrakhan sat and the tears rolled down my eyes because I knew that the Reverend Jackson was embarking on a course that could lead to his untimely death. Some people rejoice to see a man make that kind of move. Other people who understand what that move entails are deeply sensitive to the danger. I was deeply sensitive to the danger. I had never seen a dossier on anybody by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) until Jesse Jackson’s assistant, Reverend Barrow, showed me an ADL dossier on Reverend Jackson. And in their dossier, Reverend Jackson was an “anti- Semite.” I want you to listen to me. That dossier was put in the hands of media so that when Jesse would speak, they would raise questions out of that dossier to keep Jesse embroiled in a conflict with members of the Jewish community.

That raised money, but it also would be put in a context that would cut Jesse from support from the common Gentiles of this nation. In February of 1984, ten years ago, Reverend Jackson informed me that there were over 100 real threats on his life. He was told that by the FBI. He was frankly worried, and so was I. So at my convention — the convention of the Nation of Islam — I was introducing Reverend Jackson that year, and in my introduction if you read my words, if you’re a fair-minded person, you could never say that I was anti-Semitic. I appealed to the Jewish community and I said to them that whenever the interests of Jews and Blacks converged, Blacks and Jews always worked together. But when we come of age—meaning we mature, in our self-interest — we have to follow our self-interest, even if our self-interest causes us to be at variance with the interest of the Jewish community.

“RUIN JESSE”

I said, Reverend Jackson is our enlightened self-interest. I said, and the way you handle him can rupture Black–Jewish relations because 90 percent of the Black electorate was lining up behind Reverend Jackson, and members of the Jewish Defense League had interrupted Jesse Jackson’s announcement of his candidacy in Washington, D.C. I was present; I saw it. Then a full-page ad was taken out in the New York Times saying, “Ruin, Jesse, Ruin!”

Because the chant among Black people was, “Run, Jesse, Run!”  And this group called Jews Against Jesse took out an ad saying, “Ruin, Jesse, Ruin!”

Wait a minute. In a political campaign if you don’t like your candidate or the op-ponent, you defeat his program—you attack him intelligently. You put an ad in the paper —“Ruin”? What does the word “ruin” mean? Hmm?

When something is ruined — that garment that you have on that you paid whatever you paid for it — if it is ruined, do you put it on again? To ruin Jesse was the aim of those who put that ad in the New York Times. No responsible Jewish organization condemned that ad. (Applause.) I want you to listen. Now I want you to hear Farrakhan. Since you heard so much about me, now hear me, and give me the same ear that you gave my detractors.

"IF ANY HARM COMES TO HIM, HE'LL BE THE LAST BLACK MAN THAT YOU'LL KILL."

When I spoke, Brother Yusuf Muhammad put my words on this campus in a flyer. Those were my exact words. If you’re sane and intelligent, there’s not one anti-Semitic statement or anti-Jewish statement there. I called on the Jews to sit down and talk with Reverend Jackson. “If you disagree with him,” I said, “we can stand to lose an election, but we cannot stand to lose Reverend Jackson.” I said, “If any harm comes to him, he’ll be the last Black man that you’ll kill.”

Wait, wait, wait, I didn’t finish, no, no— ’cause that’s an implied threat. I said, “We don’t carry weapons. We’re not allowed to carry as much as a pen knife,” I said, “But Almighty God has caused this son of ex-slaves to rise up to such a position, and God Himself will retaliate.”

This is a paraphrase of my actual words, which, they’re out here for you to read. The next day in New York the head of B’nai B’rith was on the radio, calling me “the new black Hitler.”

Let’s stop right there.

Now, I grew up in Roxbury. I went to the Sherwin School, and Boston Public Latin. Didn’t make it there. I graduated from Boston English. I went to Huntington Prep School. Go and search my record. I hardly ever had a fight in my whole life. I’ve never been arrested. All my friends, if you talk to them, they have nothing evil to say about me. I’ve never been a violence-prone individual; not then, not now. All human beings, however, are capable, if pushed to that extreme. I have never said privately to my children, or publicly, Jews should be exterminated. My sons and daughters have grown up in my house. They have never heard me speak of Jews or Italians or Hispanic people using slang terms like “spic” or “kike” or “wop.” I don’t talk like that because I know what it feels like to be called a “nigger” all my life. (Applause.)

 But anybody that knows me from my childhood knows I was a young man of principle and if you wanted a fight outta me, then the fight would never be on no stupid thing, it would always be over a violation of a principle. That’s my history.

"POPE PIUS XII LOOKED THE OTHER WAY" (AS 'JEWS' WERE PUT IN OVENS)

And to call me Hitler. Every young Jew in this audience, whose parents or grandparents went through the Holocaust. What does it mean to them when you say I am a Hitler? Every young Jew would hate that man and want him dead because nobody wants to see a Hitler come up again. What makes me a new black Hitler? We never put Jews in ovens. Not one Black person in this audience has put a Jew in an oven. Gentiles did. Pope Pius XII looked the other way. Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked the other way. (Applause.) You know it. Black people were your liberators from Auschwitz! The first ones in the death camps were Black people. (Applause.)

Now Farrakhan is upset. And shouldn’t I be? If somebody called you a Hitler, wouldn’t you be upset? But why did you call me Hitler? Because of my skill as an orator. Unmatched— no vanity, no vanity, no vanity, no ego. God has given me that gift. I move people. I move people not because I move people. I move people because I am an instrument that communicates to the nth degree to human beings and their pain. I don’t need notes. I speak from the soul, and my speech is like music. Even though it may be uncomfortable some of the passages are so beautiful, because I’m not a hater. I’m passionate over the suffering of my people in particular, but human beings in general.

"HITLER WAS A GENIUS"

So I was inflamed, and I...said, “So here come the Jews now, calling me Hitler.” I said, “Well, that’s a good name.” I said Hitler was no good for me but he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat in World War I. Hitler, with his magnificent oratory, made a people with his philosophy and ideology of Aryan supremacy. He made a people in Germany, and it took the whole western world united to defeat [him]. A nation of only 17 million people had the whole world shake with their genius. Hitler was a genius. The West had deciphered his codes and they let whole towns be bombed so that Hitler would not know that they knew. They knew his commands through his generals. As his generals got it, they got it. And even with that, it took the combined might of all of Europe and America to defeat that man.

I said he was a great man, but he was wickedly great. And I am not wrong. That’s your English language. In the Oxford Dictionary, there are four pages on the word great. Only one of them, one line, says great in a way that it means something laudatory. All the rest is talking about magnitude, significance, impact. The man was great, but he was wicked. I can’t approve of another man putting human beings in ovens—men, women, children. I’m a father. I’m a grandfather. I love my children, and when I look at Jewish children and Palestinian children growing the way they’re growing, to kill each other down the road — I’m hoping that some way we can break that chain. And I know that the only thing that will break it is truth and justice.

But because Zionists saw a threat in Reverend Jackson’s appeal, since Reverend Jackson had embraced Arafat, several years before Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Jackson was hated for embracing Arafat, and since it was feared that Reverend Jackson, if given a platform, could disturb the delicate balance between the Blacks who were all pro-Israel to turn Black people maybe to a pro-Palestinian stance, then to that degree it was in the Zionists’ self-interest to destroy the candidacy of Reverend Jackson by any means necessary. And so, they, when I said Hitler was great, headline came up in the New York Post: “Jackson Pal Hails Hitler.”

Now Farrakhan is the whipping boy. They’re beating the hell out of me to get to Jesse. After a while Jesse can’t take it anymore. He repudiates Farrakhan, leaving me out there now by myself. It’s all right though. It’s all right. I didn’t come in the world with no twin. (Applause.) I don’t need an army behind me to stand up for what I believe. I was made that way and as long as God is with me, then I’m never alone. So now I’m out there. I refused to divide the Black people who were behind Jesse, who loved Farrakhan. I refused to speak evil against my brother because he had repudiated me. This is history. And when I learned that the (U.S.) Senate had condemned me and repudiated me, a vote of 95 to nothin.’ A white Senate. No Black people in it. “Representative” government had repudiated me, for allegedly calling Judaism a gutter religion, which I never did.

I am a man that is not afraid to tell you that I said that, ’cause anything that I say,I back it up. And if I can’t back it up with truth, I’ll apologize to you, for so stating or being in error. I think that’s the proper thing to do. But I never said that. And you know what’s worse? It’s ten years now. And every time they write about Farrakhan, [it’s]: “the man that called Hitler great and Judaism a gutter religion.” That’s the way they put me before you.

Well, since [they believe] Black folk are natural liars and cowards, then my saying, “I didn’t say that; here’s what I said and here’s what I meant”— oh, that don’t mean anything to you. So you never took what I said to have any weight at all, because what you say is the truth, and whatever a Black man says in defense of himself he’s only trying to get out from what his own mouth has spoken. You don’t know me, but you’re getting acquainted with me. I think you know now, you’ll have to kill me to get me to back down from truth, and I’m telling you today at Amherst, Don’t even think about it! (Applause.)

"THE MEDIA CAN'T BREAK ME"

For 10 years, I’ve been in this struggle. For 10 years, I have tried to sit down and dialogue with the Anti- Defamation League. For 10 years, I’ve asked them, “Let’s sit down and talk.” That’s the civilized thing to do. When people have a genuine disagreement, sit down and talk about it. They re- fuse. Rabbis come to my door, sit at my table, we have dinner, we talk candidly and frankly, we embrace each other. But the Rabbis have no power with these organizations that are politically inspired Zionist organizations. They don’t have any power. So even though we come to some agreement, the ADL has never agreed to sit down with me. Fine. I ain’t beggin’ you to sit down. I think it’s intelligent, because you don’t want it to go too far. You don’t want it to get that far, if you got sense. You thought that when the media attacked me, Farrakhan was going to dry up and blow away? Not this one. You can blow away them others, but not this one. Because the media didn’t make me, I’m not a creature of the media. So since the media didn’t create me, the media can’t break me. I guess you’ve learned that by now. The more you attack me, the bigger God makes me grow. (Applause)

And you haven’t learned your lesson yet, but I thank you, media — you really are wonderful. No, I’m serious — I’m not being facetious — they’re really wonderful. No, you really are; I respect you to the highest. Whatever you say to me is all right. You can cuss me out, line by line, word by word, and that’s what you do. But my teacher taught me, “Son, every knock is a boost.” So here we are now. Police all around — SWAT team, bomb squad, mounted police; Farrakhan gotta bring 100 security people. For what? For what? Because one Black man stood up to speak truth as he understood it and wouldn’t back down. And some of those in positions of power in the Jewish community feel that Black folks should back down, feel that we should bend and bow and scrape and scratch. You still bugged out over that Hamitic thing. Ham don’t have no relationship to me. (Applause.)

I am not one of the sons of Noah. I was before Noah. I was before Abraham. I was before Adam. Now, don’t give me no Johnny-come-lately as my father, because I know the history now. And if you scratch me—not scratch me—I mean push me, I’ll be glad to tell you not only where I’m from, but where you’re from too. (Applause.) [To be continued]

LOUIS FARRAKHAN will speak October 9, 2011 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the Philadelphia Convention Center. Tickets are $20. All races and religions are invited. Doors open at 12 p.m. Program starts at 2 pm. (www.noi.org) There will also be a presentation from 1 - 3 p.m. in Room 108 of the Convention Center by the Historical Research Group of the Nation of Islam, authors of the books The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 1 (on the slave trade) and volume 2 (on Judaic influence in the American South after the War Between the States).

***

Michael Hoffman is the founder of The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism. On the Contrary is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA. 

***

Prof. David Cesarani replies to Hoffman

Prof. David Cesarani has replied to yesterday’s blog, as follows:

Dear Michael Hoffman,

I am not sure what your are referring to in the Daily Telegraph, but if you listen carefully to what I said on 'Moral Maze' you will hear that I did not recommend repression. I said that to policy makers in Whitehall and the White House stability is most important and the most predictable way to accomplish that in the short term is a Tiananmen Sq style solution. So it might appeal to some of them. I specifically said that I was glad that I was not forced to make such a decision. I was asked onto the programme partly to give a historical perspective and wanted to explain that (a) democratic revolutions do not always have benign, even democratic outcomes (b) the western powers don't usually care which way it goes as long as they can continue to do business - so it is wise to be wary of anything US or British or EU leaders say.

By the way, you may know that the 'lessons of the Holocaust' do not apply to the Palestinians but as someone who has been involved with the Israeli peace movement since 1982, I think they do.

Yours sincerely,
David Cesarani

(End quote)

The Daily Telegraph report concerning Cesarani’s statement is here.

Prof. Cesarani is referring to his appearance on the 45 minute "Moral Maze" BBC radio program of Feb. 2, which can be heard online here (he is the second “witness” on the program). He compares, for example, Christian Russia very unfavorably with Bibi Netanyahu’s “Israel,”and is then asked if it would be the right thing to crush the Egyptian opposition.

He replied, "If you were to take the pragmtaic, wholly expedient view of Whitehall or the White House,  a Tiananmen Square style outcome would be desirable.”

When the interviewer expressed shock at Cesarani’s statement, Prof. Cesarani proceeds to say that "The West is no longer weeping that much over Tiananmen Square because we’re doing a lot of business with China. So, many business interests would say, quietly, that, perhaps, well the way in which the Chinese managed their transition was preferable.”

These are horrible, callous sentiments expressed by a “Holocaust human rights" activist. On the Contrary rejects Prof. Cesarani’s apologia, which amounts to pilpul. Moreover, if the “lessons of the Holocaust” apply to the Palestinians, in his view, how can he fail to include the Israeli state in the list of thug nations (allegedly like Russia) which he denominates?

***