Mistaken beliefs about Louis-Ferdinand Céline

A response to Dr. Tom Sunic's "Louis Ferdinand Céline — An Anarcho-Nationalist"

(Occidental Observer, March 24, 2009)

By Michael Hoffman

 www.RevisionistHistory.org

"I wrote nothing against the Jews… all I said was that 'the Jews are pushing us into war,' that's all. They had a fight with Hitler and it was none of our business, we shouldn't have mixed into it. The Jews have had a war of lamentation for two thousand years and now Hitler has given them more lamentations..." 

—  "A Talk with Louis-Ferdinand Céline," Evergreen Review (vol. 19; 1961).

Dr. Sunic: "He was an anticommunist..".

Fact: Céline wrote, "The only thing Jews really fear is Communism without Jews."

Dr. Sunic: "He was...an anti-Christian."

Fact: In middle and old age, yes. At the start of his career no. For example in Mea Culpa he praises the Early Church Fathers.

Dr. Sunic: "...the replicas of his nihilist character.."

Fact: Nihilism is defined as the rejection of all moral principles and the belief that life is meaningless. Céline had very high moral principles, that is why he never compromised with or surrendered to Judaism and Zionism, even in his last years. Céline was passionate about the white race, earnestly desiring its survival. He was a medical doctor to the poorest of the poor. He fought for the honor of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, the rebel physician who was expelled from medicine for insisting on proper hygiene for pregnant women. Céline cared deeply and profoundly for his world, his people and for the truth. He was not a "nihilist."

Dr. Sunic: "Upon his return to France in 1951, the remaining years of Céline's life were marred by legal harassment, literary ostracism, and poverty. Along with hundreds of thousands Frenchmen he was subjected to public rebuke that still continues to shape the intellectual scene in France."

Fact: France in the 1950s and 60s was a paradise compared with France in the 21st century. Céline in that time, while still a kind of moral leper, under some threat of physical reprisal from Communists (hence the fence and the guard dogs in Meudon), was interviewed on radio and national television. The interviewers are respectful, even awed. Allen Ginsberg, William S. Burroughs and other famous avant-garde writers beat a path to his door. As for poverty in his last years, if he was poor it was not penury, but rather genteel poverty in a dilapidated mansion. I doubt, however, that he was indeed poor. He was extremely frugal. He seems to have had a steady income from his books. He was still published by Gallimard (a major French publishing house). Arno Breker, the sculptor, testified that Céline went into a Bohemian phase late in his life and dressed shabbily, but not due to poverty.

Céline had no use for the organized "nationalist" movement or the collaborators who fled France with him, as his trilogy North, Castle to Castle and Rigadoon make clear. In Paris he had treated wounded members of the French Resistance privately. Still he was on their list to be assassinated. He thought the Germans had gone soft on French café society, failing to institute a revolution. He refused to broadcast for the Nazis.

He poked fun at the Aryan movement for its negativity - the emphasis on being against Judaic people - and he felt revulsion at the Aryan movement's pride and self worship (rabbinic characteristics!). Martin Luther, Friedrich Nietzsche and L-F Céline all share one trait in common: whether in the Germans or the French, they could not abide the infiltration of racial megalomania —  rabbinic-type vanity —  all of which pervade the white nationalist movement today. Céline was constantly knocking not only Judaic leaders and philosophers but the pride of the French. For example, he wrote that he and other French civilians fled Paris as the German army approached, but no matter how fast they ran they could not catch up with the French army, who were running even faster!

The white nationalists can't account for Céline's humorous assault on patriotism and national pride, so they attribute it to a modern ideology, "anarchism" or "nihilism." Céline was not at all a modern person however, and least of all an ideologue of any kind. Céline's derision for the French army matches William Langland's derision for the English Catholic hierarchy in the 14th century. L.F. Céline had a medieval mind. His revulsion was for modernity and everything connected with it.

Even my friend Humphrey Ireland ("Wilmot Robertson") fell into this misapprehension when he sub-titled this writer's article about Céline in Instauration magazine, "For Céline nothing was sacred." It is not true.

Céline was a satirist and if not an Aryan Communist (though an argument can be made that he was), then a leveler who despised plutocrats and class distinctions and privileges. His worldview was that of the crafty and shrewd Breton (i.e. Celtic) peasant. His greatest insight, at least for me, was his penetration and deconstruction of the Renaissance, which, everywhere else in our society, is portrayed as the apogee of western man. For Céline the Renaissance represented the coming of "scientism and the social robot." Céline and Frances Yates were the thinkers who first truly opened my eyes to this era, to the worm in the Renaissance apple and yet, nothing is more counter-intuitive for the white nationalist movement.

Céline was a medieval man in many respects: the ribald and scatological nature of his writing, the earthiness, the Piers-the-Ploughman disdain for the Church hierarchy and the clergy and human respect —  but not for the centuries old culture that Christianity had cultivated, which is only hinted at in Mea Culpa.

One facet of Christian wisdom that can be found in his philosophy is the fact that Céline despised the deification of man. This is why he could never fit into the Aryan/white nationalist movement. Like the Bolsheviks, the Aryans had made man into everything. Though he railed against the race-blind doctrine of Christianity, and in the biting satire that is his trademark, he referred to St. Peter as "a chanting Al Capone," he is rooted in a thousand years of Catholic peasant culture. Death was always before him. He said that we "give birth astride a grave." This made him immensely indifferent to what the New Testament calls "human respect." Most of us aspire to being indifferent to what people think, but we don't often realize that certain saints throughout history have deliberately sought to be hated and misunderstood, partly out of contempt for humanity and partly to tame their own pride. This is the essence of Christian virtue. Céline believed that the Church since the Renaissance had domesticated man and made him fear the opinions of other men when it came to speaking racial or religious truths: "...the white man...let the church corrupt him…you're not allowed to say anything like that… the Pope is watching, be careful… say nothing! heaven forbid… No! It is a sin… you'll be crucified… keep it still… be quiet… be a nice dog… don't bark… don't bite… here is your pap… shut up!"

But Céline did speak up, in the prelude to World War II and even during that war, and he was hated fiercely for it. The government of France officially declared him a "national disgrace."

As someone who does not believe the stories of mass deaths by gassing in Auschwitz, I know what it means to be ostracized and stigmatized, as every revisionist who has gone public does, to some extent or other. Whereas we lament it and wish we could be liked by our fellow man, Céline reveled in it. These words of his, since we know that he lived them, are perhaps among the boldest expressions of a heroic human spirit that I have ever encountered:

"I do and will continue to do, everything in order to be and remain, if not the richest then at least the most unpopular man in France...The total contempt of all of humanity is extremely pleasant to me..."

This is what it means to be a Christian. True Christianity is always a counter-culture and will always attract hatred. Most of us can't take it, though. We're not saint material. We're not heroes. We fear being hated and we structure our lives so as not to have to deal with hatred from others. No real progress or enlightenment is achieved by people who fear being hated, however. For all his rough language and eroticism, Céline possessed an other-worldly asceticism. He did not have any use for the vanity of the modern world. He saw that much of what we care about is ephemera and much of what we avoid is of great value. These are Christian insights, but he grew sick of the corruption in the Church, as people today are sick of a Vatican brotherhood that secretly facilitates the molestation of children. 

The ancient Catholic peasant wisdom emphasizes that we are all going to die; that we are all inauthentic —  ham actors puffed up with ridiculous pride and the willed forgetfulness we impose on ourselves concerning our destiny — in the grave. Doctors, nurses and soldiers see that destiny every day. Céline had been a soldier (wounded in World War I), a medical student, and then a physician and a pacifist. He declared that the only honest humans, mankind stripped bare of pretense and conceit, were the sick (“when it comes to human beings, I’m only interested in the sick...the ones who can stand up are nothing but mounds of vice and spite”), and the imprisoned  (like Ezra Pound, at the behest of the Allies he had been imprisoned after the war for his writing).

Céline did not want a white national "ism" or "movement." He wanted a community which he termed Aryan Communism and which had existed in the Middle Ages in Europe. The modern "white nationalist movement" is too degenerate and too doctrinal. It has lost sight of the biological imperative of the large family; of the fact that the most fundamental power politics consists of large families networking and bonding together in work and prayer. Parades, speeches and meetings without the former constitute a fragile illusion; an apparition conjured by intelligence agencies.

For  Céline there was something higher than race worship; race worship being a form of rabbinic materialism. Yet, there is nothing higher than race among the paradoxically childless, sterile Aryan "movement" today, and because of that sterility Europe will be steamrolled by the fecundity of the Levant, the Indian sub-continent, Latin American and sub-Saharan Africa.

One cannot talk of Céline's writing without speaking of his music, as I found when I first heard Céline recited in French from memory by Robert Faurisson. Though I did not understand the words, I heard the melody. Does anyone discern the music of Céline behind the caricatures of him now in vogue: the avant-garde writer and the anarchic racist satirist?

It is a tune from medieval Celtic soil, from the age when peasants had a song for every activity and task; when European men and women were far more human, humble and communal; they had not fallen prey to the contemporary Aryan movement's rabbinic conceit that they are gods, a conceit which represents the Judaization of the Aryans, who are forever accusing Christians of being Judaized.

There would be no place for Céline in any political movement today and not because he was an alleged “nihilist." In a degenerate society drowned in all that is digital, mechanical, artificial and arrogant, the Célines among us can only be exhibits in a rarefied zoo.

Copyright ©2010 www.RevisionistHistory.org
All Rights Reserved

***

Meditation on a photo of Ernst Zundel after he emerged from prison

by Michael Hoffman 

A critic has made a negative remark about the photograph of Auschwitz gas chamber skeptic Ernst Zundel (above, on the right), and his attorney, Dr. Herbert Schaller, taken on March 1, moments after Zundel emerged from Mannheim prison for the first time in five years.

We believe it is a beautiful photo, a truly heart warming picture. It is evidence, by way of a photograph, that Ernst will not bow to adversity, he will not whine, he will not show pain, but rather, in his smiling countenance one sees the joy of life. This is a testimony to his spirit, after seven years' incarceration, including two in solitary confinement in Canada. Let us also not forget that as a child he survived the Allied firebombing holocaust against his hometown of Pforzheim; consequently, on top of it all, he is a holocaust survivor. I have seen a similar serenity and nobility in Japanese survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki holocausts.

This is a stunning contrast to the behavior and attitudes of many (though not all) of those poster soul-survivors of the Auschwitz slave labor camp, who, more than sixty years later, still pose with long faces, perpetually moaning, groaning, wailing, hectoring, spewing hatred and pointing fingers of accusation, while churning out a deluge of newspaper and magazine articles, books, novels, television shows and films constituting a new level of institutionalized vengeance, which has been weaved into the very fabric of the post-Christian West.

I say post-Christian, but we are even heedless of William Shakespeare. Surely Portia's famous speech to Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice" (Act 4, scene 1), is now discredited by the mandarins of mediocrity. Yet, in Portia's words we have our culture's most eloquent reply to the perpetual Purim cry for vengeance under the rubric of justice. Here Shakespeare, as usual, put his finger on the heart of the matter: the vast chasm separating Judaism from the ante-Auschwitz West is their enshrinement of revenge and our obligation to mercy.

Zundel's merciless persecutors have learned nothing from history. In their hubris, in their certainty that they will prevail and control and edit the future, they believe they can demonize, imprison and torment prisoners of conscience with impunity. The Romans imagined this about the early Christians, the French Catholics about the Huguenot, the German Lutherans about the Anabaptists, the New England Puritans about the Quakers, the Anglicans about their recusant Catholic countrymen, and the Soviets about the Eastern Orthodox. Yet, in each case history teaches that in time, the severely oppressed dissidents emerged stronger than ever.

This too is the destiny of World War II revisionists, though today, in the midst of intense persecution and witch-hunting, it is a future difficult for many to envision. In this sense, Ernst Zundel, even at age 70, is not a man of the past, but of the future.

©2010 All Rights Reserved

***

Under 'conservative' Pope Benedict, Revolution is now "irreversible"

Taking responsibility for Catholic-Jewish reconciliation 

By Rabbi Eugene Korn  

January 25, 2010 NEW YORK (JTA) -- Pope Benedict XVI's recent visit to the Great Synagogue in Rome was by far his most effective gesture to the Jewish people. After misreading his audience during his trip to Israel, Benedict spoke to Jewish hearts and minds at the Rome synagogue.

The move came none too soon. Jewish-Catholic relations have had a rocky ride under Benedict's papacy, leaving Jews and Catholics alike to doubt the future of Catholic-Jewish relations. In July 2007, the Vatican authorized the wider use of the Tridentine Mass with its Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. In January 2009, the pope lifted the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop, Richard Williamson, and three other bishops of the Society of Pope Pius X. The renegade group rejects the Second Vatican Council's salutary changes in Catholic teaching toward Jews and Judaism, and its Web site featured repugnant anti-Semitic canards.

Last June, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement -- later retracted -- that Catholics in interfaith dialogue should evangelize to Jews and extend to them an implicit invitation to the Church. And several weeks ago, Benedict issued a decree advancing sainthood for the Holocaust-era pope, Pius XII, whose record during the Holocaust remains a legitimate historical question and is the subject of a deep emotional disagreement between some in the Vatican and Jewish leaders.

Vatican II's official document, Nostra Aetate, proclaimed that the Church deplores all forms of anti-Semitism, that the living covenant between God and the Jewish people is irrevocable, and that the charge of deicide is utterly baseless. Yet the recent steps taken by Benedict had led some professionals in Jewish-Catholic dialogue to question whether these breathtaking teachings are still operative Catholic theology. Benedict addressed most of these concerns at the Great Synagogue. His visit affirmed -- in word and in deed -- that he wishes to continue the policy of warm relations with the Jewish people established by his saintly predecessor, John Paul II.

He stressed that the Second Vatican Council marked a significant and irreversible transformation in the Church's attitude to the Jewish people and signaled the Church's irrevocable commitment to a dialogue of brotherhood and mutual understanding with Jews. Reflecting on the terrible history of Jewish-Catholic relations that culminated in the Holocaust, Benedict repeated John Paul's poignant prayer asking for forgiveness for Catholics who caused Jewish suffering. He also reiterated what he said at Auschwitz in 2006: Because the Jewish people remain witnesses to God's presence and to divine revelation at Sinai, Hitler knew that to destroy God and God's moral law, he needed to murder the Jewish people first.  This is an enormously significant theological statement, acknowledging that Jews and Judaism continue to play an essential role in the unfolding of God's plan for humanity.

Yet serious pitfalls remain between the Church and the Jewish people. It seems that Benedict still will be forced to choose at times between appealing to arch-traditionalists among the Catholic faithful and strengthening the Church's new relationship with the Jewish people. Moreover, pursuing Pius XII's sainthood before the historical record is clarified is certain to cause public disagreement between the Vatican and the Jewish people, and inflict pain on Jews whose loved ones were murdered in the Holocaust.

One continuing disappointment for informed Jews and Catholics over the past 50 years has been that the wonderful teachings of Nostra Aetate and post-conciliar documents relating to Catholic-Jewish relations have not filtered down sufficiently to priests and worshipers in the pews. Too many Catholics are still unaware of the depth and beauty of Nostra Aetate. Nor are Jews as aware as they should be about post-Vatican II teachings about Judaism.


In light of Benedict's reaffirmation of the irrevocable validity of these teachings, now would be the perfect time for the Vatican to take positive steps to permanently root the new Catholic-Jewish relationship in the minds of all Catholics. This could be done in a number of ways, such as rigorously implementing the existing mandate to teach Nostra Aetate to all Catholic worshipers and seminarians, promoting the study of Pope John Paul II's teachings about the Jewish people and Judaism, and perhaps instituting a non-conversionary prayer for today's Jewish people and for the Jewish state on the Feast of St. James, the patron saint of Jerusalem. Jewish leaders also must teach Jews of the significance and content of Nostra Aetate and later Vatican documents about Catholic-Jewish relations if Jews are to understand Catholics and their faith.

As Nostra Aetate teaches, Jews and Catholics share a common spiritual patrimony. Catholic-Jewish reconciliation is one of God's great blessings, one that inspires all people around the world. Because if the Church and the Jewish people can make peace with each other after nearly 2,000 years of enmity, then peace is possible between any two peoples anywhere. It is too important for Jews, for Catholics and for the world to allow to lapse, and too important to be spoken about only on special occasions. Jews and Catholics both have responsibility to do what they can to ensure that future obstacles to mutual understanding and respect are overcome, and that the Church and the Jewish people remain living witnesses to hope for a more peaceful future for all God's children.  (Emphasis supplied).

(Rabbi Korn is the North American director of the Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation.)

Hoffman's Afterword: "Then I heard another voice from heaven saying,'Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues" (Revelation 18:4)


***

Correspondence from Google related to censorship of our videos

The US government in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pressuring China to end Internet censorship. This is inspired by China's alleged repression against "freedom-loving" Google.

Be aware that the US Department of State has partnered with the Israeli government and various thought police NGOs to "monitor" exposure of the truth about Judaism and Zionism online. Both the Israeli government and elite Zionists around the world advocate Internet censorship of World War II revisionism ("Holocaust denial").  Elie Wiesel recently urged the government of Hungary to improve its image by jailing revisionist historians. Germany, the close ally of the US and the Israelis, jails revisionists and censors the Internet. The US is complicit in the German repression. Obama has met with German jailer Angela Merkel and praised her "democratic values."

Google acts as the enforcement arm of the religion of Holocaustianity, protecting it from scrutiny, skepticism and exposure. We are reproducing here correspondence from Google related to Google Inc.'s 2006 censorship of two of our revisionist videos from the Internet. What does Mrs. Clinton have to say about Google's censorship?

From Google Inc.

Google has been notified that your videos violate our Program Policies
The titles of the videos are listed at the end of this message.

According to our policy, we are removing the following videos:

World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan
Deborah Lipstadt, "Amalek" and David Irving

To review our Program Policies please visit:
http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=27737&topic=1490

If you believe this removal was done in error, please respond to this
email. (End quote)

Feb. 22, 2006

***

The Google corporation defines "Holocaust" revisionism as "hate speech," and on that basis withdrew the Lipstadt and Provan videos from broadcast. The censored Lipstadt video demonstrated how "Holocaust" High Priestess Lipstadt had labeled historian David Irving "Amalek," which is incitement that could possibly lead to his death. The censored Charles Provan video consisted of an interview with a researcher who believes in the gas chambers and differs with mainstream historians only on certain details. Hence, even belief in the gas chambers, when it is not total belief, in every single detail of the "Holocaust" story, now constitutes "hate speech." If this is not totalitarianism, what is?  Google initially approved these two videos and broadcast them for approximately one month. The videos were removed only due to outside pressure.

Deborah Lipstadt has publicly labeled my "Amalek" video about her, "revolting."

In 2006 in the Washington Post, William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz chastised the American media for having failed to publish the cartoons against Muhammad which first appeared in Denmark: "...radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists..."

Radical Judaics are also winning a war of intimidation. They have cowed Google into censoring a video critical of Deborah Lipstadt, and another video which maintains that the execution gas chambers existed, but that they were operated mainly by Judaics. Are "intimidation" and "capitulation" only wrong when they emanate from Islamic coercion? What about Judaic intimidation of the media? It must be at a higher level of power and control, because unlike the Islamic version, Judaic intimidation is not publicized in the US media. It is perpetrated largely without the knowledge of the public.

We protested Google's censorship. Here is Google's rejoinder:

FROM: GOOGLE VIDEO SUPPORT

To: Michael A. Hoffman II

Date: Wed Feb 22, 2006 08:00:17 PM PST

Subject: Re: [#47515979] Re: Google Video Policy Violation

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your email. We received complaints that your content violates our posted policy against hate speech.

Because the videos appear to promote Holocaust Revisionism, in violation of our policy against hate speech, we have removed the videos.

We appreciate your understanding.

Sincerely, The Google Video Team  (end quote)

If you'd like to view the videos Google censored, they are available for purchase on DVD:

Deborah Lipstdt, "Amalek" and David Irving (DVD)

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10017

World War II Revisionist Charles Provan (DVD)

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/cgi-bin/store/agora.cgi?p_id=10018

***

For further reference: Hoffman's Letter to China regarding Google and censorship
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/01/hoffmans-letter-to-china-concerning.html

***

Support Michael Hoffman's Truth Mission 

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page2/paypal.html

***

Hoffman's Letter to China concerning Google and censorship

Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong
Embassy of China
2201 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20007

Jan. 13, 2010

Dear Ambassador Wenzhong

Re: Google vs. China

In today's news we read what appears to be the stirring stand of Google, the Internet search engine giant, in defying "Chinese censorship." The U.S. media is complicit in disseminating the farcical myth about Google's alleged stand against censorship.

The fact is, Google itself practices censorship of dissident history and scholarship. Scientists, historians and journalists in the West who investigate and subsequently dissent from any aspect of the vast corpus of World War II history classified under the neologism "The Holocaust," are denied access to the public by various forms of censorship and repression. Dissident investigative research by scholars and journalists in this field is called by the pejorative and highly inaccurate quasi-theological term, "Holocaust denial."

At Google this takes the form of refusing advertisements for "Holocaust denial" books and other media and censoring any form of expression dubbed "Holocaust denial."

In 2006 Google censored videos produced by this writer that pertained to Auschwitz, Deborah Lipstadt and the Protestant historian Charles Provan. In the case of Mr. Provan, the video interview with him was censored by Google because Provan, who accepts the claims of homicidal gas chambers allegedly used by the Nazis, dared to state in the course of his videotaped interview, that Judaic inmates were the ones who operated the killing gas chambers in the concentration camp at Treblinka.

After receiving numerous complaints and protests over the removal of my history videos from "Google Video," the Google corporation never responded to a single complainant. Google's arrogance and hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

The history videos censored by Google contained no racial invective of any kind. Neither did they contain any sexual pornography. They were censored by Google strictly on the basis that they contradicted the official American version of what transpired during World War II.

I am writing to inform you and the Chinese people that Google's attempt to pose as a champion of freedom of speech against China, is a sham. They are censors and what is more, they are dishonest censors in that they pretend to be advocates of freedom of speech when they are in fact guilty of the very thing for which they accuse the government of China.

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman

Former reporter, New York Bureau of the Associated Press

Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

E-mail: hoffman@revisionisthistory.org

***

Christians who refused to engage in warfare

God of War?

by Jeff Taylor

Jacksonville, Alabama --  Just as professing Christians cannot follow Christ while serving Mammon, they are not being faithful to the Prince of Peace while glorifying Mars.  It’s nothing new.  The worldly principles of violence and war entered the church within its first three centuries of existence.

The invasion was largely triggered by Constantine’s supposed vision of a Chi-Rho cross in the sky encouraging him, in Greek, with the words “In this Sign, Conquer.”  (ἐν τούτῳ νίκα or, translated into Latin, In hoc signo vinces.)  He then proceeded to win the Battle of Milvian Bridge (312).  Emperor Constantine may have been a sincere believer, but the vision sounds apocryphal.  The accounts of the vision or dream by church fathers Lactantius and Eusebius are contradictory.  In addition to being church leaders, the two were court historians who had a tendency to flatter Constantine.

If the story is not apocryphal, it was either wishful thinking or satanic deception.  To borrow an analogy from an earlier Greek tale, Constantine went on to serve as a Trojan Horse inside Christianity.  The linking of Christ and Caesar brought some short-term benefits but the long-term harm has been immense.  The facilitation of war by the chaplains of power has been one sad effect.

Turning to the U.S.A.: With all of the clerical and pewful cheering on behalf of recent wars, the intertwining of cross and flag, and the blessings bestowed on every Commander in Chief by the leading evangelists of the day, it can be difficult to discern the testimony for peace by theologically conservative Christianity.

This testimony can be found primarily, but not only, among the historic peace churches: the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, Schwenkfelders, Quakers, Moravians, and German Baptist Brethren.  Roman Catholicism places some limits on the martial spirit with its doctrine of just war, derived from Augustine and Aquinas.  Dispensationalism—one of two main sources for fundamentalism—was traditionally apolitical and encouraged neutrality in fallen, worldly activities such as warfare.  This influence can be seen in figures from A.C. Gaebelein to Watchman Nee.

As a young man, evangelist D.L. Moody refused to enlist in the Civil War because he was a conscientious objector.  He recalled, “There has never been a time in my life when I felt I could take a gun and shoot down a fellow human being.  In this respect I am a Quaker.”

Faced with the prospect of war between England and Russia, in 1885, William Booth publicly declared that every true soldier of The Salvation Army should “shut his ears to all the worldly, unscriptural, unchristian talk about war being a necessity.”  He warned, “Oh, what vice, what blasphemies, what cursing, what devilries of every kind accompany and follow in the train of war.”  In a subsequent War Cry editorial, Booth looked forward to the day when the Prince of Peace would abolish “this inhuman and fiendish system of wholesale murder.”  The focus of the conflict between the English and Russian empires?  Afghanistan.  Some things never change.

The Christian statesman William Jennings Bryan was directly influenced by the great writer Leo Tolstoy.  The two talked for twelve straight hours at Tolstoy’s home during Bryan’s international trip in 1903.  As a result of this visit, and earlier writings, Tolstoy’s nonviolent views were spread to American Christians who were far more culturally provincial, theologically conservative, and politically mainstream than the Russian anarcho-pacifist himself.  A decade later, when Secretary of State Bryan broke with Woodrow Wilson because the president was pushing the nation into World War I, he became the first holder of that high position to resign over a matter of political principle.  He was also the last.

In accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in 1900, Bryan said, “If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite and proselyte with the sword?  Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible.  The command, ‘Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,’ has no Gatling gun attachment. . . . Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine of imperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

On the eve of U.S. entry into World War II, in 1940, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution expressing its “utter abhorrence of war as an instrument of International policy.”  The nine-point statement concluded, “Because war is contrary to the mind and spirit of Christ, we believe that no war should be identified with the will of Christ.  Our churches should not be made agents of war propaganda or recruiting stations.  War thrives on and is perpetuated by hysteria, falsehood, and hate and the church has a solemn responsibility to make sure there is no black out of love in time of war.”

There was not a single resolution issued by the Southern Baptists during World War II or Vietnam expressing support for the president or the troops, but there were resolutions in support of conscientious objectors.  The bold 1940 resolution can be found even today on the SBC website but the Southern Baptists have changed their tune . . . and their lyrics . . . perhaps even their hymnal.

As late as 1970, Francis Schaeffer, an orthodox Presbyterian, was warning, “In the United States many churches display the American flag.  The Christian flag is usually put on one side and the American flag on the other.  Does having two flags in your church mean that Christianity and the American Establishment are equal?  If it does, you are really in trouble. . . . Equating of any other loyalty with our loyalty to God is sin.”  Ironically, Schaeffer’s later writings helped give rise to the Moral Majority, with its endorsement of Constantinianism and the Mush God of American civil religion.

To their credit, Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) condemned the Iraq War as unjust in 2002-03.  Unfortunately, there was no teeth to their pronouncements.  I am not a Roman Catholic, but if I were, I would want my pope armed with anathemas and bulls of excommunication.  What is the point of having an episcopal form of government headed by the vicar of Christ if he does not wield at least one of the two swords of Gelasius?
The supreme pontiff ought to have disciplined disobedient children like Senators Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Pete Dominici, Susan Collins, and Sam Brownback.

When it comes to peace, the Catholic hierarchy if often politely correct, but it is no Erasmus of Rotterdam, Dorothy Day, or Thomas Merton in denouncing militarism and the perfidy of its practitioners.  Too much diffidence and compromise.  That’s one of the fruit of the spirit of Constantine and a corollary of cultural synthesis.  A huge bureaucracy enmeshed with worldly wealth and power is not in a position to be too radical in its opposition to the world, even when the opposition is sincere.

Without jargon or hedging, the French Catholic mathematician-scientist-philosopher-mystic Blaise Pascal put it simply centuries ago: “[Q:] Why do you kill me?  [A:] What!  Do you not live on the other side of the water?  If you lived on this side, my friend, I should be an assassin, and it would be unjust to slay you in this manner.  But since you live on the other side, I am a hero, and it is just. . . . Can anything be more ridiculous than that a man should have the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the water, and because his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have none with him?” (Pensées, V: 293-94)

Still, the peace rhetoric of the papacy is much to be preferred to the refined war mongering of Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.  As Congress was preparing to give President Bush a blank check to wage war against Iraq, in October 2002, Land organized an open letter to Bush, signed by prominent evangelical Protestants, that began, “In this decisive hour of our nation’s history we are writing to express our deep appreciation for your bold, courageous, and visionary leadership. Americans everywhere have been inspired by your eloquent and clear articulation of our nation’s highest ideals of freedom and of our resolve to defend that freedom both here and across the globe.  We believe that your policies concerning the ongoing international terrorist campaign against America are both right and just.”

Specifically, the planned attack on Iraq was sanctified as a just war.  After the bombing and invasion, Land remained confident of God’s blessing on the undertaking, writing, “I believe we are seeing in Iraq an illustration of waging a war of defense and liberation according to the criteria of just war.”

Recently, I wrote about Christmas presents for children.  The fine book by Laurence M. Vance entitled Christianity and War, and Other Essays Against the Warfare State (Vance Publications, 2nd ed., 2008) would be a good Christmas present for adults.  Vance writes regularly for LewRockwell.com.

You may be a Christian—or non-Christian—who does not embrace pacifism.  That’s okay.  The perfect need not be the enemy of the good.  Most of us can agree that most of the wars in which we have been involved during the past century have been unjustified wars of aggression and greed, having more to do with empire and monopoly than with national defense or humanitarian crusades.

In 1761, William Law, the Anglican divine who helped lead John Wesley to evangelicalism and eventually flowered as a Christian mystic, wrote about war in his final book, An Address to the Clergy.  He did so with truth and eloquence.  Sadly, but predictably, his condemnation of Christian war was deleted when the book was reprinted by evangelical publishers in the 1890s and 1970s.  Not uplifting, too discomforting, I suppose.

 Law wrote, “Look now at warring Christendom, what smallest drop of pity towards sinners is to be found in it?  Or how could a spirit all hellish more fully contrive and hasten their destruction?  It stirs up and kindles every passion of fallen nature that is contrary to the all-humble, all-meek, all-loving, all-forgiving, all-saving Spirit of Christ.  It unites, it drives and compels nameless numbers of unconverted sinners to fall, murdering and murdered among flashes of fire with the wrath and swiftness of lightning, into a fire infinitely worse than that in which they died. . . . Here, my pen trembles in my hand.  But when, O when, will one single Christian Church, people, or language, tremble at the share they have in this death of sinners?”

“. . . Again, would you further see the fall of the universal Church, from being led by the Spirit of Christ to be guided by the inspiration of the great fiery Dragon, look at all European Christendom sailing round the globe with fire and sword and every murdering art of war, to seize the possessions and kill the inhabitants of both the Indies. . . . To this day what wars of Christians against Christians, blended with scalping heathens, still keep staining the earth and the seas with human blood, for a miserable share in the spoils of a plundered heathen world! — a world, which should have heard or seen or felt nothing from the followers of Christ, but a divine love, that had forced them from distant lands and through the perils of long seas to visit strangers with those glad tidings of peace and salvation to all the world, which angels from heaven and shepherds on earth proclaimed at the birth of Christ.”

***

Court appeal for men imprisoned for distributing Hoffman's satire

Court hears appeal for two men imprisoned for distributing Hoffman's "Holohoax" satire

In Britain, in Leeds Crown Court, on July 10, 2009, Simon Sheppard received a sentence of 4 years and 10 months and Stephen Whittle two years and four months. Mr. Sheppard's sentence comprised 12 months concurrent on three counts relating to distribution of Tales of the Holohoax, a satirical comic book by Michael Hoffman.

On July 14 the Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal against conviction on all the Internet counts, but refused leave to appeal with respect to the hard copy counts. The full appeal before three British judges commenced on November 26, 2009 at the Law Courts, Strand, London, and runs through Nov. 27.

An appeal will also be made to the European Court of Human Rights over the decision by the Leeds Appeal Court judge not to review the notorious decision in Reg. v. Birdwood when Judge Pownall's decision that "the truth is no defense" - was upheld.

Friends of freedom of the press can can write the imprisoned men as follows:

Simon Sheppard, A8042AA, Wing B3-25, HMP Leeds, 2 Gloucester Terrace, Stanningley Road, Leeds, LS12 2TJ, United Kingdom.

Stephen Whittle, A8041AA, Everthorpe Prison, Beck Road, Everthorpe, Brough, East Yorkshire, HU15 1RB, United Kingdom.

Michael Hoffman comments

Several years ago I decided to withdraw Tales of the Holohoax from circulation because it was being pirated without the inclusion of my explanatory essay on satire, which had been published at the end of the comic, and because the comic book itself had become a source of misunderstanding concerning the nature of my scholarship.

Mr. Sheppard did not abide by my request to halt his copying of Tales of the Holohoax. He even sent it to a British synagogue, which was very foolish. Nevertheless, I have considerable sympathy for the plight of these two free press activists, and great respect for Mr. Sheppard’s refusal to “repent.”

Meanwhile, Kurt Westergaard, the artist who drew the most inflammatory of the anti-Muslim cartoons in Denmark is today a wealthy, free man. According to the Huffington Post of April 8, 2009:

“Prints of the Danish cartoon depicting Islam's Prophet Mohammed as a suicide bomber in 2005...will now be sold by the Denmark Free Press Society for $250 each. One thousand copies are to be printed and sold, with each having a designated number and signature by the artist, Kurt Westergaard...The image won Westergaard international fame....he has never apologized or expressed regret for the drawings...(or) for being a ‘free artist’...he enjoys the backing of free speech and free press advocates around the globe in this regard. A notable example of one such advocate...is NATO Secretary General and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who defended the drawings in 2006”

Prison for those who distribute a satire of wildly exaggerated "Holocaust" fairy tales, and $250,000, international fame, and accolades from the media and the Secretary General of NATO to the author of anti-Mohammed satire.

***

Trial by Media: Major Hasan is declared guilty

Rush to Judgment fits a Familiar Pattern

by Michael Hoffman | Nov. 9, 2009 | www.RevisionistHistory.org

On Nov. 8 the Sunday New York Times declared Nidal Malik Hasan guilty of the Fort Hood shootings (James C. McKinley Jr. and James Dao:"Fort Hood Gunman Gave Signals Before His Rampage"). This is the familiar trial by media accompanied by the equally familiar "lone nut" imputation.

David Berkowitz was declared solely guilty of the "Son of Sam" murders in New York in 1977, on the day of his arrest.

Ted Kaczynski was declared solely guilty of the "Unabomber" killings on the day of his arrest.

How do the media and the government know that an alleged perpetrator is indeed guilty and is indeed solely guilty in the first few days after the apprehension of the suspect, unless the media and the government are in on the crime itself?

Criminology 101 tells us that the day of the arrest is the day the investigation begins in earnest. The Constitution tell us that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

Cryptocracy May Choose to Substitute Lone Nut Profile with Islamic Terror Plot

In all government conspiracies wherein a mouthpiece media is instrumental in supporting the official script, a declaration of guilt is infallibly promulgated, concerning a suspect who is often then branded a "lone nut," though in Major Hasan's case there may be an effort to implicate Muslim theologians as indirectly responsible. There is also a move to create a 9/11 link with Hasan. (A truly outrageous version is here).

 If the Cryptocracy chooses to drop the lone imputation, then it will do so in order to fabricate a 9/11-style Islamic terror conspiracy. Such a move would likely not entail a focus on the two other gunmen seen by eyewitnesses in Fort Hood, since these shooters are probably government agents and not Muslim extremists. Anything is possible however, since we have already seen Major Hasan resurrected from the dead, with nary a peep from the media over that remarkable act of prestidigitation.

If the Fort Hoodwink shootings were not a government conspiracy but an actual criminal investigation,  the investigators would be much more circumspect and tentative in their statements and would be actively engaged in a deep and time-consuming investigation of the crime from all angles, without pre-conceived notions, including the investigation of the numerous anomalies in this case which we have already stated (see: "The Hoodwink in Texas").

An investigation that focuses this early in the case exclusively on a "Muslim terror conspiracy" is an indication of a script being in place, otherwise investigative journalists would seriously consider all leads, including those that lead to the government itself. These would begin with Virginia Tech, Hasan's alma mater and the scene of another shooting-spree slaughter where initially it was stated that two shooters were involved. (See Revisionist History newsletter no. 44, "Certain Anomalies in the Case of 33 Deaths at Virginia Tech").

Those who are skeptical of the degree to which spectacular crimes are initiated and then exploited by the Cryptocracy's technology of mass mind control for processing the Group Mind of America, should consider the following information, leaked to us by a correspondent. He writes, "There is another blog that I keep up with, though it can only be viewed by registered members, so I can't link you to it directly, but I thought you would appreciate this little kernal of information that the author revealed in a recent post about a tie-in between the (Fort Hood) shooting and the V-tech massacre":

"Just two days before the Virginia Tech shootings which took place on April 16, 2007, "Saturday Night Live" (SNL) did a rather strange 'Digital Short' skit in which ordinary people just started shooting at each other with a hypnotic song playing in the background carefully synced to each and every shooting in the skit....And now, more than 2 years later, the same song (or at least a song liberally sampling the chorus of the song, 'Hide and Seek', now renamed 'Whacha Say') is back, playing constantly on the radio. In fact, the song is, right now, #1 on the charts! I mean, it even looks as though it just became #1 within the last few days!"

You will note that there is a proliferation of movies (here and here), books and television specials about "secret societies," including their influence --both real and imagined -- on the founding of America and in the rise of the CIA. These productions are generally popular and lucrative for the corporations that produce them.

But pondering involvement of a secret society inside our contemporary US government and its possible involvement in current events like Fort Hoodwink becomes a risible proposition for most of the very same consumers of the media's secret societies narratives.

In other words, when the sheeple are cued to believe in the activities of "secret societies" in American history, they do so, on cue, and when cued to believe the story of the Fort Hood shootings exactly as described by the government and its media mouthpieces, they also believe on cue -- refusing to countenance any possible role for a secret society in the Texas attack. This phenomenon would appear to indicate a serious bipolar malaise in the American people.

If we had genuine investigative journalism in this country from even one organ of Big Media, the Cryptocracy might be thwarted and the actual string-pullers in Texas brought to justice. But what we have in fact is a vile government-mouthpiece media which, from the 9/11 terror attacks to the shootings at the army base, are despicable partners in the hoodwink.

The New York Times makes a point of stating Hasan's nationality in the opening paragraphs of its Nov. 8 report: "Major Hasan was born in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 8, 1970. His parents, Palestinians who had immigrated from the West Bank in the 1960s, moved the family to Roanoke when he was a youth.

We can discern the direction the Fort Hoodwink attack is going to take by the following remark from a teenager said to be casually acquainted with Hasan, and which the New York Times regarded as nonetheless sufficiently worthy of publication in the already cited Sunday, Nov. 8 edition:

...(According to Duane Reasoner Jr., an 18-year-old alleged friend of Hasan): "In the Koran, it says you are not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christians, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell."

"Jew and Christians vs. Muslims" is precisely the dogmatic equation the Cryptocracy has already successfully seeded throughout the conservative Right wing. (This phenomenon was the subject of our cover story in Revisionist History newsletter no. 48).

Fort Hoodwink will help spread this meme deeper in American society. The war of civilizations must go on, with HBO's Larry David and other Zionists like him on "our" side, and the Palestinians on the other. Joseph I. Lieberman, the Orthodox Judaic Senator from Connecticut, announced on Sunday that "he would hold hearings to explore whether Major Hasan's actions constituted terrorism." Hasan has not yet even had a trial!

And wouldn't you know it? Fort Hoodwink occurs just at the time the "Goldstone Report" had made the Palestinians into victims of Israeli mass murder in the Group Mind. At the very least, the shootings mitigate that impression and may perhaps even cancel and reverse it.

Copyright ©2009. All Rights Reserved.

Hoffman is the author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare.

***

The Hoodwink in Texas

UPDATED NOV. 7

In addition to the Nov. 5 - Nov. 7 reports herein, there are numerous additional remarks in the "Comments" section [see bottom of this post] by readers and by Mr. Hoffman.

WELCOME TO THE ALCHEMICAL CAULDRON...

From Salon.com, 19:26 Pacific Time

"Remember, remember the fifth of November 

Gunpowder, treason and plot.

 I see no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot."

SCRIPT CHANGE: The dead lone nut gunman has been resurrected and so have the eyewitnesses who saw more than one shooter.

The story here on the West coast at circa 5:35 pm Pacific Time from ABC, CBS and NBC on their nightly newscasts had been that Dr. Hasan had been killed and that he was the lone gunman (contrary to earlier reports of eyewitnesses seeing more than one shooter).

Now the gunman is said to be alive and the story of eyewitnesses and another shooter is being circulated again.

What does this signify? It signifies that a ceremony is underway in the Manchurian candidate's laboratory of mind control and mind games. They're showing us how fake is their facade, how thin their storyline is, how much they lie and masquerade and yet..and yet...we still believe them.

Nov. 5 symbol: V for Vendetta; also here

V on ABC TV 

 Copyright ©Michael Hoffman • All Rights Reserved

***

Salon.com Nov. 5, 2009

***

12 Dead, 31 Wounded in Base Shootings

By Maria Newman

Published online NY Times | November 5, 2009 18:49 Pacific Time

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/us/06forthood.html?hp

Note: The NY Times article originally posted at the preceding URL has been radically altered with no note to that effect. The Times censored the following statement: "several eyewitness reports of more than one shooter." The Times added the statement: "...In the confusion of a day of wild and misleading reports..." This amounts to falsification of a news report. Why the need to do so? Here below are excerpts from the article as it originally appeared online on Nov. 5 at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/us/06forthood.html?hp

An Army psychiatrist about to be deployed to combat zones overseas killed 12 soldiers and wounded 31 others on Thursday afternoon at Fort Hood in Texas, the authorities said. The gunman, who was identified as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was shot by police forces and is being treated at a local hospital and in stable condition. Earlier reports that the suspect had been killed turned out to be wrong, said Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, the commanding officer at Fort Hood.

Mr. Hasan, 39, who had been promoted in May and previously worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, according to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Her spokesman, Jeff Sadoski, said Major Hasan was upset about his pending deployment. Carrying two guns, one a semiautomatic weapon, Mr. Hasan began firing around 1:30 p.m. central time at a deployment center where soldiers received last-minute medical attention and instructions before being shipped out overseas, Mr. Cone said.

Mr. Hasan “opened fire, and due to the quick response of the police forces, he was killed,” the general said. “There were several eyewitness accounts that there was more than one shooter,” he said.
(Emphasis supplied; end quote from the New York Times online, Nov. 5, 2009 and subsequently censored by the Times).

***

Nov. 6 UPDATE

Ft. Hood Investigators Focus on Motive
By Clifford Krauss and Jack Healy
NY Times website | November 6, 2009 | 12:53 pm Pacific Time
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07forthood.html?_r=1&hp

He's a Muslim Militant (Auto-Suggestion):

"...suggested soldiers may have heard him shout...Allahu Akbar"

(Is that like "...several eyewitness accounts of more than one shooter..."?)

NY Times:  Reports suggested that soldiers may have heard him shout something like “Allahu Akbar” — Arabic for “God is great!” — just before he fired two automatic handguns.

A Costume for the Charade:

NY Times: He was shown on a security video tape from a local convenience store wearing religious garb just hours before the shooting.

How could one shooter do so much damage? Explanation: government agents killed some of the victims:

NY Times: It may take some days or more to untangle ballistics evidence to conclude whether a single gunman was able to discharge so many bullets or whether multiple casualties were caused by single bullets. Local radio reports have also raised the possibility that some people were shot in a cross fire between Major Hasan and several military and civilian police officers.

Why did US Army General Cone declare that the alleged shooter, Hasan, was dead? 
Answer: The general's disinformation was due to the "hospitalization process."

At his Thursday night press conference, Cone attributed the mistaken report about Hasan being dead to "confusion at the hospital."...The alleged shooter has been in custody "throughout the hospitalization process," Cone said.


Source: http://www.salon.com/news/fort_hood_shooting/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2009/11/05/army_presser

***

Nov. 7 Update

Feds refuse to answer questions:

"...military and federal investigators pointedly refused to release further details on how the shootings happened, why there were initial reports of multiple attackers and why officials took several hours to correct news media reports that Major Hasan had been killed."

Source: "Big Questions on Gunman; Few Details," NY Times website, Nov. 7, 2009 | 2300 Pacific Time | http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/us/07forthood.html?_r=1&hp

Additional updates are here

***

Larry David's Talmudic mentality and urinating on an image of Christ

Where is the exposure of Larry David's Talmudic Mentality?

Orthodox Judaism's Talmudic mentality of pornographic denigration of Jesus and Mary, which has cultivated a culture of disrespect for centuries, is studiously ignored as the source of Mr. David's scatology.

by Michael Hoffman

This writer has been asked to comment on the Oct. 25, 2009 episode of HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm," in which Larry David urinated on an image of Jesus Christ.

First, permit me first to present an article from the New York Daily News.  I direct your attention to the fact that even the headline is a light-hearted reference to urination ("p.o.'d"), which is intended to tip readers to just how serious the New York newspaper takes this act of televised desecration, which is to say, it's just a big joke for them:

Catholic League p.o.'d at Larry David after 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' character urinates on Jesus 

By Leah Chernikoff | New York Daily News | October 29th 2009

Not everyone is a fan of Larry David. Last Sunday's episode of HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm" featured Larry David's character unintentionally spraying a painting of Jesus that was hanging next to the toilet in a bathroom as relieved himself. A drop of urine hits the portrait of Jesus right below his eye, resembling a tear, in a joke characteristic of the show's satiric style.

Only the Catholic League didn't find it so funny. In a statement titled "Urinating on Jesus," Catholic League president Bill Donahue says, "At one point in the show, David goes to the bathroom in a Catholic home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus; he doesn't clean it off. Then a Catholic woman goes to the bathroom, sees the picture and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her equally stupid mother and the two of them fall to their knees in prayer. Was Larry David always this crude? Would he think it comedic if someone urinated on a picture of his mother?" the statement continues. "This might be fun to watch, but since HBO only likes to dump on Catholics (it was just a couple of weeks ago that Sarah Silverman insulted Catholics on "Real Time with Bill Maher"), and David is Jewish, we'll never know."

HBO issued the following statement in response: "Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire. Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious."

(End quote from the NY Daily News)

One can glean from this article in the Daily News that the Zionist establishment is not all worried about an offense to Jesus Christ that fifty years ago would have resulted in tens of thousands of people marching on HBO headquarters, boycotts and the bankruptcy of HBO. No such magnitude of outrage exists today. It has been neutralized by Churchianity's focus on Islam as the numero uno evil religion on planet earth, with the Koran starring as the world's most wicked book. Orthodox Judaism's Talmudic mentality of pornographic denigration of Jesus and Mary, which has cultivated a culture of disrespect for centuries, is studiously ignored as the source of David's scatology.

Prior to circa 1930, all general condemnation by the historic Christian churches and major Christian theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, of Islam were usually issued in the same sentence or paragraph or page, as exposures and anathemas against Judaism and the Talmud; the latter book being widely regarded throughout Christendom as far more sinister than the Koran.

Today the situation is quite different. We read mission statements from conservative churches that state: "We oppose Islam, atheism, paganism, abortion and secularism."

Why has Judaism been excluded from the list?

Scripture tells us to fear those who attack our souls. Islam, at its most fundamental extremist variant, attacks our bodies, it does not attack Jesus Christ or blessed Mary. It does not control our television networks and Hollywood movie industry that recently came out overwhelmingly in support of freedom for convicted child molester Roman Polanski, their bosom buddy.

I wrote an 1100 page study of the rabbis and their unholy book (Judaism Discovered), which most of you haven't bothered to buy or read, and of those who have read it, most haven't bothered to distribute it, or challenge their local pastor, priest or favorite talk show host with it.

The facts on ritual Talmudic and rabbinic denigration are in Judaism Discovered. The facts on the rabbinic laws on "how to urinate in a  holy way" will also be found in that book, which is the antidote to the demonic Antichrist filth peddled over America's broadcasting airwaves. I refuse to distill this information down to three paragraphs. It is not amenable to distillation. Distillation creates misunderstanding and an easy opening for ill-willed critics to distort and take out of context. Read the book.

If you have the time to sit on your can for four nights watching 16 hours of World Series baseball games, then you have the time to read several hundred (or more) pages of Judaism Discovered. If not, not. See you on Judgment Day, when you can explain your priorities to the Supreme Judge.

Face facts: the "Christian" crusaders against Islam have nothing to say about the Talmudic Christ-desecration that is marketed for children and adults by the millions on American television networks like HBO. How many souls will go to hell because of shows like "Curb Your Enthusiasm"?

The myopic "Christian" Muslim-hunters are partners with Zionists like Mr. Larry David in the public, ritual, premeditated urination on an image of the precious face of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This is so enormous a criminal act as to defy words! If a Muslim had committed such a foul and despicable act, the howls of outrage would erupt from the throats of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and a collective thunder would be heard throughout the West.

But because the urination occurred on the image of the face of Jesus Christ, and because the urinator was a member of the Talmudic Master Race of Holy People, the blabbermouths who say "Lord, Lord" from their pulpits and "Gospel TV" programs, are silent about the source of this spiritual disease: the 'sacred' rabbinic holy book that is the Babylonian Talmud.

 Churchianity has three main enemies it is targeting: Islam, Islam, and Islam. In such an historic betrayal of the Christianity of our forefathers, of the saints and the patriarchs, how can it be otherwise than that Jesus Christ will be urinated on for the (dare I say it?) entertainment of millions, and the Churches do nothing to uncover the root of the toxin, so that it can be exposed for all to see: this is the mentality of Orthdox Judaism in action.

But how could the Churches perform such an exposure, when they are the allies and partners of Orthodox Judaism? How can your pastor or priest expose the deep-rooted inspiration for Larry David when your priest or pastor is himself a crypto-rabbi?

This is why I have said and I continue to believe that 99% of those who say they are Christians are not. If America was a Christian nation, then HBO would be out of business the way Assemblyman Dov Hikind in New York moved to put historian David Irving out of business by shutting down his American Express card account.

Dov Hikind is a more worthy human being than millions of so-called Christians, because Mr. Hikind has the courage of his convictions and fights for what he believes in. Meanwhile, pretend Christians are paralyzed by a pre-Pentecost "fear of the Jews."But we are living after Pentecost. Do not Christians have the gifts of the Spirit, whereby we are no longer possessed by man-fear?

One need not be a prophet to see that the omission of the Talmud and Orthodox Judaism from the conservative churches' enemies list is the rotten seed that has been sown. The devastating loss of respect for Jesus Christ is the horrifying harvest we are now reaping.

What about Bill Donahue and the Catholic League? Well, has Mr. Donahue ever once dared to utter the words "Talmudic mentality" in connection with a sick spectacle like "Curb Your Enthusiasm"?

The word "Koran" is invoked in every possible situation involving negative Arab actions, why the cowardice when it comes to invoking the Talmud with regard to Hollywood's perennial, ceremonial debasement of Jesus?

You can have Bill Donahue and his half measures, which have rendered him little more than an impotent wraith haunting the sidelines of media degeneracy, waving a withered finger in spectral indignation. He acts as a safety valve who helps to channel anger in directions that do not threaten the System at its foundation.

God requires that we speak radical truth without regard to human respect. I will respect Mr. Donahue when he respects the Word of God, without which the "Catholic League" will forever remain in the "loyal opposition" category, that can be counted on not to cross certain prescribed bounds of rabbinic decorum. That kind of timidity disgusts and repulses me, particularly when it results in more accursed attacks on Christ executed with brazen insouciance.

In his press release on "Curb Your Enthusiasm," Mr. Donahue praises the "Seinfeld" television program of yesteryear, which made a jest out of all sorts of squalid sexual situations and featured an entire program that made a joke out of masturbation. Is Mr. Donahue out of his mind, praising "Seinfeld"?

"Mention Larry David in a word association game and 'Seinfeld' rolls off the lips. That show, which David created, wrote and produced, was brilliant." -William Donaue, Oct. 26.

If any high profile commentator with a national following, such as Mr. Donahue, wants to effectively defend the Lord Jesus Christ and begin a real campaign to punch a giant hole in the evil New York and Hollywood entertainment sewer, they can say in public, "I recommend a book by Michael Hoffman, Judaism Discovered."

Until someone does, we will continue to see respect for the Holy Name and sacred image of the only Son of God degraded and disrespected on national television as casually as a rabbi enters a urinal.

I have one message for conservative, supposed Christians: you cowards!

***

Muslims seek apology from HBO for 'Curb' Episode Mocking Jesus

Information on the purchase of multiple copies of Judaism Discovered is here:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page4/page4.html

***