Mitt Romney: Clueless in “Israel”

By Michael Hoffman

Copyright ©2012 www.revisionisthistory.org

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney did his ritual obeisance in counterfeit “Israel,” propitiating the gods of war and holocaust denial with his former business partner at Boston Consulting Group, Benjamin “the Butcher” Netanyahu. Mr. Romney also placed a note to the Talmudic deity in the supposed “western wall of the Temple,” while wearing the obligatory yarmulke Talmudic head gear.

Of course the American media were complicit in the farce, failing to ask Romney how much a gallon of gas will cost American drivers if “Israel” bombs Iran (around five bucks a gallon). They also ”forgot” to ask him what the bill to American taxpayers will be to fulfill Romney’s scheme to base a U.S. aircraft carrier task force permanently off the coast of Iran, at a time when Republicans say we must drastically cut the Federal budget.

Romney flirted with anti-Arab bigotry from the Ayn Rand school of disembodied  economics, by opining that it was unspecified “cultural differences” which accounted for the huge disparity in Palestinian and Israeli incomes: "As you come here and you see the [Gross Domestic Product] per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality," Romney said, according to a media pool report.

In fact, the Washington Post reports that the difference is far more stark than that. “According to the World Bank, Israel's GDP per capita is actually $31,282. The same figure for the Palestinian areas is around $1,600.”

"Culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference," Romney said, repeating the conclusion he drew from a book by David S. Landes, “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.”


How soon we forget when the holocaust is against people who are not considered holy: during “Operation Cast Lead,” the Israelis used white phosphorus on schools and hospitals in Gaza from December, 2008 to January, 2009. They killed 1400 people, mostly civilians. They destroyed some 4,000 Palestinian homes and flattened 80 Palestinian government buildings.


 Palestinian access to their own farmland and water supplies are routinely restricted, denied or “appropriated” by the Israelis. Palestinian trade and commerce are heavily impeded. In addition to ignoring the Israeli mass murder of Palestinians, Romney did not mention that “Israel” controls all crossings to Palestinian lands. Israelis have imposed a blockade of Gaza since Hamas won an election there in 2007. In the West Bank, the Israelis continue to severely blockade Palestinian trade and movement. Romney has no clue concerning any of these destructive policies which have strangled the Palestinian economy.

Romney has to be a political illiterate or a clown to equate Palestinian workers and managers with Israelis, as if they were both competing on equal terms in the business world. This is what denial of the slow motion holocaust of Palestinians by the Israelis engenders: a make-believe foreign policy that leads America from one foreign war money-pit disaster to another, based not on pragmatic geo-politics, but  a reality twisted and warped by the demands of Israeli supremacy over the Middle East.

The Republican candidate for President of the United States ignores the slaughter of Palestinians and the mass destruction of their housing less than four years after it happened. Romney just can’t factor a little thing like the Israeli subjugation and slaughter of an occupied people when doing his libertarian economic analysis. This is beyond callous. It is merciless. While none of us is allowed to forget the smallest chapter in the Zionist tale of eternal woe from the Middle Ages to the Munich Olympics, the Israeli demolition of Gaza and the human and financial consequences that accrued from that human rights horror are already a will-o’-the-wisp.

It is said by some on the Right that Romney is the conservative alternative to Obama. If Romney was trying to conserve anything resembling western civilization he would have condemned MK (Member of the Knesset) Michael Ben-Ari who, on July 17 in Jerusalem destroyed a copy of the New Testament by ripping out its pages and terming it “garbage,” after it was mailed to him by a missionary. Romney, the tough talking “Republican conservative” had nothing to say in defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ which was traduced three weeks ago by a barbarian who happens to be a member of the Israeli parliament.

If someone in Palestine had ripped out pages of the Babylonian Talmud and called it garbage while tossing it in the trash, Mitt would have thundered denunciations of “this biased hate crime against a holy book.”

Biased hate crimes against Jesus Christ’s holy book don’t register, however.

So which God does Mr. Romney serve, the god self-made from the swamp of Judaic racial pride, or Jesus Christ who, when it comes to Zionist depredations against His Name and Word, seems to have few defenders, though many come preaching “Lord, Lord.”

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism’s Strange Gods and Judaism Discovered, and executive editor of Revisionist History newsletter.

***

Israeli false flag/black op in Bulgarian terror attack?

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Here below we reprint a photocopy of a letter from the Iranians last February warning of Israeli black op/ false flag operations. 

At that time it appeared as though Mossad was active in the Far East in attacks on Israelis which were then blamed on Iran by our compliant media. For some reason the Israelis almost always instantly know, a few minutes after an attack, that Iran or its "proxies" are the guilty ones. With clairvoyant police work like that, you'd think they would be able to actually stop the perpetrators, instead of just knowing who they are almost immediately after they commit the crime. 

Now, on the anniversary of alleged Iranian attacks decades ago in Argentina, Israeli tourists have been killed in Bulgaria. Cui bono?

Observe that the important statement from Iran reproduced below had to be published in The Wall Street Journal as a letter to the editor, rather than a news report. 

Notice also that today the terror bombing of high level Syrian officials (possibly with the assistance of the CIA) is not described as a terror attack by the American media. 

"Beware of falling into another Israeli trap"

Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 22, 2012, p. A14 

______________________________

The Hoffman Wire is funded by sales of our publications and donations from readers.

__________________________________

Questions for Michael Hoffman on Politics

Questions for Michael Hoffman on Politics and Ron Paul

Question: Define what politics means to you - waking people up, or what?

Hoffman: No, politics is not mainly about education or awakening, which is a different process. Politics consists in motivating people to act on what they already know is wrong. If you are an effective politician you are able to rouse people into action; that's politics. It comes down to courage vs. cowadice. Do we have the courage to act, or do we just continue to spectate and talk? There is nothing more contemptible than using the aibi that it is "too late," as an excuse for one's cowardice.

Question: So, are you an educator or a politican?

Hoffman: An educator awakens people and a politician organizes them once they are awake. It is two different roles, often confused. Hundreds of thousands of people in America are awake but they are not organized. As for me, I will do either, educate or organize. There is so much fear and timidity that it is difficult to organize, however. I research, write and teach for the present.

Question: Why the fear and lack of organization?

Hoffman: Because agents of paralysis have told the people that it is too late.

Question: Who are these agents?

Hoffman: Isn't the answer to that obvious?

Question: What is your opinion of Ron Paul?

Hoffman: He's wonderful on foreign policy and issues of war and peace. He's abysmal on capitalism and the economy because even though he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve he would enable usury. His campaign is over now. It seems he's endorsing war-Zionist Romney; a tawdry spectacle.

Question: Was the Ron Paul campaign what you would call politics?

Hoffman: Yes. Certainly Rep. Paul organized people, the question is, to what end? To lead them off a cliff with Romney and the two party system? Paul had millions of followers. I'm not talking about most of them when I refer to the hundreds of thousands of people who are awake. The ones I'm referring to are alert to pure evil. Mr. Paul's followers are awake to symptoms of the evil. There is a huge difference.

Ron Paul himself is surely a decent person, just utterly ignorant (or dismissive) of the Biblical doctrine on money. One wonders if he is aware of the Antichrist statements of his guru Ludwig von Mises?

Ron’s son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), is to a certain extent a defender of the Constitution, but just as lost when it comes to the issue of usury as his father.

Question: Why is the usurious capitalist system "pure evil"?

Hoffman: This is not a difficult question. It is staring us in the face and if you know your Bible it jumps off the page at you: the love of money is the root of evil. Ron Paul's people mostly don't know that. They want to enable the love of money. 

I am not advocating socialism or Marxism. One can have a free enterprise system without usurious capital. Such a system would bankrupt the hedge fund managers and George Soros billionaires. Influence would return to inventors, manufacturers, builders, farmers and workers.

The problem with the hundreds of thousands who do know that greed is the issue, is that they have been targeted and persuaded by the agents of paralysis into thinking “It's too late — go and hide with your guns and ammo, stored food and water, and gold and silver hoard.” Hence, the battle is lost without a true movement for restoration arising. 

It is through hiding in despair that the gulag is made to function and the police state will hunt us down. Those who know what's wrong should be, as a matter of survival, engaging in politics; organizing, not hiding.

For further research obtain Mr. Hoffman's book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now Is Not.

***

European Union defines criminal anti-semitism

From the European Union:

Working Definition of Antisemitism

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

"The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism."

Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

***

Pope puts Talmudic agent in charge of SSPX reconciliation

By Michael Hoffman • www.revisionisthistory.org

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the 1970s as an international priestly fraternity dedicated to preserving the Catholic Church as it existed prior to the Second Vatican Council, including the official teaching on Judaism. Lefebvre was suspended by Pope Paul VI and later excommunicated, along with four of his bishops, by John Paul II. Lefebvre is deceased. Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four bishops but suspended one of them, Richard N. Williamson, until such time as he recants his publicly expressed doubts concerning the new Catholic "Shoah" theology of the the religion-of-Judaism-for-gentiles, i.e. Holocaustianity; Bishop Williamson has refused to recant. The prospect of the SSPX receiving canonical status within the post-Vatican II Church has led to a pressure campaign on the part of influential rabbis and Zionists (and their media toadies), to cause the pope to either cease and desist in the reconciliation, or to somehow neuter the SSPX witness concerning Judaism before the reconciliation occurs. 

Lately, the pope has enlisted a key ally, the SSPX Superior General, Bernard Fellay, in his crusade to end the independence of the SSPX (which some view as schismatic), and integrate them back into the Vatican sheepfold, supposedly with the right to fully engage in their traditional beliefs and practices without interference from the Vatican. For several years the SSPX under Fellay, despite obtuse media generalizations to the contrary, has softened the SSPX stand against Judaism. Rumors flew in the late spring to the effect that the pope and the SSPX under Fellay were about to forge a historic unity agreement. One suspects that the Israeli lobby ("Jewish circles internationally") went into overdrive at the prospect. The proposed unification is now in limbo. As a result, the thoroughly Talmudic, Bronx, NY-born Archbishop Di Noia has been assigned the job of shaping SSPX theology into one that will not too greatly offend the Holy People, so that the SSPX will agree to submit to the pope, and his continuation of Pope John Paul II's revolutionary doctrine on Judaism (and for that matter, on Islam, Voodoo and Hinduism, all of which the late pope radically altered in the name of ecumenism).

From the website of the Italian newspaper La Stampa:

A new chapter in the Society of St. Pius X saga

Archbishop Di Noia entrusted with role in forging path to reconciliation with Lefebvrians and warding off Catholic-Jewish misunderstandings

By Lisa Palmieri-Billig 

ROME • July 2, 2012 (Excerpt)

...The Archbishop is visibly pleased at the prospect of moving back to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as Vice Director of the Ecclesiae Dei Commission that handles relations Catholic traditionalist groups, including the controversial Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). "I am happy to have been shown this level of trust by the Holy Father and to have this opportunity to offer some help in solving these concerns" he says. "My job will be a challenge. I am moved by the flurry of encouraging messages I have received from Vatican, Catholic, and Jewish circles internationally" he says.

What do you see as the major hurdle to overcome in the Church’s dialogue with the SSPX?

Di Noia: “Our difficulty with the SSPX is that they isolate passages of Vatican II documents from the context and main message of the Council.  In Jewish terms, the error is similar to trying to interpret a Biblical passage without referring to the centuries of oral and written rabbinical commentaries on its meaning.  The message becomes distorted and problematic.”

(Archbishop Di Noia is making the outrageous assertion that if one doesn't employ the Talmudic and post-Talmudic traditions to analyze Biblical passages, God's Word becomes "distorted and problematic." Jesus Christ and the Church Fathers taught precisely the opposite. -- Hoffman).

The SSPX is reported to have accused Jews of “deicide” and used anti-Semitic stereotypes such as the infamous canard of an international “Jewish conspiracy” on its multilingual sites and in statements by its leaders.  Such concepts are contrary to “Nostra Aetate” and all post-Vatican II Papal positions. The Holocaust-denying Bishop, Richard Williamson, may be the most flagrant example, but apparently he is not alone in espousing retrograde theology and ideology….How will you handle this?

Di Noia: “Regarding Williamson, Pope Benedicts XVIth took decisive actions against him because of his refusal to retract.  He was also disciplined by Bishop Fellay (leader of the SSPX), who dismissed him as Director of their Argentinian Seminary.

 “Anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism form no part of the official position of the SSPX. Clearly, if they manifest themselves in any Catholic Church, anywhere, this must be addressed. They were wrong a  thousand years ago and they are still wrong today.  If I discover such manifestations in the SSPX I will address them as being incompatible with Catholicism. After 3 years of dialogue we still need to understand what the SSPX position is on the Jewish Community and Judaism. 

“The Church’s deep commitment to reconciliation with the Jewish People is personified today by Benedict XVI. The Ecumenical Council wrought a fundamental change. Then John Paul II, above all others, brought home Paul’s message that Judaism and Jews have a unique place in salvation history. Nobody can deny that Karol Wojtyla’s Pontificate marked a major shift in the theological understanding of Judaism within the Catholic Church. Vatican II repudiated anti-Semitism and presented a positive picture of Judaism. John Paul II took us further in recognizing the significance of the Jewish People for Christianity itself. This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient."

Your Excellence, The last sentence in the Note issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announcing your appointment as Vice President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” states, “…the broad respect that Archbishop Di Noia enjoys in the Jewish community will help in addressing some issues that have arisen in the area of Catholic-Jewish relations as the journey towards the reconciliation of traditionalist communities has progressed.” I believe this denotes both Benedict XVIth’s sensitivity to the importance to both religions of our brotherly dialogue as well as his high consideration for your commitment to this area.  Can you tell us more about your background?

Di Noia: “Well, you know, I was brought up in the Bronx, in a neighborhood with many Jewish people. My older sister Rachel (note the Biblical name!) was actually the person who first inspired me to become familiar with Jewish religious customs, culture,  – and food!  I attended a private Catholic school whereas she went to a public high school and had many Jewish friends to whom she introduced me."

I am sure they appreciate the significance of your nomination.

Di Noia: "I believe so.”

If you would like to see the On the Contrary blog continue, please send a donation, or purchase an item from our revisionist history bookstore. Thank you.

_______________

National Bank Honors Gentile-Hating Rabbi with Silver Coin

By Michael Hoffman

Copyright ©2012 • www.revisionisthistory.org

The Chatam Sofer coin issued by the National Bank of Slovakia

The "Chatam Sofer," (sometimes spelled "Hatam Sofer”), Moses Schreiber, was a gentile-hating rabbi based in Bratislavia (Pressburg), formerly Hungary, and now the capital of the independent nation of Slovakia.

Rabbi Sofer despised the unborn children of gentile women to such an extent that he issued rulings forbidding Judaic medical personnel from assisting gentile women in giving birth. By refusing to help them, Sofer's Judaics avoided what the rabbi termed "multiplying the seed of Amalek." (1)

Rabbi Sofer so hated gentiles that he sought to sufficiently embellish the language of Yiddish so as to establish it as the completely separate, premier Judaic language, thereby eschewing the languages of the goyim, in keeping with the Eighteen Degrees of Separation decreed by Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the first century A.D. (2)

The western banking sytem, alleged by apologists to be merely a rational financial enterprise, has been entwined with the occult since its inception. Corroboration of this fact comes from Slovakia, specifically from the National Bank of Slovakia, whose headquarters building, dedicated to the Euro currency, bears a resemblance to a completed version of Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s 1563 painting of the unfinished Tower of Babel.

National Bank of Slovakia headquarters

This month the National Bank of Slovakia issued a silver coin honoring the life of Rabbi Sofer. (3) The coin features male and female (upward and downward pointing) triangles, obviously intended to symbolize the two parts of the Kabbalistic Seal of Solomon icon (often as misrepresented as the "Star of David").

"Many esoteric traditions, including Jewish Kabbalah and Hermeticism - ancient Alexandrian and Renaissance - resort to this occult Solomon as the patron of magic and alchemy.” (4)

Note that the preceding statement refers not to the Biblical Solomon, but to the "occult Solomon," just as there are two Noahs, the Biblical Patriarch, and the occult Noah of the Talmud, Midrash and "Noahide" laws. (5)

Rabbi Sofer was a backward bigot whose “scholarship” oppressed thousands of Judaics who sought to free themselves from Talmudic Judaism during the "Haskalah," even as he helped to institutionalize ever deeper, Orthodox Judaism's savage contempt for the goyim.

The sinister Chatam Sofer was an oppressor and enslaver, the opposite of a liberator. Why would a modern East European bank, a member of the European Union whose country is part of NATO, adopt an occult symbol and use it to honor a fundamentalist bigot who hated gentiles, as well as any Judaic person who tried to get free of the suffocating "Oral traditions" of the Talmudic-derived halacha, which micro-manages the lives of every frum Judaic?

Is the coin intended as a form of propitiation of the dark forces represented by the love of money?

Coupled with the minting of this silver coin is the invocation of the graveyard-and-corpse cult which is central to the Kabbalah, in this case the newly refurbished grave of Rabbi Sofer.

Here is the June 26, 2012 press release from the World Jewish Congress:

Slovakia honors 18th century rabbinical scholar with silver coin

The National Bank of Slovakia has issued a new coin marking the 250th anniversary of the birth of Chatam Sofer (1762-1839), one of Europe's most noted scholars of the Talmud and founder of the Bratislava Yeshiva which continued as a primary institute of Hebrew education until the outbreak of World War II.

Born in Frankfurt as Moses Schreiber, Sofer traveled to Moravia (now part of the Czech Republic) as a scholar in 1782 where he became recognized as an authority in the teachings of the Talmud. The yeshiva he founded in Bratislava in 1806 eventually became the most influential institute of Hebrew studies.

The graves of Sofer and other Jewish scholars were covered by a tramway after World War II, but have since been restored. The site is now a memorial managed by the local Jewish community and draws a great number of visitors every year.

The € 10 silver coin is the work of designer Pavel Károly and depicts a portrait of Sofer inspired from an oil painting by Ber Frank Halevi's original drawing.

The depiction is placed within a triangle, one half of a traditional Star of David, and a menorah is positioned below the portrait. His year of birth and death, 1762 and 1839 is seen on either side of the menorah. The scholar's name is placed around the upper left edge and the same – in Hebrew letters is positioned on the right side.

The reverse design includes a scenic depiction of the Slovak capital Bratislava during the time of the founding of Sofer's yeshiva. (End quote from the World Jewish Congress).

NOTES

1. Hoffman, Michael, Judaism Discovered (2008), p. 478.

2. Ibid., p. 592.

3. The coin was struck at the Kremnica Mint on June 18, 2012 in both proof and FDC or UNC quality. Both versions are minted in .900 fine silver with a weight of 18 grams and a diameter of 34 mm. Mintage figures for the proof version is authorized at 7,900 coins and the FDC version has an authorized mintage of 5,800 coins.

4. Bloom, Harold, New York Times (in a review of Marina Warner's Stranger Magic), March 23, 2012.

5. Hoffman, Michael, Judaism's Strange Gods (2011), pp. 93 and 108.

***

Michael Hoffman’s On the Contrary column is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816 USA. Our catalog of books, recordings, newsletters and pamphlets is online at http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/

***

African immigrants will be put in Israeli concentration camps

Preparations are underway to hold thousands of African immigrants in a vast concentration camp in southern ‘Israel’

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org 

Imagine any Republican or Democrat politician in the U.S. saying anything like what these Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, officials in Netanyahu's government, and his close political allies, are saying:

Among Israelis, "Tensions over the presence of the migrants have been stoked by rightist politicians. In a speech at last month’s Hatikva neighborhood protest, Miri Regev, a parliament member from the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, called the Africans 'a cancer in our body.'


Israeli "Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who has promised to clear out all the migrants, told the Maariv newspaper in a recent interview that they were creating 'a state within a state' and that 'most of the people coming here are Muslims who think that this country doesn’t belong to us, to the white man.'


“If we don’t stop the entry, the problem, whose extent now is 60,000 illegal infiltrators, could easily develop to 600,000, which would flood the country and, to a large degree, nullify our character as a Jewish and democratic state,” Prime Minister Netanyahu said at a meeting of his cabinet last month.'


"In a television interview, Yishai described the moves to deport the foreigners as an act of national self preservation, to maintain Israel’s Jewish majority. 'If we wouldn’t do it, we wouldn’t have a country,” he said.


“...preparations are underway to hold thousands more Africans in a vast tent camp in southern Israel." 

(All quotes are from the Washington Post, June 23, 2012: "African immigrants in Israel face threats, deportations”)

Imagine Mitt Romney or Ron Paul saying America cannot accept any more immigrants from China and India because we need to preserve our character as a Christian nation!

Imagine Republican leaders declaring that our nation will not grant amnesty to millions of Latinos immigrants "who think that this country doesn’t belong to us, to the white man."

If any notable American politician were to express these sentiments, the Zionist press would howl at him like a pack of rabid coyotes, and the American leader who uttered the forbidden words would be utterly disgraced and his political career thoroughly ruined, within hours. Yet when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks before Congress he is ardently applauded and accorded numerous standing ovations, and the media are either respectful toward him or at least circumspect, even as our tax dollars subsidize what would be called, if it were taking place in the U.S., the wildest and most retrograde racialism and xenophobia imaginable.

The grandiose vision of the Zionists, with their special immunities, privileges and exceptional right to be racist, was articulated by the supposed Conservative hero, President Ronald Reagan, in an ominous passage from his 1988 speech to dedicate the cornerstone of the taypayer-financed synagogue disguised as the "U.S. Holocaust Museum" in Washington, D.C. In his "Holocaust" oration, Mr. Reagan made the following macabre prophecy, "We must make sure that when the tall towers of our greatest cities have crumbled to dust in the turnings of time, the Jewish people will still be on this earth to cast their blessings."

The Zionist nation must survive, long after America has crumbled to ruin -- as it is well on its way to doing -- under the policies of both the Democrats and the Republicans who support a strict, racial-nationalist agenda for "Israel," and a virtual open border here in the low-wage plantation known as the United States of America.

***

Followers of the Talmud charged with Intimidating Witness

(The alleged intimidation is based on the Talmudic law against mesirah -- against handing fellow Judaic persons over to gentile police or government officials. Denial of kosher certification was, allegedly, also used as a weapon. -- Michael Hoffman)

4 Hasidic Men Facing Charges of Intimidation

Sharon Otterman | New York Times (excerpt) | June 22, 2012, pp. A1 and A21

The Brooklyn district attorney, facing a wave of public criticism about his handling of sexual abuse allegations in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, on June 21 charged four men with attempting to silence an accuser by offering her and her boyfriend a $500,000 bribe, and threatening her boyfriend’s business.

The district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, alleged that the men were part of an effort to protect a prominent member of the Satmar Hasidic community, Nechemya Weberman, who has been accused of 88 counts of sexual misconduct, including oral sex with a child younger than 13 years old. The charges all involve one girl, now 17, who was referred by her school to get counseling by Mr. Weberman, and then alleged she was abused by him during therapy sessions.

The charges are the first time in at least two decades that Mr. Hynes has charged Hasidic Jews with intimidation of a witness in a sexual abuse case, even though victims, their advocates and prosecutors say intimidation has long been a major obstacle to prosecution of abuse among the ultra-Orthodox. In recent weeks, Mr. Hynes has been saying that the intimidation of witnesses in the ultra-Orthodox community is worse than in the world of organized crime.

“I’m hoping that this will be a message to those who are intimidated that they should come forward and help us,” Mr. Hynes said at a news conference. “No one can engage in this kind of conduct and feel free that, based on prior experience, nothing can happen to them.”

Prosecutors charged Abraham Rubin, 48, of Williamsburg with bribery, witness tampering and coercion. They said that he had been recorded offering the accuser’s boyfriend the money, and he suggested that the young couple could flee to Israel to avoid testifying. He also offered to provide them with a lawyer who could help them avoid cooperating with prosecutors.

Prosecutors also charged three brothers, Jacob, Joseph and Hertzka Berger, with coercion, saying they threatened and then removed the kosher certification of a restaurant run by the accuser’s boyfriend. The brothers are sons of a local rabbi who issues kosher certifications to stores.

The four men pleaded not guilty on Thursday in a Brooklyn courtroom packed with benches full of their supporters, dressed in the dark clothing worn by Hasidic men.

Hertzka Berger’s lawyer, Bruce Wenger, said after the arraignment that the four men “all deny the allegations. They are all obviously going to be fighting these cases vehemently,” he said. “They are looking forward to their day in court.”

But a prosecutor, Josh Hanshaft, said the men had been “telling witnesses to forget what they know, not to come to court, to disappear,” and said prosecutors had “clear, substantial evidence” that part of the plan to silence witnesses involved offering money to dissuade their testimony.

If convicted, Mr. Rubin faces up to seven years in prison. Joseph and Hertzka Berger each face a year in jail, and Jacob Berger faces up to four years. Mr. Weberman has denied the abuse allegations, and his lawyer, George Farkas, said Mr. Weberman knew nothing of the alleged intimidation.

“Mr. Weberman, and his attorneys, are appalled by these allegations, which if true, are reprehensible,” Mr. Farkas said. The intimidation charges, a moment of triumph for Mr. Hynes, come as his office has been criticized by victims, victims’ advocates, former Mayor Ed Koch and others for an insufficiently aggressive response to the sexual abuse of minors within the ultra-Orthodox community.

...In the Williamsburg case, the accuser was in sixth grade when she was referred to Mr. Weberman, an unlicensed therapist, by her Williamsburg religious school, a close family member said in an interview last month. Her parents were told she would be expelled from school unless they paid $150 an hour for him to provide her with therapy.

Instead, Mr. Weberman, who is now 53, repeatedly sexually molested her over three years, when she was 12 to 15, and told her that she would be expelled from school if she told anyone, the relative said. The girl then changed schools and told a licensed therapist what had happened. The therapist reported the girl’s allegations to the police.

After Mr. Weberman’s arrest in 2011, a campaign of intimidation is alleged to have begun against the accuser, her boyfriend and her family members. Prominent Hasidic Jews publicly proclaimed their support for Mr. Weberman, and, on May 16, hosted hundreds of Hasidic men at a local wedding hall to raise money for Mr. Weberman’s legal defense. To promote the fund-raiser, his supporters hung posters on lampposts and brick walls around the neighborhood, accusing the young woman, in Yiddish, of libel.

The girl’s boyfriend, 24-year-old Hershy Deutsch, organized a demonstration outside the fund-raiser. In an interview at the time, he said that he had faced intimidation because of his girlfriend’s allegations, and that he had decided to speak out. He said that a restaurant he manages in Williamsburg, the Old Williamsburg Cafe on Lee Avenue, was targeted by a flood of false complaints to city authorities in late April.

And, he said, men from the neighborhood had offered him $500,000 if he could persuade the girl to drop her case.

“For those of you questioning the credibility of the victim’s story,” Mr. Deutsch wrote in a letter he posted on his Facebook page, “ask yourself the following question: Would a non-guilty person offer someone a half a million dollars if they drop the charges?”

“Speak up!” he wrote. “Face the facts, our community has been covering up these stories for way too long. We have to put an end to this!”

On Thursday afternoon a metal gate was rolled down over the entrance to the Old Williamsburg Cafe, and a sign taped to the door said that the store “will be closed until further notice.”

Victims’ advocates said June 21 that they were glad that Mr. Hynes had brought an intimidation case, and hoped it would begin to ease the problem. While some ultra-Orthodox rabbis now say that a child molester should be reported to the police, others strictly adhere to an ancient Jewish prohibition against mesirah, the turning in of a Jew to non-Jewish authorities, and instruct victims to either remain silent or let rabbinical authorities quietly handle the allegations.

“This is a big threshold,” said Mark Appel, the founder of Voice of Justice, a nonprofit agency that helps ultra-Orthodox victims. And Joel Engelman, the founder of the Jewish Survivors Network, also praised Mr. Hynes for bringing the intimidation case, because, he said, “in the Williamsburg Hasidic community, intimidation is rampant.”

Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.
[End quote from the New York Times]

***

Canada tosses out Internet ‘Hate Speech’ Law

If you want to give something back in return for this On the Contrary column, your donation will be greatly appreciated and helps to ensure the continuation of our service.

________________

Canada tosses out Section 13 — Internet 'Hate Speech' law

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Both of the following reports from the establishment media in Canada are defective. They omit the role of lawyer Doug Christie in battling for free speech in Canada for more than 25 years. This is an enormous omission in that British Columbia's Christie, together with Ontario attorney Barbara Kulaszka and independent activists Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire, have fought most assiduously for the civil liberties of Canadians. Christie has been constantly harassed and threatened, and pilloried in the media. While the media prefer to showcase as Canada's principal poster-boy for Internet freedom,  Ezra Levant, who publicized Danish anti-Muhammad cartoons, the main victims of this Zionist "Section 13" law have been "Holocaust" revisionist Ernst Zundel, Marc Lemire, Terry Tremaine, Heritage Front, Catholic Insight Magazine and Canadian Liberty Net, in addition to hundreds of thousands of Canadian Internet users who have been intimidated by the Stalinist "Section 13" of Canada's "human rights" law. 

A couple of caveats: with Section 13 gone, the Canadian Criminal Code itself continues to provide for up to two years in jail for "spreading hate against identifiable groups" (with the exception of identifiable German, Palestinian and Christian groups who can be hated to the full measure of Zionist fury without fear of prosecution). The difference between Section 13 prosecution and prosecution under the Criminal Code is that under the latter, prosecution must be initiated by a provincial attorney general, whereas under the now defunct Section 13, the "Human Rights" commissars themselves could begin a prosecution on flimsy grounds and in hearings in which truth was not a defense (!).

Second, Haroon Siddiqui of The Star, who is, unfortunately, in favor of censorship, nonetheless has some sobering words for those now conferring on Canada's hypocritical neocon Conservative politicians, laurel wreaths of freedom for having eliminating Section 13: "Those hailing the death of Section 13 as a victory for free speech include many of the same people who routinely muzzle those whose views they do not like. They delayed the entry of Al Jazeera English (television) to Canada. They pressure universities to shut down the annual Apartheid Week that highlights the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. The Harperites cancelled federal grants to Kairos, the ecumenical Christian aid group, as well as to the Canadian Arab Federation and Palestine House, because they would not toe Ottawa's (Zionist) foreign policy line..."

Furthermore, wherever lawyers are steeped in conformity to the legal standards of the British Commonwealth of Nations, freedom of speech is abridged. Here in the U.S. a New Zealand-trained attorney has written a book, The Harm in Hate Speech,  published by Harvard University and endorsed by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, which insinuates that opponents of Talmudism and Zionism should be prosecuted in the U.S. and speech should be regulated. A characteristic of the rabbinic/Talmudic mentality is the delegitimization of opposition. Radical contradiction is not tolerated by Talmudic rabbis and their epigones (though the appearance of dissent is essential to the p.r. image of their tyranny). 


At present the First Amendment is unassailable, but let U.S. intelligence stage another 9/11 type of "terrorist outrage," and the resulting panic and stampede of fear may very well result in "national security" abridgements to our Bill of Rights, such as were in place after America's entry into the First and Second World Wars; and since the "War on Terror" is perpetual, any such limitations would likely be permanent. The Harm in Hate Speech helps to prepare the path to the overthrow of our God-given rights. 

By all means let us lift a glass to the Canadians who may now use the Internet with less fear, but at the same time we must remain vigilant concerning the threat to our own precious rights in these United States. 

Conservatives strike blow for freedom

Tories yank Section 13 of human rights act like noxious weed

By Ezra Levant | Winnipeg Sun

To understand how Canada got an Internet censorship law, also known as Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, you must go back in time to 1913. That’s when John Ross Taylor was born in Toronto. Something about Taylor just wasn’t right. In his 20s, as the world lurched towards the Second World War, Taylor openly sided with the Nazis. He was interned during the war. After the war, despite the absolute repudiation of Nazism, Taylor didn’t give up hope. He continued to call for Canadians to throw off our liberal democracy in favour of dictatorship. And, of course, he seasoned that with a dose of anti-Semitism and anti-black racism, too.

It was pitiful: He’d print up some pamphlets, climb to the top of an office tower, and dump them off the roof, like confetti, hoping that would foment a revolution. What a deluded loser. But Taylor was never violent. If you turn the sound off when watching reels of him on the news, you’d mistake him for a banker — always dressed in a three-piece suit, the kind of thing you’d expect from the grandson of a Toronto alderman. But he just wanted an all-white Reich here in Canada.

Obviously this bothered right-minded people after the war, especially Jews in Canada, many of whom were survivors of the Holocaust. Canada’s Official Jews — the bosses of the now-defunct Canadian Jewish Congress — pressed their friends in the Liberal Party for laws banning Taylor’s anti-Semitic rants. And in 1966, a committee appointed by the justice minister proposed new laws to ban hateful speech. The Cohen Commission specifically mentioned Taylor by name as a rationale.

Using this harmless buffoon as an excuse, they recommended infringing on freedom of speech for all Canadians. “There is an evident distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ public discussion, and the state has as great an obligation to discourage the latter as it has to maintain the former,” they wrote. So in 1977, Parliament passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Section 13 made it illegal to publish anything “… likely to expose a person … to hatred or contempt.”

Well, around that time, telephone answering machines were all the rage. And Taylor, now a senior citizen, saw this as his magic weapon for convincing Canadians to go fascist. He would stand around street corners in Toronto, handing out cards inviting people to get a racist message by calling his answering machine. Seriously.

Taylor was charged — and convicted — of having a mean answering machine message. He appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court — which heard the case in 1990, when he was 80. They ruled against him, four to three.

Gentle reader, do you think after such a stubborn life Taylor complied and unplugged his answering machine? He did not. And thus he served nine months in jail — more than most Canadian rapists do.

For more than 30 years, Section 13 had a 100% conviction rate for the thought crime of hurting someone’s feelings. What an abusive law. What an un-Canadian law. What a ridiculous law in the age of the Internet. Last week that law was pulled out, like a noxious weed. In 20 years time, I predict it will be regarded as one of the Conservatives’ greatest legacies: Freedom.

Section 13: How the battle for free speech was won 

Charlie Gillis on five years, two tribunals, a raft of secret hearings, a Supreme Court challenge and a turning point

By Charlie Gillis, Maclean’s magazine, June 19, 2012  

For all the passion it stirred, you’d think it would get a noisier send-off. An ovation, maybe. Or tears.  Instead, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act slipped quietly beneath the waves last week during a night-time sitting of the House of Commons—victim of a private member’s bill and a trailer load of toxic publicity. Brian Storseth, Conservative MP for Westlock-St. Paul, had glanced anxiously around the chamber as his kill bill went through its third reading. “The benches weren’t full,” he recalls. “That always makes for a bit of extra heart pumping.”

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson had voiced support for the legislation. So had the Prime Minister. The result, then, was never in doubt: at 9:35 p.m. on June 6, by a vote of 153-136,  Parliament got Canada’s human rights bureaucrats out of the business of policing speech on the Internet. There was a scattering of applause, and handshakes for Storseth (the bill requires the rubber stamp of Senate approval). “To be honest, it’s all a blur,” says the three-term MP, laughing. But if the passage of Bill C-304 represents a fundamental shift in Canadian culture, you’d never have known it that night. Members dealt with a few housekeeping matters, then waded through a supply bill. Finally, one by one, they trickled out into the cool Ottawa night.

The effect of killing Section 13 will be debated for years among anti-racist groups and civil libertarians. But it is undoubtedly a turning point. Since 1999, Canadians who felt aggrieved by material transmitted online have been encouraged to seek redress under federal human rights law, which targeted material “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” based on grounds of discrimination like race, religion or sexual orientation. Storseth’s bill repeals the provision outright, leaving the Criminal Code as the primary bulwark against the dissemination of hate propaganda by electronic means.

With it will go one of the most divisive disputes to grip the country since the introduction of the Charter of Rights itself—a contest of values that over the past five years has pitted Canadians’ desire to protect minorities from discrimination against the bedrock principle of free speech. Mainstream media outlets, most notably Maclean’s, have been hauled before commissions to answer for their published content. The commissions themselves have come under fire for allowing their processes to be used as a bludgeon against legitimate expression, tailored as they are to encourage complainants to come forward. Meantime, a Saskatchewan law similar to Section 13 has become the subject of a Supreme Court challenge that could invalidate hate-speech provisions in most provincial human rights codes. By year’s end, it is conceivable that no human rights commission in the country will be in the business of adjudicating published material.

Is Canada ready for this brave new world of unfettered expression? There was no shortage of critics last week predicting a flood of online hate now that the legislation is gone. “It leaves a huge gap,”says Darren Lund, a University of Calgary professor and human rights activist. “There are so many hate sites right now on the Internet, and I think some reasonable monitoring of the hatred they’re spewing fits with the Canadian ethos of living harmoniously in a democracy.”

The question, of course, is what constitutes “reasonable” and, on that, our values appear to be shifting. The story of Section 13’s demise is in part one of evolving opinion among interest groups, politicians and institutions who were appalled by the spectre of rights commissions being used as instruments of press control, worried that it would make free-speech martyrs out of basement-dwelling hate-mongers. “We recognized the inevitable,” says Marvin Kurz, national legal counsel for B’nai Brith Canada, the Jewish organization that once regarded the legislation as its best weapon against neo-Nazi hate propaganda. “We saw that public respect for Section 13 had ebbed, to the point that even our own people no longer supported it. For a law like that to work, it has to be supported by the people.”

Some folks like to offend. Ezra Levant knew he would stir anger, for instance, when in 2006 he published the notorious Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his now-defunct magazine, the Western Standard. Yet even Canada’s leading right-wing gadfly—hungry to get his Calgary-based biweekly some attention—never imagined his decision would land him before a provincial human rights bureaucrat, with the looming threat of hefty financial penalties. Syed Soharwardy, a Calgary imam, complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, claiming the illustrations were an affront to the dignity of all Canadian Muslims. Two years later, Levant sat, scarlet with anger, at a pro forma interview as Shirlene McGovern, an investigator with the commission, blandly asked his “intent and purpose” in publishing the images.

Levant had demanded the right to video-record the proceedings, and the resulting footage became a YouTube sensation. Hunching over a conference table, he unleashed a rant that began with him proclaiming the right to “publish what the hell we want, no matter what the hell you think,” and ended with him inviting McGovern to assume the worst about his intentions. “I published the cartoons in the most unreasonable manner. Whatever offends you, I reserve the right to publish, for whatever offensive reason I want. I reserve the right to publish the cartoons for exactly the reason they complain about.”

If there was a watershed moment in the debate, this was it. Levant’s interview (or, as he put it, “interrogation”) became a top 10 hit on YouTube, sparking unaccustomed conversation about the chilling effect of Islamic sensitivities on public discourse. By then, Maclean’s was facing similar complaints over 18 separate articles, including a book excerpt in which columnist Mark Steyn argued high birth rates and the spread of radical ideology in Muslim countries represent a threat to Western values and ways of life.

To maximize publicity—or to raise its chance of winning—the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) complained not just to the federal commission but to those in Ontario and B.C. as well. The Ontario commission ruled it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint; the Canadian commission dismissed the case without referring the matter to a tribunal. But the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal went ahead with a hearing, combing the content of Steyn’s excerpt for offending material, judging the articles fit for public consumption but chiding Steyn for trying to “rally public opinion by exaggeration and causing the reader to fear Muslims.”

The CIC claimed moral victory. “We are delighted the tribunal has discredited the content of the articles that Maclean’s and Mark Steyn have been publishing,” said lawyer Faisal Joseph. But few others were cheering. Even long-time believers in Section 13 were astounded by the spectacle of a state tribunal reviewing a newsmagazine’s content, while questions of fairness abounded. With no evidence of intent, and without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, critics noted, the tribunal was clearly prepared to brand someone a racist—one of the most reviled labels in Canadian society. “This is a serious business,” Wayne Sumner, a University of Toronto philosophy professor who has studied hate speech, told Maclean’s in 2008. “The proper place for it is in a criminal court, not a human rights tribunal.”

More troubling signs would later emerge, as the procedures and practices of human rights panels came under scrutiny. It turned out that one man, a former commission employee, had been lodging practically all of the Section 13 complaints investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. For a time, Richard Warman had been acting as an investigator while complaints he’d made were before the commission. Officials’ insistence that Warman never wore both hats on the same file was less than reassuring.

Small wonder, then, that Storseth’s bill struck a chord, gaining support from unexpected quarters. B’nai Brith, which had used Section 13 to shut down the website of notorious hate-monger Ernst Zundel, got behind the legislation. “The whole Maclean’s-Mark Steyn fiasco was one of the spurs,” says Kurz, the group’s lawyer. So did the Toronto Star, a normally staunch supporter of state protections for minorities. “Most Canadians have no sympathy for hate-mongers,” the left-leaning paper said last December in an editorial. “But an unwarranted, creeping chill is being cast over free speech, absent any real problem.”

That broad-based backing might explain the muted political response to last week’s vote—a nominally free one which nevertheless split down party lines. While the opposition NDP lamented the end of a tool that helped shut down hate sites, the Liberals let the vote pass with no comment, as did most interest groups representing the country’s minorities. “The only guys I see speaking up for it are a couple of white lawyers who might profit from it,” Levant crowed earlier this week. “It is one of the great pleasures of my life to see the tide turn on this issue, and to know that I played a small role in it.”

Still, the section had its fans, many of whom now wonder what the future holds for the remaining patchwork of provincial human rights law meant to combat hate. In Alberta, Premier Alison Redford is on record saying that province’s provision, Section 3, should be repealed. In Saskatchewan, the government is awaiting a Supreme Court decision in the case of William Whatcott, an anti-gay activist sanctioned for distributing handbills labelling homosexuals as “sodomites” seeking to socialize children into accepting their lifestyle. Incendiary as Whatcott’s rhetoric was, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin suggested during a hearing last winter that he might not have known he was running afoul of Saskatchewan’s vaguely worded rights code. “An ordinary Lutheran pastor should be able to look at the act,” she said, “and without being a Supreme Court scholar, be able to know whether he can say this or that.”

Even if the provincial statutes survive, notes Lund, the Calgary professor, they are aimed only at printed material; only the federal act empowered commissions to crack down online, where most of today’s hate propaganda is spread. That leaves web-promulgated hate under the exclusive domain of the criminal justice system, where the standards of proof are much higher, and convictions rarer. To even lay a charge, says Stephen Camp, president of the Alberta Hate Crime Committee and a former commander of the Edmonton police hate crime unit, officers must be able to show the material was wilfully promoted; that it targeted an identifiable group; that it met the common-law test of a hate material—and all beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, a lot of complainants will go away dissatisfied.

The rest, presumably, will fall to civil society, which is arguably where the onus belonged to start with. 

For decades, interfaith groups and non-religious organizations have been promoting tolerance. In recent years they’ve been complemented by hard-core activists who patrol the Internet, ferreting out hate sites and gathering information for the benefit of police. One such organization, the Anti-Racist Canada Collective, told Maclean’s it would keep up its efforts despite the loss of Section 13. “There is an irony, in that its absence might actually make it easier for us to collect intelligence,” a spokesman said in an email. “Online haters may become less reticent about posting their real views.”

That’s not much comfort to groups seeking to silence speech that merely offends. But as the battles of the past five years ease into perspective, even they are reconsidering their positions. Not long after Syed Soharwardy filed his complaint against Levant, for instance, the Calgary imam found himself on the receiving end of his own human rights complaint—from a group of women who claimed they’d been prevented from speaking and subjected to abusive language during a meeting at his mosque.

Experiencing the human rights ordeal from the other side was an eye-opener, he later acknowledged, telling Maclean’s: “I am now quite certain that the best way is for the parties to have dialogue. We need to be able to listen to each other. Human rights commissions should be there, but they are for questions of housing and employment and access to the workplace—not for disputes that are about freedom of speech.” (End quote from Maclean’s). 

Have you read Judaism’s Strange Gods?

Please tell others about our work and website: www.revisionisthistory.org

***