Anti-semite? What about anti-goyimite?

Introducing The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism

By Michael Hoffman  

www.revisionisthistory.org

"A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world."  Oscar Wilde 

Perhaps some of you have wondered about the debut of The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism and desire more details concerning it.

It bears mentioning that The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of AntiSemitism (http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/) was established "as an interdisciplinary research center dedicated to accumulation and dissemination of knowledge necessary for understanding the phenomenon of antisemitism. The Center engages in research on antisemitism throughout the ages, focusing on relations between Jews and non-Jews, particularly in situations of tension and crisis."  

The Center is based at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and funded in part by the multi-millionaire cosmetics' baron Vidal Sassoon, CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire).

The purpose of the Sassoon Center is two-fold: to gather active intelligence on the movements and personnel around the world stigmatized as "antisemitic," and to paralyze any leader or movement that exposes Judaism, Talmudism or the Israeli state by tarring them with the career-ending "antisemitic" label.

Turning the Tables

I have never been interested in being confined to a category or placed on the defensive.  As far as categories go, I have always sought to turn the tables by thinking completely outside the box and crafting a new epistemology. Toward that end I coined the term "Judaic" to replace the appellation "Jew" as a description of rabbis and Zionists who lay claim to an awe-inspiring self-description with little or no evidence to substantiate their presumption.

Judaism offers race-based divinity to those of whom it is said are the descendants of the Old Testament patriarchs. We see echoes of this in Judeo-Churchianity, where the insinuation that “Jews” are saved by their racial prestige is a powerful undercurrent. 

What salvation is there for impostors, however? For those who reject Jesus Christ and think they are Jews, but in genetic reality they are not Jews? (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). This dilemma is almost never considered. There is a snare wrapped within it –  the huge superstructure of fraud, demonic pride and misdirection built upon the notion that many or most of the followers of the religion of Judaism and the inhabitants of the Israeli state, are “Jews” descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and thereby saved, or at the very least, ennobled, by virtue of their supposedly exalted genealogy, and entitled to certain immunities and prerogatives. 

There was a quasi-magical awe in which self-described “Jews” were viewed in medieval Europe, one of the few “Ace” cards they held at that time, and one which they exploited masterfully and to great effect, no less than now among the Republican Right wing. The whole thing is as absurd as a band of Calabrians in Italy claiming to be owed deference, or rulership over Rome, because they insist they are genetic descendants of the Caesars. 

Why do we take anything the rabbis and their cronies say at face value, absent collaborating data? We can talk about this until we are blue in the face or we can act to withdraw the mechanism whereby this fraud is maintained and substitute the word Judaic for the word Jew. In addition to being a dispassionate, generic description of those who have an ethnic attachment to renascent Phariseeism ("Orthodox Judaism"), and Zionism, "Judaic" disarms the familiar accusation of Jew hate and the special aura of victimhood surrounding that term, which is mined to maximum effect by those who claim its mantle.

Not everyone agrees with my strategy and this is to be expected. Anything new is often attacked and can make those who are stuck in a rut very uncomfortable. They are accustomed to their rut, it is cozy and familiar. They cannot envision a significant advance unless it involves the coming to power of a charismatic national leader of their persuasion. If that scenario isn't realized, they are stranded in limbo while the enemies of truth take command.

To what extent are antisemitism accusations a mask for anti-goyimism? 

The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism approaches these problems in an entirely new way. First, the Center directs a vigorous offense, rather than a retreating defense. Second, it possesses the energy of an original idea made concrete: how do we account for Judaism's hatred for the goyim (i.e. the non-Judaic nations)? How does this hatred manifest in politics, society, culture, education, business and world affairs? 

The Hoffman Center studies a pivotal question: to what extent are antisemitism accusations a mask for anti-goyimism? 

In playwright David Mamet's new book announcing his conversion to the Right wing, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (http://t.co/2GK08VE), the English people are besmirched as possessing an almost genetic strain of antisemitism. Years ago, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declared that Polish people imbibe antisemitism in their mother's breast milk. These hateful characterizations of the English and the Poles reflect the general contempt and bigotry of the Gemara, Mishnah Torah, Shulchan Aruch and Mishnah Berurah for the goyim, yet they are put forth and gain legitimacy as part of an alleged fight against bigotry.

The Hoffman Center aims to expose this hoodwink with facts and documents, not just generalized rhetoric about the Talmud. When the Hoffman Center states that the rabbinic texts teach that goyim are lower than dogs, we will prove our contention chapter and verse. Of course it will be said that we took the texts "out of context." We are prepared to deflate that Pavlovian defense and show with massive documentation that goyim have a status beneath that of dogs in Orthodox Judaism -- and that's far from the only racist dehumanization to which goyim are subjected in the holy books of Chazal (the founding "sages" of Judaism).

Here is the one-way prerogative of the Talmudic mentality: entitlement to bash our eminent authors with the "anti-semite" cudgel, while we respond on the defensive. Our defensive response has been a failure. I'm sick of failure!

Anthony Julius was Deborah Lipstadt's lawyer in historian David Irving's libel suit against her. Mr. Julius is the author of a recent book, Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism (http://tinyurl.com/3u6qp2l). In its pages he defames Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens, among others. His book was reviewed with fulsome praise by the Yale University literary critic Harold Bloom, who wrote: "Julius links anti-Semitism to sadism. He might have done even more with this, since sado-masochism is something of an English vice, and is so much a school-experience of the upper social class." 

An English vice. To say that Shylock's usury or Fagin's fencing of stolen goods are "Judaic vices" is nothing less than rabid Shakespearean and Dickensian antisemitism according to Julius, yet Bloom feels entitled to stigmatize the English as sadomasochist, as a nation which derives pleasure from extreme cruelty. 

As one of the Holy People, Mr. Bloom can libel the English nation with impunity, while the profound insights of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens constitute an "immemorial stench" (Bloom), out of a "sewer" (Julius). 

In his chapter on "The Mentality of Modern English Anti-Semitism," Mr. Julius presents what Prof. Bloom terms, "the puzzle of what appears to be an incessant prejudice, never to be dispelled." 

The concept of goyim harboring never-to-be-dispelled prejudice toward Judaics is a troglodyte dogma taught to bochurim (yeshiva boys). They are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that any opposition to the religion of Judaism is irrational (based on no legitimate grievance) and ineradicable, the assumption being that all opposition to Judaism reflects a hereditary gentile predisposition toward hatred of the Holy People. 

This traditional rabbinic brainwash is expressed as follows: "Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov" ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob;" cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 463-466). 

Despite their morally superior liberal pretensions, Julius and Bloom are steeped in 2,000 years of Talmudic anti-gentile darkness.

The purpose of The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism is to elucidate this stream in western académe and media and track the tail of the serpent of hatred and prejudice to its clandestine root in Judaism.

Resources

Personnel: one (so far).

Resources: letterhead printed with the name The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism.

That's it, for now, at least in material terms.

I can dream, can't I?

The Vision

Our starting point: planting the seed of this vision. 

At present, to be honest, there is little chance that my Center will become a brick and mortar institute in the near future, yet I didn't want to live my life without at least sowing in as many minds as I could, this idea whose time has come; one that has incubated in my soul for many years.

So there you have it: merely a letterhead entity envisioned by a dreamer.

Someday, perhaps sooner rather than later, God will see fit to attract support for this dream. If not in my lifetime then in that of the next generation, this Center will become a truly realized venture  -- the axis upon which the most virulent racism that ever arose in the annals of time, will finally have its human rights mask torn away, heralding a new birth of freedom for the people of the West.

Suggestions and Resources for Truth Activists

TWITTER: http://twitter.com/#!/HoffmanMichaelA

E-MAIL: hoffman[at]revisionisthistory.org

PRAY for us: John 15:16

PURCHASE a revisionist history book, newsletter, CD or DVD:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page7/page7.html

DONATE:  http://tinyurl.com/4hwh7dz

PUBLICIZE our website:  www.revisionisthistory.org

Receive these columns by e-mail:
send "Subscribe me" to

hoffman[at]revisionisthistory.org

***

Receive Hoffman’s columns by e-mail

If you would like to receive Michael Hoffman’s columns by e-mail, you may subscribe free of charge to “THE HOFFMAN WIRE”

Occasionally, Mr. Hoffman posts a column or news item to The Hoffman Wire that does not appear in the On the Contrary blog.

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:


 hoffman[at]revisionisthistory.org


with the words “Subscribe me” in the subject line.

CAVEAT: Do not subscribe to The Hoffman Wire if you are offended by probing analysis or criticism directed at the Israeli state, Zionism, Orthodox Judaism and Talmudic and cognate rabbinic texts. The Hoffman Wire is as critical of these political and dogmatic categories as mainstream neo-con Republicans and ministers and priests of Judeo-Churchianity are of the Iranian state, Islam and the Koran.

Freedom means nothing if we are not free to scrutinize Judaism to the degree to which Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, David Mamet, Michele Bachmann, Grant R. Jeffrey, Sarah Palin, Richard Booker, Lindsey Graham, Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer, Glenn Beck and hundreds of other media moguls, politicians and pundits scrutinize and debunk Islam.* Without that level playing field, we have tyranny disguised as democracy. If the virtue of free and equal inquiry upsets you, then The Hoffman Wire is not for you.

Michael Hoffman is a revisionist historian, the author of Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit, a campaigner against hate and bigotry, and the founder of The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyism (additional information on the Center is forthcoming).

* In this vein, cf. Mark A. Gabriel, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches; R.C. Sproul, The Dark Side of Islam; Don Richardson, Secrets of the Koran: Revealing Insights into Islam’s Holy Book; Joel Richardson, Antichrist: Islam’s Awaited Messiah; John Ankerberg, The Facts on Islam; Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and Gregory M. Davis, Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World.

***

Rabbi Dov Lior and the truth about Orthodox Judaism’s racism

Rabbi Lior's racism is not his fault

By Salman Masalha

Haaretz (Israeli newspaper) | July 4, 2011

(Michael Hoffman’s commentary follows this report)

First, let me say this: As a descendant of one of the Sons of Noah who has violated all manners of prohibitions, I am doomed to any number of odd and sundry deaths. The choice offered to those of my ilk is one of the following three: death by sword, death by stoning or death by strangulation. In his Law of Kings, Moses Maimonides (the Rambam) specifies that for violating the Noahide laws I am sentenced to death by the sword, unless I have sex with a Jewish maiden who is engaged to be married, in which case I shall be stoned to death; alternatively, if she is already married, then I am to be strangled to death.

I am addressing this matter in light of the tempest over the detention for police questioning of the recalcitrant Rabbi Dov Lior, who did not report for an interview despite repeated supplications from law enforcement authorities.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. None of the racist things attributed to one rabbi or another...are new....The naked truth must be told.

There are some good-intentioned, if entirely naive, souls who are quick to quote verses such as "Love your neighbor as yourself." They seek to coat the bitter pill by presenting some positive side of religion. But they forget that "your neighbor" refers solely to another Jew.

Not to mention "Haviv adam shenivra b’tzelem" ("Beloved is man who is created in the image"), which is cited incessantly as supposed proof of humanity of any kind in humanism in general and in Judaism in particular. Here, too, the reference is to Jews only.

According to the sages, only Israel, Jews, are called "adam," "and not the nations of the world."

Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook (“Haro’eh"), providing a persuasive explanation to his flock: "The difference between the Israeli soul, its independence, its inner yearning, its aspiration, its characteristics and disposition, and the soul of all the other nations, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a human being and the soul of a beast."

What could we possibly add to these warm sentiments?

All the greatest experts in halakha (Jewish law) follow this concept. For the sake of example, here's the explanation of Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel (the Maharal): "The perfection of creation, which relates to the human in particular, applies to Israel and not to the nations."

He added that the gradation of Israel in comparison to the other nations is comparable to the gradation of the human being in comparison to non-speaking animals.

If this is the situation, then why are so many politicians and self-declared defenders of the law picking on the respected rabbi of the national religious movement? The "enlightened" rabbi did not invent the wheel, after all. He only hung the...dirty laundry out in public. The populist politicians show off their dirty clothes in their media-blanketed appearances at every available opportunity (see under: Jewish democracy ), and in their eyes the rabbi is guilty of slander...

MICHAEL HOFFMAN'S AFTERWORD

The author of this article is beginning to refute in detail, line by line, the rabbinic propaganda about Judaism's alleged equality and love for all. Deconstructing rabbinic doubletalk, decoy texts and the complex hermeneutic of evasion and deception which undergirds it, is the main objective of this writer's book, Judaism Discovered.

The goyim are repeatedly told that the Pharisee Hillel was a decent fellow, on par with his contemporary, Jesus Christ. We are informed that Hillel taught, "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto another: This is the whole Torah."

The people regaling us with this warm fuzzy story "forgot" to mention that Hillel's golden rule only applied to Jews (though he supposedly related it to a gentile).

Orthodox Judaism's ferocious racism is at the core of all the canonical rabbinic texs, from alpha to omega, from the Mishnah to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. In an Internet age, Rabbi Dov Lior is too honest in his expression of anti-goyism. Consequently, counterfeit "Israel" is embarrassed by his candor and in order to keep up appearances, must be seen to haul him into court. It's nothing more than a face-saving publicity stunt. Israeli rabbis who impart vicious Talmudic racism in a more sophisticated and covert manner are left alone to build more yeshivas, financed with American Zionist and Zionist-"Christian" cash.

Note on the text: we have printed only excerpts from Salman Masalha's essay, which also included a general rant against "monotheism," which seriously mars his otherwise laudable research. What does he desire as an alternative to monotheism, a return to paganism? Belief in the truth of one God and the Law proclaimed by Christ Jesus, does not lead to hatred. It is the foundation of an ethical civilization.

Hundreds in Jerusalem protest the arrest of senior rabbis

By Yair Ettinger
Haaretz (Israeli newspaper) | July 4, 2011

Hundreds of people gathered in front of the Supreme Court in Jerusalem on Monday night for a mass protest against the arrests of senior rabbis who were briefly detained for incitement after they endorsed a religious tract justifying the killing of non-Jews.

Hundreds of police officers were stationed around the Supreme Court in Jerusalem on Monday in preparation for potentially violent protests.

  

Two senior rabbis who had endorsed the book Torat Hamelech ("The King's Torah”) -- which among other things preaches in favor of killing Arab infants -- Rabbi Dov Lior and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, the son of Shas spiritual leader Ovadia Yosef, were shortly detained for questioning in recent days. The two spoke at the rally, along with some twenty senior leaders in religious Zionism at the event dubbed "In honor of the Torah."

"We need to thank those responsible for the arrests, otherwise we would still be sleeping," Rabbi Yaakov Yosef said during the rally, explaining that his arrest had awakened rightist activists.

The protesters are rabbis and yeshiva students, some of which stress they do not condone the book Torat Hamelech, but oppose the humiliation of rabbis and the Torah.

*****

The Talmud and the Constitution

"The Torah, The Constitution, and the 4th of July"

Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater

Spiritual leader, Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center

Huffington Post | July 2, 2011

(Michael Hoffman’s analysis follows this essay)

his speech that became known as "The Spirit of Liberty," delivered in New York City's Central Library, in the midst of World War II, the preeminent judge and judicial philosopher, Learned Hand, asked, "What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." (As quoted in Time magazine, July 4, 2011)

There is a great deal of talk these days about the Constitution, about liberty and American values. In a cover story this week in Time, editor Richard Stengel asks if the Constitution still matters. Of course it does, but how we interpret it, how we try to understand what the framers meant, and how we apply it today is presenting us greater challenges than perhaps it did in the past.

Stengel writes, "As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended.

Everywhere, there seems to be a debate about the scope and meaning and message of the Constitution. This is a healthy thing. Even the framers would agree on that." (ibid.)

On this July 4th weekend, as we celebrate our country and all of the amazing contributions it has added to the world, including the ideals and values of the Declaration and the Constitution, I wanted to share some thoughts about how this struggle to understand the meaning of an original document, formulated in a different time, in a different era, by very different people, is a very Jewish idea, one that we in fact gave to the world thousands of years before 1776.

We don't have a constitution, but we do have a Torah. And, like the debate we are having today in regard to understanding what the framers meant when they crafted the Constitution, Jews have been arguing about the original intent of the Torah pretty much since...well, since the Torah itself! There are laws, statutes and directives in the Torah that have been subject to debate, discussion and overruling, starting with the daughters of Tzelofchad, which we will read about in a few weeks, who question the Torah's earlier ruling about inheritance only being for sons, and Moses inquires of God and the rule gets altered.

There are verses in the Torah that were explained away by the rabbis of the Talmud as either not applying any longer, never applying or they get made so complex to enact that they eventually fall away.

What the Jewish tradition has that almost no other religious tradition shares, and which a great deal of modern jurisprudence is based on, is the Talmud and all the subsequent later codes, all of which work to explain the meaning of the original document, the Torah, and what it's framer (or framers depending on your view) meant. The Torah condones the death penalty while the Talmud pretty much outlaws it. The Torah tells us to take our malcontent children to the gates of the city and if they can't be reformed by the elders, to stone them to death. The Talmud tells us that never happened and never should happen. Sorry!

And, in the reverse, the Torah is pretty clear about what keeping kosher should look like, and it is pretty simple, while the rabbis of the Talmud and later codes expanded the laws and made them quite complex. We have a long history of interpreting our Torah, redefining its meaning, and using very advanced and creative hermeneutical tools to either alter, or in some cases, downright change, what the original meaning seems to have been. We have the principle of PARDES, which is a rabbinic literary invention, whereby each word of the Torah has four levels of interpretation: the literal meaning, peshat, a more subtle or hinting reading, remez, a creative commentary, drash, and a totally hidden or mysterious meaning, sod. Through this technique, and many others, commentators, most famously Rashi, 11th century in France, have sometimes completely changed the text from what it literally says. Our tradition is incredibly fluid and flexible and always has been.

Today, both in American life and in our Jewish life, we are facing challenges from those that want to read both of our foundational texts, the Constitution and the Torah, in a literalist manner. I will leave the legal aspects of the Constitution and how to understand it to the lawyers and experts, but from what I have read and studied, the framers seemed to want a document that would grow and develop in meaning based on the growth and innovation of the new country they were founding. As Stengel writes in his Time article, "There have been few conflicts in American history greater than the internal debates the framers had about the Constitution. For better or for worse -- and I would argue that it is for better -- the Constitution allows and even encourages deep arguments about the most basic democratic issues." The Torah, I would argue, has a similar make-up, namely that we have been arguing about, discussing, and interpreting the meaning of the text for thousands of years. And, we know that the times were different for the framers of the Constitution as they were for the authors of the Torah. Cultures were different, practices were different, perhaps we might even say that morals were different.

The framers of the Constitution, while giving us freedom of religion and speech, also thought blacks were 3/5's of a human and slavery was okay. The Torah also thinks that slavery is okay, even as it seeks to give rights to slaves that never existed. And, in interpreting text for today, we are called upon to use our own minds, hearts and experiences to understand and apply meaning.

Just as the Constitution didn't know from healthcare, military drones, the internet or globalized commerce, and so lawyers and judges must figure out how to legislate on these matters based on what they think the intent of the framers was, along with later precedent and case law, so too the Torah didn't know from many of the cultural and religious issues facing us today in modern American life: from end of life decisions that involve modern medicine to using technology to bring Shabbat services to homebound seniors. And, because it is so timely with New York's landmark marriage equality law passed just last week, I believe that the Torah verse from Leviticus that has been used for generations to deny gays and lesbians their equal rights in our tradition, must be finally read away with the same Talmudic logic and thinking that was used to read away killing our wayward children. We have changed, evolved, moved as a society and culture, even if some don't agree.

Remember, plenty of people thought slavery was still okay, and the Civil War didn't finish the job when it comes to racial discrimination. As Judge Hand told us, we must sometimes trust our hearts and not our texts.

However, another timely issue that fascinates me, and directly relates to this discussion is that of circumcision. While this merits an entire sermon, I want to end with this thought: Why is it that this ritual, which appears in Genesis, is really, for the most part, one of the only so-called "primitive" rituals from the time of the Bible that we still follow and practice without any real challenge or dispute. Sure there are fringe groups of Jews that have always been against brit milah, but 99% of Jews, religious and secular, follow this ancient ritual without question. Sure, many moms have trepidation, but they still do it. We have never stopped doing it and today, in the face of ridiculous legal challenges, which have thankfully been abandoned in Santa Monica but continue in San Francisco, Jews of all stripes, along with Muslims and religious freedom advocates, are fighting for our right to continue this ancient practice, even as we don't do most of the ancient Biblical practices any longer. Why is that? Fascinating question.

And so, as we celebrate this 4th of July, let us be grateful that we live in one of the freest countries ever to exist, yet we are not perfect. The Constitution must never be allowed to become an idol, just as the Torah must never be allowed to become an idol.

One midrash teaches that Moses shattered the first tablets as a reminder of that notion. We must always do battle between fear and liberty, between power and freedom. That is the great gift, and great challenge, of being human. Thomas Jefferson said it best, when he wrote, "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression." That is our great challenge, as Americans and as Jews. May we ponder deeply on this, our nation's birthday. Shabbat shalom and God bless America.

(End quote from Rabbi Grater; emphasis supplied).

Michael Hoffman’s analysis of 
Rabbi Grater’s Essay 

First let’s look at how Rabbi Grater employs his terms: "There are verses in the Torah that were explained away by the rabbis of the Talmud as either not applying any longer, never applying or they get made so complex to enact that they eventually fall away.”

In Orthodox Judaism the Talmud and the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament = Pentateuch) are conflated. Both are referred to as Torah. Rabbi Grater ignores the conflation, perhaps not wanting to reveal that the Talmud is held in at least equal esteem (actually in greater esteem) than the Old Testament. Next we should realize that Grater’s writing represents the Revelation of the Method. He openly admits that the Talmud tampers with the Word of God as found in the Bible.

The rabbi further states: "The Torah condones the death penalty while the Talmud pretty much outlaws it. The Torah tells us to take our malcontent children to the gates of the city and if they can't be reformed by the elders, to stone them to death. The Talmud tells us that never happened and never should happen.”

This appears like a liberal’s dream. All the “bad parts” of the Bible have been reformed by the Talmudic rabbis. First let’s dispense with a lie: the Talmud does not forbid the death penalty for a malefactor classified as a rodef (pursuer) or a moser (informant). Are these rare categories which are seldom invoked and sparsely populated? Not really. The entire population of Palestine is viewed as rodef, all subject to the death penalty when “Israel” goes to war as it did in Gaza 2008-2009. They can and are killed in times when “Israel’ is not at war, as well.

The Old Testament was in some respects a harsh law code. Who was it that actually reformed it? Jesus Christ.

Now comes an important admission: “...the Torah is pretty clear about what keeping kosher should look like, and it is pretty simple, while the rabbis of the Talmud and later codes expanded the laws and made them quite complex. We have a long history of interpreting our Torah, redefining its meaning, and using very advanced and creative hermeneutical tools to either alter, or in some cases, downright change, what the original meaning seems to have been. We have the principle of PARDES, which is a rabbinic literary invention, whereby each word of the Torah has four levels of interpretation: the literal meaning, peshat, a more subtle or hinting reading, remez, a creative commentary, drash, and a totally hidden or mysterious meaning, sod. Through this technique, and many others, commentators, most famously Rashi, 11th century in France, have sometimes completely changed the text from what it literally says.”

Rabbi Grater is admitting they make this stuff up, which results in a fantasy religion that pretends to be predicated on Biblical law and is in practice founded on man-made fiat. He reveals that the rabbis “completely change the text” of the Bible. How true! As Christ said, they nullify the Word of God. They change the original meaning, and this methodology has a parallel with those who get “creative” with the U.S. Constitution. Often times these U.S. Constitution nullifiers are inspired by Talmudic Judaism's Bible nullifiers and trained at law seminars conducted by rabbis.

Rabbi Grater writes, “...the Torah didn't know from many of the cultural and religious issues facing us today in modern American life: from end of life decisions that involve modern medicine to using technology to bring Shabbat services to homebound seniors.”

Here we see the inherently anti-Biblical orientation of Judaism. I have documented numerous cases wherein the rabbis despise and attack the Bible. They believe they are superior to God and must correct His “mistakes" by the intervention of their elevated brain power and great “wisdom.”

Hence, God, as reflected in His Word (“the Torah”)  didn’t foresee the issues that would face us in the modern world and the Bible does not have answers to those questions. Man must supply them. How? Through nullification:

"And, because it is so timely with New York's landmark marriage equality law passed just last week, I believe that the Torah verse from Leviticus that has been used for generations to deny gays and lesbians their equal rights in our tradition, must be finally read away with the same Talmudic logic and thinking that was used to read away killing our wayward children.”

Orthodox Judaism “kills” its wayward children spiritually, by laying burdens on them impossible to bear— burdens which steal their humanity through the imposition of religious fanatical, anti-life strictures and regulations. Rabbi Grater pretends that Judaism frees people; actually Orthodox Judaism enslaves them. It regulates human life down to how you should tie your shoes and what side of the bed you should sleep on.

We don’t need the Talmud to stop the stoning of children. Jesus Christ declared that the Kingdom of God is like the little child.

Notice the rabbi’s Talmudic logic, so unlike that of Jesus: we must permit homosexual marriage because we have banned the killing of children. How many children will be harmed spiritually by being legally adopted and raised by a homosexual couple?

Rabbi Grater: "The Constitution must never be allowed to become an idol, just as the Torah must never be allowed to become an idol.”

The rabbi is making an apples and oranges comparison: the Constitution and the Torah. The Constitution was made by man. Though we respect it, we must not make such a human document into a divine liturgy. On the other hand, God wrote the Torah. It is His Word. 

An idol is a false god. Is the Bible a false god? Is God’s Word false? In many cases the Talmud and the rabbis answer in the affirmative. 

God’s Word, says Noah, was righteous. The Talmud and the Midrash say he was a drunk who was sodomized on board Noah’s Ark. There are hundreds of other examples of Bible-denying in Judaism. The Talmudists worship themselves and their own words. God and His Word “should not become an idol”!

Rabbi Grater: "Thomas Jefferson said it best, when he wrote, 'All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”

Grater forgot to mention that Thomas Jefferson also said:

"Ethics were so little understood among the Jews, that in their whole compilation called the Talmud, there is only one treatise on moral subjects. Their books of morals chiefly consisted in a minute enumeration of duties...What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed, before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit...It was the reformation of this ‘wretched depravity’ of morals which Jesus undertook.”

The paperback edition of Michael's book, Judaism Discovered, is for sale here 

Your donation toward the survival of our Truth Mission is gratefully accepted
___________

"Sweet Revenge"

by Michael Hoffman

The Babylonian Talmud was burned in France in the thirteenth century by the Roman Catholic authorities after a series of debates between Nicholas Donin, a Judaic convert to Catholicism, and Rabbi Yechiel, the head of the Paris yeshiva (Talmud school), Rabbi Moshe of Coucy, Rabbi Yehuda of Melon and Rabbi Shmuel of Chateu-Thierry.

Donin asserted the following points in the debate:

1. Rabbinic emphasis on the sanctity of their own Oral nullifies the Law of God found in the Bible.

2. The Talmud fosters anti-goy and anti-Christian bigotry.

3. The Talmud blasphemes Jesus Christ.

The rabbis offered the following counter-points:

1. Maintained the need for a book of commentary that would clarify Scripture.

2. Pointed to willful distortion of the Talmud's alleged anti-goy and anti-Christian passages.

3. Asserted that the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud was another Jesus, one who had lived prior to the time of Jesus of Nazareth.

The rabbis lost the debate. Pope Gregory IX approved the order of King St. Louis IX (1214-1270) for the burning of 24 cartloads of Talmud volumes.

Gregory's successor, Pope Innocent IV, continued to approve the practice. He stated to King Louis IX: "The rabbis in their Talmud throw away and despise the Law of Moses and the prophets and follow some tradition of their elders....The regents of Paris read the above-named book of abuse and these which have been examined and condemned by them should, at your order, be burned in the fire wherever they an be found, throughout your kingdom."

On p. 75 of the July 1, 2011 issue of "5Towns Jewish Times," a New York newspaper for Orthodox Judaics, Harav Nosson Dovid Rabinowich revels, as usual, in his religion's penchant for revenge. He gloats as follows:

"However, the Jewish people have their sweet revenge...I was recently delivering shiurim (Talmud lessons) in Basel, Switzerland and was invited to visit a successful yeshiva ketanah and gedolah and thriving Jewish community right over the border, in France, between Mulhouse and Basel. That town is called Saint Louis and its patron is King Louis IX! The beautiful sounds of Gemara (Talmud) reverberate daily throughout this little town. Once again, Hashem has kept His promise: 'He will bring retribution upon his foes!”

***

Relieve the national deficit by imposing tariffs on foreign imports

The nuts and bolts reality of our trade policy versus the trade policy of the fastest-growing economies

by Joseph Korff

Jupiter, Florida

China, Brazil, India and South Korea have protectionist trade policies regarding imported manufactured goods, and we have a virtually open-door policy to manufactured imports.

In some instances the tariffs imposed on our manufactured products by foreign countries exceed the cost of labor and materials used to make the product. A $25,000 car exported to Brazil has about $21,000 of tariffs applied to it by Brazil; $20,000 of golf balls exported to Brazil is hit with a $17,000 tariff. A $25,000 car shipped to India will cost about $75,000 because of Indian tariffs and taxes.

There is no way America can compete when tariffs of this magnitude are imposed on our products, but the tariffs keep those nations' economies humming along and our trade deficits and debts to them piling up with no end in sight.

Their method is simple: exclude imports and grow domestic jobs. This reality gives our lawyer-based Senate and Congress fits and classically trained economists sleepless nights, but it made sense to the former president of Brazil, who at one time was a machinist.

An interesting side note is that Brazil partially funds its social-security system on import tariffs. America should learn from the Brazilians.

The time to start an intelligent conversation about tariffs is long overdue. We need to get beyond the conversation in which the second and usually last sentence is, "We don't want to start a trade war." We are in a trade war, but we aim our guns against ourselves.

***

Book review of “The Great Holocaust Trial"

Michael Hoffman’s Note: To the best of my knowledge there are only four significant revisionist journals remaining in the United States: Smith’s Report edited by Bradley Smith, Willis Carto’s The Barnes Review, our own Revisionist History bulletin, and Richard Widmann’s online magazine Inconvenient History. Of the four cited, only two, Smith’s Report and Inconvenient History are dedicated almost exclusively to World War Two revisionism. 

Inconvenient History has done some genuine spade work in the archives. I was most appreciative of their extensive study of the Goebbels diaries, thousands of pages of which have never been translated into English. Editor Richard Widmann is not only an expert on gas chamber revisionism he is a generous soul. When the biggest of all revisionist gas chamber controversies since the conference in Iran made international headlines, I was enlisted by the protagonist in the eye of the storm to assemble a revisionist brain trust to provide the latest revisionist research. I turned to Dr. Arthur R. Butz of Northwestern University, author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, and to Mr. Widmann. Both rose to the occasion and Widmann in particular helped round up some of the latest and best research with which to arm our courageous brother-in-arms, who was being targeted throughout Europe and North America. We are too close to the event to name the principal, but when the history of 21st century revisionism is written, the assistance which Butz and Widmann contributed on an emergency basis will be worthy of laurels.

For now I will express my gratitude to Mr. Widmann and Martin Gunnels for the following review of the new edition of my book about Ernst Zundel. They are endeavoring to keep the memory of this extraordinary man and his struggle alive for the next generation. Were it not for them, my book and Zundel himself might be consigned to the memory hole. Mr. Gunnels is right to point out that at one time Ernst Zundel made revisionism a popular movement. As a result, it seemed that every year Willis Carto’s Institute for Historical Review (IHR) swelled with a larger mailing list, subscribers and blockbuster annual conferences in California featuring the leading lights of World War II revisionist scholarship. All that is no more. There have been achievements; the 2006 conference in Iran being the highlight. Revisionism is in a rebuilding phase now. Inconvenient History is at the core of that effort.

REVIEW

The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West's Most Sacred Relic

Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition

by Michael Hoffman, Independent History and Research, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 2010. 182pp.

Reviewed by Martin Gunnels | Inconvenient History (online magazine) | Summer 2011

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_2/the_great_holocaust_trial.php

Sometimes it is easy for us to forget that, in the quite recent past, Holocaust revisionism was a thriving movement that exacted some pretty impressive concessions from mainstream historians. The 1970s and 80s witnessed the rise of revisionism as a vigorous network of activists from all walks of life, complete with filmmakers, military personnel, dramatists, clergymen, journalists, and university professors. During this period, revisionists succeeded in forcing mainstream Holocausters to distance themselves from many of their more ludicrous claims. Yet during the past fifteen or so years, revisionism has gone from being an exciting and formidable movement to a scattered, quiet, and frequently depressing jumble of independent publishing ventures that commands scant public attention.

If you ask veteran revisionists what led to this radical change of affairs, some would surely cite the retirement of Ernst Zündel. Since the later 1990s, when Ernst Zündel declared victory in the Holocaust battle and decided to devote his talents to matters less heretical, things have never been quite the same. Though we’ve had several successes since Zündel’s departure, the worldwide revisionist movement has undeniably lost a certain spark since his departure. By chronicling the charisma and creativity that Zündel showed during his long fight for historical truth, Michael Hoffman’s book—which has been updated to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Zündel’s 1985 False News trial—provides a valuable glimpse into why it was so important for the Holocausters to muzzle this eccentric German-Canadian artist who had galvanized and electrified a movement.

The title of Hoffman’s book, then, is somewhat misleading. Although "The Great Holocaust Trial" does give an account of Zündel’s false news trials of ’85 and ’88, this is a book about Ernst Zündel and his decades-long struggle to defang the Holocaust golem. Hoffman begins by recounting Zündel’s birth and early life in the Black Forest—a region, as Hoffman is quick to point out, that has a long tradition of producing “indomitable warriors” that have repeatedly resisted the clutches of imperialism. Yet the Germans, who more than 2,000 years ago were able to beat back the world’s most formidable empire, seem to have little luck with the psychological brand of warfare that is waged so beautifully by the empires of today. Contemporary Germans, Hoffman suggests, worship their defeat and their bottomless guilt because they are a colonized people living in an occupied land. Thus as Hoffman points out, it is especially stupid for people to dismiss revisionism on the grounds that “the Germans” themselves vigorously protect the orthodox Holocaust narrative. Those who recite this cliché must pretend “as if the current crew of opportunists, whores, and nincompoops ruling Germany from the barrel of U.S. Occupation troops’ guns are somehow the legitimate spokesmen of the German people. They forget that the Communists and Zionists won the war and have imposed their political, military, academic, and journalistic worldview on the colonized Germans ever since” (29).

In 1957 Zündel left his conquered fatherland for Canada, where he and other German immigrants were subjected to a steady stream of anti-German propaganda about gas chambers, darkening heavens, willing executioners, and their bewildering complicity in the naughtiest crime the world has ever known. Right after Zündel stepped off the boat, he seems to have stepped into his ancestors’ jackboots in order to fend off the Holocausters’ virulent regime of “truth.” After handing out leaflets and giving lectures for several years, Zündel threw together a shoestring campaign for the leadership of Canada’s powerful Liberal Party. And though he was outspent by establishment gofers who easily won the election, Zündel came away with a different sort of victory: not only did he inject his name into virtually all Canadian households, but he also won the respect of the country’s German immigrants and anti-Communists.

But as Hoffman tells us: if you find yourself in good favor with German immigrants and anti-Communists, you’re certain to make some pretty powerful (and predictable) enemies. The Holocaust “survivor,” Sabina Citron, was among the boldest of these enemies. In a twist of irony that never seems to grow old, Ms. Citron incited much hatred upon herself and other Holocaust survivors by demanding that Zündel be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred. Thus to save Citron from another Holocaust—this time wrought not by Europe’s largest and most technologically advanced state, but by hard-hatted Zündel and his tiny network of artists and auto-workers—Canada imprisoned and tried Zündel for publishing “false news,” whatever that is.

Hoffman’s humorous courtside account is filled with many bizarre persecution fantasies, which when taken together seem like a B-movie co-produced by Walt Disney, David Lynch, and Charles Manson. Hoffman cites one particularly creative “eyewitness,” Arnold Friedman, who claimed that “while in Auschwitz he saw ‘fourteen foot flames’ shooting out of the crematorium chimneys. He also gave sworn testimony that he was able to tell whether the Nazis were burning fat Jewish Hungarians or skinny Jewish poles by looking at the different colors of the smoke and flames coming out of the crematorium.” Another “eyewitness” Morris Hubert, a former inmate at Buchenwald, claimed that, “In the (Buchenwald) camp there was a cage with a bear and an eagle. Every day they would throw a Jew in there. The bear would tear him apart and the eagle would pick his bones.”

This embarrassing kind of eyewitness testimony was not at all what Sabina Citron had in mind. As Hoffman writes, “Now the Jewish lobby was getting panicky. Their entire cult was being revealed for the cheap media hoax that it was: A fraud built on ‘testimonies’ and ‘confessions’ and movies, books and articles based on the confessions and the testimonies.” Although the Holocausters thought they would have a quick, effortless victory against the dissident publisher and his demonic legion of hate, the trial became uglier and uglier for Citron and Co. as the weeks dragged on. In fact, Hoffman shows that, during Zündel’s 1988 appeal trial, not a single Holocaust survivor agreed to take the stand for the prosecution. They, along with the prosecution’s premier expert, Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, refused to be re-interrogated about what we all know is “the best-documented event in history.”

As we all know, Zündel was convicted in both trials, but in 1992 the false news laws under which he was prosecuted were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. A few years later, Zündel moved to Tennessee with his wife, US citizen Ingrid Rimland, only to be kidnapped on erroneous immigration charges in 2003 and hustled into Canada. After sitting in solitary confinement for two years, Zündel was packed off to Germany where he was again tried and imprisoned for publishing texts that threatened the insecure regimes of America and Canada as well as Germany. At the end of his book, Hoffman traces all of these circumstances in detail in a handy timeline of revisionism during the 1990s and 2000s. Readers can finish the book, then, by tracing the reverberations of Zündel’s sacrifice for historical truth.

I highly recommend Hoffman’s book, because it offers an honest and balanced account of the tragedy of Ernst Zündel. Hoffman faults Zündel for several things, including his stubbornly outspoken Hitlerism, while nevertheless portraying Zündel as a generous, courageous, and highly talented leader. Also useful about the "Great Holocaust Trial" are the new appendices, which include essays by Hoffman, Fred Leuchter, and Zündel himself. All in all, Hoffman’s book is a valuable contribution to a distinct and important kind of revisionism—a highly personal literature by revisionists about revisionists—that puts a human face on a community that has for too long suffered under the shameless squawking of Commissarettes like Sabina Citron.

"The Great Holocaust Trial" is available for $19.95 plus $3.50 shipping in the U.S. 

Shipping to Canada is $8. Shipping overseas is $10. Order from Independent History and Research, Box 849 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA. 

Or from Amazon.com

http://tinyurl.com/3nskmkd

***

Republican Party of the rich plunged us into deficits before Obama

Borrowing and spending the GOP way

The big deficit facing the U.S. is mostly Republican in origin, the Congressional Budget Office says. The Bush tax cuts alone have added $3 trillion in red ink, yet the party wants to double down on its failed policy.

By Mike Lofgren | Los Angeles Times | June 26, 2011 (Excerpt)

President Obama's fiscal policies are a mess. Whatever one thinks of the need for stimulus in a severe recession, it is obvious that running trillion-dollar deficits for years on end is unsustainable. Moreover, his proposals are dishonest. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that his proposed 2012 budget underestimates spending while overestimating revenues.

Sadly, the Republicans have offered no viable alternative.

The failure of our leaders to offer realistic budget proposals was a major reason I decided to retire after 28 years in Congress, most of them as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees. My party talks a good game, railing about the immorality of passing debt on to our children. But the same Congressional Budget Office that punctured Obama's budget also concluded that the major policies that swung the budget from a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001 to the present 10-year deficit of $6.2 trillion were Republican in origin.

Consider the two signature GOP policies of George W. Bush's presidency: the wars and the tax cuts. Including debt service costs, Bush's wars have cost about $1.7 trillion to date. Additionally, as part of being "a nation at war," the Pentagon has spent about $1 trillion more than was expected in the last decade on things other than direct war costs, which has been a bonanza for military contractors but a disaster for the federal budget. And finally, there has been another trillion dollars spent domestically in response to 9/11, including spending on such things as establishing the Homeland Security Department and increasing the budgets for the State Department and the Veterans Administration.

The Bush tax cuts have added another $3 trillion in red ink. While Republican leaders wail that Americans — particularly their rich contributors — are overtaxed, the facts say otherwise: U.S. taxpayers, particularly the wealthiest, pay far less in taxes than they would in most other developed countries. Today, the 400 wealthiest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 125 million. The GOP insists that those wealthy people use their money to create jobs, and that taxing them more heavily would ultimately hurt the economy. But, if that's so, why was the rate of job creation in the decade after the Bush tax cuts the poorest in any decade since before World War II?

Like a drunk swearing off hooch for the hundredth time, Republicans are now trying to show they are serious about controlling the deficit by saying they won't raise the debt ceiling unless they get through some of their cost-saving projects, like privatizing Medicare. Meanwhile, they want revenue increases "off the table," even though, at 14.8% of GDP, revenues are at their lowest level in 60 years. And the budget passed by the Republican-controlled House further cuts taxes on the wealthy, a fact it glosses over with optimistic growth forecasts.

Raising the debt ceiling isn't, as the GOP tries to say, Congress giving itself permission to continue excessive spending: It's something that's necessary to pay for past congressional decisions on taxes and spending, and those decisions were made primarily when Republicans were in charge.

...Polarization based on juvenile talk radio sloganeering is dragging this country to the cliff's edge. If neither the Democrats nor the party I have served for three decades is willing to act like adults, perhaps it's time for a party that is willing to step into the void.

Mike Lofgren retired as a congressional staffer on June 17.

***

Talmudic circumcision rite exposed in graphic California comic book

Read an excerpt from the comic online here, along with an afterword by Michael Hoffman

A statement released on June 3 by the San Francisco office of the Anti-Defamation League called the comic "grotesque" as well as "disrespectful and deeply offensive.”

***

Wilders acquitted of hate speech in Holland and Zionists are worried

Michael Hoffman’s Note: Dutch politician Geert Wilders is an agent of Israeli war Zionism. He supports Judaism 99.9% of the time. However, because he does not support shechita (Talmudic ritual slaughter of animals), he is being criticized by his halachic handlers, who demand 100% obedience from their golem.

Moreover, Mr. Wilders, who publicly expresses hatred for Islam and Muslims, was acquitted last week in Amsterdam of hate speech charges. The Zionists are pleased their agent is free to agitate on their behalf but worry about the precedent for free speech which his acquittal represents: "After the verdict in the Wilders case, many ...statements comparing the...Talmud to Mein Kampf, and claims that Judaism is a sick religion, cannot be legally challenged."

*******

WILDERS, ISRAEL AND THE JEWS

Op-ed: Acquittal of 'anti-Muslim' politician could have problematic consequences for Jews

by Manfred Gerstenfeld | http://www.ynetnews.com | June 26, 2011

Last week, Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, was cleared by an Amsterdam Court of all charges of insulting Muslims and inciting hatred and discrimination against them. The trial of the only internationally known Dutch politician drew major media attention in many countries. The verdict is generally being hailed as a triumph for almost unbridled free speech. Concerning Israel, the Jews and what may be said about them in The Netherlands, this judgment could invite very problematic consequences.

The developments in the court case were bizarre. The public prosecution had concluded years ago that Wilders should not be prosecuted. The Amsterdam Court, however, forced the prosecution to charge Wilders. This started a three-year procedure. The first round ended abruptly in October 2010. Then judges of the Amsterdam Court deposed their colleagues sitting on the Wilders case, because they had shown bias against him. Thus, a new court had to start the hearings from the beginning in February. The public prosecution requested Wilders' acquittal as it had also done in the first round.

The charges included a long list of statements by Wilders, one of which was: "The Koran is the Mein Kampf of a religion which aims to eliminate others and which calls the others - the non-Muslims - unreligious dogs." On another occasion he had said: "The core of the problem is fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed, as written down in the Islamic Mein Kampf, the Koran."

Regarding Muslims, Wilders had said inter alia: "Close the borders. No more Muslims should be let into the country, many Muslims should leave the Netherlands and criminal Muslims should lose their Dutch nationality."

The court found that while Wilders may have on occasion spoken in a hurtful and coarse way, he should be able to propagate his views as part of public political debate. After the verdict, Muslim and other organizations announced that they want to take the issue up with the United Nations Human Rights Council. In the meantime, Wilders continues to receive many death threats, mainly from Muslims, and must be heavily guarded.

One has to analyze Wilders' policies separately from the way he expresses them. He has been a pioneer in pointing out that the greatest threat to humanity comes out of the Islamic world. This goes far beyond the more than hundred million adherents of Bin Laden's worldview, suicide and other bombers, as well as the many crimes against humanity in countries such as Yemen, Syria, Libya and so on. However, to consider all Muslims as a global threat is an unfounded and populist generalization.

Anti-Semitic talkbacks

Wilders has been a consistent defender of Israel. The Freedom Party supports the Dutch minority government of Liberals and Christian Democrats from the outside. This government has, as part of its official program, the improvement of Dutch-Israeli relations. Wilders plays an important role in making sure that this is indeed the case.  

The Freedom Party has, together with two small Christian parties, taken a lead role in the fight against anti-Semitism. With regard to physical and verbal attacks on recognizable Jews in The Netherlands, Muslims and in particular youngsters of Moroccan origin, have a disproportionately large share in these crimes, compared to their size in the population.

The Freedom Party's spokesman on anti-Semitism issues Joram van Klaveren, is making consistent efforts to convince the government to pay for the security of Jewish institutions. Financing their own security is a heavy burden for the small organized Jewish community, which numbers about 8,000 members.

The Freedom Party, however, plays a very negative role in the current debate on a private bill introduced by the Party for the Animals to prohibit religious slaughter without stunning an animal first. Initially, Wilders' party's support for the bill was seen as part of its anti-Islam policies. In the interim, it has been found that the percentage of Dutch Muslims who are not willing to eat Halal meat from stunned animals is very small.

The Freedom Party has supported this prohibition enthusiastically, knowing full well that orthodox Jews will be its main victims. In the parliamentary debate, its spokesman Dion Graus has called religious slaughter "ritual torture." He also stated that his party is not against Muslims, as the proposed prohibition also hurts Jews. Thus once again, Jews have become an instrument in Dutch politics.

When analyzing what consequences the Amsterdam court decision may have for Jews and Israel, one needs to be informed about Dutch anti-Israeli propaganda, which has succeeded in convincing more than 38% of the Dutch population that Israel intends to commit genocide against the Palestinians. This information was found in a major poll undertaken by the University of Bielefeld in Germany. Anti-Israeli inciters regularly publish in most leading Dutch media.

The religious slaughter debate has unleashed a sewer of anti-Semitic talkbacks in several mainstream Dutch papers. After the verdict in the Wilders case, many of these as well as statements comparing the Torah and Talmud to Mein Kampf, and claims that Judaism is a sick religion, cannot be legally challenged.

Manfred Gerstenfeld is the author of 20 books. Last year, his book in Dutch,"The Decay: Jews in a Rudderless Netherlands, sparked a major debate in the Netherlands.

(END QUOTE FROM THE ISRAELI YNET NEWS)

*******

Bishop Richard Williamson goes on trial in Germany July 4

Michael Hoffman’s Note: Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who resides in London, England, is scheduled, on July 4, to have his appeal heard in Germany concerning his heresy trial. He is appealing the charge that he cast doubt on the modern West's most sacred relic, the alleged engine of destruction in Auschwitz. The following is from his weekly e-mail column. It appears below in English and in German and French translation.

Bishop Richard Williamson's Dinoscopus Column

ELEISON  COMMENTS  CCVI  (June 25, 2011):  CHOOSING  LAWYERS

These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.

In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.

So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discrete" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.

As for my changing lawyers four times, the Society's Superior General originally entrusted my defence to the Society's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, who chose to engage Matthias Lossmann, a member of the, alas, anti-Catholic Green Party. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.

However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honorable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.

Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.                                                  

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

Dinoscopus is always sent free of charge, courtesy of True Restoration Press:
truerestoration@gmail.com

*******************************************************

ELEISON  KOMMENTARE  CCVI. (25. Juni 2011): ANWALTSWAHL    

Die Eleison Kommentare" berichten normalerweise nicht von persönlichen Dingen. Doch kurz vor dem Berufungsverfahren ihres Autors in Deutschland (am 4. Juli 2011) zirkuliert eine Unwahrheit, welche korrigiert werden muß, auch, um ungerechtfertigte Ängste zu zerstreuen. Diese Unwahrheit lautet, daß ich meine Verteidigung gegen den vom deutschen Staat erhobenen Vorwurf der ,,Volksverhetzung" darauf aufbauen möchte, was in der umstrittensten Zeit der jüngeren deutschen Geschichte tatsächlich oder nicht passiert ist.    

Von dem Moment an, da ich wußte, daß ich für meine englischsprachigen Bemerkungen gegenüber den schwedischen Journalisten im November 2008 vom deutschen Staat wegen ,,Volksverhetzung" angeklagt werden könnte, wußte ich tatsächlich auch, daß ich bei einer Wiederholung meiner Aussagen vor einem deutschen Gericht riskieren würde, sofort ins Gefängnis geworfen zu werden. Das ist der gegenwärtige Zustand des deutschen Rechts. Doch wenn ich es vermeiden kann, würde ich natürlich lieber nicht mit Leibketten geschmückt werden.     Deswegen wurde mir von Anfang an geraten, mich auf der Grundlage zu verteidigen, daß meine Aussagen selbstverständlich nicht für ein deutsches Publikum bestimmt waren und damit auch nicht vom deutschen Recht berührt werden. Soviel ist schon anhand der letzten Minute des bekannten Youtube-Videos offenkundig, welches die letzten paar Minuten meines einstündigen Interviews mit den Schweden zeigt. Darüber hinaus bat ich nach diesen Bemerkungen und bei abgeschalteter Kamera die Schweden ernstlich, diesen letzten Teil des Interviews nur auf, "diskrete" Weise zu verwenden.

Wenigstens das müßten sie zugeben, wenn sie aussagen würden - doch können sie nicht gezwungen werden, nach Deutschland zu kommen, und daher lehnen sie ein Erscheinen ab.

Über meine wechselnden Anwälte: Ursprünglich vertraute der Bruderschafts-Generalobere meine Verteidigung dem Bruderschafts-Anwalt Maximilian Krah an, welcher sich entschied, Matthias Loßmann zu engagieren. Dieser ist Mitglied der ( leider ) antikatholischen Partei,Die Grünen" und verrichtete die Arbeit zwar gewissenhaft, war aber vom Fall vielleicht nicht allzu sehr begeistert. Über Freunde entdeckte ich den Anwalt Wolfram Nahrath, welcher die Verteidigung solch heikler Fälle begeistert und sehr erfolgreich vornimmt. Doch Loßmann wollte mit Nahrath nicht zusammenarbeiten, und weil ich in meinem Dilemma nur die beste Rechtsverteidigung suchte, wechselte ich von Loßmann zu Nahrath.    

Als jedoch der Generalobere von seinen Beratern über Nahraths politische Stellung informiert wurde, befahl er mir, wieder jemand anderen zu finden - sicherlich im guten Glauben daran, daß jede öffentliche Verbindung zwischen der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. und einem ,,extrem Rechten" abträglich wäre. Also billigte der Generalobere den älteren und ehrenvollen Dr. Norbert Wingerter, welcher ein konservativer ,,Novus Ordo"-Katholik ist. Doch anscheinend ist Wingerter unwissentlich die Quelle für die eingangs erwähnte, zirkulierende Unwahrheit. Ich weiß nicht warum, aber er scheint unter dem falschen Eindruck zu stehen, daß ich vor Gericht auf dem Wahrheits- oder Unwahrheitsgehalt der erwähnten Episode in der deutschen Geschichte beharren wollte. Gluecklicherweise hatte der Generalobere bereits einen weiteren Anwalt erlaubt, welcher nunmehr gut versteht, wie ich vor Gericht verteidigt werden will.

Liebe Leser, wenn Sie denken, daß bei dem Ganzen die Interessen Gottes in irgendeiner Weise auf dem Spiel stehen (nicht jeder denkt dies), so bitte ich für meinen neuen Anwalt um ein Gebet zwischen jetzt und den 4. Juli 2011. Dieser Anwalt hat seit vielen Monaten hart an diesem Fall gearbeitet, aber riskiert dabei, unter heftigen Druck zu geraten durch antikatholische Beteiligte und ihre mächtigen Knechte.                               

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson          
************************************************************

COMMENTAIRE  ELEISON  (25 juin, 2011):  UN  CHOIX  D'AVOCATS  

Ce « Commentaire » ne s'occupe pas normalement de questions propres à son auteur, mais à la veille de son Appel qui doit s'entendre en Allemagne le 4 juillet, une contre-vérité circule qui a besoin d'être corrigée pour entre autres choses apaiser des anxiétés sans fondement. La contre-vérité, c'est que pour me défendre contre l'accusation d' « incitation raciale » que me porte l'Etat allemand, je veux que le tribunal examine la vérité ou fausseté historique de ce qui s'est passé dans cet épisode le plus controversé de toute l'histoire récente de l'Allemagne.  

De fait, dès le moment où j'ai su que l'on pourrait m'accuser en Allemagne d'avoir commis, par certains propos que j'avais tenus aux journalistes suédois en novembre de 2008, cette  « incitation raciale », je me suis rendu compte aussi que si je tenais devant un tribunal allemand des propos pareils, je courrais le risque de me faire jeter séance tenante en prison. Tel est l'état actuel des lois allemandes et des tribunaux allemands. Or, je ne tiens pas spécialement à me faire orner de chaines, si je peux l'éviter.  

Alors dès le début de l'« affaire Williamson » j'ai suivi le conseil de me faire défendre en faisant valoir que ces propos ne visaient aucun auditoire allemand, et donc la loi en question ne s'appliquait pas à mon cas. Ceci est évident si l'on regarde la dernière minute de l'extrait du film de l'interview faite par les Suédois qui est devenu célèbre sur YouTube. De plus, tout de suite après que la caméra eut cessé de tourner, je les ai abordés directement pour leur demander très sérieusement d'être « discrets » dans l'usage qu'ils feraient de cette dernière partie de l'interview. S'ils venaient à témoigner en Allemagne ils devraient admettre tout cela. Dans la mesure où on ne peut pas les y forcer, ils refusent de se rendre en Allemagne.  

Et pourquoi ai-je changé si souvent d'avocat?  A l'origine le Supérieur Général de la Fraternité St Pie X a confié ma défense à l'avocat de la Maison Généralice, Me Maximilian Krah, qui a choisi à son tour un membre du parti anticatholique - hélas -- des « Verts » pour le remplacer, Me Lossmann. Celui-ci s'est acquitté de sa tâche consciencieusement mais peut-etre sans trop d'enthousiasme. Grâce à des amis, j'ai repéré un avocat enthousiaste et habitué à gagner des cas si délicats, Me Nahrath, mais Me Lossmann n'a pas voulu collaborer avec lui. Dans le besoin pressant d'un bon avocat, j'ai donné mandat à Me Nahrath. Mais dès que le Supérieur Général eut été renseigné par ses adjoints de la position politique de Me Nahrath, il m'a ordonné de trouver encore quelqu'un d'autre. Sans doute croyait-il de bonne foi que toute association publique avec un «extrémiste de droite» ferait du tort à la Fraternité. Il a approuvé l'avocat suivant, l'honorable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, catholique conservateur de l'Eglise officielle. Etant sous la fausse impression, je ne sais comment, que je voulais engager le tribunal dans la question de la vérité ou fausseté de ces événements controversés de l'histoire allemande, c'est le Dr. Wingerter qui serait à la source, sans s'en rendre compte, de la contre-vérité qui circule. Heureusement le Supérieur Général avait déjà approuvé un cinquième avocat qui comprenait bien comment je voulais me faire defendre.  

Chers lecteurs, si vous pensez que dans cet Appel il y va de quelque façon que ce soit des intérêts de Dieu - pas tous ne le pensent - dites d'ici le 4 juillet une prière pour mon avocat actuel qui travaille dur sur le cas depuis plusieurs mois, mais qui risque d'avoir à affronter une pression forte de la part de puissants eennemis de la Foi, et de leurs serviteurs.  

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

*********************************************************

Bow to their "Holocaust" idol -- or go to jail!

 In Revisionist History newsletter no. 57 (June 2011), Michael Hoffman demolishes Genocide Denials and the Law, a new book from Oxford University Press promoting the jailing of men and women who cannot find it in their conscience to bow to the Auschwitz homicidal gas chamber idol.

Genocide Denials and the Law is intended to serve as an inquisitor's manual, providing the definitive legal rationale for jailing modern-day heretics in the dungeons of Europe by first dehumanizing them as "deniers."

It consists of contributions from numerous legal scholars and law professors including Thomas Hochmann of the University of Paris, Robert A. Kahn of the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota), Law Prof. Lawrence Douglas of Amherst, Laurent Pech, Professor of European Union Law at the National University of Ireland, and others. The book targets Robert Faurisson, John Demjanjuk, Ernst Zündel, Roger Garaudy, Günter Deckart, Pedro Varela, Fred Leuchter, David Irving and revisionists as a whole. Grand Inquisitor Hochmann wants the alleged "bad faith and hateful intent" of the revisionist defendant to play a role at his sentencing: "The state of mind of the denier can thus be considered during sentencing, as an observation of the widespread moral presumption that a lie deserves a harsher punishment than a mistake."

This is a cruel and vindictive book that relishes the thought of making those who doubt the sacred idols of Holocaustianity suffer imprisonment. It is a disgraceful work, and as such it requires an answer. Veteran revisionist writer Michael Hoffman, author of The Great Holocaust Trial, analyzes the Talmudic hypocrisy, megalomania and mythomania of "Genocide Denials and the Law" to devastating effect. He tears off the facade to reveal the squalid totalitarian philosophy at its core: what I believe is undoubtedly true. If you doubt my sacred belief then you must be punished by long confinement in a European prison.

Persons who are not especially concerned with or engaged by the controversy over Nazi execution gas chambers should nonetheless pay close attention to this subject: the totalitarian manipulation represented by the various laws and tactics used to distort, dehumanize and criminalize World War II revisionism have created a precedent and a template for future use against other types of marginalized dissenters.

Two ways to order this issue of Revisionist History no. 57:

"Criminalizing Doubt: 'Holocaust Denialism' in International Law" by Michael Hoffman

1. Subscribe here and we'll start your subscription with this issue.

2. Send a U.S. check, U.S. money order or cash (sent at your risk) for this issue alone.
$7.00 in the U.S. $8.00 to Canada. $9.00 to Europe, Australia, Japan etc. U.S. funds, U.S. bank only.

As a bonus, this issue of Revisionist History also contains articles on brain damage incurred from antidepressant medications; the most recent Demjanjuk trial; the "raid" on Osama bin Laden, and more. Don't miss out. Order today!

Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA 

***

Bachmann, Beck and Palin increase their support for Israeli aggression

It took Republican congresswoman and Tea Party icon Michele Bachmann less than 24 hours after President Obama's Middle East address to launch an attack on him. On May 19, 150,000 residents in Iowa and South Carolina received robo-calls from Bachmann, accusing Obama of not standing up for Israel...

Within the Tea Party, Bachmann is at the forefront of those making Israel a key part of her agenda. In her speech at the high-profile Faith & Freedom Conference held in Washington in early June, Bachmann termed Obama's call for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on Israel's 1967 boundaries and mutually agreed land swaps "shocking." She followed up by buying ads on Jewish websites reiterating this message.

Bachmann is not alone. Attacks on Obama's Israel policy have come from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, known as the Tea Party's biggest draw.

Pundit Glenn Beck, a vocal critic of the Obama presidency, has been devoting much of his airtime lately to the issue of Israel. He recently announced plans to hold a "Restoring Courage" rally August 20 in Jerusalem. At this gathering, modeled on his rally last summer that called for patriotic unity in Washington, Beck intends to call for Americans to "courageously stand with Israel."

These voices currently appear to be dominating discourse on Israel within the Tea Party, overshadowing the more isolationist views of such Israel critics as Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, a declared 2012 presidential candidate....

Source: Nathan Guttman, Forward newspaper (New York) June 14, 2011

***

Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government Tracks “Deniers"

"Measuring Holocaust Denial in the United States”

(online here)

by Scott Darnell, Master's Degree Thesis, Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government

This thesis is written like a CIA action report, with calls for more surveillance and even a "rapid response team." There is a surfeit of graphs and statistics.

Mr. Darnell's thesis (submitted to Aleisa Fishman, PhD. and Rebekah Sobel, PhD.) appears to be a prelude to a groundwork for criminalizing heretics in America who doubt the holy Auschwitz homicidal gas chamber relic.

Of course, the author would not describe his inquisition in those terms. Rather he frames it in the pseudo-scientific taxonomy of “antisemitism," along with lurid references to skinheads, klansmen and vandalism.

The heroes of Darnell's master's thesis are the Stalinist thought police of the Zionist ADL, and the spies employed by Zionist Morris Dees' Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who, in 2003, had Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore expelled from the court for advocating the Ten Commandments.

***

Time to tell the truth about who the children of Abraham really are

New Trifold Flyer by Michael Hoffman Available For Mass Distribution:

"Did God promise to Abraham to curse those who do not support Judaism and the Israeli state?”

***

The Midnight Ride of Sarah Palin

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Last week in Boston Sarah Palin stated of American patriot Paul Revere, "He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells, and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

Revere didn't warn the British. He warned his fellow Americans.

He arranged for lanterns to be hung from the Old North Church in Boston to notify American patriots by which direction the British were coming. One if by land, two if by sea. So there were lanterns, but no bells.

Every time Governor Palin flubs a line she defends herself by claiming it's due not to her illiteracy, but rather to a "gotcha question." We are dealing with a paranoid prima donna as dumb as those bells she thinks were ringing during Revere's ride.

The problem is, George W. Bush was dopey too, and a whole slew of Americans were refreshed by the sight of a boob who was as big an ignoramus as they were.

Lesson: Mrs. Palin could be elected to the presidency on the basis that her dim-wit endears her to her Republican constituency.

***