Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Monday, August 07, 2017

Ernst Zündel: A Lover, not a Hater

Ernst Zündel: A Lover, not a Hater

“Je suis le bouc.”  L.-F. Céline

By Michael Hoffman
www.RevisionistHistory.org

Ernst Zündel (above, right), with his attorney, Dr. Herbert Schaller, March 1, 2010, just moments after he emerged from Mannheim prison for the first time in five years.

Ernst Zündel died of heart failure on August 5 at his ancestral home in the Black Forest region of southwestern Germany, near Pforzheim, one day before the anniversary of the atomic holocaust in the city of Hiroshima, Japan. He was 78. He passed away seven years and five months after having served seven years in confinement in Canadian and German prisons for thought crimes committed as a publisher, broadcaster and protestor. To make the inquisition against this German human rights activist palatable to the public, his “crime” is monotonously described as “inciting hatred for years with anti-Semitic activities.”

In America the yahoos are stirred to outrage by the spectre of Islamic “Sharia law” coming to Mayberry, while they are oblivious to the Talmudic law and psychology which suffuses the U.S.A. Talmudic halacha is a two-tiered legal system: one law for the Holy People and another for everyone else. Thus it is written in Sanhedrin 57a, “Regarding bloodshed, the following distinction applies: if a non-Jew killed another non-Jew, or a non-Jew killed a Jew, the killer is liable for execution; if a Jew killed a non-Jew he is exempt from punishment.” 

By the same logic, if a Judaic incites hatred of Germans it is not a crime, it is a well-deserved act of retribution. Zündel spent his life fighting this corrupt double-standard. He did so not for philosophical or ideological reasons. Rather, he believed that relentless anti-German hate propaganda was a kind of psychological warfare and mental genocide which internally colonized the souls of the German people, radically reducing their self-worth and causing them to engage in self-destructive and suicidal behavior. 

His lifelong campaign to counter anti-German hatred and Talmudic bigotry has been transformed through the alchemy of media falsification into itself an act of hate, and it is at this omega point that Ernst’s persona has been frozen by the Establishment. “He was a hater!” That’s all we’re supposed to know, or need to know, about his life and work.

Having emigrated to Canada as a young man of 19, he became a sought-after graphic artist, working for national magazines. That he was a public relations genius is indisputable. In the 1960s he began placing advertisements in comic books, urging freedom for imprisoned Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, and for a volume about “Nazi UFOs,” the latter a publicity stunt intended to build the revisionist history mailing list he was gradually compiling. By the late 1970s, when the Newspeak distortion of the word “holocaust” began to be appropriated by the Zionist lobby and applied exclusively to the sufferings (both real and imagined) of Judaic people in World War II, Ernst began his counter-offensive, making contact with the academics and historians in the  burgeoning revisionist history movement that was questioning the “Holocaust” liturgy. 

By 1983 his mass mailings had become so extensive that the powerful Zionist lobby in Canada persuaded the government to ban Zündel from using the mail. He was forced to publish from a Buffalo, New York-area post office, hundreds of miles from his base in Toronto. For publishing doubts about the existence of execution gassing facilities in concentration camps, he was indicted for distributing “false news.” He went to court in Toronto in January, 1985, in what would become known as “The Great Holocaust Trial,” having assembled a stellar legal and history research team led by Doug Christie, who was at that time an obscure, upstart attorney from British Columbia, and Dr. Robert Faurisson, a French academic with a vast command of World War II revisionist history.

Zündel’s own World War II-generation of Germans rallied around him. The large Victorian “Zündelhaus” in Toronto was filled with German people acting as defense witnesses in the trial and assistants in various capacities. There were also non-Germans across the spectrum, including Judaics such as the brilliant and eccentric Ditlieb Felderer, the inaugural forensic investigator and photographer of the Auschwitz-Birkenau slave labor camp. 

Ernst was not a provincial German. He was cosmopolitan and sophisticated, with broad tastes and sympathies. He forged alliances with everyone from Judaics disgruntled with the Israeli state and Judaism, to the former Attorney General of Massachusetts who would call Ernst in the middle of the night during the 1985 trial and offer him legal advice.

In the course of the 1985 trial the Crown prosecution called many “unimpeachable Holocaust survivor eyewitnesses” to the stand, in order to send Zündel to prison. Under cross-examination, each one was reduced to a quivering pile of fantastic or contradictory testimony that was essentially worthless. Rudolf Vrba, one of the first “major witnesses” to the alleged homicidal gas chambers, who was regarded as a pillar of “Holocaust” survivor testimony, was made to concede under oath that his book, I Cannot Forgive, could not stand up in court and was only an “artistic picture” of Auschwitz. Because of the embarrassing revelations elicited from these witnesses, no “Holocaust survivors” were called to testify in defense of Deborah Lipstadt in the course of David Irving’s libel suit against her (a fact noted by the actor playing the part of her barrister Anthony Julius, in the 2016 Hollywood movie, “Denial”). 

The most eminent “Holocaust” historian of the 1980s was Dr. Raul Hilberg. During the Great Holocaust Trial he was compelled to admit on the witness stand that there was no scientific evidence of homicidal gassings. “I’m at a loss” were the shocking words this “leading Holocaust scholar” uttered when asked by Christie to cite such evidence.

Ernst’s initial conviction on the ridiculous 1985 false news charge was overturned on appeal to the Ontario Court, citing presiding Judge Hugh Locke’s overwhelming bias toward the defendant.

Zündel was tried yet again in 1988; that trial is noteworthy for having produced engineer Fred Leuchter’s unprecedented Leuchter Report on the impossibility of mass chemical poison gassings in the facilities he personally studied and sampled in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Ernst published many tens of thousands of copies of Leutcher Report for circulation world-wide.

On more than one occasion we have referred to Ernst as the-man-who-was-perpetually-on-trial. He underwent court appearances over the ban on his using the Canadian mails, his two trials, the appeals, his immigration case in the U.S. and his trial in Germany, which led to his lengthiest imprisonment. The word “martyr” is derived from a Greek word for a defendant in court. The connotation is of a man or woman willing to defy authorities formally, and face to face. This was Ernst’s destiny.

On August 27, 1992, in a historic decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which was a landmark victory for every Canadian’s civil liberties, the “false news” portion of the Canadian criminal code was overturned thanks to the appeal argued by Ernst’s legal team. 

There was a price to be paid for these successes, however. The Talmud is a book which has made a religion out of revenge. William Shakespeare had Portia finger it when she told Shylock in The Merchant of Venice that contrary to Shylock’s call for “justice,” the Christian posits mercy, because none of us can withstand God’s justice. The problem in making that type of argument is that the religion of revenge entails self-worship, and part of its megalomania rests upon giving God orders (cf. Bava Metzia 59b). Therefore, revenge, not mercy, is the order of the day for the Talmudists. Consequently, in 1989 Prof. Faurisson was horribly beaten by thugs linked to Betar, a French Zionist terror group. No one was prosecuted. On May 7, 1995 Ernst Zündel’s Victorian home and headquarters in Toronto was destroyed by arsonists. The police barely bothered to investigate. No one was prosecuted.

In February, 2003 Ernst was living peacefully in Tennessee with his German-American wife, Ingrid Rimland, when he was arrested for “violations of U.S. immigration regulations.” He was jailed for two weeks and subsequently deported to Canada, where he had “landed immigrant” status. Labeled a terrorist in a secret Canadian star chamber court, the man who had never even had a speeding ticket and consistently preached non-violence, was incarcerated for two years on a “Security certificate,” under abominable conditions of solitary confinement, while fed wretched food, observed 24 hours a day with lights never turned off, denied proper writing and reading materials, and confined in a remote, high security facility.

He was deported to Germany in 2005 where, a few weeks short of his 66th birthday he began serving five years in Mannheim prison for publishing questions about gas chambers in books and other media, including online on his internationally-renowned “Zundelsite” web page.

Upon his release in 2010 he lived quietly in a home in Germany that had been in his family for hundreds of years. Without complaint he cheerfully set to work personally clearing brush and trees and making repairs to the ancient homestead. He never whined. He had not been raised in a culture where, “Oh, how I suffered!” was a standard of self-definition. He didn’t moan about his fate. He was a German of the old school, for whom the words inculcated from youth, Lerne leiden ohne zu klagen (“Learn to suffer without complaining”), were ringing in his ears until the day he died.

Prior to 2017, Ernst applied for an immigrant visa so that he could reside with his wife in Tennessee. Last spring, less than a week before his 78th birthday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ruled on his application, as follows:

“[I]n 2007 the Applicant was convicted in Germany of 14 counts of incitement to hatred and one count of violating the memory of the dead. The Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate of five years in prison. And though a waiver of inadmissibility was possible — because of extreme hardship to Zundel’s elderly wife — the office concluded that there was good reason to deny the waiver: The negative factors in the Applicant’s case include his long history of inciting racial, ethnic, and religious hatred. The record shows that the Applicant is a historical revisionist and denier of the Holocaust, distributing writings, books, tapes, videos, and broadcasts to promote his views. The record indicates further that these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews. Furthermore, the Applicant has been a leader in these activities for decades and has shown no regret or remorse for his actions.” 

“...these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews.” This is a terrible lie, backed by no documentation. We should not be surprised. We were forewarned 2,000 years ago about “children of hell” (Matthew 23:15) whose patriarch was “the father of lies” (John 8:44). If Jesus were alive today, he too would be serving time in Canadian and German dungeons and banned from the United States by Homeland Security.

If you are a German of Ernst’s generation then you have heard of, or read, Karl May, the novelist who celebrated the American Indian. In Canada Ernst hosted a parade of German combat veterans of World War II, from privates to officers. Having read the novels of Karl May, often among the first requests these men would make was, “Will you to take me to meet the Indians?” There are photos of these old soldiers shaking hands and riding horses with the indigenous people of Canada, with Zundel accompanying them. 

The Indians of North America are reputed to ask a question before they make any momentous decision: how will this affect the next seven generations? The question the Indians would pose if they were Germans — how will the admission of millions of hostile alien immigrants affect our children for the next seven generations?— is left unasked by 21st Germans, a majority of whom continue to support Angela Merkel, their posterity’s executioner, because she is good at managing the nation’s money.

Zündel was as much a holocaust survivor as anyone. In February, 1945 when he was not quite six-years-of-age, he heard the roar of the 367 bombers of Britain’s Royal Air Force, as its thundering fire bombs incinerated the German civilians of the nearby city of Pforzheim. He, his mother and siblings shook with fear, sheltering under a table during this holocaust, which we are not allowed to call by that name.

Every day it seems there is something else we are not allowed to say or think, and this is what we should expect ever more of, in a world of illusion that calls Ernst Zündel, “a hater.” He has been made a scapegoat by people who are themselves guilty of undying hatred. 

We have known few men who have loved our people and our civilization more than he did. It is not an exaggeration to say that he gave his life for love of them.


Copyright©2017 Independent History and Research

Michael Hoffman is the author of The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic [published in French in 2016 as Le Grand Procés de L’Holocauste: L’Extraordinaire Aventure d’Ernst Zündel].
___________________


Tuesday, July 18, 2017

When government usurps the rights of parents

When government usurps 
the rights of parents

Michael Hoffman’s comment: In any society where the Bible, its statutes, judgments and morality, are not esteemed and held in authority, the government will usurp the rights of the parents and before long, the power of life and death itself. Many white liberals, who pride themselves on rescuing cats and dogs from animal shelters, are persuaded that the “population explosion” is, after “climate change,” the chief threat facing the planet. When these people obtain judicial or medical power, the value of human life in their eyes is highly problematic, and more often than not, disposable. 

For the Love of Charlie Gard

When it comes to the life of a child, should parental devotion be disqualifying?

By William McGurn
Wall Street Journal | July 18, 2017 p. A13

So Charlie Gard’s fate now comes down to this: whether an American doctor can persuade a British judge that little Charlie’s life is worth living.

The child cannot see, cannot hear, and suffers from a genetic disorder for which there is no cure—yet he has exposed the great fault line between the post-Christian West and its past. For most of history, men and women have regarded suffering as part of life. But as medicine tames once-deadly afflictions and the idea of some larger meaning to the cosmos wanes, suffering comes to appear less a part of the natural order than an intolerable anomaly.

Follow this logic to the end and you will arrive at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. The hospital dates to 1852, when it was founded by a doctor hoping to relieve “the shockingly high level of infant mortality.” How curious that this same hospital now argues for infant mortality, or at least for the mortality of one particular infant.

Hospital experts say it’s in Charlie’s “best interests” that he be denied the experimental treatments because he “has no quality of life.” Better for him to die, they say, than risk suffering. Never mind the judge’s original admission that “no one can be certain whether or not Charlie feels pain.”

Let us stipulate a distinction between removing someone from life support, as the hospital proposes, and taking active measures to induce death. Put another way, if Connie Yates and Chris Gard —Charlie’s parents—decided to remove their son from his ventilator and allow nature to take its course, it would be a difficult but eminently defensible position.

But the claim asserted by the representatives of Britain’s state-run health care system is more sweeping and insidious: This is our call, they say. Such is the Great Ormond Street Hospital’s sense of dominion, says Ms. Yates, that it refused to allow Charlie to come home to die, wrapped in the loving arms of his mom and dad.

In the Book of Exodus the Israelites are warned that theirs is a “jealous God,” but there is no god more jealous than single-payer health care. For at the heart of single payer is single authority. Isn’t it striking how resentful the legal and health care authorities are that Charlie’s family has raised $1.7 million, thus taking money off the table as an excuse to deny him the offered treatments?

Against the emotional outbursts of the parents, the official pronouncements all aim to convey a sense of reasonableness, with soothing references to the law, the selflessness and expertise of those pushing to overrule Charlie’s parents, and, of course, the complexity of the situation.

Still, the deck has been stacked from the beginning. The giveaway is the appointment of a guardian to represent Charlie’s interests, even as the court rulings concede it would be difficult to find a more devoted mother and father. Now we learn the lawyer who represents Charlie in court runs a charity with connections—surprise!—to a sister organization that promotes assisted suicide and until 2006 called itself the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

The Great Ormond Street Hospital even wants the last word on love: “In one respect, Charlie is immensely fortunate” to have such loving parents. Because in this context “in one respect” really means, “not in the sense that has to do with decisions about their son’s life.” In other words, the parents’ love disqualifies them. In choosing a guardian to represent Charlie against his parents, the courts sided with the doctor who characterized Charlie’s mom and dad as a “spanner in the works.”

It wasn’t long ago that people worried about the cheapening of human life were predicting practices such as legal abortion would lead to the acceptance of things once thought unthinkable. Euthanasia, for example, or the weeding out of children deemed not perfect enough. These people were dismissed as Cassandras. They now look like prophets.

Charlie Gard’s story comes after a case in the Netherlands where an elderly women suffering from dementia woke up and resisted as she was about to be euthanized—only to have the doctor order her family to hold her down for the fatal injection...

The essence of civilization is that the strong protect the weak. But Charlie Gard shows that the barbarian no longer comes wielding a club and grunting in some undecipherable tongue. These days the barbarian comes as an expert, possessed of all the requisite certification—and an unquestioned faith in his absolute right to impose final judgments about the “quality of life” of other people’s loved ones.

[Emphasis supplied]


____________________________


Monday, July 17, 2017

The Benedict Option

The Benedict Option

By Michael Hoffman
www.RevisionistHistory.org

Pope-follower Rod Dreher of The American Conservative magazine is the author of The Benedict Option, which lays out a commendable strategy for preserving Christendom against the barbarians by securing a redoubt in rural America and creating communities that will have a decent chance to survive and flourish, similar to those of St. Benedict of Norcia (480-547 A.D.).

Dreher is seconding a well-known alternative. It is not his original concept, as he freely admits. We may quibble with the particulars but the idea is sound and many are acting upon it. Where I reside, in northern Idaho, many hundreds of Conservatives (at least) relocate here every year, seeking freedom and fellowship with Christian people of like mind. So kudos to Dreher for popularizing and attempting to systematize the “Benedict Option.”


The Other “Benedict Option”

The problem is that Dreher himself, as a flawed personal guide to the Vatican labyrinth, is enamored of some very confused and naive thinking concerning another Benedict, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who is now “emeritus Pope" Benedict XVI.

Could Mr. Dreher be so gullible as to be unaware of the Machiavellian and Hegelian feints, stratagems, double-talk and double mind issuing from the popes of Rome? It would seem so, based on his analysis of Pope Benedict’s recent, thinly veiled hints to the effect that his successor, Pope Francis, is making shipwreck of the Church. 

These signals were delivered by Archbishop Georg Ganswein, Benedict's surrogate, in a eulogy for a deceased “Conservative,” Cardinal Joachim Meisner, on July 15. Dreher and other “Conservative Catholic” pundits view Benedict’s eulogy for Meisner — who had questioned Francis— in which the erstwhile pope spoke of a catastrophe afflicting the Church, as a sign of resistance to Francis (See Dreher, “Pope Benedict’s SOS”). 

Benedict’s surrogate stated, “...the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.”

Mr. Dreher writes:

 “Keep in mind that Catholics think of the Church as the 'barque of Peter' — a boat, captained by Peter. Benedict XVI is saying here that the Church appears to be going down, capitulating to the Zeitgeist. ...I had to re-read that statement from Benedict several times to quite believe it. This is a staggering remark, one whose power is amplified by the fact that it was delivered at the requiem mass for a cardinal who challenged Pope Francis directly. I cannot read it as other than Benedict’s judgment of the state of the Catholic Church under Francis. If you have a more plausible reading, let’s hear it. If I’m correct, contained within these few lines is Benedict’s counsel to the Catholic faithful who wish to resist this dictatorship of the Zeitgeist: you are not wrong; things really are as bad as they seem — but stand fast in the faith, and fear not."

The patent message is that there remains one “conservative” pontiff willing to buck the tide of a liberal pope, and rally troops on the Right against the Left. 

Why the need to send this message? It is important to the Cryptocracy to retain Conservatives' faith in the popes. The pay-pray-and-obey tradition on the Right must be kept open for the sake of the survival of the institution. The far-Leftist Francis is undermining the centuries-old Left-Right papist symbiosis. Into the void and in the nick of time steps the other "Benedict option," 90-year-old Pope Benedict to attempt to build Conservative morale sufficient to keep Right wing sheep in the wolf's fold. 

(His eulogy was vague enough to afford him plausible denial should the Left call him out on “undermining” Francis). 

If he truly were a tribune of Conservative Catholicism, however, why did Benedict abdicate in the first place, knowing full well there was a strong chance the papacy would be turned over to Bergoglio? Even more significant is the fact that Benedict XVI was himself a wrecker. The Cryptocracy has performed a wonderful act of prestidigitation in transforming Pope Benedict into a faithful watchman against revolution, when in truth he was a leader of it.

For example, Benedict is a pontiff who does not believe in the literal bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, as documented in this writer’s book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (pp. 89-90).  Hence, he is not a Christian by any meaningful standard of measurement. Like many popes since the Renaissance he is also a Neoplatonic heretic (p. 90).

Followers of the Church of Rome may lull themselves to sleep concerning the grave transgressions of Pope Benedict XVI, though by doing so they are leaving the field wide open for Protestants who are not so myopic. Matthew Vogan, who writes with civility in his essay, “Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection?” (Free Presbyterian Magazine, September, 2010; reprinted in my book [pp. 89-92]), compiled a devastating dossier on Benedict which true Catholic Conservatives should have written themselves, but were too busy blindly extolling Benedict's alleged orthodoxy.

In the Church of Rome since the sixteenth century, the thesis is always played against the antithesis, i.e. the Right is always a stage prop against the Left. The opposition of zealous Leftists to the pontificate of Benedict XVI did not render Benedict a true Catholic. Leftists are enraged that Benedict did not modify church edicts against contraception and women priests. But of what genuine significance is this particular “conservatism,” when a Neoplatonic-Hermetic revolution against the Gospel itself—the radical overthrow of nearly 1500 years of Christian teaching on Judaism—is implemented by Pope Benedict? 

The Left-wing oppositional thesis does not absolve Benedict XVI of his complicity in Paul VI’s 1965 Nostra Aetate, or John-Paul II’s “Shoah” business, or his own unconscionable synagogue visits where he behaved nothing like the apostles of the early Church or St. Vincent Ferrer. In the synagogues he colluded with the rabbis and thereby encouraged them in their resistance to the Gospel. 

Furthermore, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, his "Pontifical Biblical Commission" documents promulgated by Pope John Paul II (such as The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible), offered support for the "misunderstood" ancient Pharisees, and amounted to a whitewash of these deadly enemies of Our Lord. Moreover, the future Pope Benedict recommended the blasphemous Talmud and Midrash (“Jewish exegesis”) to Catholics for a better understanding of the Scriptures (The Occult Renaissance, pp. 551-558).This is a Conservative? What this is, is a mockery. 

Benedict’s synthesis of the Leftist thesis and the Rightist antithesis culminated in his continuing perpetuation of the calamitous “Elder brothers in the faith” fraud, and Holocaustolatry. Both of these modernist innovations were as strong as ever under Benedict’s pontificate and thanks to his astute maneuvering, were taken up by “Roman Catholic conservatives and traditionalists.” 

Follow Michael Hoffman on Twitter (@HoffmanMichaelA)


Few people in the world bear more personal responsibility for the theological, moral, liturgical, and pastoral chaos in the Vatican II Sect than Joseph Ratzinger.

As theological advisor to Cardinal Josef Frings, Ratzinger participated in the shaping of some of the Vatican II documents to a significant degree. As an influential theology professor at various universities, and as an academic and author, he helped inculcate in his students’, colleagues’, and readers’ minds the “letter and spirit” of that infernal synod.

As “Archbishop” of Munich and Freising, Ratzinger implemented and applied Vatican II throughout his diocese. As Prefect of the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he determined the official “magisterial” interpretation and application of the Second Vatican Council for over 23 years, in close collaboration with “Pope” John Paul II.

Novus Ordo milestones such as the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, the 1993 Balamand Declaration, the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Accord on Justification, and the 2000 Dominus Iesus Declaration were all issued under Ratzinger’s watch.

And as “Pope” from 2005-13, well, he had the power to do whatever he pleased. He could have changed anything he liked, righted every wrong, retracted or corrected every error, excommunicated every heretic.

Instead, he had Hans Kung over for coffee, went to synagogues and mosques, paid his obeisance to the Jews at the Wailing Wall, continued the blasphemous Assisi prayer meetings introduced by John Paul II...and appointed (Leftist) “cardinals” like Donald Wuerl, Reinhard Marx, Rainer Woelki, Kurt Koch, Luis Tagle, Gianfranco Ravasi, and Francesco Coccopalmerio.

Is the Novus Ordo Sect capsizing? You bet it is! Though not despite Joseph Ratzinger, but in large part because of him.

It is an old trick: Lament the very problems you yourself are responsible for creating or aggravating! Governments love to use it. It evokes compassion and makes you look like a hero. It works every time it’s tried because people have a very short memory. And it is particularly easy to pull off when your complaint blackens your successor, when you yourself are no longer in the game and thus won’t be called to account anymore.

Don’t be taken in by Benedict’s crocodile tears. Back in 1985, a mere 20 years after the close of the council, he was making headlines claiming we needed to “rediscover the true Vatican II” (see Joseph Ratzinger and Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report [Ignatius Press, 1985], pp. 29-31) and warned against “degrad[ing] the liturgy to the level of a parish tea party and the intelligibility of the popular newspaper” (p. 121). That was 32 years ago! That record has been playing ever since.

It was no different for John Paul II. As far back as 1980, he ostensibly bewailed “the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world” concerning the liturgy (see Instruction Inaestimabile Donum, Foreword).

Over 20 years later, he was still “lamenting” the same thing: “In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament” (John Paul II, “Encyclical” Ecclesia De Eucharistia [2003], n. 10). 

The following year, he once again emphasized that “it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments” (Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 4) — all the while his own “papal” liturgies looked like this.

“Pope” Paul VI did the same thing when he “deplored” (boasted?) that “the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary” (Homily of June 29, 1972), yet he himself continued to fan the flames at every opportunity. This is not the mark of sincerity, it is the mark of hypocrisy.

Don’t fall for this latest episode of the same old charade. They’ve been doing it for decades.The latest trick is that they’re trying to make you believe there is an essential difference between the “good and orthodox” Benedict and the open Modernist Francis. The truth, however, is that both are selling you a pig — it’s just that Benedict’s has lipstick on it.



Thursday, June 22, 2017

News of Israeli leaders who advocate rape suppressed by media

Creating Fake News through Omission 

The mass media manufacture fake news not only by commission —broadcasting or printing lies—but by omission—sowing ignorance, and creating false impressions by suppressing news-worthy facts the public has a right to know.


By Michael Hoffman

The Israeli military’s Chief Rabbi, Eyal Karim

Two of the most egregious instances of this type of fake news involve the celebrated Zionist Left wing "newspaper of record," the New York Times, which has refused to report that Israeli Prof. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University, (1) and the Israeli Military's Chief Rabbi Eyal Karim (also spelled "Qarim"), advocate raping Arab women. 

The Times regards the unconscionable pronouncements of the Chief Rabbi and the Israeli university professor as not worthy of reporting. 

Rabbi Karim and Prof. Kedar’s views subvert the mainstream media narrative, in that they radically undercut the fake news image of the rabbinic religion as a supremely ethical and humane pillar of western civilization. 

To protect this incessantly propagated disinformation, the Times suppresses the fact that rape advocacy is derived from rabbinic law. Rabbi Moses Maimonides, the supreme halachic authority among the Ashkenazim, ruled that a Judaic soldier may rape a Yefas To’ar (female goy captive) when he is not actively fighting a battle (cf. Hilchos Melachim 8:3). 

Moreover, according to Judaic scholar Dov S. Zakheim (in Meorot vol. 6, no 1, p. 5),  “It is the consensus of many halachic decisors (judges of rabbinic law) that the yefat to’ar can be subject to involuntary intercourse...” The Israeli military’s chief rabbi agrees.


“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah (divinely blessed) wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations (goyim) wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […] 

"As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut (kosher). Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. 

Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.” (End quote).

Rabbi Karim’s words would be outrageous even if he were not the chief spiritual teacher and counselor of the Israeli army, navy and air forces which hold in their grasp the nearly helpless captive population of Palestine. 

For the Chief Rabbi to exercise this power and authority having advocated the rape of non-Judaic women, and then having his monstrous doctrine concealed by a curtain of silence from America’s acclaimed “newspaper of record,” and almost the entire Establishment media, is a grave indictment of corporate journalism in the U.S. 

Our indignation increases in view of the fact that the least hint of a rape ideology or praxis anywhere in American life (much less from a high government official), elicits (quite rightly) horror and furious protest. Yet the Title IX activists and Democrat Party feminists have been eerily indifferent concerning the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars sent to a nation that has as its military's Chief Rabbi a miscreant who justifies the rape of women who are not Judaic.

Notes:

(1) While nothing about Kedar's rape advocacy has ever appeared in the news section of the Times, or in any section of its U.S. edition (which is the most widely read), exactly one sentence was devoted to Kedar's rape advocacy in an editorial published only overseas, in the "International New York Times."  By contrast, concerning a single allegation of rape at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in upstate New York, the Times, which considers itself a journalistic leader in the campaign against rape, published a lengthy exposé, beginning on the front page of its U.S. edition of July 13, 2014. 

When rape pertains to goyim accused of the crime, the Times is in the forefront of reporting it. 

Where Judaic law and Israeli religious and secular leaders are implicated in the institutionalization of rape in the Israeli military and society, the New York Times is guilty of perpetrating fake news by omitting reports of these facts; thereby shielding the reputation of the rabbinic religion and its exponents. 

Zionist Right wing and “conservative" Republican neocon media in America are equally culpable for having disgracefully suppressed these truths for the same manipulative motive — denying the American people factual news about Orthodox Judaism, the Israeli military and Israeli society as a whole. 

For further research:

Michael Hoffman is the author of the books, Judaism Discovered, and Judaism’s Strange Gods. He is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press.
_______________

Copyright ©2017 by Michael Hoffman