Helen Thomas and a Truth too hot to handle

by Michael Hoffman

Copyright © 2010 by RevisionistHistory.org

On May 27, 2010, during the "American Jewish Heritage Month" celebration at the White House, Orthodox Rabbi David Nesenoff (rabbi@rabbilive.com) asked Helen Thomas, dean of the Washington Press corps, if she had any comments on the Israeli state. Thomas replied, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine...Remember, these people are occupied, and it's their land; its not German, its not Poland's." She was then asked where the Judaics should go, to which she replied: "they should go home" to "Poland, Germany." Then, after another question she added, "America and everywhere else." The rabbi videotaped her remarks, and his video quickly achieved Internet notoriety with "viral" status.

Time magazine scribe Joe Klein termed her views "odious" and said she should no longer have the privilege, accorded by the White House Correspondents Association, of a front row center seat. Former George W. Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, a neocon architect of the invasion of Iraq, said,"She should lose her job over this. As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling." On May 30, Thomas was dropped by her speaker's bureau, Nine Speakers. Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland canceled Thomas's commencement address.

Thomas apologized for her remarks on June 4. The Anti-Defamation League said the apology did not go far enough. Hearst News corporation, which has employed Thomas as a columnist for the past 10 years, issued a statement announcing her "retirement," which Hearst said, was "effective immediately."

Thomas has been covering the White House for fifty years, since 1960. She will mark her 90th birthday on Aug. 4. She was often the only White House reporter asking presidents probing questions about American and Israeli wars.

This writer is not aware of whether Helen Thomas has read Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People or Paul Wexler's The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity. These books deliver a long overdue knockout punch to the laughable hoax that asserts that today's descendants of the Khazars are the direct "Jewish" descendants of the ancient patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Sand and Wexler document that the home of the Khazar impostor "Jews" is indeed, as Thomas implied, in eastern Europe, not Palestine.

Perhaps Miss Thomas was offering only a woman's intuition, that the "Jews" of "Israel" are neither; that they have more in common with the Yiddish shetls of eastern Europe than the Biblical land of the Middle East. In either case, in America, candor -- when it touches on myths sacred to the ruling class -- is simply not permitted to the working guy or gal. The latter-days Diogenes will quickly be out of a job. Under American capitalism you have freedom of speech as long as you don't care about eating.

A crusader for peace and an investigative journalist who refused to rubberstamp Bush's ghastly war in Iraq, as did the entire White House Press corps on March 6, 2003, as documented by Bill Moyers, Thomas is now fodder for pompous discursive lectures on the venality of the goyim, camouflaged as human rights lessons, by the likes of columnist Richard Cohen (cohenr@washpost.com).

In "What Helen Thomas missed," (Washington Post, June 8, 2010, p. A17), Mr. Cohen views the controversy as an opportunity to libel, from his lofty moral perch, Polish gentiles as thieves, murderers and haters, and General George Patton as an evil "bigot":

"Ah, another teachable moment! This one comes to us from Helen Thomas, the longtime White House reporter and columnist who announced her retirement on Monday. Thomas, of Lebanese ancestry and almost 90, has never been shy about her anti-Israel views, for which, as far as I'm concerned, she is wrong and to which she is entitled. Then the other day, she performed a notable public service by revealing how very little she knew. Asked at a White House event if she had any comments about Israel, Thomas said, 'Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. . . . Go home. Poland. Germany. And America and everywhere else.'

"Well, I don't know about 'everywhere else,' but after World War II, many Jews did attempt to 'go home' to Poland. This resulted in the murder of about 1,500 of them -- killed not by Nazis but by Poles, either out of sheer ethnic hatred or fear they would lose their (stolen) homes.

"The mini-Holocaust that followed the Holocaust itself is not well-known anymore, but it played an outsize role in the establishment of the state of Israel. It was the plight of Jews consigned to Displaced Persons camps in Europe that both moved and outraged President Harry Truman, who supported Jewish immigration to Palestine and, when the time came, the new state itself.

"Something had to be done for the Jews of Europe. They were still being murdered. In the Polish city of Kielce, on July 4, 1946 -- more than a year after the end of the war -- rumors of a Jewish ritual murder triggered a pogrom in which 42 Jewish Holocaust survivors were killed. The Kielce murders were not, by any means, the sole example of why Jews could not 'go home.' When I visited the Polish city where my mother had been born, Ostroleka, I was told of a Jew who survived Auschwitz only to be murdered when he tried to reclaim his business. In much of Eastern Europe, Jews feared for their lives...

"For that reason, those who had struck out for home soon returned to DP camps and the safety of -- irony of ironies -- Germany. Some of the camps were under the command of Gen. George S. Patton, a great man on the screen, a contemptible bigot in real life....For the surviving Jews of Eastern Europe, there was no going home -- and no staying, either. Europe was hostile to them, not in the least appalled or sorry about what had just happened. Even the American military, in the person of the hideous Patton, seemed hostile... For most of the DPs, America was also out of the question. The United States, in the grip of feverish anti-communism and already unreceptive to immigrants, maintained a tight quota. When the Jewish DPs were polled, an overwhelming majority said they wanted to go to Palestine. They knew life would be tough there, but they would be among their own people -- and relatively safe" (end quote).

Richard Cohen, the mainstream media's fount of moral history, has penned hate speech/group libel disguised as "a teachable moment." Hundreds of other Talmudic supremacists in the media and academia are engaged in the same relentless offensive  -- spreading contempt and instilling guilt in the goyim -- entire nations such as "feverish anti-communist" America, or "thieving" Poland where Poles irrationally attack Judaics because of:"sheer ethnic hatred," "fear they would lose their (stolen) homes" (most of Poland must have been once owned by Judaics) or, that old reliable standby, "rumors of a Jewish ritual murder."

The reader is supposed to sit at the feet of Cohen in wide-eyed awe as this righteous Zionist savant spews his hatred for east European gentiles and heroes like George Patton. The only good goy in Cohen's column is 33rd degree Freemason Harry Truman, the president who heated Hiroshima and Nagasaki to several thousand degrees of hell.

Does Mr. Cohen himself exhibit any "sheer ethnic hatred" for Polish Catholics? Was it really a case of Poles rising against Judaic people only due to "rumors" and "hatred," or has Mr. Cohen suppressed the other half of the story? What is the real history behind the alleged "mini-holocaust" in Kielce in 1946?

According to Judaic author John Sack, "In 1945 many Poles felt (and not without reason) that Jews ran the Office of State Security...the chief of the Office was Jacob Berman, a Jew, and all or almost all the department heads were Jews."

Sack reported that 75% of the officers of the Communist Secret Police in Silesia were Judiacs ("Jews"). He noted that many Judaics in the Communist terror apparatus in Poland changed their names to Polish ones, such as General Romkowski, Colonel Rozanski, Capt. Studencki and Lt. Jurkowski. (cf. Sack, The New Republic, Feb. 14, 1994, p. 6).

According to Sheldon Kirshner, writing in the Canadian Jewish News, Nov. 5, 1992, p. 16: In Poland, "...a disproportionate number of Communists were Jews. In 1930, at its peak, 35% of the members of the party were Jewish. In Communist youth organizations, Jewish membership was even higher, while Communists of Jewish origin occupied most of the seats on the central committee. Communism appealed to some Jews because it opposed anti-Semitism more vigorously than any other Polish party...Jewish Communists reached their apogee in the years immediately after World War Two, when the party leadership was totally in the hands of the prewar Communist leadership that abhorred anti-Semitism" (end quote).

The mass murder of Polish Catholics at the hands of Judaic Communists is almost never raised. Instead, the attack on Judaics by Polish peasants enraged at the role of Judaics in Communist terror, which occurred at Kielce, will be the focus. The Catholic Primate of Poland at the time, Cardinal August Hlond (1881-1948), declared that the attack in Kielce occurred because of resentment "due to the Jews who today occupy leading positions in Poland's (Communist) government and endeavor to introduce a governmental structure that the majority of Poles do not wish to have."

As Piotr S. Wandycz of Yale University observed, "The average Pole could not but notice in the Stalinist era that the two most powerful men in the country--Berman and Minc--were both Jewish as was the dreaded security official Rozanski." (New York Review of Books, Aug. 18, 1983, p. 51).

Solomon Morel was commandant of a post-war Communist concentration camp for Germans in Poland. Stalin deliberately put Judaics in charge of such camps. In Poland Morel tortured and murdered thousands of Germans, sometimes with his bare hands (cf. "The Wrath of Solomon," The Village Voice, March 30, 1993). Morel found safe haven in the Israeli state, which refused requests to extradite him to stand trial for war crimes in Poland. Sack recounts the facts in his important book, An Eye for an Eye.

You left out the rest of the story, Mr. Cohen. It's called context.

Helen Thomas uttered truths too hot to handle for our supposed "anything goes" culture. Her fate will be familiar to all Americans who have dared to contradict sanctified Zionist mythology.

Michael Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History newsletter and the author of the massive reference work, Judaism Discovered. Hoffman's independent scholarship is supported by donations and the sale of his books, pamphlets, newsletters, recorded lectures and documentary films. http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

For further reference:
Defending the Honor of an unjustly attacked 90-year-old woman

*****

The Bible, Interrogation and the Supreme Court's Miranda Rights

by Michael Hoffman

Copyright ©2010 

The report this week of the Supreme Court's June 1 decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins, on the interpretation of the 1966 Miranda ruling (Arizona v. Miranda) is an interesting one.

In 2000, an accused murderer, Van Chester Thompkins, was silent for nearly three hours while being interrogated by the police concerning the killing of young Samuel Morris in Southfield, Michigan. He only finally answered when one of the detectives asked him, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" At this the murderer, who still had a conscience, broke down and answered that he did pray thus, thereby confessing his guilt. Thompkins was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Some sectors of our society view this police interrogation and its result (the gaining of evidence against the murderer and his eventual conviction) as entrapment. "Defense" attorneys sought to have the conviction overturned on the basis that the interrogation violated the accused man's Miranda right to silence. They appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

We note that the accused consented to be present at the interrogation and, as a result of the interrogation, his conscience was pricked and he was moved to confess his crime.

On the materialist/humanist plane, his supposed legal defenders view these two developments as a severe liability. How wrong they are: without confession there can be no forgiveness.

We are all for the right to silence, which Jesus established for us by being silent in the presence of his accusers. But Jesus was innocent and the man in question was guilty, and had Mr. Thompkins gone on to repentance he would be bound for heaven now, whatever his sentence on earth.

The world does not see it that way, however. In their rank materialism, all that matters to the worldly is the condition of the body and not the eternal destiny of the soul. Consequently, "defense" lawyers argue against a just verdict based on an honest confession and seek to have it overturned on a legal technicality, viz. a misconstruction of the Miranda precedent, which the Supreme Court, in this instance, correctly rejected.

Interrogation of the innocent for purposes of entrapping them is of course a grave sin and corrupt police are known to commit this sin; against this corruption the innocent must be protected. The invocation of the right of silence in the face of interrogation is ethical, compelling and testimony to the wisdom of the American Bill of Rights in its Fifth Amendment.

Interrogation of the guilty benefits not only the victim but the accused, and this point is one which few defense lawyers grasp.

For proof let us turn to Genesis 3, wherein the serpent seduced the woman, and the woman the man, into not fearing God and thereby succumbing to the temptation to transgress God's law.

In Genesis 3:9 God begins His arraignment of Adam and Eve by interrogating them. Of course God is omniscient and His interrogation is needful only for the spiritual benefit of Adam and Eve, as well as for all future generations of believers, as a model of judicial investigation.

Important legal lessons are imparted in Genesis concerning how to approach suspects. God's interrogation in Genesis 3: 9-13 forms an exemplary precedent for all judges, prosecutors and police officers.

In reply to God's questions, Adam accuses his wife and Eve likewise blames not herself but the serpent. Nonetheless, and this is key, in spite of attempting to minimize their guilt, they do not deny the crime for which they stand accused. Silence on the part of Adam and Eve in response to God's interrogation would have greatly compounded their transgression.

The humanist-oriented lawyer will only be interested in exculpating the defendants by having them resist God's interrogation through silence. Yet unknown to such a humanist mindset, any such silence would have brought a far more grievous sentence down upon our first parents than what they received after confessing their guilt, even though they did so in a roundabout manner. In this case, interrogation offered the guilty an opportunity to confess. Only through their mea culpa could repentance and reconciliation with God begin.

So-called defense lawyers would prefer that the guilty defendants refuse to answer the questions. This is the fatal and shortsighted folly of lawyers. They overlook the significance of the fact that there were three perpetrators, and yet only two were interrogated. The serpent was not interrogated by God -- because God did not intend to show the serpent any mercy!

Godly interrogation of the guilty is an act of mercy, a first step on the path to forgiveness for crimes committed.

The "conservatives" on the Supreme Court did not make this argument. "Conservative" justices like Antonin Scalia are more likely to argue from the Talmud than the Bible. When they do cite the Bible it is often the Bible filtered through the Talmud (cf. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. June 8, 2009, wherein Scalia argued using the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth).

To establish God's justice and His legal procedures for mankind, Christians are to resort to the authority of Scripture and not the arbitrary and deluded humanist or other traditions of men who imagine themselves wiser than Yahweh.

Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History newsletter and the author of They Were White and They Were Slaves and Judaism Discovered, offered here.

***

David P. Goldman's brazen buncombe about the roots of West's law

Practically every word Mr. Goldman has written below, in his article for Asia Times, is either a lie or a deception. Can you spot them? We invite readers of Michael Hoffman's Judaism Discovered to submit responses to Goldman's devious misrepresentation of Judaism, which is so patently fraudulent it constitutes an insult to the intelligence of the reader. We will publish in this blog one or two of the best refutations of Goldman's drivel. Our latest Revisionist History Newsletter issue no. 52 analyzes the concept of the "Hebrew Republic" in the West, and challenges the myth which Goldman (and Michael Novak and Eric Nelson) retail, that Judaism is synonymous with the Old Testament and that the heritage of freedom bequeathed to the West by Biblical jurisprudence is a legacy of Talmudic Judaism. Only an audience bereft of the most basic knowledge of the subject matter could be suckered by such brazen buncombe. Talmudic Judaism, with its Pharisee-derived Mishnah, and its Babylonian Talmud, is the very antipode of the law of Yahweh's Old Testament.

Mr. Goldman advances, with typical Pharisee conceit, the moral superiority of Talmudic Judaism over Islam, attempting what no con man before the modern era could achieve, a linkage between the murderous violence and rabbinic dictatorship of Talmudic Judaism, and the Christian West's heritage of freedom and liberty.

Wife-beating, sharia, and Western law

By David P. Goldman | Asia Times | May 25, 2010

...(Muslim) Sharia (law) resembles Halakha (Judaic law), but by construction, for the same reason the Koran resembles the Torah: it is derived from it, with self-serving adjustments (Ishmael becomes the heir of Abraham rather than Isaac). But the principles of the two legal systems are radically different. That is why Jewish observance of Halakha never has clashed with the legal systems of modern democracy while sharia inevitably must conflict, and in the most intractable and intimate way, that is, in matters of family law.

The term "law" applied to Judaism and Islam means entirely different things to radically different peoples. Civil law rests ultimately on the state's monopoly of violence. In Muslim states, civil and religious law are identical, such that sharia courts hold the sword of the state. No Jewish religious court has had the capacity to inflict violence since the 1st century CE; the first detailed codification of Jewish law appears in the 3rd century in the Mishnah. The rabbis of antiquity explicitly put in abeyance ancient applications of violence, such as the injunction to kill a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) states that no Jewish court ever handed down such a sentence. Killing of rebellious children, as noted, happens in Muslim countries, and is sadly frequent among Muslim immigrant communities in the West.

Jewish law, though, requires no adaptation to modern Western law, for modern Western law ultimately derives from Jewish principles, as Harvard's Eric Nelson most recently showed in his 2010 book The Hebrew Republic, and Michael Novak explained in his 2002 volume On Two Wings. Jewish law proceeds from God's Covenant with each member of the Jewish people. The notion of an intermediate sovereign, such as Islam's "governor" of the family, is inconceivable in Jewish law, for there is only one Sovereign, the King of Kings. The powers of the earthly sovereign derive from God and are limited by God's laws. The American founding notion of "inalienable rights" stems from the Hebrew concept of covenant: a grant of rights implies a Grantor, and an irreversible grant implies a God who limits his own sovereignty in covenant with mankind. (End quote)

Mr. Goldman is senior editor at First Things

***

University of Arizona names new telescope attachment "Lucifer"

LUCIFER Allows Astronomers to Watch Stars Being Born

April 21, 2010 - University of Arizona (UA) News: A new instrument for the world's largest optical telescope, the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) on Mount Graham, allows astronomers to observe the faintest and most distant objects in the universe.

 LBT partners in the U.S, Germany and Italy announced April 21 that the first of two new innovative near-infrared cameras/spectrographs for the LBT is now available to astronomers for scientific observations at the telescope on Mount Graham in southeastern Arizona. After more than a decade of design, manufacturing and testing, the new instrument – dubbed LUCIFER 1 – provides a powerful tool to gain spectacular insights into the universe – from the Milky Way to extremely distant galaxies.

LUCIFER, built by a consortium of German institutes, will be followed by an identical twin instrument that will be delivered to the telescope in early 2011. "With the large light-gathering power of the LBT, astronomers are now able to collect the spectral fingerprints of the faintest and most distant objects in the universe," said LBT director Richard Green, a professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona's Steward Observatory. LUCIFER 1 and its twin are mounted at the focus points of the LBT's two giant 8.4-meter (27.6 foot) diameter telescope mirrors. Each instrument is cooled to -213 degrees Celsius in order to observe in the near-infrared wavelength range. Near-infrared observations are essential for understanding the formation of stars and planets in our galaxy as well as revealing the secrets of the most distant and very young galaxies.

 LUCIFER's innovative design allows astronomers to observe in unprecedented detail, for example star forming regions, which are commonly hidden by dust clouds. The instrument is remarkably flexible, combining a large field of view with a high resolution. It provides three exchangeable cameras for imaging and spectroscopy in different resolutions according to observational requirements. Astronomers use spectroscopy to analyze incoming light and answer questions such as how stars and galaxies formed and what they are made of. The instruments were built by a consortium of five German institutes led by the Center for Astronomy of Heidelberg University, together with the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, the Astronomical Institute of the Ruhr-University in Bochum, and the University of Applied Sciences in Mannheim.

The LBT is a collaboration among the Italian astronomical community (National Institute of Astrophysics), the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, the LBT Beteiligungsgesellschaft in Germany (Max-Planck-Institut Astronomie in Heidelberg, Zentrum fur Astronomie der Universität Heidelberg, Astrophysikalisches Institut in Potsdam, Max-Planck-Institut  Extraterrestrische Physik in Munich, and Max-Planck-Institut Radioastronomie in Bonn), and the Ohio State University and Research Corporation (Ohio State University, University of Notre Dame, University of Minnesota and University of Virginia).

End quote (emphasis supplied).

Correspondence with New York Times Reporter Patricia Cohen

Dear Patricia Cohen

In your article about Irène Némirovsky in the New York Times of April 25, "Assessing Jewish Identity of Author Killed by Nazis," you say that Némirovsky was "killed" in Auschwitz rather than having died there of natural causes, such as the typhus plague that was raging at the time.

Was she shot or gassed, according to your information?

Sincerely, Michael Hoffman

From Patricia Cohen:

She died of typhus a month after arriving. Patti Cohen

Dear Patti

If she died of typhus, why did you write that she was "killed"?

Sincerely, Michael Hoffman

From Patricia Cohen:

I don't consider dying in a concentration camp from typhus, untreated, as dying of "natural causes" as you put it in your email.

patti cohen

(End quote)

***

The Attacks on Pope Benedict - a Conspiracy of Man - or God?

by Michael Hoffman

Over the centuries many sorts of masquers have bored deep into the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these have even occupied the papal throne; others were content to be the power behind that throne.

King Henry VIII first received the theological justification for his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from the Neoplatonic brotherhood inside the Vatican; out of said fraternity would emerge Dr. John Dee, the Protestant magician who, using the Hermetic and Kabbalistic cunning of the Roman Catholic magician Marsilio Ficino, furnished William Cecil with the mind control keys and mass persuasion techniques that gained him the rule of England through a reanimated goddess Isis who is known to history as Queen Elizabeth I.

Very few believing Catholics ever glimpse this hidden reality, and when they are so privileged as to gain a fleeting vision of it, they run from it, so threatening is it to the papal Caesarism to which they kowtow like the pagan subjects of Kubla Khan. Jesus Christ did not come to institute slavish and cowering obedience to mere men, however elaborately costumed or adored. He came to save souls, which is the highest law, a law recognized by only a few churchmen, such as the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who defied Popes Paul VI and John Paul II for that very reason.

Behind the scenes of the competing Catholic and Protestant churches exists a golden thread, a rainbow bridge if you will, that unites initiates in both camps who, believing they possess godlike powers derived from the secret gnosis of the Corpus Hermeticum, are above the morality they publicly preach, beyond good and evil, and united in processing humankind toward a "higher" destiny without the knowledge or consent of those being processed. This is the age-old mandate of the pagan-occult imperium.

Shortly before the latest uproar over pederasty within the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican exorcist announced that the devil was active in the Vatican, even at the highest levels. Prior to this not exactly unexpected revelation, Pope Benedict XVI completed the third of his pilgrimages to the Synagogue, the latest, on Jan. 17, at Rome itself, where this papal Judas gave every encouragement to the assembled Pharisees.

Most recently he has appointed a member of the secret society of Opus Dei to head the powerful diocese of Los Angeles, California, after child-molestation enabler and obstructor of justice Cardinal Roger Mahony retires next year with his pension intact and full church honors accorded to this patron of pederasty.

Certain Catholic automatons have marched forth, decrying a purported "media conspiracy" of "gossip" against the pope. But are the troubles that have befallen this pope a conspiracy of man, or a curse of God?

How long do the vassals of Rome imagine that God will be mocked by popes who make common cause with the ideological and spiritual descendants of those who stoned, laid hands upon and conspired in the murder of His Divine Son?

Pope John Paul II, the modern champion of the Synagogue and the first pope in history to enter its precincts as a supplicant, spent the final years of his pontificate as a hunchback, drooling spittle onto his breast. Unless he repents and makes reparation, Pope Benedict XVI can no more escape the wrath of God than did his predecessor.

If Benedict is besieged now, it may be payback for his treason to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding his provisional revival of the old Latin Mass, which he has integrated into a neo-Catholic hybrid Church of Holocaustianity, whereby Auschwitz is rendered far more sacred than Calvary, a revolutionary betrayal made tolerable now that it is accompanied by Tridentine incense and Gregorian chant.

Those badly deceived persons who make common cause with this pontiff might wish to consider what fate may be in store if they do not switch their allegiance from Benedict to Jesus.

Copyright ©2010 by RevisionistHistory.org

Hoffman is the author of seven books of history and literature, including Judaism Discovered. He edits Revisionist History, a newsletter published six times a year. The latest issue, on "The Money Power," is available for purchase online.

***

Vatican compares molestation scandal to "persecution of the Jews"

Rev. Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa: since 1980 the prestigious "preacher to the papal household"

by Michael Hoffman, Good Friday, 2010 

"By a rare coincidence, this year our Easter falls on the same week of the Jewish Passover which is the ancestor and matrix within which it was formed. This pushes us to direct a thought to our Jewish brothers. They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms. I received in this week the letter of a Jewish friend and, with his permission, I share here a part of it. He said:

"I am following with indignation the violent and concentric attacks against the Church, the Pope and all the faithful by the whole world. The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism. Therefore I desire to express to you personally, to the Pope and to the whole Church my solidarity as Jew of dialogue and of all those that in the Jewish world (and there are many) share these sentiments of brotherhood. Our Passover and yours undoubtedly have different elements, but we both live with Messianic hope that surely will reunite us in the love of our common Father. I wish you and all Catholics a Good Easter."

--Rev. Fr. Cantalamessa 

Homily in the presence of the Holy Father at the Liturgy of Good Friday, April 2, 2010

This would be hilarious if it were not so depraved and disgusting. The crypto-rabbi wing of Judeo-Churchianity (Rev. Fr. Cantalamessa, Pope Benedict) trying to curry favor, on Good Friday, with the rabbis of the Judeo wing, compare the uproar over the culture of child-molestation facilitation in the Catholic hierarchy (Mahony, Driscoll, Skylstad still in power; Bernard Law, fugitive from justice, made Arch Priest of a Roman basilica) with the persecution of the "Jews" ("antisemitism"),"collective guilt" and "collective violence."

Here we have prima facie evidence that Cantalamessa and his enabler, Pope Benedict, are not Catholic. "Persecution of the Jews" is the historic cry of the Freemasons and rabbis against the saints and theologians of the early and medieval Church.

To claim that worldwide anger over child molestation facilitation by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is comparable to unjust "persecution of the Jews" is self-indicting. To make this claim on Good Friday is blasphemy. It signifies that the current usurpers who occupy the Church are as phony as the paranoid and megalomaniac ADL that sees "persecution of the Jews" in every stubbed Zionist toe.

Moreover, what is the definition of "persecution of the Jews"? Is it "persecution" when freedom of speech is in place to permit educating the public concerning the murderous racism in the Talmud that inspires Israeli mass murder in Palestine? Is it "persecution" when the stories of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz are questioned by scientists and publishers? Is it "persecution" when Israeli generals are compared to Nazis when they butcher the people of Gaza?

As for "collective" punishment, what of the collective punishment of German civilians during and after World War II? What of the ongoing collective punishment of the populations of Lebanon and Palestine by the "state of Israel," egged on by homicidal maniacs known as Orthodox "settler" rabbis?

If the Vatican was truly Catholic and Christ-like it would announce to the world that every child-molestation facilitator, beginning with Cardinal Roger Mahony in Los Angeles, has been removed from office and shipped to a Trappist monastery while they await state prosecution -- with the Vatican fully cooperating with the prosecutors. Bernard Law would be extradited from Vatican City back to Boston to face justice. Instead, the Vatican continues to keep these and other evil bishops (Skylstad, Driscoll, ad nauseum) in power while the Vatican sobs about "exaggerated" charges of a culture of child molestation facilitation existing within the Church.

The Vatican is the enemy of the Catholicism of the early and medieval Church, and thus today it appears without shame, on Good Friday, like Martin Gray, author of For Those I Loved, a book filled with his sorrowful ordeal as a persecuted Judaic "Holocaust Survivor" who was supposedly forced to help clear bodies out of the Treblinka "gas chamber." In truth, Gray and his book were both fakes. In fact, he was a decorated officer in the Soviet NKVD responsible for the murder of Christians and gentiles, posing as a poor persecuted Chosen One. This is the pattern of despicable fraud and shetl chicanery which the pope and his papal household preacher, sunk in the ethos of Holocaustianity, mount as an alibi and imitate as a form of self-defense.

Alas, the rabbinic racketeers will never surrender their monopoly on persecution to the hated papacy, even when the "Holy See" is occupied by a co-conspirator who is so inept he imagines he can grab a share of the persecution paranoia and co-opt Judaism's most cherished, trademarked brand. Consequently this disgraceful Vatican pandering to the ideological heirs of those who demanded the death of Jesus, is now backfiring.

In a palimpsest of falsification, the Zionist media keeps the pressure on Benedict by portraying this agent of the Synagogue as quasi antisemitic. This ruse serves a two-fold function: 1. it keeps Benedict pandering ever more to the rabbis, offering ever more craven concessions and servile compromise; and 2. it gives the 39-watt filaments of the Remnant newspaper types in traditional Catholicism the opportunity to claim that poor, pitiful Pope Benedict is a Catholic bastion against the synagogue! (Somewhere the masters of the Zohar are grinning).

For those who own a copy of my book Judaism Discovered, you will find a dossier on the lies and deceitful word games played by the crypto-rabbi "preacher of the papal household," Raniero Cantalamessa. Cf. pp. 389-390 and 414-418.

At Vatican Service, Persecution of Jews Is Invoked

NY Times April 2, 2010

ROME — A senior Vatican priest speaking at a Good Friday service compared the uproar over sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church — which have included reports about Pope Benedict XVI’s oversight role in two cases — to the persecution of the Jews, sharply raising the volume in the Vatican’s counterattack.

The remarks, on the day Christians mark the crucifixion, underscored how much the Catholic Church has felt under attack from recent news reports and criticism over how it has handled charges of child molestation against priests in the past, and sought to focus attention on the church as the central victim.

In recent weeks, Vatican officials and many bishops have angrily denounced news reports that Benedict failed to act strongly enough against pedophile priests, once as archbishop of Munich and Friesing in 1980 and once as a leader of a powerful Vatican congregation in the 1990s.

Benedict sat looking downward when the Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, who holds the office of preacher of the papal household, delivered his remarks in the traditional prayer service in St. Peter’s Basilica. Wearing the brown cassock of a Franciscan, Father Cantalamessa took note that Easter and Passover were falling during the same week this year, saying he was led to think of the Jews. “They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms,” he said.

Father Cantalamessa quoted from what he said was a letter from an unnamed Jewish friend. “I am following the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful by the whole word,” he said the friend wrote. “The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”

Even as the priest spoke out against attacks on the church, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg, head of the German Bishops Conference, said that sex abuse victims were not helped enough “out of a misplaced concern for the reputation of the church.”

The church, he said, was shaken by “the suffering inflicted on the victims, who often for decades could not put their injuries into words.” Bishops around Europe have been offering similar remarks in recent days, following up on a major statement on molestation in the Irish church by the pope.

Father Cantalamessa’s comments about the Jews came toward the end of a long talk about scripture, the nature of violence and the sacrifice of Jesus. He also spoke about violence against women, but gave only a slight mention of the children and adolescents who have been molested by priests. “I am not speaking here of violence against children, of which unfortunately also elements of the clergy are stained; of that there is sufficient talk outside of here,” he said.

Disclosures about hundreds of such cases have emerged in recent months in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and France, after a previous round of scandal in the United States earlier this decade.

A leading advocate for sex abuse victims in the United States, David Clohessy, called comparing criticism of the church to persecution of the Jews “breathtakingly callous and misguided. Men who deliberately and consistently hide child sex crime are in no way victims,” he said. “And to conflate public scrutiny with horrific violence is about as wrong as wrong can be.”

The comments could cause a new twist in Vatican-Jewish relations, which have had ups and downs during Benedict’s papacy. Rabbi Riccardo di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, who hosted Benedict at the Rome synagogue in January on a visit that helped calm waters after a year of tensions, laughed in seeming disbelief when asked about Father Cantalamessa’s remarks.

“With a minimum of irony, I will say that today is Good Friday, when they pray that the Lord illuminate our hearts so we recognize Jesus,” Rabbi Di Segni said, referring to a prayer in a traditional Catholic liturgy calling for the conversion of the Jews. “We also pray that the Lord illuminate theirs.”

In 2008, Benedict ruffled feathers with Jewish groups when he issued a ruling making it easier to use the Latin Mass including that Good Friday prayer, which had fallen out of widespread use after the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. In January 2009, he stirred outrage when he revoked the excommunication of four schismatic bishops, one of whom turned out to have denied the scope of the Holocaust.

The legacy of the wartime pope, Pius XII, has been another sticking point. Some say he didn’t do enough to save Jews during the Holocaust; on a visit to the Rome synagogue in January, Benedict said that the Holy See had “provided assistance, often in a hidden and discreet way,” to help Jews.

Father Cantalamessa’s remarks come after weeks of intense scrutiny of Benedict, which some Italian media have seen in conspiratorial terms. Last week, the center-left daily La Repubblica wrote, without attribution, that “certain Catholic circles” believed the criticism of the church stemmed from “a New York ‘Jewish lobby.’”

Father Cantalamessa is a longtime fixture in the papal household, having been its official preacher since 1980. It is an ancient role, established by Pope Paul IV in the middle of the 16th century. The job is reserved for a member of the Franciscan Order of Capuchin Friars Minor. The apostolic preacher, as he also is called, gives meditations — especially during Advent and Lent — for the pope, cardinals, bishops and leaders of religious orders...

Nicholas Kulish contributed reporting from Berlin.

***

Mistaken beliefs about Louis-Ferdinand Céline

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

(Occidental Observer, March 24, 2009)

By Michael Hoffman

 www.RevisionistHistory.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright ©2010 www.RevisionistHistory.org
All Rights Reserved

***

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

by Michael Hoffman 

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2010 All Rights Reserved

***

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

Taking responsibility for Catholic-Jewish reconciliation 

By Rabbi Eugene Korn  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


***

Correspondence from Google related to censorship of our videos

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

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

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

From Google Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

Feb. 22, 2006

***

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

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

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

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

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

FROM: GOOGLE VIDEO SUPPORT

To: Michael A. Hoffman II

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

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

Hi Mike,

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

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

We appreciate your understanding.

Sincerely, The Google Video Team  (end quote)

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

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

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

World War II Revisionist Charles Provan (DVD)

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

***

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

***

Support Michael Hoffman's Truth Mission 

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

***

Hoffman's Letter to China concerning Google and censorship

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

Jan. 13, 2010

Dear Ambassador Wenzhong

Re: Google vs. China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman

Former reporter, New York Bureau of the Associated Press

Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

E-mail: hoffman@revisionisthistory.org

***

Christians who refused to engage in warfare

God of War?

by Jeff Taylor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***