Pages

.

The hidden forces behind “Jew hate"

On Feb 26, 2014, at 19:45, ReporterNotebook wrote:

“Deep down, I believe that a little anti-Semitism is a good thing for the Jews – reminds them who they are" (New York Times Magazine, February 12, 1995 p. 65).

These comments were made by Jay Lefkowitz,  a lawyer, who served as President Bush’s Special Envoy for Human Rights. The fact that the comments originated with a lawyer is uncanny, but even more so because of his background and his status as a Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea. What the comments really demonstrate is that a desirable amount of anti-Semitism – Mr. Lefkowitz needs “a little anti-Semitism", not a lot – whenever absent, can and must be induced by provocation to perpetuate the cause for Jewish group stratagem.

Dear ReporterNotebook

Actually a great deal, not just a little "Jew hate," delights the rabbis, because it keeps otherwise independent-minded, dissenting Judaics inside tribal boundaries. Nazis and neo-Nazis give a tremendous boost to the rabbis in this regard. Where there is no "Jew hate" the frum rabbis or their agents will instigate it.

What they fear the most is someone like Prof. Alexander McCaul who loved Judaic people while militantly exposing the ideology of Judaism as expressed in its Talmudic and successor texts. He loved the sinner but hated the sin. The Sanhedrin can't handle that.

The McCaul type of approach led to the Haskalah and the rise of Reform Judaism which was deeply embarrassed by the contents of the Talmud. Out of that initial step there arose the Edmund Husserl type of pro-Christian German: a patriot in World War I and a Judaic who put the interests of the land of Germany ahead of the tribe of Judaics. Oswald Spengler was bitterly disappointed that Adolf Hitler did not include some of these patriotic German-Judaics in his government.

What Spengler did not know was that Hitler had been indoctrinated into a New Age occult gnosis (actually a deep cover Kabbalistic front) that taught that  all Judaic persons are a sub-human species who are congenitally evil.

Notice the clearly rabbinic nature of this race hatred, which  mirrors the Talmud's view of the goyim, as well as the Lubavitch Alter Rebbe's extreme denigration of goyim as completely soulless (cf. “kelipot” in Opening the Tanya, p. 43).

The Grand Rabbi of Lubavitch, the "Failed Messiah" Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was a huge admirer of Hitler who he viewed as a divinely appointed avenger on Judaics like Husserl who had forsaken Chazal, e.g. the Talmud  (cf. Judaism’s Strange Gods, p. 38).

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
www.revisionisthistory.org

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Hoffman in New York Times today

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Sodomite supremacists suspend "Duck Dynasty” TV star

By Dana Ford, CNN |December 18, 2013
CNN) -- Phil Robertson, a star of A&E's "Duck Dynasty," has been suspended indefinitely after slamming gays in a magazine interview.

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," the network said in a statement Wednesday.

"His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

In an interview in the January issue of GQ, Robertson says homosexuality is a sin and puts it in the same category as bestiality and promiscuity. "It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical," he's quoted as saying.

Asked what, in his mind, is sinful, Robertson replied: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

He also made comments regarding race and growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era. "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word!

"Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues," GQ quotes Robertson as saying.

"Duck Dynasty" follows a Louisiana bayou family that has "made a fortune on duck calls," as A&E  describes it.

Season 5 of is set to premiere January 15. According to A&E, its fourth season premiere in August drew nearly 12 million viewers to become the No. 1 nonfiction series telecast in cable history.


E-mail: aefeedback@aenetworks.comThe new inquisition is in full swing with Phil’s suspension. Some homosexuals, now that they are in power, are persecuting Christians for publicly upholding views held for thousands of years by our western civilization. Phil has no free speech rights if he wants to work on cable television. This is democracy? More like a revolutionary dictatorship. I stand with Phil 100%. A & E is no longer welcome in our home.*** Cultural Kerfuffle: Duck Dynasty star fired for quoting Scripture I see this as extremely, extremely revealing.  And just as troubling.The star of the A$E program “Duck Dynasty,” Phil Robertson, was fired for quoting 1 Corinthians in an interview in GQ Magazine.  That quote lays out some of the most fundamental tenets of Christian morality, beliefs that have been upheld for 2000 years.  More than that, those beliefs have shaped – until very recently – the culture in which we live.  But because Mr. Robertson condemned homosexual acts, he was fired from his job on A$E’s number one (and incredibly lucrative) program, and has been treated as one of history’s greatest monsters by the increasingly violently anti-Christian left.  First, the quote:Interviewer: "What, in your mind, is sinful?"Phil Robertson: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”Before I even begin, let me state that I’ve never watched Duck Dynasty. I don’t even have TV.  I might have seen a clip or two here and there on the internet.  Frankly, I am unmoved by the program. It’s very cliched redneck shtick taken to the nth degree.  Alot of people seem to like it. Apparently, it has been very lucrative both for the Robertson family and for A$E.So it is very revealing that A$E was willing to threaten the existence of their number one program by firing its most popular star as a reaction to the above statement.  It is truly disturbing that in our culture today, you are more apt to lose your job for stating plain, 2000 year old Christian morality than you are for engaging in acts of wanton immorality.  It is also deliciously ironic to see the left just freaking out over someone they hate anyways – a white, wealthy, redneck Christian – quoting Scripture and calling homosexual behavior sinful, while they give a bigot like Alec Baldwin, caught on tape now numerous times using racial and anti-gay slurs, a total pass.  The selective outrage always comes down to what will advance the ball down the field more for the left.  Everything is politics to them.But what I found most interesting in this sad imbroglio, yet another harbinger of the coming violent persecution, was the reaction of celebrity priest Fr. Jonathan Morris on Twitter.  Fr. Morris, of course, frequently appears on Fox News.  Here is what he said:"DuckDynasty’s Phil Robertson was wrong in tone and facts, but I wonder if quoting Bible re: homosexual acts will now get you fired."Of course it will.  I don’t think we even have to question that.  And it’s not only highly visible stars on popular TV shows that get fired for making the culture uncomfortable, for reminding them of their sin.  It is also everyday employees at major corporations that get sacked, too.But I have to wonder, re: Fr. Morris’ comments, just what Robertson got factually wrong?  Fr. Morris tweet is, to me, too clever by half. He tried to both distance himself from what he conveys is a “wrong” comment to make, while at the same time playing to outraged Christians by questioning the firing.  I don’t see anything factually wrong in Robertson’s comment.  He’s obviously speaking from memory, using colloquialisms, but his overall recitation of 1 Cor 6:9-10 seems pretty spot on to me:"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,  Nor the effeminate [a reference to male prostitutes used in pagan temples for certain religious acts], nor liers with men [a reference to those who engage in non-temple sodomy], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God."This quote has always been taken as a denunciation of homosexual acts, and even the homosexual lifestyle or disordered orientation.  But it also denounces numerous other sins the left didn’t get all riled up about: fornication, idolatry, adultery, lying, thievery, drunkenness, etc.  Comparing Robertson’s quote with the actual quote from Douay-Reims, they seem to line up pretty good.  I think Robertson is also spot on that the “tolerance,” but really the celebration, of homosexuality is leading us towards legalization of even more bizarre and disgusting acts – bestiality...etc.So I have to ask Fr. Morris, rhetorically, what did Mr. Robertson get factually and “tonally” wrong?  Or was that just a clever way to distance yourself from the plain meaning of Scripture, the better to keep the cannon-fire of the left away from you?Were that we had a bit more of Mr. Robertson’s tone from our priests and prelates, and less of the self-serving parsing and equivocating.  Decades of such lack of clarity have left the faithful terminally confused as to what the Church believes.One final note: at an adult catechism class led by a priest I attended earlier this week, he spoke of the need of homosexuals for constant affirmation of their lifestyle.  They literally cannot stand the slightest contradiction or condemnation, as it cuts to the very core of the carefully spun web of lies and self-deceits that make up this profoundly disturbed lifestyle. I agree with this priest and Fr. Michael Rodriguez, that the homosexual agenda will be the vehicle of the persecution, and I think we see that being played out in miniature before our eyes.  While Mr. Robertson will be fine, he should be set for life, financially, many others who don’t have his resources or notoriety will be made to suffer in ways that really hurt.It is amazing to me how far this culture has fallen in 30 years.  30 years ago, homosexuality was still viewed as something that was extremely disordered, perverse, and dangerous.  Probably 80-90% of the population held this view.  But a concerted, unprecedented campaign of propaganda and normalization in the media the past 20 years has produced one of the most profound sea changes in public opinion on a matter of morality I have seen in my lifetime.  But the stage was set for this with the liberalizing of divorce laws and the legalization of contraception and abortion in the 60s and 70s, which served to destroy the institution of marriage.  All of these dread turns in the culture have been carefully orchestrated by the cultural left.  None of them happened accidentally, or by demand of the public will.  They were, instead, foisted upon a largely unwilling public, generally through judicial fiat. Subsequent decades of media propaganda have gradually ground down resistance, to the point where most people accept as “good,” or at least benignly inevitable, what would have shocked their parents and grandparents.And so the stage is set for an ugly, brutal, technologically advanced persecution. I pray shepherds like Fr. Morris will learn to speak up and defend the Faith with less equivocation at that time, because it is going to be sorely needed.
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Is the Talmud the direct descendant of the Old Testament?

Dear Mr. Hoffman

re: Luther the Antinomian? (see the comments section following our blog post on Martin Heidegger)

You mentioned that in England even the yeoman was sovereign. That did not prevent the Upper Classes from kidnabbing the poor and sending them to the colonies as slaves.

One Question: How do you reconcile the supremacism, mass murder, lack of love and unforgiveness of the Old Testament theology with the Prince of Peace? It seems to me that the Talmud is the direct descendant of the Old Testament.

Sincerely,

H.L., M.D.

________

Dear Dr. H. L.

In the political theory and theology of the Puritans (regarding the majority Protestants only), and among the category of clergymen known in Britain (mainly during and after the reign of Charles II), as "non conforming divines,"  the concept of the individual as having inalienable rights apart from the monarchy or any earthly government, was very strong indeed. A direct legacy of this philosophy can be found in our Declaration of Independence, not withstanding the fact that poor whites suffered demonization and criminalization in Britian, which led to their enslavement on land, and as I recently tried to demonstrate in an issue of Revisionist History newsletter, on sea.

As for the Old Testament, its warfare was directed not at gentiles generally, but against those tribes and nations that used magica sexualis to worship false gods. You will find the distinction in the Hebrew terms ger and nokri; i.e. benevolent aliens and enemy aliens.

The major difference between the Babylonian Talmud and the Old Testament is that the former is a manual of racial self-worship, whereas the latter repeatedly excoriates Israel and the Israelites for their faithlessness, pride and transgressions. Recall that in the Book of Hosea God equates Israel with a whore. Prophet Isaiah thundered imprecations against Israel to such an extent that the Talmud says Isaiah was killed and celebrates his murder. Hence, Isaiah is one of the prophets Jesus referenced as having been murdered by the Pharisaic spirit within Israel, and you will recall that Isaiah was one of the most eminent of the prophets before the coming of John the Baptist. In Judaism's Strange Gods I give citations from sacred rabbinic texts that degrade and defame not only Isaiah but Old Testament patriarchs such as Noah and even Moses himself. One of the most virulent hoaxes of history is the one put forth by Douglas Reed, and before him, the Nazi leadership, that rabbinic Judaism is an Old Testament religion. It is in fact the quintessential anti-Old Testament religion.

If you wish to see this fact thoroughly documented and know for certain the difference between the Old Testament and the Talmud of Babylon, you might consider studying The Talmud Tested: Comparing the Religion of Judaism with the Religion of Moses, by Professor Alexander McCaul.

And of course the bane of our existence, the Money Power, would not have one-tenth the power it has in the world today if Christian Israel harkened to both the Old Testament and New Testament proscriptions against the taking of interest on loans, as this writer has demonstrated in the book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not. In order for the "Rothschild Judaism" that is the éminence grise of the financial system today, to operate, it had to nullify the Old Testament laws against usury; this nullification being as old as the child-molestation advocate and so-called "good Pharisee," Hillel, who first issued a "prozbul" nullifying the Deuteronomic ban on unjust loans.

For what it is worth, I have spent more than eighteen years of my life studying the Talmud of Babylon and cognate rabbinic texts, and the more I study the more I see what Nicholas Donin, Vincent Ferrer, Martin Luther, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, Alexander McCaul and Fathers Prainitis and McNabb discerned.

The stubborn survival of the cockamamie dogma of the Nazis, Douglas Reed and many others concerning the Old Testament, cannot long endure among reasonable men and women when exposed to the light of truth. This dogma is, in the final analysis, a thinly veiled gnostic attack on Jesus Christ Himself who, without the Old Testament, becomes "The Christ" of the New Age.

Jesus and the Apostles of the New Testament favorably quoted the Old Testament literally hundreds of times. If it is a book of evil, then so too is Jesus Christ evil. Our Lord cannot be separated from the Word of God that preceded His Incarnation! People who execrate the Old Testament should be candid enough to admit this fact, so that we may proceed with this debate from an accurate understanding of where that execration ultimately leads.

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
www.revisionisthistory.org

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

"Jews are not enemies of the Church" by Catholic Prof. John Lamont


Why the Jews Are Not the Enemies of the Church(Excerpts) from a March 6, 2014 essay by Homiletic and Pastoral Review (Catholic priests' journal)http://www.hprweb.com/2014/03/why-the-jews-are-not-the-enemies-of-the-church/With replies by Michael Hoffmanauthor of Judaism Discovered and Judaism's Strange GodsLamont's more egregious claims are in boldface, Hoffman's replies are in  blue:Lamont: The reason why Rabbinic Jews are not enemies of the Church can be put briefly. Such Jews do not seek to...prevent non-Jewish Christians from exercising their faithThey only refuse to become Christians themselves, which does not suffice to make them “enemies” of the Church....______________________________Hoffman: Notice his qualification: non-Jewish Christians are not prevented. Apparently he doesn't object to interdiction of "Jewish Christians."Moreover, Christian missionary evangelism to Judaic persons in the Israeli state is banned and the Talmud requires the destruction of the New Testament. Judaic groups across the spectrum from Right to Left oppose the Kingship of Christ in the United States and Europe and are principal forces in the dilution and emasculation of Christianity into a toothless simulacra and an adjunct of Zionism.In Ashkenazi Judaism Rabbi Moses Maimonides is the chief authority on halacha (law). Maimonides rules that where it is politic to do so and the Jews will not get the blame, then Christians are to be killed whenever possible. Maimonides states that Christianity constitutes idol worship (worship of Jesus of Nazareth as God). According to the Noahide laws of the Talmud, the penalty for idol worship is death.Orthodox Judaism is implacably opposed to true Christianity. Judaism’s hateful, ritual curse on Christians, which has echoed perpetually down the corridors of time since at least the days of Rabbi Gamaliel, continues in our time. The unrelenting hostility which Orthodox Judaism harbors for western civilization, which it ritually curses as malkhut zadon can be discovered in the Birkat Ha’Minim synagogue invocation as documented in Revisionist History newsletter no. 70, "The Rabbinic Curse on Christians."
Lamont: St. Paul’s statement in 1 Thess 2:14-16: “For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone, trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them.” Ennemond argues that since this passage describes the Jews as adversaries of all men, it follows that they are adversaries of the Church.
...These passages cannot, however, be understood as applying to all Jews. The term “adversary,” that is used by St. Paul, is applied to the Jews who sought to prevent the first Christians from preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. It is this attempt to prevent the preaching of the Gospel that constitutes the Jews as “enemies” of all men in St. Paul’s eyes since they are trying to prevent the message of salvation from reaching the rest of the human race. Since Rabbinic Jews make no effort to prevent the preaching of the Gospel to Gentiles, and the founders of Rabbinic Judaism lived some time after the death of Christ, these condemnations cannot be applied to them.
Hoffman: notice that St. Paul does not limit himself solely to the charge of preventing Christians from preaching the Gospel. He also states that the Jews "killed both the Lord Jesus, and the prophets.” Dr. Lamont repeats his nonsense about rabbinic Jews making no effort to prevent the preaching of the Gospel. I have video footage of Christian missionaries harassed and their headquarters burned in the Israeli state.I suggest that Lamont travel to Tel Aviv, stand on a street corner there with a large crucifix in his hand, preach the true Gospel, declare Jesus the true Messiah of the Jews, and see what happens. 
Lamont: This is why there are very few references to Christ and Christianity in the Talmud, and those references that exist are brief and inaccurate. They are scurrilous and abusive, but they make no reference to Christ’s claims to divinity or messianic statusHoffman: Here the author displays abysmal ignorance. The Talmud says Christ worshipped a brick and led all of Israel astray; does the Messiah do that? It also states that he lusted after a serving girl, that he was conceived when His whorish Mother Mary was menstruating during an adulterous tryst.  The Talmud also states that Our Lord is in hell boiling in hot excrement. It states that Jesus got what he deserved when He was killed._________________________________The claim that Rabbinic Jews work to deny the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is, therefore, misleading. They deny it themselves, and seek to prevent Jews from accepting it...________________________________Hoffman: Of course on this basis alone this makes them enemies of Christ and His Church. Denying that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God is the New Testament's definition of an Antichrist. Preventing millions of Jewish souls from receiving Christ is Satanic._________________________________Additional falsehoods peddled by John Lamont: As for the claim that it is a new religion, the first point to be made is that much of the Talmud is not really religious in character at all, but is essentially a code of civil law that covers such things as inheritances, commercial transactions, and criminal law. This code is justified by the claim that it was all received by Moses from God on Mount Sinai. However, it is really a legal code devised by rabbis to provide a basis for the Jewish community after the destruction of the Jewish state. It is a good legal code by the standards of the 2nd to 5th centuries, when it was devised. For example, it differs from the Roman law, which was codified over the same period, in that it allows no role to torture in juridical processes—a form of investigation that Roman law made compulsory. As a legal code, the Talmud is largely a new development; but, it is not an intrinsically religious development. In religious matters, as noted above, the Talmud is an attempt to preserve the beliefs and practices of the scribes and Pharisees (this statement is true and it constitutes  an indictment of the Talmud - Hoffman) of the latter part of the Second Temple era (the era from 530 B.C. to 70 A.D., when the second Jewish Temple was in existence). It contains some inaccuracies and expansions of these beliefs and practices, but not enough to constitute Rabbinic Judaism as a new religionIt should be mentioned that Kabbalah is popular among Rabbinic Jews, which is a form of Gnosticism, which is not compatible with monotheism. It can thus rightly be described as a new religion that differs from the belief of Jews prior to the time of Christ. It is, however, a medieval development that is not part of Rabbinic Judaism as such. Readers may wish to consult Dr. Lamont's article in its entirety rather than Hoffman's excerpts alone:http://www.hprweb.com/2014/03/why-the-jews-are-not-the-enemies-of-the-church/_____________________________________Furthermore, in Revisionist History Newsletter no. 70 Hoffman offers the latest documentation of the heretofore largely unknown extent of the Judaic-Islamic alliance in the early Middle Ages, and the fact that Orthodox Judaism does not regard Islam as negatively as it does the religion of Jesus Christ.
reade more... Résuméabuiyad