Thursday, 28 November 2019






In August of 2018 the book-banners came after three of my history books and had them removed from Amazon. It's the same as book-burning.

Yes, I am a radical, controversial writer, precisely the kind of author whose rights are most difficult for many people to defend.

Yet without that defense I have no doubt that other writers' books
 whether Left-wing, Right-wing or like me, independent  will be made to disappear because they will have offended some powerful person, group or lobby. The precedent has been established.

Contrary to the easily disproved disinformation emanating from my ideological detractors and rivals for the minds and hearts of readers, these banned books are free of bigotry and hatred, and crammed with recondite facts and documents that are exceedingly difficult to find collected in one volume. I wrote those books to earn a living in my chosen profession and for the benefit of the enlightenment of humanity.

The beauty of the Amazon Kindle is that for a typical purchase price of a few dollars it allows readers to see for themselves whether or not negative characterizations of one's work are accurate; that is a principal reason, apart from a growing international readership, that three of my history books, all of them highly rated (four stars cumulatively) by dozens of Amazon reviewers, were removed from the Kindle after selling thousands of books for several years without the world coming to an end.
 Michael Hoffman

On August 13, 2018 Amazon banned Michael Hoffman's Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expandedwhich was published in 2011 and sold by Amazon for the past seven years. Along with his much larger study, Judaism Discovered (sold by Amazon since 2008), this book has had an international impact both as a softcover volume as well as a digital book circulating on the Amazon Kindle. 

Sales to India, Japan and the Middle East were rapidly growing. The digital Kindle format is particularly important for the circulation of books because it bypasses borders and customs and hurdles over the prohibitive cost of shipping which the US Postal Service imposed on books sent to overseas destinations several years ago (the Post Office eliminated economical surface mail sent by sea; all books now must be shipped to Canada and overseas by very costly Priority Air Mail rates). 


Amazon has also suppressed Hoffman's The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic (sold by Amazon since 2010), an important eye-witness account of the historic trial of a dissident publisher in Toronto, which has been cited as a source of information even by Zionist organizations in Canada. Since August, 2018 this primary source material on a civil liberties milestone has been shoved down the Orwwellian memory hole, at least as far as "earth's biggest bookstore" is concerned. Researchers, students and the public who wish to read it must now take the time and trouble to resort to a rare book search service, or purchase it directly from the publisher if they can find the link to our sales' page, which Google's search engine obscures.

A few years ago Kindle editors at Amazon noticed typos in
 The Great Holocaust Trial and kindly corrected them on our behalf. Back then Amazon upheld the right to doubt sacred cows. Suddenly in 2018 that ended, with no reason given and no right of appeal. This is tech tyranny, which not a single legacy media outlet has reported. The tech tyrants and their media allies would be the first to decry such treatment if a Congressional committee were to curb Amazon's monopoly using similar despotic tactics. By failing to report Amazon's book banning, the legacy media give Amazon's shameful censorship of history books a free pass. Mr. Bezos' Washington Post states as its motto, "Democracy dies in darkness," except when that "darkness" helps to shield Amazon's bogus libertarian reputation from exposure and protest. Is it any wonder that despite all of their pompous virtue-signaling, the legacy media are held in increasing disrepute and contempt?
The three banned volumes maintain a high standard of scholarly excellence, had a majority of favorable reviews from Amazon customers,
 are free of hatred and bigotry and have sold thousands of copies on Amazon. 
Out of the blue the author was told that “Amazon KDP” had decided that these three history books were in violation of Amazon’s “content guidelines.” Asking for documentation of the charge results in no response. It is enough that the accusation has been tendered. The accused are guilty until proved innocent, although how proof of innocence is presented is anyone’s guess. There is no appeals process. This is what is known as “Tech Tyranny.”

There is a nationwide purge underway that amounts to a new McCarthyism — blacklisting and banning politically incorrect speech and history books 
under the rubric of “hate speech” accusations, initiated in part by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).It’s a flimsy pretext for censoring controversial, scholarly books that cannot otherwise be discredited. Therefore, Amazon’s readers must no longer be allowed to view them on the Kindle, and Amazon will not sell themWe consider this censorship of our books a badge of honor. The disgrace is on Amazon for submitting to the appeals of organizations that operate as thought police and to meda for failing to shine a light on this book-banning. We have contacted the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and other news outlets concerning this censorship. Thus far, they have have all meekly acquiesced to it or actively cooperated with suppressing this news.
The August 7, 2018 New York Times online confirmed the remarkable influence which the SPLC exerts on Amazon. The Times published a revealing piece by David French in which he wrote: "We live in a world where the Southern Poverty Law Center, a formerly respected civil-rights organization, abuses its past trust to label a host of mainstream organizations (including my former employer, the Alliance Defending Freedom) and individuals as ‘hate groups,...based sometimes on...outright misreadings and misrepresentations of an individual’s beliefs and views...Amazon recently booted Alliance Defending Freedom from its AmazonSmile charity program because of the center’s designation.”
Banning and censorship were not part of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ public philosophy when he founded the company in 1994. Amazon experienced explosive growth in part because it functioned as an intrepid gateway to authentic works of scholarship, however much they were demonized, reviled or condemned by infuriated political or religious factions and pressure groups; that libertarian philosophy of freedom changed beginning in 2017, when Amazon gained a virtual monopoly over the sale of books in the United States.

In addition to our work being hate-free, we note that Amazon sells dozens of hateful Zionist and rabbinic volumes brimming with ferocious bigotry for Palestinians, Germans and 
goyim in general. For example, in 1997, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen wrote and Amzon began to offer, Hitler's Willing Executioners, one of the most racist books of the modern era. In it, Prof. Goldhagen purported to demonstrate that Nazi mass murder stemmed from an innate German predisposition to kill Jews. His book promulgates a theory of a genetic homicidal trait infecting the entire German nation. This bigoted trash has a right to be sold. We uphold that right because exposure ofi ts thesis is the most effective indictment of its author. We note that Hitler's Willing Executioners is proudly sold by Amazon and, if the current zeitgeist persists, it will never be banned by Amazon. The target of Mr. Goldhagen's hatred is the German people who he collectively defames as a racially tainted ethncity. Consequently, his book constitutes a "righteous" type of hate— the approved hate that does not offend the Southern Poverty Law Center or the ADL.

Many dozens of books containing savage attacks on Christianity are also sold by Amazon. These volumes seem to be immune from removal and suppression. Meanwhile,
 the censors demand for their own media - Mr. Bezos owns the Washington Post newspaper —  freedom of expression for the writers they employ and the speech of which they approve. In this two-tiered ethical system we observe the familiar hallmark of revolutionary tyranny: the insiders demand and grant to themselves and their comrades the freedom they deny to demonized outsiders, using the phony “hate” imputation as their excuse.The Washington Post has as its motto, “Democracy dies in darkness.” Yet it is in that very darkness where Amazon’s book-banning dwells, due to the apathy of the media and the timidity of the American Bookseller's Association and the American Library Association. To ban books by a vulnerable independent scholar is not exactly a daring move in an age when “hate speech” is any scholarship which challenges someone’s sacred traditions or cherished folklore. The definition is so loose it functions as a one-size-fits-all inquisitor’s sword. The non-person writers who are the victims of this new inquisition are expected to descend quietly into sheol.
Michael Hoffman's critique of Orthodox Judaism represents a radical reassessment founded upon the depth of the documents and arguments he marshals in the course of advancing his thesis. The compelling and original scholarship employed in his study of Orthodox Judaism is never “anti-Semitic” or hateful. This would be easy to prove if there were an Amazon “tribunal” fair enough to consider a little something known as evidence.In both Judaism Discovered (p. 39) and Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded there are statements addressed “To the Judaic Reader” (photographically reproduced here: pp. 18-19, and here: p. 25), expounding our love and concern for their welfare and liberation. No book of “anti-Semitic hate” would ever print any such charitable and compassionate statements, and these are representative of the entire tenor of the volumes under consideration.
Enemies of truth easily turn to their advantage books containing hatred of “The Jews.” What they have no credible answer to is a critique predicated, as our books are, on a sincere foundation of true Christian love. Boundary-breaking scholarship united to compassionate concern for the welfare of Judaic people is almost unprecedented in this field. This approach makes Michael Hoffman's studies of Judaism among the most powerful and effective because they are free of the “hate speech” which is the pivot upon which turns the machinery of liberal-approved censorship. For that reason, making Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded, and Judaism Discovered available on the Kindle undercut decades of hatred and libel. Therefore those volumes had to be suppressed.

A Kindle permits anyone connected to the Amazon website to read approximately the first thirty pages of any Kindle book free of charge. Consequently, when Hoffman's Judaica research was on display around the world on the Kindle it was much harder for the inquistors and thought suppressors to lie about him and mischaracterize his Talmud and Kabbalah research.
Moreover, Judaic people are harmed by this book-banning which creates a special category of informed theological criticism that is removed from the Amazon Kindle and thereby obstructs the advancement of learning. To make an exception for Orthodox Judaism — forbidding the sale of the best scholarship critical of it— does no favors to Judaic people. Many Judaic persons don’t approve of this type of suppression and censorship of books and desire access to our information. We have received letters and e-mail from Judaics who were appreciative of our books and surprised by thee evident compassion and concern for “Jews" exhibited.

If we are wrong, show us where we are wrong, don’t signal through censorship that our facts are too explosive to be handled by inquiring minds; that type of suppression will only blowback on the censors.

It’s time that someone, including multi-billionaire Bezos, had the fortitude to stand-up to the virulent book banning lobby that continues to engage in one of the lowest forms of ignorance and superstition known to history: silencing a writer who can’t be refuted by free and fair debate.

Furthermore, to be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business. Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced
 Bowker Books in Print as the industry’s authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in print now. Amazon is currently the reference source.For a book to be forbidden by Amazon renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no rival. If your book doesn’t exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research specialists, your book doesn’t exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are ominous.

There is a problem here for Amazon as well. The more Amazon excludes books that embody facts and ideas that constitute radical dissent, the more it becomes a narrow censor’s aperture rather than a reliable bridge to the entire range of the Republic of Letters.

Apologists for censorship of radicals and authentic conservatives often claim that no First Amendment rights are violated when Amazon bans books, therefore it is not a civil rights issue, merely an inconvenience of the capitalist system. In the 1950s however, when the privately-owned movie studios banned certain directors, actors and screen-writers judged to be Leftists or Communists, that action on the part of private enterprise was inscribed in the rolls of the culture wars as the infamous “Blacklist,” and we are still reading and weeping over it sixty-five years later. So it depends on whose ox is being gored.

The public should be informed of the disgraceful tactics of the hypocrites who are so fearful of the radical scholarship for which they have no credible answer, that they pressure booksellers to ban the books that contain irrefutable challenges to their sacred dogmas. Human learning is often advanced by means of suppressed facts and ideas. This was formerly a truism in America, up until the rise of the Overlords of social media who seem to be more like a branch of Antifa than an intellectual class invested in discovery and enlightenment.

Knowledge is advanced on the basis that “Error has rights,” for the reason that demonized dissidents banned for supposedly spreading error, are sometimes in fact the bearers of rare discoveries that undercut enshrined dogmas, which appear credible through repetition by the dominant media empire.
But the epigram of our time is “Error has no rights.” This was  the doctrine of the fiery Inquisition, of the head-chopping French Revolution and of the Bolsheviks, Nazis and Maoists. If error has no rights then neither does truth, in that what is denounced as hateful error by the mob is sometimes a destabilizing, necessary and even cosmic truth.

The ban on these three books of ours, particularly the complete ban (Kindle + printed book) on
 Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded, as well as Judaism Discovered banned from the Kindle, represents a signifcant loss to us of revenue. If we don’t somehow make up for this serious shortfall it will imperil our entire enterprise.

This is in God’s hands. Our prayer is that He inspires benefactors to assist us in this our time of need, as well as in the weeks and months ahead as we search for a replacement for what was regular monthly sales income upon which we depended for our Truth Mission.

The greatest loss of course is to minds hungry for knowledge, whether in India, Japan, the Middle East, Europe or here at home. Learning is a right which the book-banning antediluvians have now denied to readers and students throughout the world. God help us all.

Copyright ©2019
Order the banned books from the publisher: here and here

Your donation helps our endangered Truth Mission survive19 - A

Our statement, "Jew is a holy word" from page 19 from the book,
 Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded. Why was this book banned? Amazon removed it without giving a reason. It’s a radical critique of Talmudic Judaism from a compassionate Christian viewpoint. But even this approach is subject to censorship.Rigorous evaluation of rabbinic theology is simply not permitted by the Tech Tyrants. The legacy media will not report the disgraceful censorship of books which they despise.
Revisionist historian Michael Hoffman is one of the most controversial scholars of the 21st century. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL seek to shut him down and ban his books because they can’t refute his research.  
_______________Amazon bans black history books during Black History Month
New questions about the Southern Poverty Law Center's irresponsible smears and libel

"Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a hate-mongering scam"

Dedicated to love for all of humanity
"Let all that you do be done in love." I Corinthians 16:14

News Bureau | Home


Legal NoticeRevisionist History® is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the exclusive trademark of
Independent History & Research
Box 849 • Coeur d'Alene  Idaho  83816  USA

Privacy Notice

Your information is never disclosed to a third party and your information is never shared, sold, traded or given away. No information is gathered about you by this website. Your privacy is our goal. We take this promise to you seriously. Thank you.______________

REVISIONISTHISTORY.ORGCopyright©1996-2019 All Rights Reserved
 Adolf Hitler – Founder of Israel

Senior Member
 Join Date: May 2016

Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posts: 2,299

Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
23-02-2018, 05:44 PM   #1

The very short summary of this thread is that the Austrian-born Adolf Hitler was a puppet for the Zionist Ashkenazi elite, who wanted to establish Israel, the UN and World Bank/IMF, and aimed to destroy Germany.

1880 – 1919 – preparing for WW II
1880 - Rothschild agents begin fomenting a series of pogroms predominantly in Russia, but also in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. These pogroms result in the slaughter of thousands of Jews, causing approximately two million to flee, mainly to the USA, but some settle in Palestine.

1897 - The first Zionist congress, founded by the De Rothschild family after first staging the Dreyfus affair, takes place in August 1897 in Basel. The leader of the Zionist Congress Theodor Herzl wrote in his diary that Zionism is founded on anti-Semitism:


It is essential that the sufferings of Jews (…) become worse (…) this will assist in realization of our plans. (…)
I have an excellent idea (…) I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. (...)
The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends.
1913 - Jacob Schiff sets up the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), for the purpose of identifying anyone who challenges Rothschild’s New World Order as “anti-Semitic”.

1914 - The start of World War I, where the German Rothschilds loan money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds finance the British, and the French Rothschilds loan money to the French.

1916 - Germany offers to end WW I to the British. Rothschild agent Louis Brandeis sends a delegation from the US to Britain and promises to bring the USA into the war on the side of the British if the British agree to give Palestine to the Rothschilds.
The British agree to the deal and the Zionists in London inform their counterparts in the USA. Suddenly all the major newspapers in the USA run propaganda against the Germans, including: German soldiers are killing Red Cross Nurses and German soldiers are cutting off babies hands.

1917 – On 2 November 1917 the “Balfour Declaration” is sent to Lord Rothschild:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
1919 - On 18 January, the “Versailles peace conference” starts, chaired by Baron Edmond de Rothschild. Impossible reparation payments are forced upon the Germans. A delegation of 117 Jews is headed by Bernard Baruch. Palestine was here already confirmed as a Jewish homeland.
On 30 May another meeting, chaired by Edmond de Rothschild, takes place, which leads to the the British Royal Institute Of International Affairs (RIIA) in 1920, and its American counterpart the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921:
(archived here:

1903 and 1937 “predictions” of World Wars
1903 - In August at the 6th Zionist Congress in Basel, a discussion takes place regarding a British offer to provide Uganda for a future Jewish Zionist state. Max Nordau predicts how the “future World War” will help the Jews get Palestine.
On 19 September 1919, Litman Rosenthal described the speech by Max Nordau in the American Jewish News under the title as “WHEN PROPHETS SPEAK”:

Sooner or later the Oriental question will have to be solved, and the Oriental question means, naturally, also the question of Palestine. England, who had addressed a formal, political note to the Zionist Congress—the Zionist Congress which is pledged to the Basle program, England will have the deciding voice in the final solution of the Oriental question, and Herzl has considered it his duty to maintain valuable relations with this great and progressive power.
Herzl knows that we stand before a tremendous upheaval of the whole world. Soon, perhaps, some kind of a world-congress will have to be called, and England, the great, free and powerful England, will then continue the work it has begun with its generous offer to the Sixth Congress.
And if you ask me now what has Israel to do in Uganda, then let me tell you as the answer the words of the statesmen of Sardinia, only applied to our case and given in our version; let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.
(archived here:

Here’s a picture of the article:

I haven’t found the following article from 1937. It appears in a number of stories, probably the source of these stories is the following book by Arnold Leese from 1940.
It shows that in April 1937 Victor Rothschild already knew about the coming World War II:

According to the Daily Express of 28th April, 1937, the present (3rd) Baron Victor Rothschild was asked by W. Hickey where he would live when the lease of the Rothschild Piccadilly home fell in? The answer was “Nowhere probably; I just don’t know. Not till after the war anyway.” Thus it seems that the Rothschilds had made up their minds that there should be a war. And there was. Pure coincidence, of course. But it was quite far-seeing: two-and-a-half years! Remarkable.

Financing Hitler and IG Farben
The German Nazis were financed by the big bankers from France, Britain, the Netherlands and the USA. A relatively large part of the financiers of Hitler were Ashkenazi Jews.
The following companies were financing or working together with the Nazi regime (in between brackets some of the connected families).

Royal Dutch Shell (Queen Wilhelmina, Rothschild, Henri Deterding), Mendelsohn, Rotterdamsche Bankvereniging, Carl Duisberg, Werkspoor.

Rothschild, Warburg, Schiff, Kuhn Loeb, J.H. Schröder Bank.

W.A. Harriman, Chase National Bank (Rockefeller), Guaranty Trust (J.P. Morgan), Kennedy, John Foster Dulles, General Motors (J.P. Morgan, DuPont), ITT (J.P. Morgan), General Electric, Goldman Sachs, IBM (Rothschild).

IG Farben was financed by Rothschild agent Max Warburg.
IG Farben and Standard Oil founded Standard Oil American IG with these board members: Walter Teagle (Standard Oil), Paul Walburg (Kuhn Loeb), Edsel Ford, Charles Mitchell (National City Bank, Rockefeller), Herman Metz (Metz Company).
Already in 1922 the New York Times published an article that Henry Ford financed Hitler and in 1928 the German part of the Ford Company merged with IG Farben.
The pharmaceutical industry obviously continues the eugenics program of the Nazis. IG Farben was the notorious chemical company (including pharmaceutics) that was both an integral part of the Nazi-machine, and affiliated with Ford and Rockefeller…
IG Farben used 83,000 slave labourers from the largest German concentration camp, Auschwitz, and produced the controversial poison Zyklon-B. IG Farben conducted sick experiments in the part of Auschwitz it controlled - including vaccines.
John D. Rockefeller already financed eugenics experiments before WW II, including those of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, where “Dr” Josef Mengele already worked before his sick experiments in Auschwitz.
In 1951, IG Farben was split up. The main successor companies today are Bayer, BASF, AGFA and Sanofi:

Fritz Thyssen was one of the first German supporters of Adolf Hitler; Thyssen was financed with millions of dollars from Standard Oil, Ford, General Electric, DuPont, ITT (sent by Dillon Read & Co).
The money profits were laundered by the Dutch BHS/Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart (Queen Wilhelmina, Prince Bernhard), Brownbrothers & Harriman and UBC/Union Banking Corporation (Prescott Bush).
According to Gertrude Elias companies in the USA made profits of some 175 billion dollar from financing and collaborating with the Nazis.

For more information on the financing of the Nazis; Anthony C. Sutton – Wall Street and the rise of Hitler (1976):

See the Duke of Windsor Edward VIII (who had been British King in 1936) and his wife Wallis Simpson with Adolf Hitler on their visit to Nazi Germany in October 1937.

A lot of people already know about the Nazi salute by a young Princess Elizabeth (and Edward VIII) in 1933/1934. More recently Prince Harry was photographed at a party in Nazi outfit, with Swastika.

1933 Reichstag fire false flag* and media support
By common concensus Hitler took complete control with the help of the Reichstag fire.

At the Nuremberg trials, General Franz Halder stated in an affidavit, that at a lunch on the Führer's birthday in 1943, Hermann Göring boasted that he had set the Reichstag building on fire and then falsely blamed the communists.
SA Leader Karl Ernst confessed that together with SA Leaders Count Helldorf and Heines they burned down the Reichstag on orders by Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels furnished the incendiary materials of liquid phosphorus and petroleum and access to the passage from his house to the Reichstag building. Karl Ernst was executed on 30 June 1934 by the Nazis for treason.
Goebbels denied these allegations:
(archived here:

Martin Sommerfeldt, who worked in the Ministry of the Interior in Berlin, believed the Reichstag fire was carried out by men of the SA on orders by Joseph Goebbels.
Men from the SS then killed the SA men involved, to ensure that no witnesses survived. Sommerfeldt claimed that his story was backed by Berlin Gestapo chief, Rudolf Diels, who even knew where the corpses were.

The Nazis arrested some 4000 communists, and the Dutchman Ruud van der Lubbe confessed that he had set fire to the Reichstag all by himself. This confession was so ridiculous that it was dismissed by Rudolf Diels.
Diels was later corrected by Adolf Hitler. Van der Lubbe was sentenced and executed in all justice:
(archived here:

Of course carrying out this false flag successfully was only possible with the support of the international media.
In 1938, Adolf Hitler was named TIME's Man of the Year (after making its front page for the first time in 1933):

Haavara agreement
The centrepiece of German-Zionist cooperation during the Hitler era was the Transfer “Haavara” Agreement concluded in August 1933, a pact that enabled tens of thousands of German Jews to migrate to Palestine with their wealth. Through this unusual arrangement, each Jew bound for Palestine deposited money in a special account in Germany. The money was used to purchase German-made agricultural tools, building materials, pumps, fertilizer, and so forth, which were exported to Palestine and sold there by the Jewish-owned Haavara company in Tel-Aviv. This was supplemented some time later with a barter agreement by which Palestine oranges were exchanged for German timber, automobiles, agricultural machinery, and other goods.

The total amount transferred from Germany to Palestine between August 1933 and the end of 1939 was 139.57 million German marks (more than $40 million). This amount included 33.9 million German marks ($13.8 million) provided by the Reichsbank.
Between 1933 and 1941, some 60,000 German Jews emigrated to Palestine through arrangements like Haavara, or about 10% of Germany's 1933 Jewish population. These German Jews made up about 15% of Palestine's 1939 Jewish population.
Edwin Black estimated that an additional $70 million may have flowed from Germany to Palestine; here’s Black’s book “The transfer agreement” (1984):

Hitler personally reviewed Haavara, and each time decided to maintain it.
A December 1937 internal memorandum by the German Interior Ministry reviewed the impact of the Haavara Agreement:

There is no doubt that the Haavara arrangement has contributed most significantly to the very rapid development of Palestine since 1933. The Agreement provided not only the largest source of money, but also the most intelligent group of immigrants, and finally it brought to the country the machines and industrial products essential for development.
The Reich Economics Ministry helped to organize another transfer company, the International Trade and Investment Agency, or Intria, through which Jews in foreign countries could help German Jews emigrate to Palestine. Almost $900,000 was eventually channelled through the Intria to German Jews in Palestine. Other European countries made similar transfer agreements. In 1937 Poland authorized the Halifin (Hebrew for "exchange") transfer company. By late summer 1939, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and Italy had signed similar arrangements.

The Haavara agreement was not the only deal between the German Nazis and the Zionists.
The official SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, proclaimed its support for Zionism in two 1935 front-page editorials:

The time may not be too far off when Palestine will again be able to receive its sons who have been lost to it for more than a thousand years. Our good wishes, together with official goodwill, go with them.
In an interview after the war, the former head of the Zionist Federation of Germany, Dr. Hans Friedenthal, said:
The Gestapo did everything in those days to promote emigration, particularly to Palestine. We often received their help when we required anything from other authorities regarding preparations for emigration.
In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the "National Military Organization" (NMO).
The goal of the political activity and the years of struggle by the Israel Freedom Movement, the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi), is to solve the Jewish problem in this way and thus completely liberate the Jewish people forever.
The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that view that:

1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry [Hebräertum].
3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.
This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the Jewish men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front by formed.
(archived here:

See the celebration coin for the Haavara Agreement/transfer agreement, with on one side the hexagram and on the other side the swastika (both symbols were Zionist).

Assassination of Count Bernadotte
As the United Nations debated a resolution to divide the Palestinian land, the Swedish UN- appointed mediator Count Folke Bernadotte, who pushed for an international Jerusalem and limit the expansion of the Jewish state, filed his report (UN Document A. 648) on 16 September 1948:

Basic principles to prevent these innocent victims of the conflict [Palestinians were not to blame for the Holocaust] from returning to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flood into Palestine and, what’s more, threatening to permanently replace the dispossessed Arab refugees who have been here for centuries.
Zionist pillage on a grand scale and the destruction of [Palestinian] villages without apparent military need.
C.L. Sulzberger wrote in his diary on 24 August 1948:
On July 22 Bernadotte told a few people confidentially in Rhodes that he foresaw the following ultimate solution for Palestine:
There will be a Jewish state, no matter what else happens. Its boundaries will have to be radically altered to proved a more compact and workable state. Its Arab neighbors must be given an ironclad UN guarantee against any move to expand.
It was Yitzhak Shamir who authorised the assassination of Bernadotte (and British minister Lord Moyne in 1944). On 17 September 1948, Count Bernadotte and his assistant were assassinated in the part of Jerusalem occupied by Zionists.

Clyde Haberman wrote in 1995:

[Shamir] she says, signed [Bernadotte’s] death warrant. He was part of a troika that led Lehi after its guiding force, Avraham Stern, was killed by the British in 1942. His name was Yitzhak Yezernitsky, a short bulldog of an immigrant from the Russian-Polish border. Four decades later, he became Israel’s Prime Minister under the name Yitzhak Shamir.
Ever suspicious and tight-lipped, Mr. Shamir, nearly 80, still speaks elliptically about the Bernadotte assassination. In a recently published memoir, “Summing Up,” he acknowledges that Lehi wanted the mediator “removed from the arena.” But the group “took no responsibility for the deed,” he says. “The idea was conceived in Jerusalem by Lehi members operating there more or less independently.”

Ms. Marton strips away this deliberate ambiguity. There is no doubt, she says, that Shamir and his co-leaders imposed a death sentence on Bernadotte and selected a four-man squad whose trigger man was one Yehoshua Cohen.
(archived here:

Israel as the final solution?
Israel was founded by Zionists, who have always supported anti-Semism. If anti-Semists found a country as the “promised land” for Jews, I advise you to think twice before going there (especially when you’re a Jew).
Possibly Israel is the single most anti-Semitic country in the world.

Starting in the 1950s a large amount of Yemenite “Sephardic” Jewish children “disappeared”. Research showed that at least 4500 children are missing:
(archived here:

The state propaganda invented that these children weren’t murdered but adopted:

Ami Hovev found out that these children were examined on (in experiments like that of Joseph Mengele) and dumped in lime pits:

hundreds, perhaps thousands" of children from immigrant Yemenite Jewish families were "taken away" by the authorities. Their parents never saw them again. (...) a substantial number of them were secretly consigned for "unmerciful" medical experiments and then buried in lime pits. I know that they [Israeli physicians in state hospitals] conducted experiments on living [Sephardic] children, extracting phosphorus and bone marrow from the spinal cord
(archived here:

According to Barry Chamish in the Ringworm Holocaust as many as one hundred thousand Jewish children, mainly Moroccans, were radiated:
(archived here:

Ethiopian Jewish women were also sterilised by the Israeli government:
(archived here:

Hitler faked death and escaped to Argentina
Continuing on the massive lies we were told about the Second World War, it appears that Adolf Hitler didn’t even die on 30 April 1945 in Berlin.
1) No evidence that Hitler and Braun died on 30 April 1945.
2) Peter Baumgart testified that the flew Hitler and Braun, from Tempelhof Airport to Tondern in Denmark, and then to Kristiansund in Norway.
3) Two German submarines escaped from Europe to Argentina, and could’ve taken Hitler.
4) Witnesses saw Hitler in Argentina.
5) Witnesses saw Hitler in Paraguay after he had to leave Argentina after the overthrow of Juan Peron in 1955.
For more information:

Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason:

Last edited by st jimmy; 24-02-2018 at 10:32 AM.

Default Hitler’s English nephew, Putzi-Roosevelt

It isn’t really a secret, but I expect that not many people know about Adolf Hitler’s English nephew and sister-in-law...

At the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century, Adolf’s half-brother, Alois Hitler Jr. (1882 – 1956), migrated to Ireland.
In 1909, Alois Jr. met the Irishwoman Brigid “Bridget” Dowling (1891 – 1969) in Dublin. They eloped to London, married on 3 June 1910 and settled in Liverpool where their son William Patrick Hitler (1911-1987) was born.

In 1914, Alois Jr. went to Germany, without wife or son. Then WW I broke out.
In 1916, Alois Jr. married a second woman and after the war sent a message to Bridget that he was dead. In 1924, he was charged with bigamy by the German authorities, but acquitted.
In the mid-1920s, Alois Jr. wrote to Bridget asking her to send William to Germany. She finally agreed in 1929.

In 1933, William Patrick Hitler returned to Germany. His uncle Adolf found him a job at the Reichskreditbank in Berlin. Later, William worked at an Opel factory and as a car salesman.
In 1934, Alois Jr. established a restaurant in Berlin that became a popular meeting place for SA Stormtroopers.
In 1938, William supposedly threatened to tell the press that Hitler's paternal grandfather was a Jewish merchant. Then he went to London and returned to Germany the same year.

Bridget wrote a manuscript, “My Brother-in-Law Adolf (only published years later in 1979), in which she described that Adolf had lived with them in Liverpool from November 1912 to April 1913.
Some history falsifiers claim that Hitler was in Vienna during this period:
(archived here:

It could be interesting to know what Hitler did during his time in Vienna. It has been claimed that he was a gay prostitute and/or visiting his Jewish family…

In 1939, Adolf Hitler advised his English nephew, William Patrick Hitler, to emigrate to the USA. He was invited by William Randolph Hearst to lecture on the Führer on a tour of the USA, where he was joined by mother Bridget. They settled in New York City.

In 1942, William Patrick Hitler “begged” President Roosevelt to reconsider an earlier denial to join the US Forces. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover eventually cleared him for service. William Patrick Hitler was wounded in action and awarded the Purple Heart.
On 6 March 1944, William Patrick Hitler was sworn into the US Navy in New York City (see photo):

Roosevelt - Putzi – Hitler
Another interesting connection is Putzi (Ernst Sedgewiek Hanfstaengl), who befriended the later US President Franklin D. Roosevelt at Harvard.
In the first half of the 1920s, Putzi became part of Adolf Hitler’s inner circle. Putzi even financed the publication of Mein Kampf.
Putzi was also part of the group that arranged the Reichstag fire.

In 1941, Putzi left Nazi Germany, and became a prisoner of war in Nazi Canada.
In 1943, Roosevelt arranged for the release of his and Hitler’s friend. Roosevelt even gave Putzi a job.
See chapter 8 from Antony Sutton’s book:

EDIT - picture was already deleted.


Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post

See the Duke of Windsor Edward VIII (who had been British King in 1936) and his wife Wallis Simpson with Adolf Hitler on their visit to Nazi Germany in October 1937.
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason:

Last edited by st jimmy; 25-02-2018 at 01:35 PM.


A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
An Interview with Michael A. Hoffman II

Introduction by the Saker: I have always had a passion for theology in general and the studies of religions in general. Several years ago I discovered, quite by chance, a book written by Michael A. Hoffman II entitled Judaism’s Strange Gods which I found most interesting and thought provoking. Reading that book, I felt that I wanted to find out much more and I ended up ordering and reading Michael A. Hoffman II’s magnum opus Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit which absolutely amazed me: over 1000 pages packed with information, sources and most interesting analyses. Needless to say, the book was also very controversial and elicited all sorts of negative reactions from various reviewers. Here I need to immediately begin by a disclaimer: while the topic of “Rabbinical Phariseism” (modern “Judaism” should be called something like “Rabbinical Phariseism” since all modern Judaic denomination are descendants of the sect of the Pharisees; furthermore, this religion is dramatically different from the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: it is the religion of Maimonides, Karo, Luria and others) has always fascinated me and while I do have a graduate degree in theology, I am absolutely not qualified to endorse or refute the views of Hoffman. What I can say is that his books are very well written, well researched, fully sourced and that I see no contradictions between what he wrote and the little I personally know about this topic. As for his critique of the religion of the Rabbinical Pharisees (from which all form of modern “Orthodox Judaism” stem from), it is not “racist” in any way: unlike ethnicity, a religion is a personal choice and thus a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism and Hoffman’s condemnation of Rabbinical Phariseism is in no way harsher than the writings of Church Fathers like Saint Justin Martyr, Saint John Chrysostome, Saint Cyprian of Carthage or Saint Ephrem the Syrian.

Hoffman recently published another amazing book, the 700 pages long “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome” which I began reading (I am about 1/3rd through) with, again, rapt interest. Yet again, here was a very well researched and beautifully controversial book which gave me as strong desire to speak with the author and, luckily for me, Michael A. Hoffman II has kindly agree to replies to my questions to him on his life and research. The following is the full unedited Q&A with I had with him.
* * *
The Saker: I am absolutely amazed at the width and depth of your research – could you please introduce yourself and then tell us how and where you acquired such a deep knowledge of topics which are almost never discussed nowadays and which the general public is almost totally unaware of? Do you have formal degrees in theology or history, or are you self-taught? What made you decide to spend so much time and effort deeply delving into topics which are often considered obscure, arcane if not completely irrelevant by most of our contemporaries?
Hoffman: My maternal grandfather Joseph Palace, with whom I had many discussions in my youth, was an amateur revisionist historian. He had been a successful businessman and seemed to have inside information about national events. He somehow knew in November 1960 that Joe Kennedy had bought the Chicago-area votes that helped swing the presidential election to his son Jack. He introduced me to other anomalies of history.
I attended college in my native New York in the early 1970s when the country was being torn apart by the Vietnam War and the change-of-era time. Because I majored in political science and history, I was often at odds with many of my liberal professors—not due to their Leftism, but their tunnel vision and abhorrence of dissenting ideas, in spite of posing as dissenters. I was fortunate to find a few professors who were honest academics, particularly Francis J.M. O’Laughlin at Hobart College, and my Palestinian professor at the State University of New York at Oswego, Faiz Abu-Jaber. The latter repeatedly urged me to research the history of Freemasonry in upstate New York, where America’s great anti-masonic revolt was ignited after Masons murdered William Morgan in 1826. The result was my 1978 pamphlet, Masonic Assassination.
I left the university and drifted around the country doing manual labor on farms and as a longshoreman. Further into the 1970s I was writing for obscure publications like Fortean Times, where I became a columnist, and working as a reporter at radio stations, including one station that was an ABC News affiliate. I also began writing for the wire service of the NY bureau of the Associated Press (AP). Eventually I was hired by Willis Carto to write a column for his paleo-conservative Spotlight newspaper, which in 1979 had nearly 400,000 readers. As a Spotlight reporter I covered the spectacular “Holocaust” show trial of German-Canadian activist Ernst Zündel in 1985 in Toronto, Canada and wrote a book about it, which was published by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) in California, where I became assistant director. The trial took nine weeks and in the course of it I became acquainted with Zündel’s defense team and witnesses, among them revisionist historians like Robert Faurisson and David Irving, and German veterans of Word War II, from a grunt who drove a tank in Rommel’s Afrika Corps, to General Otto Ernst Remer, the commander of Berlin when the attempt was made on Hitler’s life.
In the 1990s some of my books started to take off in term of sales, including They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America, and in 2001, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. I have been privileged ever since to lead the precarious life of an unaffiliated professional historian, while sometimes moonlighting as a copy editor for mainstream publications in the U.S.
The Saker: Clearly, when you began writing your books you must have been acutely aware that this would get you all sorts of ugly personal attacks and accusations – yet you went ahead and, far from being silenced, you continued to publish book after book and now, after having taken on Rabbinical Phariseeism, your latest book reveals an amazing level of depravity and heresy in the Latin Church (another misnomer since the “Roman Catholic” Church is neither “Roman” nor “Catholic” in the sense of “universal) since at least the Italian Quattrocento (15th century), many centuries before the First or Second Vatican Councils. In this latest book you are even committing a sort of “thoughtcrime of thoughtcrimes” and denouncing the very strong collusion between Judaic black magic (especially in the form of its kabbalistic teachings) and the top Latin theologians and clergymen. What is your motivation in unearthing all these most interesting, but also long-forgotten, events and what gives you the courage to take on such powerful institution as organized Jewry and the Vatican? What are you trying to achieve, whom are you writing for, what gives you such courage and energy?
Hoffman: My family heritage is one of asking questions about everything. This for me is a normal state of mind — siding with the underdog, questioning authority. If you couple that with a burning curiosity, a desire to learn everything and to gain forbidden knowledge, then when one encounters a hint that white people in British America might have been chattel slaves on 17th century sugar and tobacco plantations, one experiences an insatiable hunger for knowledge in that realm, and if the information has been mostly suppressed, then the hunt becomes all the more compelling. Some Orthodox Judaic people have a derogatory phrase they employ concerning those who abandon Judaism. They say that those who leave are “chozrim b’she’ela” which denotes, “returning to questioning.” In my view this is a left-handed compliment since it is the mission of the independent, ennobled human mind to always return to questioning.
You mentioned “organized Jewry.” I don’t see myself as taking on “Jewry” per se. Orthodox Judaism, yes. Israeli Zionism, yes. But since both of those institutions are at their core fundamentally anti-Judaic, I view my work as an expression of love for Judaic people and as a conduit for their liberation.
A prime source of Jew hate is Talmudism itself, which oppressively tyrannizes and micromanages the lives of Judaics born through no fault of their own, into its psychic prison, while Israeli Zionism imprisons Judaics in a permanent war footing with the indigenous people of the Middle East. To free Judaic persons from these two prisons is an act of compassion and charity. We should never forget that our work is pro-Judaic. It is the Talmudic and Kabbalistic rabbis and Zionists who are putting Judaic people on the road to ruin.
The Saker: Now, turning to your books on Rabbinical Phariseism, could you please summarize the main theses of your books on this topic? What is, in your opinion, the true nature of Rabbinical Phariseism, what are its core tenets/beliefs? What would you say to an average person are the myths and realities about what is referred to as “Judaism” in our society?
Hoffman: Orthodox Judaism, which is the scion of the religion of the ancient Pharisees, is above all, self-worship, and pride is the paramount destroyer. In the occult scheme of things, the ideology closest to it was Hitler’s National Socialism, in that it shares this predominant characteristic of pathological narcissism. Christians and many other goyim (gentiles) have been deluded into imagining that Judaism, while being somewhat flawed due to rejecting Jesus, nonetheless manages to be an ethical religion reflective of the prophets of the Old Testament. Hillel, the first century A.D. Pharisee who is believed to have been a contemporary of Jesus, and Moses Maimonides (“Rambam”), the medieval philosopher and theologian, are most often held up as exemplars of this supposed ethical Judaism.
The myth of the benevolence of these two can only be sustained by ignorance. The problem is, that when a scholar begins to unearth facts that undermine pious media legends about men like Hillel and Maimonides, they enter “anti-Semitism” territory: if they dare to retail the truth, their ability to earn a living and keep their good name and reputation will be damaged, sometimes irreparably by the myth-makers who have the power to permanently stigmatize them as “haters and anti-Semites.”
I’m beyond those fears, so I can venture to say that Hillel offered theological grounds for the molestation of children and invented a “prozbul” escape clause for evading the Biblical command that no loan shall be in force more than seven years. Maimonides detested Jesus Christ with a volcanic hatred that led him in his writings to urge the murder of Christians when it is possible to do so without being detected. These facts are documented in my books Judaism Discovered and Judaism’s Strange Gods.
Meanwhile, if you google “Hillel” or “Maimonides,” or you consult Wikipedia, you’ll find them described in terms of saccharine sainthood and humanitarian benevolence.
Orthodox Judaism, I regret to say, is a religion of lying and deceit. Duplicity and mendacity are formally inculcated. They are not incidental. There isn’t even a great deal of trust among Talmudists themselves. Witness what Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, one time head of the reconstituted Sanhedrin in Tiberias, and premier translator of the Babylonian Talmud, has pronounced on this matter: “Rabbis are liable to alter their words, and the accuracy of their statements is not to be relied upon.” (The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition [Random House], Vol. II, pp. 48-49). In BT Yevamot 65b permission is given to lie “in the interests of peace,” a category so broad it is capable of serving as an alibi for countless situations in which scoundrels wish to conjure excuses for their falsehoods. There is also the general permission to lie to a gentile (BT Baba Kamma 113a).
These facts are not published in major media such as the New York Times. Yet the Times does not shy from insinuating that Shiite Islam is a religion of liars: “…there is a precedent for lying to protect the Shiite community…part of a Shiite historical concept called taqiyya, or religious dissembling.” (New York Times, April 14, 2012, p. A4).
Another defining theological aspect of Orthodox Judaism is its dogma that non-Jews are less than human. This is how the goyim are viewed in the Talmud and its sacred successor texts. In certain branches of Kabbalistic Judaism, such as the politically powerful and prominent Chabad-Lubavitch sect, their founder, Rabbi Shneur Zalman, formally promulgated the doctrine that goyim are not just less than human, they are non-human trash — “supernal refuse” — which is a reference to their Kabbalistic status as kelipot who possess “no redeeming qualities whatsoever.”
The Saker: My personal research has brought me to the conclusion ever since the recognition by Christ as the Messiah promised by the prophets of the Old Testament by one part of the first century Jews and the rejection of Him by the other part, the latter group began by developing an “anti-Christian scriptural toolkit” which included, of course, the forgery of the so-called Masoretic text, the development of the Talmud and the various commentaries, interpretations and codification of these texts. The goal was to develop a “polemical arsenal” so to speak. At the same time, the first kabbalistic concepts were developed for the internal use inside the anti-Christian communities. Would you agree with this (admittedly summarized) description and would you then agree with my personal conclusion that Rabbinical Phariseeism is at its core simply a religion of “anti-Christianity”?
Hoffman: I think you’re correct up to the Renaissance, which is the point at which members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy including many popes, were secretly initiated into Kabbalistic mysticism. The belt of that transmission is chronicled in detail in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. Rabbinic Phariseeism is more than a religion opposed to Jesus for this reason: in its beginnings in the time before Christ, it had existence as a creed founded upon esoteric oral teachings that nullify the Bible itself.
Orthodox Judaism is an anti-Biblical religion. Yes, it has a “Moses” and a “Noah” as its patrons and it names other patriarchs too, but these are not the Moses and Noah of the Bible. These are radically falsified figures who bear those names. Pharisac Judaism is contemptuous of the Biblical Noah about whom, in the Midrash, it makes scurrilous claims. There is even contempt for Moses. About Isaiah, who said that Israel has filthy lips, the Talmud teaches that Isaiah was justly killed by having his mouth sawed in half for “blaspheming Israel.”
In both Left-wing New Age and Right-wing neo-Nazi circles, the heresy of Marcion is alive and well and the Old Testament is execrated. It is equated with the Talmud (most famously on the Right by Douglas Reed in The Controversy of Zion). The problem with that tack is that the Old Testament is absolutely not a book of self-worship of the Jews. It is radically different from the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible is an antidote to self-worship. The Old Testament excoriates Israelites in the strongest possible terms.
One notable instance of the Bible’s ego-deflation pertains directly to Jews (Judeans) in the person of the eponymous patriarch Judah. In Genesis chapter 38, Judah’s daughter-in-law Tamar disguises herself as a temple prostitute. Not knowing it is her, and thinking she is a votary of the Canaanite fertility goddess Astarte, Judah has sexual relations with her. This was a horrendous transgression because in having sex with a cult prostitute one is having relations with a prostitute who seeks to channel the goddess by being possessed by her spirit. In this sexual act Judah would have been risking demonic possession himself.
Later in Genesis 38, when Judah seeks for the woman so as to pay her for her services, he asks the local people, “Where is the temple prostitute (the qedesha)?” Orthodox Judaism concocts fabrications to protect Judah’s reputation. Many Christian Bible translations influenced by rabbinic exegesis do something deceptively similar when they mistranslates Judah’s question as, “Where is the (common) prostitute (the zona)”? That’s not the word Judah used in the Hebrew text. He didn’t ask after a simple zona. He asked of the whereabouts of a qedeshah. The Word of God in this scripture is teaching Israel, and specifically the tribe of Judah, not to become conceited regarding their lineage and genealogy because none other than their illustrious forefather and namesake, Judah, committed a perverted transgression. Near the end of Genesis 38, Judah admits his hypocrisy and repents. Here the book of Genesis is imparting a very Christ-like Old Testament lesson about sinners, repentance and humility— which the Pharisaic rabbis in their arrogance, reject. In their Midrash on Genesis 38, they have the chutzpah to blame God for Judah having sex with a woman he believed to be a temple prostitute. They write, “Thus it is taught, ‘Judah would have never sinned with Tamar, but God sent the ‘angel of lust’ to tempt him to do so.” Nothing in the Bible supports this exculpatory allegation which blames God and renders Judah innocent of sin, since he was supposedly only doing God’s will.
Wherever there is the spirit of fanatical race pride, there is the spirit of the oral gnosis from which the Talmud, Midrash and similar authoritative rabbinic texts are derived.
To give another example, look at the language employed in Ezekiel 16:23-25. God says to Israel: “To crown your wickedness…declares the Lord Yahweh…At the entry of every alley…you opened your legs to all comers in countless acts of fornication. You have also fornicated with your big-membered neighbors, the Egyptians…you do not act like a proper prostitute because you disdain to take a fee…you bribe them to fornicate with you.”
A divine statement of such power, which mocks the Israelites for their immorality, is anathema to the Talmudic mentality, which is why the Talmud teaches that Yahweh is subservient to the rabbis, and they have the right to modify His divine law by means of situation ethics.
The Saker: I am often told that Zionism is secular and that its leaders were all secular, primarily, socialist, intellectuals and that there is no continuity between the small shtetls controlled by rabbis in eastern Europe and modern Israel because Zionism is essentially a Jewish version of 19th century European secular nationalism and, far from having its roots in Yiddish speaking religious communities, Zionism represents a secular emancipation from this self-enclosed and religion-centered world. What do you think, is there are continuity between modern “secular” Zionism (from Ahad Ha’am and Hertzl to modern Likudniks) and Pharisaic Judaism or not? And, if yes, could you please describe it?
Hoffman: The bridge between not only Talmudic Judaism and Zionism, but Bolshevism as well, is personified by Moses Hess, who Karl Marx termed, “My Communist rabbi.” Hess was not a rabbi in a formal sense, but he was enamored of the Talmud, as well as Communist and Zionist ideology. Hess recognized that what unites all three, their common bond, is Judaic self-worship. The controversies and rivalries arise in the debate over which vehicle is best for the supremacy of the Judaic people over humanity: Judaism, Bolshevism or Zionism? Hess argued that depending on the zeitgeist, any one of the three would prove suitable.
Yes indeed, the founders of the Israeli state were secularists and Socialists who had little regard for the Talmud as a way of ordering the life of a modern nation. They viewed its code of conduct as a relic from a superstitious past. They were modern and “progressive.” Moreover, the pioneering Zionists had violated a fundamental tenet of Orthodox Judaism, which held that only the Messiah himself could initiate the founding of a reborn Israeli nation. Until the appearance of the Messiah, the Jews could not engage in armed struggle to achieve that end. That was the view of the majority of Talmudic rabbis in 1948. Seventy years later it is the view of only a minority, mostly among certain Hasidic sects, such as the Satmar. Voila, in seven decades Orthodox Judaism has become a pillar of the Israeli state. The fanatical Israeli “settlers” are comprised of “religious Zionists.” The Talmud is their inspiration for using violence to steal what is left of Palestine in order to build “Eretz Israel.” How did this transformation occur?
Orthodox Judaism is a religion of situation ethics. There are few beliefs that are not negotiable. What is non-negotiable is the supremacy of the Judaic people and whatever aids that supremacy. Nothing else counts. Look at Gershom Scholem, the German-Israeli scholar who helped to bring the Kabbalah into respectability and prominence in the Israeli state. Scholem and Judaic-American intellectual Hannah Arendt, the one-time girlfriend of German philosopher Martin Heidegger, had been friends in Paris before World War II. Arendt published a fair-minded book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, which infuriated Scholem. But not because she erred in her facts. He was incensed at her allegedly “heartless, downright malicious tone” regarding the Nazis’ mass murders of Judaics, and he cast aspersions on her in the pages of Encounter magazine. Arendt had transgressed, according to Scholem, because she had failed to write in deference to the supreme criterion that must be the idol of every Judaic person: “ahavath Israel” (“love for the Jews”). The truths that Arendt had written were utterly beside the point.
If it turns out that Zionism is the best vehicle in our time for advancing Judaic supremacy, then most of the gedolei (rabbinic elite) of Orthodox Judaism will continue to cooperate with it. In his novel Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens portrayed the Judaic arch-criminal Fagin donning innumerable costumes and disguises. Talmudism, Bolshevism and Zionism are the garments that Judaic megalomania dons and discards as it marches through the corridors of time.
The Saker: In a recent article for the Unz Review entitled “A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism” I posted a video of Bar-Hayim is an “Israeli Orthodox rabbi who heads the Shilo Institute (Machon Shilo), a Jerusalem-based rabbinical court and institute of Jewish education dedicated to the Torah of Israel”. Not a lightweight by any means who declared, among other things that: video time stamps indicated; see full video here:
  • (09:20) The Torah teaches that the life of a Jew is more precious than the life of a non-Jew.
  • (10:00) God (HaShem) prefers Jews to non-Jews and gives them a special status.
  • (11:00) The notion that Jews and non-Jews are equally precious to God contradicts the spirit of the Torah from beginning to end.
  • (16:40) According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) “the best of non-Jews should be killed in warfare” because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching you is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to then.
  • (25:16) Jews must assume that it is likely that any non-Jew they meet does not live by the Noahide Laws.
  • (25:33) Those who do not keep the Seven Noahide Laws (see below) are all therefore guilty of a capital offense
  • (25:49) “Avodah Zarah”, i.e. idolatry meaning Christianity was the most common offense.
  • (26:15) since you cannot bring a perishing non-Jew to court to establish his guilt, you take a neutral position by neither helping him nor killing him.
  • (1:22:00) if not saving a non-Jew makes Jews look bad, then the Jew ought to lie about his motives
  • (1:00:30) there is no requirement to return a lost object to a non-Jew
  • (1:17:40) Jews can brake the sabbath to save a Jew but not a non-Jew because Jews do not consider all lives to be equal
My first question regarding this gentleman is simple: who authoritative do you consider him and how widespread are his views amongst “Orthodox” Judaics? How close are his idea to the current mainstream of Orthodox/Hasidic “Judaism?
Hoffman: I wouldn’t know the status of this particular rabbi in the Israeli state. The situation is in turmoil at present in terms of halachic authorities because there are competing religious bodies. There is disarray even in the headquarters of the chief rabbinate. The last Ashkenazi “Chief Rabbi of Israel,” Yona Metzger, is currently serving a prison sentence for theft and bribery.
Another source of tumult is the heated controversy over the conversion to Judaism performed by Orthodox Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of the storied East Side synagogue in Manhattan, which was rejected by an Israeli rabbinic court, which invalidated the conversion of the (unnamed) woman and blocked her from marrying in an Orthodox ceremony in the Israeli state. This was a shock because it cast some doubt on another conversion performed by Lookstein— of Ivanka Trump.
Judaic unity is only possible due to an external threat like Jew hate. If there was virtually no hatred for Judaics, and Jesus’ injunction to love one’s enemies actually was practiced, there would be civil war inside the ranks of Talmudists and Zionists, which is one reason why Zionists have been caught covertly directing neo-Nazism, as for example in Canada in the 1960s and ‘70s as documented by Paul Fromm and Ron Gostick. The Stasi East German Communist secret police meanwhile, under the Judaic Markus Wolf, chief of the foreign intelligence branch, are known to have backed neo-Nazi groups in West Germany. Here in the U.S. it’s sometimes the case when Palestinians are gaining sympathy, or Israeli perfidy comes to the fore (as in the Jonathan Pollard espionage scandal), a dozen or so jerks with swastika armbands will assemble as if on cue, in some major American city, and virtually overnight the media are once again saturating America with the “Holocaust” narrative, and whatever Israeli scandal or Palestinian tribulation had managed to gain some notoriety, is lost in the agit-prop.
Returning to the candid statements attributed to this rabbi Bar Hayim — they are all accurate. Perhaps he’s been reading Judaism Discovered? He may be a renegade among rabbis, or on the other hand, he may be an astute Kabbalist engaged in a type of sophisticated psychological warfare known as the “Revelation of the Method.” It can be briefly explained as follows: at midnight on the clock of destiny in this eschaton, the goyim have been sufficiently processed and conditioned to such an extent that the criminals who have been oppressing them for centuries are now in a position to reveal to their victims what they have perpetrated against them, in the expectation that the victims are so depleted spiritually they will not respond proactively to the revelation. In the wake of the revelation if the passivity of the goyim continues, their psychological conditioning and enslavement increases exponentially.
Rabbi Bar Hayim could never divulge these truths to medieval Catholic peasants. There would be hell to pay. I suppose that if his revelations were to become better known in a country like Poland, which most closely approximates in our time a living Catholic faith among the masses at the parish level, there might yet be severe repercussions. But in Britain, Europe, Canada and the United States these truths are met with a collective shrug of apathy and paralysis, which serves to escalate the rate of our moral and psychological deterioration.
As far as how widespread are the teachings of Orthodox Judaism? I would say it depends on whether the Judaics are living in shetl-like conditions in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem, or more freely in a place like Los Angeles. To what extent has their education been at a yeshiva? The process of inculcating the Talmudic mentality is both cultural and pedagogic. I surmise that at the very least, the majority of adult males in Orthodox Judaism have a sense of their own superiority over the goyim, and will treat them unfairly when it is to their advantage and they can do so with impunity.
In the Israeli state, the one place on earth where Zionists have nearly complete power, how do the goyim fare? Would you like to be a Palestinian residing in Gaza, or even east Jerusalem for that matter? This is the fate of any subject population in any nation where Zionists or Orthodox rabbis possess something approximating total power.
The Saker: I would now like to touch upon the so-called “Noahide Laws” [listed by “Rambam” (Maimonides) as: prohibition of idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, of sexual immorality, of theft, on (eating) a limb of a living creature and the imperative of legal system] and I would focus on the first one: idolatry. Rabbi David Bar-Hayim explains that it refers to “Avodah Zarah” or “foreign worship”. Modern Judaics explain that Christianity is a “special type of avodah zarah is forbidden to Jews but permissible to gentiles, so that a non-Jew who engages in Christian worship commits no sin”.
Hoffman: Thank you for making me laugh. I’ve had a difficult day so the mirth is welcome. They want us to believe that Chazal (the supreme sages of the founding era of the Mishnah and Gemara), issued a decree stating that idolatry is forbidden to the Jews, but permissible to gentiles who worship the hated Jesus? Whoever believes that, I have a mountain here in Idaho that I will sell them at a discount.
You mentioned Moses Maimonides. He is the principal halachic authority in Ashkenazi Judaism. He wrote in his Avodat Kochavim (chapter 10): “Show no mercy to a non-Jew.” In this same volume, which comprises part of his magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides decreed: “It is a mitzvah (religious duty pleasing to God) to destroy Jewish traitors, minim and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos and their students. May the name of the wicked rot.”
The words min and minim have been explained away as denoting “idolaters, akum,” wayward heretical Judaics, and other villains. The authoritative Shulchan Aruch however, pinpoints the source of the words min and minim to rabbinic wordplay on a description ascribed to Christians, “the faithful.” To mock the Christians, the rabbis of the Talmud took to calling them “sorts” as in “all sorts of malefactors.” Min and the plural form minim are therefore primarily references to Christians, while Tzadok and Baithos are examples of apikorsim, i.e. opponents of the Talmud. Min and minim are references to both Judaic and non-Judaic Christians. There is indeed, admittedly, a more intense detestation of Judaic people who convert to Christianity, in that they may be classed in other penal categories such as rodef (“pursuer”) and moser (“informant”).
The notion that gentile Christians are exempt from being treated as idolaters under the Noahide Laws, is shown to be demonstrably false in Hilchot Avodah Zara 9:4, where Maimonides states without qualification of any kind, that Christianity constitutes avodah zara, the worship of a false god. Let the apologists for Orthodox Judaism show us where in the Mishnah and Gemara, or in Rashi, the Mishneh Torah or the Shulchan Aruch, there is a dogma that the non-Judaic worshipers of Jesus Christ are not idolaters?
One whole volume of the Babylonian Talmud is devoted to the study of Avodah zara (idol worship). This tractate starts out discussing ways to cause non-Jews “distress.” For example, three days before the “idol-worshiping festivals” of Christmas and Easter, Rabbi Yehuda teaches that repayment of debts should be demanded from the goyim because it will cause them distress during their festive season (BT Avoda Zara 2a).
There’s a long section in tractate Avodah zara going over the details pertaining to goyim and the kashrut (kosher) status of wine. If goyim have unsupervised access to wine intended for Jews, then it can no longer be considered kashrut—the supposition being that the goyim poisoned or otherwise tainted the wine. There’s a hilarious passage where certain thieves come to the town of Pumbedita and open numerous barrels of wine. The sages of the Gemara consider whether the wine is contaminated by the thieves and therefore no longer kashrut. One sage relieves their anxiety. He tells them not to worry, “The wine is permitted. What is the reason? Most of the thieves in Pumbedita are Jews” (BT Avoda Zara 70a).
The Saker: Furthermore, can you explain why in the US these rabidly anti-Christian laws have been proclaimed as the “bedrock of society from the dawn of civilizationby both President Reagan and Congress? Jews are a small minority in the USA, and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews are a minority amongst US Jews – so who is behind such weird and yet very official proclamations?! Is this the result of lobbying by the so-called “Christian Zionists”?
Hoffman: I will answer from the New Testament. “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion so that they may believe a lie, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thessalonians 2:9).
Americans have an insufficient love for vital truths and it is God Himself who permits them to be seriously deluded as a result of their indifference. The stuff that the denizens of Churchianity such as Vice-President Mike Pence believe about “Israel” (more properly termed “counterfeit Israel”), is a curse on Pence and the nation in which he is a government leader.
Mr. Pence and his fellow “evangelicals” make themselves believe that the religion whose holiest book places Jesus in hell being eternally boiled in hot excrement (BT Gittin 57A; cf. ), is the apple of God’s eye. They take pleasure in being on the side of the powerful; the truth be damned. There’s a price to pay for that level of degeneracy and it is God who imposes it. The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. The “patriotic” wars America has waged from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, have added to the grievous woes of this world. The Deep State inside the U.S. government, which we fund with our taxes and which has our nation sunk in a trillion dollars in debt, is our formidable enemy. These indicators of decline and others even worse, like the opioid and methamphetamine epidemic of addiction, are the price America pays for its indifference to truth—we prefer situation ethics—and by that yardstick, objectively we are already Talmudists.
The Saker: In your books you explain that the primary book studied by Judaics is not what Christians call the Old Testament, but the Talmud. Yet even in the Talmud there are numerous references to the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). Do you think that most rabbis sincerely believe in the “official” characterization of Christ as a “magician” and “blasphemer” who was sentenced to death for his blasphemies, or have they rejected Christ because He, from their point of view, did not fulfill what they saw as God’s promise to the Jewish people, an earthly kingdom and, instead, gave to the “nations” (goyim) the world he has promised the Jews? Could it be that in their mysticism, the rabbis deliberately reject God’s Messiah and try put themselves into His place?
Hoffman: It’s difficult to say which path is taken among the majority, but both lead to the same destination: execration of the Gospel, which is often obstructed as much by internal subversion by Talmudic and Zionist agents within the churches, as from hostile forces external to it. The capture of the papacy in the 16th century was a watershed in this regard. This profound secret is contested by those who reply, “But the popes burned the Talmud!” Like the history of the enslavement of whites in early America, our rejoinder is, to which century are you referring? The experience of whites in bondage in the 17th century resembled in many cases chattel slavery. By the early 19th century that experience was almost entirely that of indentured servitude, although the whip smarted no less when it struck Andrew Johnson, future Vice-President of the United States, for whom a reward was offered and a wanted poster issued when he ran away to Tennessee to escape his bondage in North Carolina.
In the history of the Catholic Church, if the reference is to the incineration of Talmud manuscripts in the medieval era, for example in the wake of the Paris Disputation in the 13th century, in which Nicholas Donin, an eminent Judaic convert to Christianity, debated and defeated the rabbis in the presence of the monarchs of France, on the contested subject of the Babylonian Talmud’s malice toward Christ—then truly that burning was a sincere effort to eradicate it.
In the papal 16th century however, the token burning of the Talmud authorized by the popes was almost entirely for theatrical effect. In The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome we demonstrate that it was the papacy which supported the printing (and circulation) of the finest edition of the Talmud ever published in recorded history, the magnificent Bomberg edition (1519-1523), which it is fair to say permanently rescued the Talmud from the possibility of extinction. The only book more sacred to the pontiffs of the Renaissance was the Kabbalah, and we document an instance when, as part of a clever ruse worthy of the Mossad, agents of the papacy (led by Sixtus of Siena) burned the Talmud in order to distract from a rescue operation they mounted in Cremona to save copies of the Kabbalistic Zohar that had been printed by the Catholic publisher Vincenzo Conti. Sixtus of Siena’s patron and protector was Cardinal Michele Ghisleri, who as Pope Pius V would help inspire the the forces that defeated the Turks at the naval battle of Lepanto.
At this juncture we ask an inconvenient question: which is more damaging — the invasion of Europe by the Turks—or the invasion of the minds and souls of the Catholic intellectual elite by the Kabbalah? Renaissance (and post-Renaissance) Rome’s duplicity is of a depth that is more than most people can imagine, and having an insufficient love for the truth, they cling to the legends they have imbibed rather than the harsh reality that the documentary record imparts.
For the Messiah-rejecting Judaics, it’s an axiom among paleo-conservatives that the Leo Strauss school of Neoconservatism is its own messiah. You see this messianism in their secular sphere of action. Look at the headline on p. A12 of the New York Times of February 27, 2003, just days before George W. Bush invaded Iraq: “Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region.” The Times wrote: “Israelis are now putting…hopes in an American war on Iraq…‘The shock waves emerging from post-Saddam Baghdad could have wide-ranging effects in Tehran, Damascus, and in Ramallah,’ Efraim Halevy, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s national security adviser, said in a speech in Munich this month….Until recently, Mr. Halevy was the chief of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency. He said, ‘We have hopes of greater stability, greater enhanced confidence from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic shores of Morocco.’
“Israelis have also suggested that that an Iraq war may salvage their economy…Mark Heller, a senior researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, said the potential engine for change would be the example of a transformed Iraq. ‘It’s at least conceivable that Al Jazeera will end up showing pictures of Iraqis celebrating in the streets, in which case people in other places like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to start saying, ‘If Iraqis deserve decent government, so do we.”
This is the utopian stupidity the Israelis sold to the Americans. The Zionists and Talmudists are their own messiah and they will, at any cost in human life and material treasure, seek to “perfect” the world in pursuit of their messianic utopia. Megalomaniacs don’t learn from their mistakes, even when they are catastrophic blunders. Bill Kristol will maintain his trademark smirk no matter the consequences of his own derangement.
The only post-war “celebrating in the streets” the Iraqis did was in 2008 when the intrepid journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi attended a Baghdad news conference where President Bush was speaking, touting the allegedly marvelous achievements of the U.S. invasion. Zaidi threw his shoes at Bush, shouting, “This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog. This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.” Guards tackled Zaidi. He was beaten in jail and sentenced to three years in prison (he served nine months). Zaidi’s insult to Bush made him a celebrated hero in the Arab world.
But is there more to it? Is there an occult side? Here’s the data, draw your own conclusions: the Satanic character of traditional Judaism is not particularly difficult to discern if one adheres to the facts. The principal sacred text of the Kabbalah is the openly Satanic Zohar, which states the following: “Israel must make sacrifices to Satan so that he will leave Israel unmolested” (Zohar 2:33a). Also this: “The evil impulse is good, and without the evil impulse Israel cannot prevail in the world” (Zohar 1:61a).
These are appalling statements in a sacred book revered by the most politically influential rabbinic organization in America, Chabad-Lubavitch. I wish I could say they are anti-Semitic fabrications, but they are not. I can xerox them for you, with their context intact, from the edition of the Zohar published by Stanford University. Palestinians and goyim in general have the right and duty to assess the impact of this demonic Kabbalism in light of events in the Middle East and de facto Zionist control of the White House and Congress.
At first glance, it’s a seemingly lurid, even crackpot question to pose: was the Iraq War one of the Kabbalistic sacrifices which “Israel” must make to Satan, as the Zohar counsels? In the interests of justice and the advancement of knowledge, the question should be asked, and the Zohar should be studied (in the uncensored Pritzker edition from Stanford), in pursuit of an answer. The Zionist-instigated Iraq invasion took the lives of approximately a quarter-million Iraqis and 4,000 American youth. The fact that America fought the Iraq war for so-called “Israel” is slammed as a “virulent anti-Semitic fabrication.” But we have only to read the Times of February 27, 2003 to learn that the Israelis virtually lusted for the U.S. to invade, while pushing a boatload of nonsense with which to persuade the collective American golem of the prudence of their messianic Neocon mission.
To address the other part of your question, yes, the Old Testament is the prestigious prop that Orthodox Judaism wears emblazoned upon its public escutcheon. But as Jesus declared in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, the Pharisees nullify the Word of God while adhering to their own “traditions of men.” They call it “Torah” but it is really only their anthropomorphic oral law (Torah she’beal peh), later committed to writing after their rejection of the Messiah of Israel, beginning with the Mishnah.
The only authentic Torah of Yahweh is the written Torah (Torah she’bich tav)—the Pentateuch of Moses. It’s perverse that sola Scriptura “evangelical” Protestants delude themselves into imagining that the Pharisaic Judaism that concocted two diametrically opposed Torahs, is of God. They criticize Roman Catholic and Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians for giving authority to apostolic tradition, yet they claim that God is in love with the religion that is predicated on the authority of a bogus oral “Torah,” which Jesus repeatedly refuted and chastised in His confrontations with the Pharisees.
The Saker: I want to ask your opinion about two very different movements: first, the Karaites, who say that they reject the Talmud and “Rabbinical Judaism” and of Neturei Karta which are Haredi, but who vocally oppose the state of Israel and secular Zionism. In the Russian Empire the Karaites petitioned the Czar in order not to be considered as “Jews” and that their petition was accepted. I was also recently told by a friend that Nazi Germany also did not consider Karaites as Jews. And yet, as far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, the State of Israel considers them as “Jews”. But since they reject the Talmud, would that not make them apikorsim-traitors? How would you characterize the Karaites? What about the Neturei Karta? They reject the state of Israel, yet they live there, even in Jerusalem’s Meah Shearim quarter. But they travel to anti-Zionist conferences, even to Iran, and have met with the Iranian President. How do they escape being condemned as traitors or moser-informants? How different are they, in your opinion, from the other Haredi?
Hoffman: Karaites are the Judaics that Christians imagine Orthodox Judaism to be: an Old Testament-only religion. The Karaites were contemptuous of the rabbis of the Talmud for masquerading as the avatars of the Old Testament. They were cruelly persecuted by the rabbis in turn. Karaites have sometimes served to assist Christian scholars in discovering and parsing recondite rabbinic texts. Historically they have exhibited scant devotion to Judaic racial-nationalism. In the past 20 years or so however, some Karaite groups have accommodated themselves to Zionism and to a Judaic racial identity which would have been anathema to their forefathers.
No doubt the Tsars had the good sense to differentiate between Karaites and Talmudic Orthodox Judaism. I have heard the rumor about the Nazis and until I see the documentation, I don’t believe it. Adolf Hitler was driven by a Helena Blavatsky-type of occult Jew hate, which he acquired through Dietrich Eckart and others in Eckart’s milieu. Hence, Hitler viewed Judaic people the way Orthodox rabbis view goyim: as irredeemably evil, without regard to mitigating factors such as whether or not they were Karaites. Many illustrious and sincere Judaic converts to Catholicism for instance, were nonetheless rounded up by the Nazis and died in concentration camps, among them the theologian Edith Stein and the author Irène Némirovsky (whose novel David Golder is now considered anti-Semitic). The Nazis rather mysteriously liquidated stalwart activists and publishers like the Polish priest Maximilian Kolbe, whose educational work had resulted in massive public revulsion toward Judaism and Freemasonry. Kolbe headed a Catholic publishing empire dedicated to revealing the perfidy of Talmudic rabbis and Freemasons. What was he doing interned in Auschwitz? From the information we have seen, Karaites enjoyed no special immunity from Nazi persecution or extrusion, unless there were individual acts of mercy on the part of German personnel lower down in the chain of command.
The Israeli state is replete with apikorsim and in fact was founded by them, as we have said. In “Israel” in 2018 it remains largely a matter of indifference whether one is an atheist-Judaic, a Buddhist-Judaic or a Karaite-Judaic. If you were born of a Judaic mother you have the right to take up residence under the 1950 “Law of Return.”
As for the Neturei Karta, which is a very small group relative to other anti-Zionist “ultra-Orthodox” Hasidim such as the Satmar, they achieved fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective), when they participated in the “Holocaust” revisionist conference in Iran in December, 2006 and maintained friendly and supportive relations with the revisionists who were present.
Another anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox group, the Eda Haredit community, are of interest, in part because they are offshoots of the more substantial Hasidic sects like Toldot Aharon and Satmar, and less prone to engage in publicity stunts, yet they cause headaches for the Israeli government. These groups are the heirs to the “old Yishuv” — the Talmudic community that resided relatively peacefully side by side with the Arabs in Palestine, before the conquest by Britain and the Zionists. They don’t accept Israeli government welfare payments or the National Insurance program. Most contentious of all, they despise the Israeli military and refuse to be conscripted. Eda Haredit members lynched an effigy of an Israeli soldier and hung it from a building in Jerusalem. They demonstrate in the streets against the draft and are beaten by Israeli police and soldiers. Dozens of them are in prison. They can’t obtain a passport until they reach 35-years-of-age — the age at which subjection to the draft ends. They are viciously attacked by the majority of the Hasidim who favor Zionism, such as in the pages of the influential Talmudic newspaper Yated Ne’eman.
In sum, yes, they are courageous dissidents vis a vis secular Israeli society and the mainstream of the modern Orthodox and Hasidic movements. However, if we revert back to the time before the founding of the Israeli entity, all of these groups — Neturei Karta, Satmar, Eda Haredit and their progenitors, detested Jesus, obstructed Christians, oppressed their adherents by micromanaging their lives, practiced the arts of deception and theft, and are suspected of widespread child molestation based on the halacha which permits sex with children under a certain age (for boys it is below the age of nine). The relevant Babylonian Talmud tractate shows that this permission to molest young boys is granted:
“The law is in accordance with the ruling of Rav….Rav says, ‘…the Torah does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old to be like the intercourse of one who is at least nine years old, as for a male’s act of intercourse to have the legal status of full-fledged intercourse the minimum age is nine years…if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engaged in intercourse with him is not liable” (BT Sanhedrin 54b).
This is plainly criminal and inhuman. Outside of Tantric Hinduism and the Church of Satan, we can think of no other religion which formally renders such abominable predation permissible. Consequently, in terms of the rehabilitation of their image, if they continue with their allegiance to Talmudic and post Talmudic halacha of the horrendously foul nature we find in Sanhedrin 54b, it matters not to a Christian whether a few Hasidic sects are implacably opposed to Zionism and the Israeli state. Their anti-Zionism does not absolve them of their other transgressions. They remain an offense to God and man.
The Saker: I have many secular Jewish friends, some who are somewhat aware of the kind of issues you have raised in your replies (those with at a least basic religious education), but most of them are totally oblivious to these facts. For example, they would dismiss the Hasidic rabbis and their followers as irrelevant nutcases and – correctly – point out that there are plenty of genocidal maniacs in other religions too!). In fact, many of them would very strongly suspect that those who, like you, raise these issues, of harboring strong anti-Jewish motives. There is, after all, a secular Jewish identity, at least since the 19th century, which is strongly based on the cultural aspects of “Rabbinical Judaism.”
Hoffman: On what basis can this writer be accused of “harboring strong anti-Jewish motives”? This monotonous jargon does not impress. Reckless accusations founded on nothing more than a morally superior interlocutor’s ignorant presumption that any rigorously critical study of Orthodox Judaism is hateful, does not call forth a response, other than pity. We would laugh out of consideration an Italian who came forward to announce that the articulation of harsh truths about the papacy was evidence of harboring strong anti-Italian motives. Here is the only standard that matters: res ipsa loquitur. The facts speak for themselves.
Who are these self-described “Jews” for whom the pidyon shevuyim (redemption of the captive) means nothing? What are their credentials for passing judgments on the accuracy of our research or the purity of our motives? Are they scholars? Clairvoyants?
If they “dismiss” the Hasidic rabbis as inconsequential “nutcases,” perhaps your secular Judaic friends may wish to look closer at the identity of the personnel holding many top ministerial posts in the cabinet of Binyamin Netanyahu, and influencing the United States government through the efforts of Chabad-Lubavitch and Agudath Israel of America. Maybe they will condescend to take a peek at demographic statistics showing that the strictly Orthodox are the fastest-growing Judaic population in the Israeli state and the United States.
Furthermore, throughout our conversation I have made reference to Orthodox Judaism without limiting myself to Hasidim. The “modern Orthodox” as they are known, to distinguish them from Hasidim, are heirs to the zealous Talmudism that pre-existed Hasidism (which arose in the 18th century). They number in their ranks Jared Kushner, Steven Spielberg, former Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and tens of thousands of other movers-and-shakers in government, business and media. The modern Orthodox operate Yeshiva University in New York, which includes the prestigious Cardozo School of Law, whose graduates often become elite government and corporate attorneys and staff powerful non-governmental agencies such as the ADL. “Irrelevant nutcases”?
The Saker: I always try to explain that, unlike ethnicity, religion in a choice and thus a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism and my secular Jewish friends accept that on a logical level, but on an emotional level they still feel like something dear to them is being attacked. How do you deal with that? How do we, by even raising these topics, avoid pushing our non-Haredi or, at least, non-Orthodox, Jewish friends or readers to “circle the wagons” with the hardcore Haredi? What do you think is the best strategy to completely separate issues of ethnicity/culture with specific issues of faith/religion?
Hoffman: If accurate scholarship pushes these supposedly confirmed secularists into the ranks of the religious-fanatic Hasidim (“Haredi”), then they must take the consequences of the choices they make. If our study of early modern papalism in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome were to cause a defensive over-reaction on the part of nominal Catholics, who then swore fealty to the ultramontane extremes of popery, how would anyone overcome folly like that, made by one’s own free will? There is a Yiddish proverb: “A shpigl ken oykh zayn der grester farfirer.” (“A mirror can also be the biggest deceiver”).
The Saker: thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my questions!
* * *
Historian Michael Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York Bureau of the Associated Press and the author of nine books of history and literature. These include Judaism Discovered, as well as Judaism’s Strange Gods; Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not; The Great Holocaust Trial; Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, and his latest, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. These volumes are available from Hoffman’s online store. Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History® newsletter (https://truthfulhistory), published six times a year. Website:

Achtung!  I do not share this at all, but it is interesting!

The Talmud Impaled,
Israel Shamir’s review of

Judaism Discovered by Michael Hoffman*

Published in the Culture Wars, March 2009


A Rabbi was brought a fish to determine whether it is kosher; he checked it out and ruled: “It’s kosher, but it stinks”. This piece of Jewish humour came to my mind while reading this heavy volume by Michael Hoffman. Hoffman is worried that his critical view will be considered “bigoted racist anti-Semitic hate”. I am ready to issue him a clean bill of health in this respect: he is not a bigot, nor a racist, neither is he an anti-Semite; his doctrinal view is quite orthodox and should not cause a Christian much worry. He correctly rejects racist anti-Jewish prejudice as unacceptable for Christians. He professes much love for Jews whom he would like to save. He is solidly anti-Zionist, and this is certainly a good quality. However, this is not sufficient to make a book a good, reliable and readable study.


This is a polemical work, almost a pamphlet; a critical book, dealing with beliefs of Jews (Hoffman prefers to turn an adjective “Judaic” into a noun, and writes of “hapless Judaics”, in order to avoid the loaded J-word). That's fine -- political correctness has made much of theology irrelevant by expressly forbidding negative statements about competitors. There is certainly a place for a critical study of Judaism -- for a book that will take into account previous voluminous studies and will move us forward to better understanding of this faith and its adherents. However, Hoffman’s book appears dated, despite being fresh off the press. Books such as this were written by proud Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the 19th century on, say, the faith of the Hindus or even of Catholics (“papists”, to Hoffman). This book is rather a torrent of vituperation: “heathen, heathenish, diabolic, satan-worshipping, counterfeit, delusion, obscenity, racism, superstition, deceit”. Or “the pagan Talmud consisting of abominable wickedness, prodigious filthiness and superlative vileness”.


In the time of WASP supremacy, such a style was considered de rigueur, and indeed British and American missionaries in India or Polynesia employed such language. But nowadays we are supposed to know better. Some of the best literature and art was created by “pagan heathens”, from Homer to Mahabharata. “Filthiness, vileness, obscenity” – all these complaints were brought against Boccaccio and Joyce, and they make precious little impact on us today. I am altogether for a spade being called a spade, but Hoffman turns it into a bloody shovel every time.


For this reason, Peter Myers, our Australian Catholic friend, refused to do a review of the book, writing: “The reason I do not deal with Judaism Discovered, is that Hoffman encases his argument in Protestant spin. He condemns Judaism as an anti-Biblical reversion to Babylonian paganism. That sort of language leaves me cold: Babylon, Egypt and the Indus civilization were the three centres from which our own civilization comes - by borrowing. I am constantly amazed at the Protestant efflorescence in the US. The US is in a time-warp; even some genuine scholars pitch their view of the ancient civilizations in the Bible’s hateful terms.”


Indeed, time-warp is the right word to describe this book by Hoffman: It is as if he had never read Mircea Eliade or Guenon or even The Golden Bough of Frazer; he is not aware of comparative-religion studies. If the language of faith refers to phallus, Hoffman is as shocked as a schoolgirl. “Vagina” knocks him off completely. Sexual union should not be mentioned at all, in his view. The word “heathen” is used throughout his book as a label of moral deprivation and degradation. A comparison with Buddhism and Hinduism (in the case of esoteric belief in reincarnation) should seal the doom of Judaism, in Hoffman’s eyes. I doubt that this book can be read outside of the Bible Belt, where such language and attitudes are still considered valid.


This time-warp is an American, or Anglo-American phenomenon. Hoffman refers (with a touch of envy) to a multitude of anti-Muslim books with lurid titles like “Dark Side of Islam” or “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” or “Islam’s War against the World”. Indeed every criticism of Hoffman’s book is equally (or even more) valid with regard to these anti-Muslim diatribes. I feel much sympathy for Michael Hoffman when he exclaims: Do with Judaism what they did with Islam and your name will be blotted out. This is true: Muslim-baiting is permitted, but Jews may be referred to only in hushed voices of adoration. For this reason I do think that Hoffman’s book has some positive value as a counterbalance to Jewish attacks on Islam and Christianity. It may teach some Jews modesty, and that is also a worthy goal. Ideologically, I may approve of some of this book’s pugnacious attitude, or of Hoffman’s wish to bring the light of Christ to Jews. However, that does not make it a good, or even readable book.


The book is poorly edited: the spelling is not uniform; on the same line, one finds chacham and khokhem (sage); Ashkenazi and Sephardi pronunciations are alternated confusingly. Both are valid, but one has to choose. There are many inserts with different type-faces whose provenance is not made clear to the reader. It is full of various cuttings and quotes from newspapers and internet-sites, not harmonised or organised properly. Some pages are left blank – the printers did a poor job. A professional editor, publisher and book-designer could improve this amateur product to a great extent -- maybe even make it readable.


The prude Hoffman is horrified by many rules of the Talmud which prescribe certain behavior in the bathroom and bedroom. He takes it too personally, Hoffman does. It could be an entertaining tidbit – whether the rabbis thought one should strain oneself in a toilet, or compared the colour of menstrual blood in to that of squashed lice, or whether one may fornicate in the presence of mice and cats (alas, he missed this one). One may be fascinated by or disregard such sixth century trivia, written fourteen hundred years ago in Iraq, but Hoffman is as upset as though it had been written by his employees during working hours instead of their preparing the annual report.


He reports at length the Jewish customs of niddah, menstruation impurity, and appears to be shocked. I am sure that any modern book of advices to menstruating women could be made shocking, but these are instructions for internal use.


Hoffman is so devoid of a sense of humour that it pains the reader. He quotes entertaining items of Jewish folklore – that Nebuchadnezzar’s prick extended one hundred fifty yards long at seeing the last Judean king, while that of Ahasuerus extended six yards when he saw Esther. For me, it recalls Mae West with her immortal “Is that a pistol in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?” But Hoffman goes into hysterics and condemns “the Talmud’s insanely filthy prurience”.


Jewish fairy tales about Metatron, the mega-size cobbler angel who joins the worlds together, do not fascinate him, but are described as “unconscionable hyperbole and incessant lying”. I wonder whether he ever read Jack and the Beanstalk as a child -- or did he reject the nursery tales as “incessant lying”? For if he had read it, he’d have found a lot of similarities: the beanstalk extends even longer than Nebuchadnezzar’s cock, and the ogre senses the human smell of Jack as far away as Metatron smells Enoch.


More annoying are his provincial-lawyer diatribes; he is a Little Rock attorney of sorts, who hurls accusations while not bothering about their consistency. He jumps to baseless conclusions, too fast and too often. For instance, he quotes the Talmud’s R. Johanan: “a gentile who studies the Law deserves the death penalty” and he jumps to a strange conclusion: “Jesus Christ … had no right to study the Law and He paid for His study with His life” But Jesus was not a gentile; he was a rightful descendent of King David and of other great kings. He was certainly entitled to study the Law, even if we believe that this ban was in existence in the days of Christ.


Hoffman notices the Talmudic passion for casuist tricks and dissembling with its “escape clauses”. He brings a few entertaining examples of how rabbis manage to go against a direct commandment by subterfuge. Thus, in order to justify bribing of a judge it is enough to claim that there is reason to believe that a judge is looking to deal harshly with a Jewish defendant; so the purpose of the bribe is to level the playing field; or in order to achieve leniency rather than a corrupt verdict.


This is an interesting subject, and one could add a lot to Hoffman’s narrative here. For instance, the Bible postulates that debts should be voided every seventh year. The Talmud turned it into a right of the debtor, who is entitled to refuse to pay the debt, but may still pay it. In other words, after the seventh year, any debt becomes like a debt of honour, i.e. non-enforceable. At that stage, the Talmud allowed creditor to tie up the debtor and keep him tied up until he “voluntarily” paid the voided debt.


This device is also used by rabbinic courts in order to force a man to grant divorce to his wife, as a woman may not divorce her man according to Jewish law: only a man may divorce his wife by an act of free will. So the court orders the arrest and imprisonment of the man until he says “I wish to divorce her.”


Perversion of God’s word? Sure, but such casuistry is hardly the monopoly of Jews. In Homer’s Odyssey we learn that Hermes taught Autolykos, Ulysses’ maternal grandfather, to “cajole any man alive on his bodily oath”. “Autolykos was the noble father of Odysseus’ own mother, and excelled all mankind in thieving and subtlety of oaths, having won this mastery from the god Hermes himself (Homer, Odyssey 19.396) Jews are Mercurial, as Slezkine has said, and so naturally they are able to perform this trickery.


In the Palestinian village of Taybe, I heard a story about a subtle oath which would bring delight to the heart of any Mercurian: There were a few Bedouin from the South who came to live next to Taybe and they claimed that they had a rightful title to the land. They were asked to swear in the name of Allah and the Prophet that it was so, and they swore that they were standing on their own land. It was said by their adversaries that they had brought a sackful of their own land from the South, poured it into their boots and so “stood” on it while swearing.


Far away from the Semitic Mediterranean, another famous example of an ambiguous oath can be found in Tristan and Isolde. Isolde took a ride on Tristan’s shoulders so she’d be able to swear that no other man ever was between her thighs. It is pity that Hoffman could not offer some comparable features from other cultures: this would undermine his list of charges, but it would enhance the reader’s pleasure.


Hoffman’s understanding of Jewish laws pertaining to sexual intercourse is obscured by his desire to convict. He claims that Judaism “institutionalizes child molestation” and quotes profusely to make his point. However, the quotations he adduces fail to do the job he wants. They actually refer to definitions. In general, Hebrew law considers sexual relations as relations between two mature persons. A boy is considered mature at age of nine; so if an eight-year old boy “has sex” with a woman; it is not considered “sexual relations”. Subsequently, the woman is not forced to marry the eight-year-old, she is not jailed, he is not killed, and her marriage prospects are not diminished – though probably she would be greatly disapproved of in a traditional society.


This seems strange to a modern American reader, but so are other foreign customs. For instance, I find it strange that the American law would consider Romeo and Juliette’s union an act of [statutory] rape. One could get into explaining the reasons for this or the other attitude, but that would be beyond scope of this review.


Sodomy in Jewish law is an act of two consenting males who understand what they are doing. Judaism is quite strict regarding sodomy and the preferred cure for it is death penalty. However, this Jewish-law-sodomy rap does not cover other behavior which may be considered sodomy or child molestation or statutory rape in American law. Child molestation which is not sodomy is considered in some cases “seed waste” akin to masturbation and may bear the death penalty.


Moreover, Hoffman quotes a text stressing the extreme prudery of Judaism: it is better to cut off one’s hand than let it touch penis. So he is aware of a Judaist anti-erotic tendency, though he does not understand that this causes sublimation, or eroticization of religious feelings, which shocks him so much. And still, Hoffman claims that this difference in definitions amounts to “institutionalization of child molestation”! This is too unfair even for a Wild West sheriff!


Hoffman tries to pervert the meaning of R. Ilai’s dictum. “R. Ilai said, If one is sorely tempted, let him go away where he is not known; let him put on sordid clothes, don a sordid wrap and do the sordid deed that his heart desires rather than profane the name of Heaven openly.” The text is quite clear: an anti-erotic, Puritan but worldly rabbi understands that an unmarried man may be tempted to have sex with a prostitute; so he sends him to do it elsewhere and in sordid clothes, rather than proudly parade his tendency. This attitude is very foreign to the culture of “gay pride” parades; a modern man would demand the legalization of brothels and issue every whore with an official receipt book. De Maupassant characters would not understand the problem. But in a traditional society, some things were felt best left in the obscuring darkness.


Hoffman mistranslates the temptation of the flesh as the “desire to do evil”, so the worldly advice “go get laid somewhere else, lad” gets a sinister connotation. R. Ilai does not send the student to kill, rob, commit adultery, or whatever, just to have some illicit sex without attracting attention and bringing disrepute to his position. His advice still holds good today – for a Louisiana senator Vitter or a New York Governor Spitzer.


Hoffman does not understand the idea of seclusion, either. The Jewish law forbids a man and woman to be secluded, even to use an elevator together. It is, however, permitted for a man to be secluded with a little girl (below age of three), for obvious reasons – she may need attention, the man may be her father or brother, and she can’t be considered a sex object. A woman indeed may be secluded with a boy below nine years old – she may be his wet nurse, or au pair, or kitchen help, or a female relative. In the dirty mind of Hoffman this reasonable rule means “permission to have sexual intercourse with babies”. Nothing of the sort is intended. Without this exception, rearing of children would be just too difficult.


Likewise, Hoffman quotes with great élan these words: “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye”. This quote is out of context: If one takes time and reads the full text of Kethuboth 11, one understands that this text deals with a specific question: what is the status of a woman who was molested while she was less than three years old. Is she considered a virgin? Is she entitled to full payment in case of subsequent divorce? May she marry a priest? The Jewish law correctly rules that a girl molested at such a young age is considered a virgin, is entitled to full compensation, and may marry a priest. This molestation is of no importance regarding her status, “as if one puts the finger into the eye”. This text does not deal with the question of what should be done to the molester, only what should be done with the victim in a society which puts a high value on virginity.


His dedicated drive to convict Judaism of all possible depravities drives him overboard as he claims that circumcision is the “homosexual molestation of infants”, while sucking off blood during the operation is “fellatio”. One may disapprove of this custom (which is actually widely spread and is practiced by Muslims and by Christian Ethiopians as well), but no fair and sane man would agree with Hoffman’s molestation charge.


A comparison of Judaic practices towards children with other systems would also put things into context: for instance, in Roman law, father has right to kill his children for any reason whatsoever. Nothing would stop a Roman gentleman from taking his pleasure with a male or female of any age. And Roman law (in Justinian’s codification) is contemporaneous with the Talmud. In the Greece of Socrates, there were no taboos on homosexual relations. And the West is the spiritual progeny of Greece and Rome.


Hoffman is on a safer ground when he speaks of the Judaic attitude towards gentiles. This subject is well-researched, and on the Web one can find a few monographs in English, French and Hebrew dealing with it. Indeed, Jewish law is quite awful to a goy and hardly considers him/her a human being. Hoffman is also right when he connects this law with today’s Gaza siege, surely a crime against humanity. However, here a comparison would also be suitable: The ancestors of Hoffman killed off millions of Native Americans without Jewish advice, while the British eliminated Tasmanians and killed millions of Indians, Africans and whoever else came their way. Is it better to be a Palestinian native under Jewish rule, or a Tasmanian native under British Protestant rule, or even a Patagonian native under Spanish Catholic rule? Alas, there are no Tasmanians or Patagonians left to ask.


This is not said in order to encourage the Jews to emulate the Tasmanian example, or to make them feel complacent. God knows, Jews are complacent enough. But the reader is entitled to understand and learn things; not only to be fed propaganda.


Hoffman’s intentions are good, but his knowledge is limited. He attempts to refute R. Shmuley Boteach’s apologetic article in Jerusalem Post (he quotes it in full -- all three pages of the newspaper text) about whether a Jew should rescue a gentile on the Sabbath. Israel Shahak wrote in his book that there is a rabbinic prohibition of such rescue if Sabbath observance will be broken in the process. Shahak wrote of an observant Jew who would not allow him to use his phone to call for an ambulance for a sick non-Jew. Boteach, a slick and tricky media-rabbi, denied it on many occasions and called Shahak a liar. Hoffman says that Christians (and not only “a pagan defiler of faith”, not only “Romans with their vicious persecutions”, as argued by the Talmidic apologist) are not considered equal to Jews. This is true; but it does not answer the question.


This is not to say that Hoffman’s research is completely valueless. He neatly unravels the question of the death penalty for a gentile who studies the Law according to R. Johanan, contradicted with praise of the gentile who studies the Law according to R. Meir and correctly quotes the harmonizing rule: a gentile is praiseworthy if he studies the Noahide laws and he is liable if he crosses the line. But this small and entertaining observation is diluted by so many abusive epithets: “intellectually dishonest nonsense”, “decoy”, “apologists”.


Hoffman correctly argues against “hate laws”, against submission of the Church to Jewish wishes. He is right when he preaches against the anti-gentile propaganda of eternal gentile hatred towards Jews. Indeed, I agree with Hoffman that this notorious hatred, so-called “antisemitism” is but an invention created by Jewish leaders in order to keep their subjects obedient. “The Rabbis repeat to generations of Judaic children that the world hates them and that true Christians seek to silence and murder them. This brilliant rabbinic ploy” should be countered, Hoffman says. He objects to persecution of Jews, as such violent persecution like that by Hitler reinforces this ploy.


His treatment of mention of Christ in the Talmud is quite reasonable, though not new. Indeed, Talmud – and other Judaic books – contain anti-Christian passages, and this is universally known. Hoffman’s polemics with certain Catholic and Anglican churchmen who apologize for the Talmud is expectedly robust and justified.


Hoffman’s book is not a pleasant or easy read, but it is not without its rewards. Today, in the aftermath of financial collapse, it is interesting to learn that the architect of the collapse Alan Greenspan swore his oath of Federal office on a Talmud in front of Ayn Rand, the Satanist. There is the interesting story of the late William F. Buckley, his creation of a “kosher conservative movement” and his rejection of Zionist-critic Joe Sobran, taken from the Wanderer newspaper of St Paul, Minnesota. Hoffman tells of book-burning by the Jewish authorities, including the Mendelssohn translation of the Bible into German, and the satiric books by Jewish heretic writers as late as 19th century, and of other Jewish ‘disrespectful’ books in 2002.


It's a pity Hoffman can’t write politely. Mark Twain in his " Tennessee Journalism"  provided an example of the style of writing Hoffman seems to have chosen to follow: "While he was writing the first word, the middle, dotting his i's, crossing his t's, and punching his period, he knew he was concocting a sentence that was saturated with infamy and reeking with falsehood."


For instance, it is well known that Renaissance scholars believed in the wisdom of Hermes Trismegistus with its alleged Old Egyptian sources. Giordano Bruno belonged to this category. Hoffman writes that “Bruno parrots the tale… while this lie was twisted” etc. Mark Twain’s characters admittedly were even ruder, but they rarely were rude to a man who was burned at stake 500 years ago.


P.S. After this review was published, Hoffman published a hysterical and voluminous response (available on his website), and Shamir wrote the following rejoinder:


Sine Ira


 There are a few ways to deal with new books. One of them is to ask a knowledgeable person to review it. Such a review is not supposed to be the last judgment, but a part of the discourse. I offered the Culture Wars’ readers my view of Mr Hoffman's book. I am not a judge, not even a publisher. Everyone may write his own review of the book, favourable or not. I do object to what appears to me an attempt of intimidation, transparent in Hoffman's, and Hoffman’s fans’ letters.

I was in a difficult position while writing the review. I have had much sympathy to Hoffman's endeavour, vis. to delve into the Talmud and show it to the reader. I liked the idea of the job being done by a non-Jew. Hoffman is a staunch supporter of Palestinians, so I was biased in his favour. But I also felt responsible towards the Culture Wars’ readers. One is warned against misleading, and that is why I told readers what I actually think about Hoffman's book, warts and all.

Moreover, the commandment "Rebuke your neighbour frankly so you will not share in his guilt" (Lev 19:17), stands next to "Love your neighbour". Sages love criticism for as long as there is criticism in the world, pleasantness comes to the world, good and blessing come to the world, and evil is removed from the world (Tamid 28A).

I was as soft and as polite as I could. I hoped he would be able to learn from my critique. But Hoffman is not a wise man for it is said: Rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. (Proverbs 9:8) Mr Hoffman is an ignoramus. He does not know what he writes about. I'll provide you with one example. Hoffman writes, in his polite way (p.8):

"But Mr. Shamir is lying. This account of Nebuchadnezzar is not found in Judaic folklore…This account of Nebuchadnezzar is not from the Aggadah, the book of rabbinic folklore, but rather from the Talmud itself, the source of rabbinic law."

This sentence implies that there is "the Aggadah, the book of rabbinic folklore", on one hand, and "the Talmud itself, the source of rabbinic law", on the other hand. Now, it is rubbish. The Aggadah is not a separate book but a layer of Talmud, a part and parcel of Talmudic text. The man who does not know that should not write books about the Talmud. He should go and study first.

He does not know what "the Hebrew Law" is - he thinks it means the law written in Hebrew. Actually it is a standard subject name, Mishpat Ivri, see any encyclopaedia.

He has no Hebrew or Aramaic. He can "photographically reproduce", but he can't read, otherwise he would know there is no "unwittingly" in Sanhedrin 54b. (In the text he reproduces it is a translator’s gloss).

He claims he provided "original information on the rabbinic root of anti-Black racism, the bigotry, dissimulation, homicide and anti-Christian and anti-Islamic hatred of Judaism’s intellectual giant Rabbi Moses Maimonides", but it was well provided by Dr Shahak years ago in his slim book.

Moreover, an Israeli site  contains practically everything Hoffman gathered minus his vituperation.

One can continue this list ad infinitum, but I hope it will suffice.

However, we live in relatively free countries, and one may have different views even about Hoffman.



I was in a quandary while reviewing Hoffman’s book. Hoffman is a staunch supporter of Palestinians, so I was biased in his favour. But my first duty was towards the Truth - and towards the Culture Wars’ readers. One is warned against misleading, and that is why I told readers what I actually think about Hoffman’s book, namely - it is not an antisemitic book, but this is its main virtue. Indeed his book did not deserve a review at all, and had none until I injudiciously stepped on this mine.

It is said (Proverbs 9:8): Rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Rebuke not a fool, lest he will hate thee. Hoffman’s hateful response confirmed the proverb. He stressed many times that I am a Jew by birth, probably a trump argument in his circles. In addition, a fiery SSPX Catholic, an Edgar Suter, MD stepped forth as Hoffman’s champion.

Edgar Suter says that Hoffman’s book «reveals to English readers much that has been previously unknown to us». Suter should rather say that it was previously unknown to HIM, for Hoffman’s book consists of
(a) things well known and published by many writers before him, or of
(b) things which are unknown because false.
Among revelations Suter found in Hoffman’s book, is «that Judaism is not an extension of the religion of Moses». Bravo! Probably his medicine studies do not cover it but this discovery has been made one thousand years before Hoffman, as one could read in Michael Jones’s recent book Revolutionary Jewish Spirit, or indeed in Hyam Maccoby’s Judaism on Trial: Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages.
This discovery had led to the disputations, and in the course of the disputations, all Talmudic references to Jesus Christ were made open and known. Hoffman claims he made it known: what rot! It is not that Hoffman discovered what the Talmud says about Christ, but it was done centuries ago, and repeated hundreds of times.
Hoffman claimed he provided «original information on the rabbinic root of anti-Black racism, the bigotry, dissimulation, homicide and anti-Christian and anti-Islamic hatred of Judaism’s intellectual giant Rabbi Moses Maimonides», but it was well provided by Dr Shahak years ago in his slim
Moreover, an Israeli site [2] contains practically everything Hoffman gathered minus his vituperation.
Is it true that Judaism embraces the doctrine of reincarnation? If it were so, why would the Jews spend so much effort on keeping dead bodies intact and separated from gentiles’ dead? Why would they pay heaps of money for a burial place on the Mount of Olives? Jews believe in bodily resurrection; this is a part of Jewish credo as outlined by Maimonides. The concept of resurrection is totally opposed to that of reincarnation.
 *Is it true that Judaism embraces the cult of Goddess? Not more than it can be said about the Christians. Indeed this claim was often utilised by Protestants against the Catholic Church.
One can go on and on, but it would be useless. Arguments can be useful if the other side is an honest man of knowledge and understanding. This is not the case. Hoffman is unsuited to argue about religion, any religion. Religion is the highest form of human spiritual activity, while Hoffman’s arguments are sordid.
If Hoffman were to produce Christianity Discovered Dr Suter would learn that Catholics devour flesh and blood, and are proud of it (they call it Communion), and worship a Goddess (they call her Mary).
It is possible to call high figures of Jewish folklore (given in the Talmud) a «lie» as Hoffman and Suter do, but then, why they do not describe as a ‘lie’ the long age of Methuselah or Jonah swallowed by a big fish or partition of the Red Sea (given in the Bible)?
Let us fathom together the depth of Hoffman’s ignorance.
(a) SHAMIR WROTE: Hoffman is so devoid of a sense of humour that it pains the reader. He quotes entertaining items of Jewish folklore - that Nebuchadnezzar’s prick extended one hundred fifty yards long at seeing the last Judean king. For me, it recalls Mae West with her immortal «Is that a pistol in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?» But Hoffman goes into hysterics and condemns «the Talmud’s insanely filthy prurience».
(b) HOFFMAN REPLIED: «But Mr. Shamir is lying. This account of Nebuchadnezzar is not found in Judaic folklore…This account of Nebuchadnezzar is not from the Aggadah, the book of rabbinic folklore, but rather from the Talmud itself, the source of rabbinic law.»
(c) SHAMIR WROTE: Hoffman implies that there is «the Aggadah, the book of rabbinic folklore», on one hand, and «the Talmud itself, the source of rabbinic law», on the other hand. Now, it is rubbish. The Aggadah is not a separate book but a layer of Talmud, a part and parcel of Talmudic text. The man who does not know that should not write books about the Talmud. He should go and study first.
(d) HOFFMAN REPLIED: This is simply not true. It’s a lie and an obtuse one at that. The Mishnah and Gemara (Talmud) are never published together with the Aggadah. _They are separate books_. The Aggadah may contain portions of the non-legal writings of the Gemara, together with all sorts of legends from other sources such as the Midrash, but to claim that the Aggadah_ is_ the Talmud is beneath contempt.
(e) Shamir said: Hoffman’s problem is not only with the Talmud, but with Aristotle as well. I say: Aggadah IS A PART OF the Talmud; he thinks it means Aggadah IS THE Talmud.

Now, anyone can check who is right: Hoffman or Shamir. Hoffman says that «The Mishnah and Gemara (Talmud) are never published together with the Aggadah.» Shamir says absolutely opposite: Aggadah is a part and parcel of Gemara, and thus is published. Talmud is not identical with Gemara; but consists of Gemara and Mishna.
Dr Med Suter will probably understand the following comparison: Shamir says that muscles are part and parcel of human body. His opponent says that muscles are never found in a human body but exist separately. Now would he be interested to read a book on medicine written by this man? We do not speak about slight misunderstanding. This is not a passing mistake. Hoffman thrice insisted on his foolishness.
To conclude, I consider Hoffman a humbug, and heartily regret on wasting so much time and effort on his nonsense while providing free publicity to his ignorant screed.

Independent History and Research, 2008

1102 pages, ISBN 978-0-9703784-5-3, no price stated

Review by Israel Shamir

How poor people survive in the USA | DW Documentary

"Over 40 million people in the United States live below the poverty line, twice as many as it was fifty years ago."
 Homelessness, hunger and shame: poverty is rampant in the richest country in the world. Over 40 million people in the United States live below the poverty line, twice as many as it was fifty years ago. It can happen very quickly. Many people in the United States fall through the social safety net. In the structurally weak mining region of the Appalachians, it has become almost normal for people to go shopping with food stamps. And those who lose their home often have no choice but to live in a car. There are so many homeless people in Los Angeles that relief organizations have started to build small wooden huts to provide them with a roof over their heads. The number of homeless children has also risen dramatically, reaching 1.5 million, three times more than during the Great Depression the 1930s. A documentary about the fate of the poor in the United States today. We closed the commentary section because of too many inapproriate comments. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DW Documentary gives you knowledge beyond the headlines. Watch high-class documentaries from German broadcasters and international production companies. Meet intriguing people, travel to distant lands, get a look behind the complexities of daily life and build a deeper understanding of current affairs and global events. Subscribe and explore the world around you with DW Documentary. Subscribe to DW Documentary: Our other YouTube channels: DW Documental (Spanish): DW Documentary وثائقية دي دبليو: (Arabic): For more documentaries visit also: DW netiquette policy:
1.06M subscribers
Homelessness, hunger and shame: poverty is rampant in the richest country in the world. Over 40 million people in the United States live below the poverty line, twice as many as it was fifty years ago. It can happen very quickly. Many people in the United States fall through the social safety net. In the structurally weak mining region of the Appalachians, it has become almost normal for people to go shopping with food stamps. And those who lose their home often have no choice but to live in a car. There are so many homeless people in Los Angeles that relief organizations have started to build small wooden huts to provide them with a roof over their heads. The number of homeless children has also risen dramatically, reaching 1.5 million, three times more than during the Great Depression the 1930s. A documentary about the fate of the poor in the United States today. We closed the commentary section because of too many inapproriate comments. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DW Documentary gives you knowledge beyond the headlines. Watch high-class documentaries from German broadcasters and international production companies. Meet intriguing people, travel to distant lands, get a look behind the complexities of daily life and build a deeper understanding of current affairs and global events. Subscribe and explore the world around you with DW Documentary. Subscribe to DW Documentary: Our other YouTube channels: DW Documental (Spanish): DW Documentary وثائقية دي دبليو: (Arabic): For more documentaries visit also: DW netiquette policy: