Friday, February 20, 2015

My debate with Netanyahu

On Feb 19, 2015, at 8:11, Stan<> wrote:

Hello Michael,

Was it Bibi or Paul Wolfowitz that you commented about once as wearing mis-matching socks and exhibiting some other traits of poor grooming?  Bibi is just a schmuck from Philadelphia, right?

Dear Stan

I “debated" Netanyahu for about ten minutes during a lengthy question-and-answer (after sitting in the seat directly behind him while he was being introduced), at Albright Auditorium in New York, on the campus of Hobart & William Smith Colleges, January 20, 1994. 

He’s not a schmuck, but he is a ham actor who has credibility like the Wizard of Oz, from behind a screen; in his case a media screen. I had no trouble with him when I confronted him about his Likud party’s record of anti-Arab terror. The audience, which he had just a few minutes before in the palm of his hand, sat in stunned silence as I tore into him. I was able to do real damage over his ignorant claim that Americans had difficulty understanding the Israeli experience because we had never had an enemy on our border. I reminded him of a little something known as the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. I had a lot of fun with him. 

He’s the type of dictator the Israeli people and the US media rally around; that is his attraction, as a strongman of the Stalinist type.

One more point: I was a well known anti-Zionist in 1994, yet I could sit directly behind him, where I observed his polyester suit, the dandruff on his collar, etc. There were no metal detectors at the door of the auditorium. He arrived with only one personal bodyguard and there were two local rent-a-cops hired for the occasion. 

This was at a time when Zionist Steve Emerson (who continues to remain an “authority on terrorism” according to the media), was traveling the country and the TV and radio airwaves, declaring there was a deadly Islamic terror network operating inside the US. Obviously, Netanyahu knew better.

Michael Hoffman

Monday, February 09, 2015

Don’t Arm Ukraine

By Prof. John J. Mearsheimer  University of Chicago  
Feb. 8, 2015 

The Ukraine crisis is almost a year old and Russia is winning. The separatists in eastern Ukraine are gaining ground and Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, shows no signs of backing down in the face of Western economic sanctions.

Unsurprisingly, a growing chorus of voices in the United States is calling for arming Ukraine. A recent report from three leading American think tanks endorses sending Kiev advanced weaponry, and the White House’s nominee for secretary of defense, Ashton B. Carter, said last week to the Senate armed services committee, “I very much incline in that direction.” 

They are wrong. Going down that road would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest. 

There is no question that Ukraine’s military is badly outgunned by the separatists, who have Russian troops and weapons on their side. Because the balance of power decisively favors Moscow, Washington would have to send large amounts of equipment for Ukraine’s army to have a fighting chance. 

But the conflict will not end there. Russia would counter-escalate, taking away any temporary benefit Kiev might get from American arms. The authors of the think tank study concede this, noting that “even with enormous support from the West, the Ukrainian Army will not be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military.” In short, the United States cannot win an arms race with Russia over Ukraine and thereby ensure Russia’s defeat on the battlefield.

Proponents of arming Ukraine have a second line of argument. The key to success, they maintain, is not to defeat Russia militarily, but to raise the costs of fighting to the point where Mr. Putin will cave. The pain will supposedly compel Moscow to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and allow it to join the European Union and NATO and become an ally of the West.

This coercive strategy is also unlikely to work, no matter how much punishment the West inflicts. What advocates of arming Ukraine fail to understand is that Russian leaders believe their country’s core strategic interests are at stake in Ukraine; they are unlikely to give ground, even if it means absorbing huge costs.
Great powers react harshly when distant rivals project military power into their neighborhood, much less attempt to make a country on their border an ally. This is why the United States has the Monroe Doctrine, and today no American leader would ever tolerate Canada or Mexico joining a military alliance headed by another great power. 

Russia is no exception in this regard. Thus Mr. Putin has not budged in the face of sanctions and is unlikely to make meaningful concessions if the costs of the fighting in Ukraine increase.

Upping the ante in Ukraine also risks unwanted escalation. Not only would the fighting in eastern Ukraine be sure to intensify, but it could also spread to other areas. The consequences for Ukraine, which already faces profound economic and social problems, would be disastrous. 

The possibility that Mr. Putin might end up making nuclear threats may seem remote, but if the goal of arming Ukraine is to drive up the costs of Russian interference and eventually put Moscow in an acute situation, it cannot be ruled out. If Western pressure succeeded and Mr. Putin felt desperate, he would have a powerful incentive to try to rescue the situation by rattling the nuclear saber.

Our understanding of the mechanisms of escalation in crises and war is limited at best, although we know the risks are considerable. Pushing a nuclear-armed Russia into a corner would be playing with fire. 
Advocates of arming Ukraine recognize the escalation problem, which is why they stress giving Kiev “defensive,” not “offensive,” weapons. Unfortunately, there is no useful distinction between these categories: All weapons can be used for attacking and defending. The West can be sure, though, that Moscow will not see those American weapons as “defensive,” given that Washington is determined to reverse the status quo in eastern Ukraine.

The only way to solve the Ukraine crisis is diplomatically, not militarily. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, seems to recognize that fact, as she has said Germany will not ship arms to Kiev. Her problem, however, is that she does not know how to bring the crisis to an end. 

She and other European leaders still labor under the delusion that Ukraine can be pulled out of Russia’s orbit and incorporated into the West, and that Russian leaders must accept that outcome. They will not. To save Ukraine and eventually restore a working relationship with Moscow, the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. It should look like Austria during the Cold War. Toward that end, the West should explicitly take European Union and NATO expansion off the table, and emphasize that its goal is a nonaligned Ukraine that does not threaten Russia. The United States and its allies should also work with Mr. Putin to rescue Ukraine’s economy, a goal that is clearly in everyone’s interest.

It is essential that Russia help end the fighting in eastern Ukraine and that Kiev regain control over that region. Still, the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk should be given substantial autonomy, and protection for Russian language rights should be a top priority. Crimea, a casualty of the West’s attempt to march NATO and the European Union up to Russia’s doorstep, is surely lost for good. It is time to end that imprudent policy before more damage is done — to Ukraine and to relations between Russia and the West.

=End quoteEditor’s Note: The New York Times chose not to publish this essay in its US newspaper. It appears only on the Times' website (, and in print in the February 9, 2015 overseas edition of the paper, The International New York Times.


Back in print for the first time in 5 years. Now in a more affordable, paperback edition! 

Judaism Discovered 
A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit

Deconstructing the rabbinic texts line by line, Michael Hoffman has discovered a terra incognita: Orthodox Judaism as the ideological survival of the most ossified traditions of Babylonian paganism, concealed beneath a complex system of dissimulation and misdirection. His unsparing thesis is a radical challenge to Judaism’s claims to Biblical provenance and probity. 

Partial list of subjects: Principal Sources of the Divine Law of Judaism; Deceit Mechanisms and Defense Mechanisms; No “Judeo-Christian” Tradition; Judaism’s Hermeneutic of Concealment; Power Over the Court System; the Tarnish on Hillel’s Golden Rule; Permissible Lying and Deceit; From Kabbalah to Aggadah: A Sexual Progression; Hasidic Paganism; Gentiles are not to be trusted; Talmud and Women; Jesus in the Talmud; Child Molestation; Halachos of Manslaughter; Maimonides: Rabbinic Worker of Iniquity; Maimonides and Islam; the Noahide Hoax; Anti-Black Racism; ‘Sin Chicken’; Cursing the homes and graves of gentiles and Christians; Images and Talismans; Circumcision; Abortion; Ritual Murder; the Talmud and Kabbalah in Protestantism and Catholicism; Judaism’s Homo-Erotic Culture; the “Menstrual Science” of the Rabbis; Judaism and Kabbalah: An Inseparable Unity; Purim; the Golem; Converts and Conversions; the Kosher Food Racket; the Kol Nidrei Nullification of Vows; Critics, Criticism and Apologetics; and more. This textbook-like volume offers a graduate course in the advanced study of Judaism! 

“Judaism is not a normal adversary, it is an exceptional recrudescence of the guile and cunning synthesized from the accumulated intelligence of the eternal pagan psychodrama on which it is based....One of the most refractory intellectual and practical difficulties that scholars of integrity face is deciding how to apply to Judaism the same critical scrutiny to which Christianity and Islam are subjected, without being defamed as a ‘hater.” —Michael Hoffman 

“Hoffman brings to this difficult task...a commitment to long years of personal study and research that will commend this work to all serious readers...I have found his scholarship to be a highly accurate reflection of both the spirit and the content of Talmudic writings...” —Robert Countess, PhD. Emeritus Professor of New Testament, Tennessee State University 

“Judaism Discovered is a mine of information about Talmudic Judaism. I am astonished by the quality and the abundance of your documentation. Your many quotations from the Talmud and rabbis constitute indisputable argumentation concerning the anti-Christian enterprise of Judaism, and also the compromises of the governments and the Catholic Church with Judaism...I wish success for your book...” —Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Econe, Switzerland

Massive (7 x 10) Softcover. 1102 pages. 1 map. 164 illustrations. 1194 notes. Indexed for easy reference.

Send me ____ copies of Judaism Discovered @ $49.95 each plus shipping. U.S. residents: be sure to add shipping: $3.50 for the first book and $1.00 shipping for each additional copy. Idaho residents: add 6% tax. Shipped by US Postal Media Mail. Please allow up to four weeks for delivery

To: Canada US$99 postpaid. Overseas: US$125 postpaid. Pay in US funds from a US bank.
Mail to: Independent History and Research • Box 849 • Coeur d’Alene • Idaho 83816 USA

Or Order Online

Friday, February 06, 2015

Rabbi reveals fellatio in circumcision

Another Revelation from the Cryptocracy
By Michael Hoffman

As noted many times in this column, we’re in the "Revelation of the Method" era, where the Cryptocracy will, on occasion, openly confess how evil they truly are, and instead of doing something practical and significant after having received the revelation, we’re merely thrilled by it; that’s our usual response. The revelation becomes little more than grist for the “Can-you-top-this?” Internet sensation of the moment.  As soon as we’ve digested the shocking revelation, we’re insatiably hungry for more. Shocks were administered to Frankenstein’s monster to reanimate him, until he needed another shock in order to come alive. Modern man is very much like Frankenstein’s creature.

Back in the day, the Cryptocracy closely guarded the truth about its agents and operations, when Americans were spiritually healthy human beings, rather than the bestialized voyeurs and louts of our time. In that era, the Cryptocracy couldn’t afford to reveal their wicked acts, out of a real fear that their master plan would be set back or even overthrown if they did.

When we draw attention to these revelations, we get a substantive, sustained reaction and a desire to do something about what has been revealed, mainly from senior readers who are in their 60s, 70s and 80s — whose youthful formation was ennobling rather than depraved and degrading  — and consequently who are still human and capable of a human response.  

Based on rabbinic law from the Shulchan Aruch (and not upon the Word of God in the Bible), an Orthodox rabbi reveals why a mohel performs fellatio on infant Orthodox boys during the Talmudic rite of circumcision (bris"). 

Thursday, February 05, 2015

Measles Vaccination Hysteria

Our National Insanity as Manifested in the Measles Vaccination Hysteria

By Michael Hoffman

On the basis of the alleged sovereignty of her body, a pregnant woman may choose to kill her unborn baby in an abortion, but that alleged sovereignty then vanishes when obligated to submit to a needle full of chemicals ordered by the government, under the rubric of vaccination. 

What is the mysterious etiology of devastating ailments such as early-onset dementia, epidemic rates of allergies and cancer, and other diseases either not seen at all, or not seen at these rates prior to the 1970s? What is the etiology of early-onset puberty? Record numbers of girls not yet old enough for middle school are starting puberty. According to a continuing study begun in 2005 by pediatric endocrinologists in the U.S., “By the age of seven, 23% of black girls, 15% of Hispanic girls and 10% of white girls had started to develop breasts” (New York Times, Feb. 5, 2015, p. A27).

How is it that FDA-approved prescription medications are the fourth leading cause of deaths in America, with more than 100,000 people killed each year (Wall Street Journal, Feb. 3 p. B-8), about which the media report marginally and anemically in their back pages, if at all — while a hundred or so cases of measles rings every alarm bell in their arsenal of national mass panic?

Is there anything superior to natural immunity? To what extent is our natural immunity impeded or enervated by vaccinations? Is it prudent to imagine that something so powerful as a vaccination, which can halt symptoms of certain pernicious diseases, has, without any doubt, no other negative effect, either physiologically or on our immune system? Is it completely rational to believe that vaccinations have no contraindications (“side effects”) whatsoever, other than slight fever, dizziness and inflammation at the injection site?

Because many “scientists” sign off on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations, does that signify that “Science” is on the side of the vaccinators? When is Science degraded into scientism? How many know the difference? 

“Scientists,” with the infallible omniscience they like to imagine they possess, claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are completely safe to consume, even though such alleged safety can only be determined by decades of testing of those who ingest those substances.

“Scientists” claim there is no nutritional difference between organic crops and crops to which poison sprays have been applied.

“Scientists” say there is no nutritional difference between unpasteurized natural milk from grass-fed cows, and milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) and confined to feed lots, where they are fed GMO grains. 

Could it be that, despite the "scientific" cover being provided, the vaccination hysteria is in actuality a covert drive to preserve the enormous profits of the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture these nostrums? 

We live in insane times where physicians who insist we must all be vaccinated on scientific principles, assert on those same alleged principles, that a man who goes about as a female impersonator who has never menstruated and never will menstruate, and who has no womb or other anatomical ability to give birth, becomes, after the injection of hormones and chemicals, a transgendered “woman.” Those who tell the simple truth about this masquerade are labeled by the same media that pushes vaccinations, as guilty of bigotry; indeed of "hate crime." 

We live in insane times, where the pain of an innocent baby in abortion is of negligible concern to campaigners for the pain-free execution of convicted murderers.

With the decline of Biblical religion and faith in the God who inspired the Bible, man searches for an idol to worship   one that possesses god-like qualities. Science has become a religion for a society that condemns any enforcement of God’s Law as superstitious fanaticism, but insists on the enforcement of the law of man according to the god of scientism. 

No lengthy philosophical disquisition is necessary in order to discern that the insanity we observe in our society has its root in this fundamental transgression against the First Commandment.

Michael Hoffman is a Christian historian who writes from Coeur dAlene, Idaho. His latest book is Usury in Christendom. He is the executive editor of Revisionist History, a newsletter published six times a year.


Friday, January 30, 2015

Sedevacantist buncombe

On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:48, “S." recommended this sedevacantist web page:


Dear S.

Yes, I know the sedevacantist line  — no heretic popes other than questionable Honorarius, until John 23rd. 

My book on usury (Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not — avoided by every sedevacantist publication) shows that there have been popes who derogated (Leo X) and then later abolished (Pius VIII) the Dogmatic law against usury — by abolishing its as a mortal sin and declaring the mortal sin itself as an act “not to be disturbed”! This was heresy. Pope Pius X signed off on this in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (compiled under him and published after his death).

My forthcoming book on the "Occult Renaissance Church of Rome" will offer evidence of the occult popes of Kabbalism.

The sedevacantist thesis was invented by those who seek to maintain ridiculous and in many cases pernicious myths about the pre-Vatican II Church and its popes. It is worse than nonsensical. 

We can’t understand how the post-Conciliar Church came to be unless we investigate the pre-Vatican II popes of sodomy, usury and occult demonism who predate the Enlightenment and arose beginning in the Renaissance.

Michael Hoffman

Should Judaics have to pay Reparations for Slavery?

CAVEAT: Be forewarned that in the article below, citations of Judaic and rabbinic references to Moses were mostly for consumption by naive gentiles. Rabbinic Judaism is not a Mosaic religion, as the Victorian scholar Dr. Alexander McCaul, of Kings College London, had already ably demonstrated in his magisterial work,  The Talmud Tested Don’t be hoodwinked! Furthermore, this article neglects to report  in all but a trifling manner   on the actual Judaic traffic in Black slaves. For that suppressed history cf. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews

Also note the reference toward the end of the article to the haskalah movement. The article does not inform the reader that this was a movement against the Talmud on the part of Judaics influenced by liberal gentiles and Christian missionaries.

Take a moment to ruminate on the words of the much maligned William Lloyd Garrison (below). He spoke as virtually all orthodox believers in the New Testament spoke and thought prior to the advent of the modern Judas Church. Today we have conservative priests and ministers thundering from their pulpits against Islam yet timid as mice when it comes to squeaking a word concerning the ideological heirs of Pharisaic Judaism, who Garrison rightly and courageously termed monsters.” (Note to Bill O’Reilly and Judge Napolitano: it wasn’t the Romans who Garrison was terming “monsters”).

Judah P. Benjamin is widely believed to have been the Rothschilds agent of surveillance over the Confederacy. After the war he deftly landed on his feet among the masonic elite of England, where he obtained a judgeship in that supposed fortress of abolition.

The hidden element in the War Between the States was Freemasonry, which in the North was still reeling from the blows it had received from the Anti-Mason Party, led by luminaries such as John Quincy Adams. Meanwhile, in the South, the most influential masonic Satanist in North America, Albert Pike, was a Confederate general. His Scottish Rite Masonry of Southern Jurisdiction was the most powerful masonic body in the western hemisphere. The post N. B. Forrest-era KKK was crafted along masonic lines, but then the same can be said for Joseph Smiths Mormonism. [For information on Judaics in the Black slave trade and Freemasons in the Civil War cf. Revisionist History newsletters no. 54 and 60 (scroll down the web page to locate these issues)].

Michael Hoffman 

Mr. Hoffman’s research is supported by donations from Truth-seekers.

(The boldface emphasis in the following article is supplied).

Should Jews Have To Pay Reparations for Slavery?

Looking Back 150 Years, Jewish Record Far From Admirable

Uncivil Behavior? Judah P. Benjamin served as the Confederate Secretary of War.
Uncivil Behavior? Judah P. Benjamin served as the Confederate Secretary of War.

By Richard Kreitner

The Jewish Daily Forward (NY)  January 30, 2015 
The 150th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the United States — Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment in late January 1865 — comes at an fraught moment in the history of race relations. Considering that black men are being killed by police at the same rate as they were lynched in the era of Jim Crow, it can be depressing to reflect on how many promises of 1865, not to mention 1776, have not yet been fulfilled. But it can also be edifying to probe into some of the lesser-known aspects of the story of how the emancipation of slaves was finally accomplished. The history of the abolitionist movement is of more than antiquarian interest: it should serve to inspire us to finish the job today.
Nobody can argue that the balance of the Jewish record on the question of American slavery and the Civil War is anything but regrettable. If the career of Confederate Secretary of War Judah P. Benjamin were not enough, the overwhelming complacency of the antebellum Jewish community, even in the North, provides a record sufficiently embarrassing to warrant official acknowledgement — even, perhaps, reparation.
But there were American Jews before the war who risked everything to fight the South’s “peculiar institution.” Familiar with the story of Exodus, they knew it was not actually all that peculiar. Now, 150 years after the end of slavery, when the unfinished work of emancipation and Reconstruction is announced daily in the headlines, it is worth lighting a yahrtzeit candle to those Jews who found in Judaism the imperative to line up, every time, with the oppressed. Before Selma, before socialism, the Jewish abolitionists were the first to map that once-fertile, now neglected terrain: the intersection of the identities of radical, American and Jew.
By the middle of December, 1860, the Union was disintegrating. Abraham Lincoln had won every state in the North and none in the South. South Carolina had just elected delegates to a secession convention and the other Southern states seemed poised to follow. The lame-duck president, James Buchanan, issued a desperate proclamation, “in view of the present distracted and dangerous condition of our country,” declaring January 4th, 1861, a nation day of prayer. He asked that “the People assemble on that day, according to their several forms of worship, to keep it as a solemn Fast.”
On the appointed day, the congregation of B’nei Jeshurun in New York saw Morris Jacob Raphall, a Swedish-born rabbi, rise to the bima. “How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments–how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin?” Raphall asked of Brooklyn minister Henry Ward Beecher, brother of the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Considering that the Patriarchs themselves owned slaves, Raphall continued, “Does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?
Raphall’s sermon divided American Jews. “I felt exceedingly humbled, I may say outraged, by the sacrilegious words of the Rabbi,” Michael Heilprin, a veteran of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution, wrote in the New York Tribune. “Must the stigma of Egyptian principles be fastened on the people of Israel by Israelitish lips themselves?”
In the decades before the influx of Jews from Eastern Europe, there was no organized Jewish community, and thus no identifiably Jewish position on the most burning political question of the day. Surveying the views on slavery of American religious groups in 1853, the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society had reported that Jews “deem it their policy to have every one choose whichever side he may deem best to promote his own interest and the welfare of his country…They do not interfere in any discussion which is not material to their religion.”
Yet the report concluded with a sly taunt, implying that the question of slavery was perhaps not as immaterial to Judaism as many of its American adherents preferred to admit. “The objects of so much mean prejudice and unrighteous oppression as the Jews have been for ages,” the report lamented, “surely they, it would seem, more than any other denomination, ought to be the enemies of caste and the friends of universal freedom.”
Jews in the New World participated in slavery at least as fully and profitably as their Gentile neighbors. Jews in New Amsterdam owned slaves within a decade of their 1654 arrival, and their brethren in Newport, Rhode Island, were involved in the slave trade right up until the War of Independence, in which several slaves of the city’s Jews were forced to fight. In the South, being rich enough to own slaves and not owning any “carried it with it social and business disadvantages,” the historian Max Kohler wrote in 1897, while in the North outright abolitionism was discouraged by “business and trade policy,” which “rendered such avowals inexpedient.”
American Jewish leaders of the mid-19th century were concerned, above all, with expediency. The most prominent Jew in the United States, Mordecai Manuel Noah — a former consul to the Kingdom of Tunis and the mercurial incubator of the “Ararat” scheme to resettle world Jewry on an island in the Niagara River–began his career as an opponent of the expansion of slavery. “How can Americans be engaged in this traffic,” he once asked, regarding the slave trade, “men whose birthright is liberty, whose eminent peculiarity is freedom?” But with age Noah became such an outspoken opponent of emancipation that the first-ever black newspaper in America, Freedom’s Journal, was specifically founded to counter Noah’s venom, and William Lloyd Garrison was moved to describe him as a “Shylock” and a “lineal descendant of the monsters who nailed Jesus to the cross.” When Noah died in 1851, Morris Jacob Raphall delivered the eulogy at his funeral.
The views of Noah’s successors as leaders of the fledgling Jewish community were less demagogic, but just as wishy-washy on the question of slavery. Isaac Leeser of Philadelphia, the first translator of the Tanakh into English and a man whom the Library of Congress has dubbed “the architect of American Jewish life,” agreed with Raphall that slavery was legal according to Jewish law, but cautioned that “our synagogues…are no places for political discussions.” Isaac Mayer Wise, the guiding spirit of Reform Judaism in the United States, refused to condemn slavery as a moral or religious wrong, and when war broke out, Wise wrote an editorial for his influential newspaper, The Israelite, titled, “Silence Our Policy.”
Among those Jews not content with such a policy was Ernestine Rose, a dazzling orator, utopian and freethinker born in Poland — “I was a rebel at the age of five,” she said — who traveled throughout the United States condemning slavery and agitating for women’s rights. Once, in the South, a slaveholder told Rose he would have had her tarred and feathered if she were a man.
During the mini-Civil-War known as “Bleeding Kansas” in the mid-1850s, three Jews accompanied John Brown on his raids against pro-slavery settlers. The archives of the American Jewish Historical Society contain a 1903 letter in which one of them, the Viennese-born August Bondi (another veteran of the 1848 revolution), recalled an exchange between himself and Theodore Wiener during one of the posse’s first attacks. As they followed Brown up a hill to assault a Border Ruffian camp, Bondi wrote, “Wiener puffed like a steamboat, hurrying behind me. I called out to him, ‘Nu, was meinen Sie jetzt.’ [‘Now, what do you think of this?’] His answer, ‘Was soll ich meinen, sof odom muves.’ [‘What shall I think of it? The end of man is death.’]”
Many specifically invoked the Jewish experience itself to argue against slavery. “If anyone, it is the Jew, above all others who should have the most burning and irreconcilable hatred for the ‘peculiar institution’ of the South,” said Bernard Felsenthal of Chicago, later one of the first Zionists in America, who once rejected a job as rabbi in Mobile, Alabama, because it would have required acquiescence to slavery. Gustav Gottheil, another early Zionist, was still in England at the time of Raphall’s remarks, but responded with two sermons quickly published as Moses Versus Slavery. “How can we be silent,” Gottheil asked, when the Torah is invoked to condone an institution of which it is, in fact, “one grand consistent utterance of condemnation”?
One of the most eloquent Jewish denunciations of slavery was delivered rather elliptically: in 1859, an aspiring scholar named Moses Mielziner earned his Ph.D. from the University of Giessen with a dissertation on “Slavery Among the Ancient Hebrews,” which attempted to show that the Israelites had treated their slaves with some degree of decency. The contrast with slavery as brutally practiced in the United States was only implied, but in April of 1861, the month the Civil War began, the American Presbyterian Review published his essay in translation, presumably in response to the debate Raphall had provoked. “No religion and no legislation of ancient times could in its inmost spirit be so decidedly opposed to slavery as was the Mosaic,” Mielziner wrote, “and no people, looking at its own origin, would feel itself more strongly called to the removal of slavery than the people of Israel.” Judaism, in his view, “sharply emphasized the high dignity of man” and “insisted not only upon the highest justice, but also upon the tenderest pity and forbearance, especially towards the necessitous and the unfortunate.” Surely the Jewish people, who had themselves “smarted under the yoke of slavery, and had become a nation only by emancipation,” would be stalwart opponents of “the unnatural state of slavery, by which human nature is degraded.”
The most courageous Jewish response to Raphall’s sermon came neither from Europe nor the North, but from the dais of a synagogue in Baltimore, Maryland, a slave state. Rabbi David Einhorn, born in Bavaria, had fled to the United States in 1851 after the Emperor Franz-Josef closed Einhorn’s shul, fearing the growing Reform movement’s ties to the late revolutionary upheaval. Once in Baltimore, Einhorn quickly rose to prominence, and in deference to his congregation, largely avoided the slavery issue.
But by January, 1861, after Raphall’s inflammatory sermon in New York, Einhorn felt he could no longer keep silent. “The Jew has special cause to be conservative,” Einhorn allowed, noting his audience’s distaste for politics in the pulpit, “and he is doubly and triply so in a country which grants him all the spiritual and material privileges he can wish for.” While sharing the congregation’s “patriotic sentiments” for America, Einhorn said that to allow Jewish law to be “disgraced….and in the holy place!” would be to jeopardize the soul of Judaism itself:
“The spotless morality of the Mosaic principles is our pride and our fame, and our weapon since thousands of years. This weapon we cannot forfeit without pressing a mighty sword into the hands of our foes. This pride and renown, the only one which we possess, we will not and dare not allow ourselves to be robbed of. This would be unscrupulous, prove the greatest triumph of our adversaries and our own destruction, and would be paying too dearly for the fleeting, wavering favor of the moment. Would it not then be justly said, as in fact it has already been done, in consequence of [the Raphall sermon]: Such are the Jews! Where they are oppressed, they boast of the humanity of their religion; but where they are free, their Rabbis declare slavery to have been sanctioned by God.”
For such provocations and others Einhorn was, like Rose, threatened with tarring and feathering. A week after the war began, he and his family exiled themselves to Philadelphia.
Einhorn — a man with much to lose — saw an American Jewish community looking after its own short-term interests, willing to be silent about the oppression of others, frightened into political quiescence. He believed in a morality beyond mere self-preservation: influenced by Haskalah, the German-Jewish enlightenment, Einhorn thought that Jews were a people only insofar as they were united by common ethical beliefs. 

Richard Kreitner maintains the archive blog “Back Issues” at The Nation

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

An Auschwitz for Arabs

By Michael Hoffman

The Auschwitz bandwagon has rolled onto our television and Internet screens and newspaper front pages once again. It never actually leaves, so perhaps it is more accurate to say that this week it is more present than usual.

You don’t believe we’re ruled by halacha (Talmudic law)? In that case, how is it that whatever befalls The Holy People of Counterfeit “Israel” is branded the supreme evil of the cosmos, and whatever happens to the eternally skimmed (we the goyim), counts for slightly less than nothing?

You never heard of it, correct? Why is that? It was a torture camp; a death camp paid for in part with American taxpayer money. But you know nothing of it. Israeli allies under Israeli direction killed and tortured the Lebanese in that El Khiam concentration camp. All of the victims were goyim, not Holy People. Now do you understand why El Khiam is unsung and unknown?

El Khiam was liberated by Hezbollah, the people Americans are taught to hate because they are the only formidable armed resistance against Israeli conquest and land theft in the Middle East. Unlike Sunni Saudi Arabia which is allied with the Israelis, Shiite Hezbollah has not cut a deal with the US or the Israelis. This is why Assad in Syria and the government of Iran are attacked and sanctioned -- they are the principal, and practically the only significant allies of Hezbollah.

“Saudi Arabian interests and Israel are almost parallel,” says Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. “He notes the startling alliance of Saudi Arabia and the Jewish state.” (Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2013, p. A11). 

“...the kingdom now supports Islamist rebels in Syria who often fight alongside Qaeda groups like the Nusra Front. The Saudis say they have little choice...they believe they must now back whoever can help them defeat Mr. Assad’s forces and his Iranian allies.” (New York Times, January 5, 2014, p. A10).

Saudi Arabia, which maintains a compact with its clerics who furnish the murderous Wahhabist-Salafist theology which drives ISIS and al-Qaeda, is our precious “ally,” while Hezbollah, Iran and Assad’s Syria we are taught to hate, sanction and prepare to do war with.

We are seeing the makings of another war unfolding this week, which the Israelis are instigating in league with their covert Saudi-based Wahhabist-Salafist Sunni terrorist allies; a war intended to finish off Assad, the protector of the Christian population in Syria, and in Lebanon to “mow the lawn” (an Israeli euphemism for periodic massacres of Arab civilians so as to tame these lesser humans).

Here’s how it’s playing out as we write these words: nine days ago the Israeli military bombed a convoy in Syria’s Golan Heights. The bombs killed five members of Hezbollah, including the son of the group’s former military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, and an Iranian general. The Israeli government justified the unprovoked attack on Syrian land by claiming, on no evidence, that Hezbollah and its Iranian allies “had been building an infrastructure in the Syrian Golan Heights with which to attack Israel.” The NY Times and other controlled media published this alibi without skepticism and without publishing any comment from Syria, Iran or Hezbollah as a counter to it. The Israelis issue the pretext for their violence and all people who think correct" thoughts are obligated to believe it’s true.

Today, Jan. 28, in retaliation for the Israeli attack (although the mainstream media will not patently report it as retaliation), Hezbollah struck an Israeli convoy, with the difference being that whereas the US media published almost no photos of the Israeli attack nine days ago, today graphic and grisly photos of the wounded Israelis and the wreckage of their vehicles are plastered all over the US media.

To summarize, the Israelis launched an unprovoked bombing raid on Syria, killing Hezbollah personnel and an Iranian general. When representatives of those victims fight back, we have the situation today, as decreed by “our” media: “Hezbollah launches attack on Israel.”

One envisions the shaking heads and indignation of all of those millions of Fox News habituĂ©s and “American Sniper” movie viewers, who are thinking, “Those damned Arabs are at it again! Go Israel!”

With an Israeli national election weeks away, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was anxious to initiate a tit-for-tat exchange with Hezbollah which he knew the US media would suggest was “an act of Arab terror,” which in turn provides Netanyahu the opportunity to gain more popularity with the generally bloodthirsty Israeli electorate by sparking a war with Lebanon and Syria. 

All this might very well precipitate another genocidal Israeli “lawn mowing” of Lebanese civilians (last witnessed in 2006), and the opportunity to further assist the al-Qaeda connected Nusra front in Syria in finally crushing the Syrian-Christian population’s ally, Assad, and instituting Nusra’s Sharia law in Syria, which Right wing Republicans claim to oppose in the US but support in Syria -- by means of their Israeli-approved goal of overthrowing Assad.

According to a statement on his Facebook page, Russian-Judaic Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, stated that “Israel” should respond to Hezbollah’s retaliation, “in a very harsh and disproportionate manner.” 

We’ll wager that Lieberman’s advocacy of a “disproportionate” attack is a reference to his goal of another massacre of Lebanese. Lieberman’s political ally, Ayelet Shaked, a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament), spelled it out: “bombing a civilian population is justified when civilians give shelter to evil” (Jewish Daily Forward, Jan. 26, 2015).

“Evil” in this context signifies any goy who raises his head against Israeli occupation and mass murder. 

Israelis have a license to kill Arabs. They can “Auschwitz” them as much as they like, on this, the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Michael Hoffman’s counter-intelligence briefings are made by possible by donations from readers. Please donate now to ensure the continuation of this vital public service. Thank you.

Copyright©2015 by Independent History and Research

All Rights Reserved