[This interview was made for the Unz Review]
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’ 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 religions 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 mistranslate 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: https://youtu.be/6cePM18Yvp8)
- (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.
- (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.
- (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-Christians laws have been proclaimed as the “bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization” by 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. https://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2018/03/farrakhans-defense-of-jesus-against.html), 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 a at 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!
[Post scriptum by The Saker: and in case you think that all of the above has no bearing on the reality, just check this article “The Knesset officially declares that Israeli democracy is for Jews only” and connect the dots for yourself]
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: www.RevisionistHistory.org
“a religion is a personal choice and thus a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism”
All I ever asked.
… genuinely in all humility – questions posed in cartoon form for brevity taken as cheek and provocation – not intended.
I don’t recommend cartoons to discuss serious topics, and neither would I recommend brevity or cheek as provocation. A fact based and logical argument would be much more helpful.
What I’m saying is that it was not intended as cheek or provocation. Brevity because your answer was what was sought, not scope for my waffle. Cartoon because = brevity, not disrespect (missed the mark there, I fully acknowledge! – it was a mistake). I was brought up a Calvinist so these are serious topics for me. And I ask (however inappropriately, as it proved) because we Calvinists have not been notable for our broad education in other traditions – which I think would be a Good Thing. And the questions I asked a while back which roused your ire are questions puzzled over, as far as I can see, in all traditions. Anyway, I’m just saying Sorry.
An important dimension of awakening to reality is to realize the degree to which spirituality has been distorted by the power seeking few in order to control and manipulate the masses. Thus for example, the original teachings of Jesus are turned on their head and become instruments to justify oppression and war.
Those who rule over us are completely immoral, selfish, and evil. Religion is for them just another tool to extend their power. Real spirituality based on truth and love is anathema to them, and they will do anything to silence or destroy it. Religion for those in power is just another propaganda device. Hence real religion is always revolutionary, and directly opposed to the ruling elites and their lies. Any teachings that lack this vigorous anti-establishment character are thereby convicted of falsity.
Any teachings that lack this vigorous anti-establishment character are thereby convicted of falsity.
I disagree. A teaching is not false or true based on its political or social aspects as perceived by any human being. In fact, Christ Himself clearly said “my kingdom is not of this world”. A teaching’s truthfulness or falsehood only depends on whether it accurately conveys the Will of God. To establish that you need a very different criterion of truth than pro or anti establishment categories. In fact, I would even argue that any teaching with a strong pro or anti establishment streaks inevitably gets used by either the establishment or by revolutionary elements, it gets coopted and becomes a political tool. Once you allow spirituality to become instrumentalized, you always corrupt it and give up on any notion of truth. Finally, I remind you that the Pharisees who rejected Christ (not all did!) did that in a large part (but not only) because He refused to be the “revolutionary Messiah” which they wanted him to be. And look at the irony: the crucified Him for not being their “revolutionary” while saying “we have no king but Caesar,” – so much for the “revolutionary spirit” of these “revolutionaries”…
For me, spirituality is deeply involved in changing people’s minds, hearts, and behavior here and now in this troubled world. I would like to see this corrupt condition of mankind transformed into a realm of peace and love and mutual care. Concerns about possible realms to be visited after death are of little interest to me – our dire need for human transformation is too great to be concerned with that now.
I respect your ideas about spirituality, as I do all other seekers among us. We all have to work these things out for ourselves.
Good luck on your path, I think you are doing a lot of good with your site here. Sincerely, mike k
“Real religion is always revolutionary…” It can and must be revolutionary only in a spiritual sense, since the purpose of religion ( Latin root; to re-connect, to re-tie ) is to offer the individual an opportunity to establish him/herself with Divine Spirit. Truth is one, but must be “updated” or presented in line with the consciousness of the day, and this will bring reaction. The purpose of any true spiritual path or teaching must first and foremost, be the spiritual welfare of its adherants. If the leadership cannot keep the spiritual flame alive then the decline of the teaching becomes fact.
You (like nearly everyone) are imposing your own framework of assumptions onto a matter where they yield false conclusions (however personally satisfying these are).
When you write that “unlike ethnicity, religion in a choice,” you are conflating Christianity and Judaism, regarding Judaism as if it were Christianity. This is a fatal error.
If a Christian commits horrible crimes and sins he can be excommunicated, because he has shown himself to be no Christian at all. His religion is a choice.
But a Jew who commits monstrous crimes does not stop being a Jew on that account. He may be a very evil Jew, but he is still a Jew. He may be an atheist (and most are) without this affecting his identity as a Jew, because choice of beliefs (or none) is irrelevant. As the offspring of a Jewish mother, he is a Jew. By HIS rules if not yours.
Parsing Judaism as if belief, ethnicity and culture were not all expressions of one and the same identity in their various realms only creates a shell game where the “true identity” is always under one of the other two shells not chosen.
Go to any gathering of Jews and tell them that you have chosen to be a Jew, the same way you can decide to be a Seminoles fan. You will find that your assumption, no matter how deeply believed, is not a shared one.
Outstanding work, Saker. As always. Thank You.
“When you write that “unlike ethnicity, religion in a choice,” you are conflating Christianity and Judaism, regarding Judaism as if it were Christianity. This is a fatal error.
If a Christian commits horrible crimes and sins he can be excommunicated, because he has shown himself to be no Christian at all. His religion is a choice.”
Not sure this is true. If it is, then it is a good example of the “usefulness” of Jewish identity’s straddling of the divide between religion and ethnicity/race, jumping back and forth as needed (situational ethics!). And the Gentile world allows itself to be yanked about and its logic constantly undermined by this shifting of the goal posts.
But, back to my original point: Is the above assertion true?
The, or a, dictionary definition of “excommunication” is:
“the action of officially excluding someone from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church.”
I read in The Pity of It All that in the 17th and 18th centuries (I believe that was the time frame discussed) the sanctions imposed on Jews who attempted to get away from their Jewish community–basically to run away and convert—-were extremely harsh: they *were* in effect excommunicated. Not only from the practice of religious rituals but from the community itself. In other words, they were turned into non-persons and literally turned out or disallowed from returning to the (physical) community or seeing their family and friends within the community. This was an enormous psychological toll.
Then, when such an “ex-Jew by choice” tried to assimilate (say, in Germany, when assimilation was proceeding apace but anti-Semitism was also getting new wind in the context of ….well, a number of new social and economic developments), often the assimilation allowed by Gentiles was quite limited and the ex-Jew-by-choice was still identified as a Jew.
Thus, much of the Gentile world reinforced the power of rabbis over Jews by refusing to accept the latter when they did attempt to escape their Jewish straitjackets and in this way hindered the conversion of Jews who were sick of being Jews by not letting them shed their skin and be reborn as Christians, or agnostics—as non-Jews. This upped the ante for such would-be escapees: they would be shunned. Even in cosmopolitan Berlin, assimilated Jews tended to stick together socially.
So, since Judaism is *not* a universal religion, not a spiritual path, but is just a tribal identity, the idea of “ex-communication” in a religious sense almost doesn’t seem to exist (hmmm am I contradicting myself here?). In a Jewish setting the notion comes down to becoming a social pariah with no home at all. But, still a powerful weapon in the hands of control-freak power-hungry rabbis.
I believe it is also true that when Jews did convert and it was discovered that they had Jewish forebears, it is generally assumed that the reason for conversion also is social advantage of some kind and denial of membership in the tribe, now seen as an ethnic/racial identity. Conversion is invariably received as a type of “passing.” How often does a converted Jew state: “I converted to Christianity because I do not hold nor believe the tenets of the Jewish religion and I think Christianity is a better religion.”
Islam is also a better religion, qua religion. It is genuinely universal and, IMH and perhaps ignorant O, the most egalitarian of the “world religions.”
All belief based systems require blind faith, acceptance of dogma and obedience to religious authority. They require that humans abandon the greatest gift we have, the ability to understand. No religion is “better” than the others just varying degrees of less offensive.
Quantum mechanics is closer to explaining the concept of god (universal consciousness) than any religion and no belief allowed much less required.
All belief based systems require blind faith, acceptance of dogma and obedience to religious authority. They require that humans abandon the greatest gift we have, the ability to understand.
So all religious people are self-lobotomized idiots, LOL!
And do you realize that when you write about “all belief systems” you
a) imply that you are familiar with them all
b) go on to mention your own belief system (“Quantum mechanics is closer to explaining the concept of god (universal consciousness) than any religion and no belief allowed much less required).
For a non-lobotomized person with an ability to understand, you are severely under-performing :-)
“…belief based systems require…that humans abandon the greatest gift we have, the ability to understand.”
Math or science, ie; the study of the phenomenal world, requires one kind of understanding, poetry and/or the things of Spirit, quite another.
The picture is a complex one. Some small fry encountered difficulty in shedding Rabbinical control, but wholesale numbers pretended to convert to Christianity in order to gain access to political power (see Marrano) in the 1400s. If you find the matter interesting, Miles W. Mathis’s essays are an excellent source of information on it.
I believe there is a free download available of the book, “When Scotland was Jewish.” I highly recommend it.
I did a search but didn’t find this document.
However, from snippet on other hits I got from this search, it appears to me that a lot of Mathis’s efforts seem to be directed toward showing that a number of Scottish families have some Jewish antecedents.
This is the kind of preoccupation that seems to me kind of pointless unless one subscribes to a “racial” view of Judaisim. Would anyone care if an antecedent turned out to have converted from Catholicism to Christianity?
The only issue that makes such questions of Jewish antecedents, it seems to me, is the reasons poeple converted, and whether they did so sincerely, or opportunistically. Actually, I think “improve my quality of life,” though opportunistic, is a perfectly good recent to convert, or quietly to abandon Judaism. The obligation to remain a member of the tribe should by rights not be an artifact of pressure from Gentiles.
The compulsive search to reveal Jewish forebears of individual Gentiles is kind of unhealthy, unless within the framework of genuine historical or social science research. Or possible a medical situation where someone might carry a gene that predisposes him or her to a medical condition. And this would be private, between an individual and his/her physician.
This is an oversimplification, of course.
Thank you for this important and informative article.
Now I ask a favor of you. In the future, would you consider allowing the Saker Community to put forth questions in advance of the person you plan to interview?
1. What is Mr. Hoffman’s opinion about Messianic Jews and their view of the Talmud?
2. Has Mr. Hoffman done any research on the other Hebrew tribes that are supposedly “lost”?
3. How does Judaism embrace Kabbalah theosophy when divination is forbidden by biblical Torah?
4. How is the “Home of the Jews” anything but racist when 20 percent of Israelis are Gentiles (Arabs)?
5. The Holy Quran teaches Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews. Does that mean Christians and Muslims are both “supernal refuse”?
Now I ask a favor of you. In the future, would you consider allowing the Saker Community to put forth questions in advance of the person you plan to interview?
Actually, I did that once, when I interviewed Mikhail Khazin and I might to that again, why not?
Thank you Saker for an interesting article that I learned a lot from. I recently finished reading Snakes in Suits, When psychopaths go to work. I would recommend it highly to understand how psychopaths operate. I’ve also had the opinion for a while that Judaism was probably invented by psychopaths. To me, it seems like a type of religious scam that a psychopath would invent.
I like the wisdom traditions.
In circumstances where they can claim moral authority and con the weak or troubled into believing them, psychopaths infiltrate religions profusely. For this reason, I do not trust new religions. In older, established ones, I typically see a certain amount of corruption in the higher ranks, but over time the rank and file seem to find ways of circumventing that and upholding the original ideals and mission, which until now I have believed to be nearly universally to help all people find comfort in hard times and hope for the hereafter.
Reading the above interview, however, restores my faith in man’s basic cruelty. What a nightmare. Maybe I’ll go back to my cave and practice one-footed-standing-sorts of asceticism.
Great interview. Very interesting and some more books to add to my “to read” list. I always appreciate finding more interesting reading material and this site is a treasure trove.
That said the problem with “Jews” is that they have believed the lies of their religious and political leaders. Trust is a common and very human trait. They have been signed up for the master race philosophy.
By luck of group membership, usually conferred by birth but not always, you are better than others and your life is worth more. There are a dozen of examples throughout history and it has a 100% failure rate. The master race always ends up getting decimated. No exceptions.
Jews are the same as other humans. No better, no worse. The proof of that is that they fall for the same master race nonsense and the same excuses offered up by their religious and political leaders.
1) We really are the master race. All those others clearly were not but trust us, we really are.
2) This time it’s different or our situation is different.
3) God is on our side or god has chosen us.
4) We are more intelligent.
All those have been trotted out by various religious and political leaders over the millennia again and again. They all end up getting decimated. 100% of the time. Unless the Jewish community starts calling out their religious and political leaders when they utter this nonsense they will be decimated. There are a few that do but they are too few and far between to have an impact so far.
The appeal of the master race philosophy is that you don’t have to be world class in art, music, academics, sports or anything. Just being part of this group makes you better than others and your life worth more. Very appealing and seductive and very wrong. Fatally wrong.
Sadly it claims a lot of very bright humans. The hubris kicks in and they actually start believing their own lies. Albert Einstein said Germany was a “nation of philosophers” and he was right. Very well educated and bright with a strong philosophical bent. If a nation of philosophers can fall for the master race nonsense then who is kidding who that “it can’t happen here”?
It is happening in Israel. Seize living room to the east, forced confinement in a ghetto (Gaza) for millions, economic exploitation and a caste system with the master race on top. To not see the parallels between modern Israel and 1930s Germany requires blinders of epic proportions.
If there is a god I’m thinking it must be Loki. The mischievous troublemaker of Nordic legend who plays “Groundhog Day” with humans to see just how stupid we are and how many times they will fall for the same lies.
“If there is a god I’m thinking it must be Loki. The mischievous troublemaker of Nordic legend who plays ‘Groundhog Day’ with humans to see just how stupid we are and how many times they will fall for the same lies.”
The only lies we fall for are those we are ready and willing to believe. There is no shortage of lies due to the fact that there is no shortage of people willing to believe in them.
“The only lies we fall for are those we are ready and willing to believe.”
I’d say vast majority simply have no choice. You don’t chose the family you are born into and who will raise you when you materialize on this Planet. The rest of the work is done by the group you live within. Try to go against the grain at school, work or your family and you will find out how that feels. Thus I cut a lot of slack the “vast majority”. The problem of stepping outside the box is not an easy one to carry out. Life is not easy and simple.
People are products of their environment, parental influence and education. The ‘lies’ I’m referring to are in place in order to keep a particular status quo, so that society can function with as little disruption as possible.
Steeping outside the staus quo will indeed bring flak, but the nature of life is to inspire a desire for individual betterment, understanding, or greater truth. What we do with what we discover is our own individual choice. “Improvement makes straight roads, but rough roads are roads of genius,” Blake. What do we want and what are we prepared to give/sacrifice for it? Most of us want a better life, but arent willing to make the sacrifice needed to achieve it.
Excellent interview. I like all the links. I have read his book, Judaism’s strange gods, a very good book. Mr. Hoffman has done us all a service, learning Hebrew and then writing objective books that the mainstream is going to try and repress, is very brave, but necessary.
Is there an audio version of this interview?
I love it that Hoffman wrote for the Fortean Times. At the end of his career an interviewer asked Charles Fort what conclusions have you come to after decades of collecting and publishing these strange anomalies. Fort’s answer was quite succinct, “I believe we are being farmed.”
Michael Hoffman portrays Jews as some vengeful Tarantulas very similar to Anti semitic propaganda waiting to kill all the goyim. Trust me, Jews don’t even think about goyim as we have better things to do. We mostly are about survival, knowledge, educational, focus on achievements, and living a decent bourgeois life. Occasionally, we criticize goyim but usually as an intellectual arguments. Not with malicious intent as this Hoffman guy potrays.
Jews disagree a lot. You will understand this if you live among the Jews. Because of in-group solidarity and intellectualism, there is room and scope for speaking out one’s opinions and constant argumentation and disagreements. As the saying goes, 2 Jews 3 opinions. It is precisely because of this, the worst enemy of Jew is another Jew. Always has been. Goyim need not worry a bit.
Well, considering the number of goyim murdered by Jews in the 20th century (well, weeeeeel in excess of any hypothetical 6 millions), you will allow us to remain cautious. Racism is bad enough by itself, but when it is God-sanctioned, theologically approved racism (such as Takfirism and Rabbinical Phariseism), then it is truly nauseating and *most* dangerous.
You also also completely mis-representing what Hoffman says (making any logical person doubting either your intellect or your honesty). In fact, Hoffman says exactly *nothing* about Jews at all. He speaks about a religion, not an ethnicity: Rabbinical (Phariseic) “Judaism”. So your entire argument is a straw man. Furthermore, you contradict yourself. First, you say that Jews are diverse “2 Jews, 3 opinions” (which I agree with), but then you deny that the kind of rabid HaShem-sanctioned racism of the Hardi does not form part of that diversity. This makes no logical sense and no amount of pilpul will reconcile these :-)
Finally, you say “we criticize goyim but usually as an intellectual arguments” but you don’t extend that assumption to Hoffman or myself!
So, Rabbi Moshe, if that is the best you can come up with, you will forgive us, ignorant goyim, for doubting your superiority or your honesty, or both!
” It is precisely because of this, the worst enemy of Jew is another Jew. Always has been. Goyim need not worry a bit.”
Thank you Rabbi for these observations.
The first point you make most certainly was true in the ghetto of Warsaw during WW II. However Spielberg will never make a film showing this. Few in the Western Public are even aware of what the problem looked like. If they are aware then they will repeat the version “They had no choice.”. However this excuse is never offered to the people of the occupied country where the Jews were murdered by the Germans. In that case “They had an obligation to help and collaboration was a crime.”.
As to your second point, will just have to agree to disagree. I won’t say Jews are the worst as the Goyim have the same trait in their DNA. It just seems to be me that it is a matter of degree to which people are willing to betray their own or others in times of danger or peace.
Excellent interview, information and material. Clearly it is important that Hoffman’s books and information be widely circulated – considering the Jewish control and domination of the popular media (newspaper, TV and Hollywood). And under Jewish control are also Google and Facebook, that now openly and shamelessly boycott, obscure and penalize venues whose views are unfavorable to the sect.
Today for the first time I heard an interviewee on RT Crosstalk, mention the Coudeneuve-Kalergi plan for the forced miscegenation of European with Africans, and for the disappearance of European nations and languages. The interviewee did not (I assume he did not dare to say) that Coudeneuve-Kalergi, equally predicted that Jews, with some intermarriage with the best of European aristocracy, would be masters of the new mongrel Europeans. And that a Jewish banker, enthralled with C-G’s ideas, as exposed in C-G’s book “Praktischer Idealismus”, gave him the equivalent of a several million dollars to start the project.
Patrick Little who recently ran for a senate seat in Californa, (unsussessfully because massively outspent) advocates the temporary nationalization of the major news and Internet media, until a fair way is found to give voice and space to different points of view.
I agree that those Jews that laugh about the Talmud are either deceptive or deceive themselves. No sect ever has been so successful as to dominate a nation as they have done in the US and elsewhere. And that domination is the exemplary embodiment of Talmudic pronciples and promoted behavior.
For those who have not seen or forgot it, the following short video (by two prominent Jews), reminds us of what the sect has planned for the rest of us.
“The only authentic Torah of Yahweh is the written Torah (Torah she’bich tav)—the Pentateuch of Moses…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 Oral Torah is not an interpretation of the Written Torah. In fact, the Oral Torah preceded the Written Torah.”
The Holy Spirit = Torah she’beal peh = The Oral Law
It is written that went Jesus went up (to Heaven) The Holy Spirit came down (to Earth), “I will send you a comforter” (John 14:16).
“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
“The Oral Torah is not an interpretation of the Written Torah. In fact, the Oral Torah preceded the Written Torah.”
This is incorrect.
Deu 5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: AND HE ADDED NO MORE. AND HE WROTE THEM in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.
Sun Tzu, are you aware that God : IS : ? And that because, “God : IS : ” God can : “[k]not” : speak in [k]not terms? Which means Sun Tzu, Deu 5:22: the, “HE [who] WROTE THEM”, was not God – ‘AND [the] HE [who] ADDED NO MORE’ speaks of two in MInd; the (1) : [the] HE [who] ADDED NO MORE, and the (2): “(the) HE [who] WROTE THEM” – .
The Ten Commandments
I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not worship Gods before me.
Thou shall not make idols.
Thou shall not take the lord’s name in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shall not kill.
Thou shall not commit adultery.
Thou shall not steal.
Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods.
“Stuart Harlan Doblin on June 23, 2018 · at 5:55 pm EST/EDT
Sun Tzu, are you aware that God : IS : ? And that because, “God : IS : ” God can : “[k]not” : speak in [k]not terms? Which means Sun Tzu, Deu 5:22: the, “HE [who] WROTE THEM”, was not God – ‘AND [the] HE [who] ADDED NO MORE’ speaks of two in MInd; the (1) : [the] HE [who] ADDED NO MORE, and the (2): “(the) HE [who] WROTE THEM” – .”
This is still incorrect.
Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
And let me add that anything added to (or taken away from) the Torah is a both a forgery and a blasphemy
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
I think the anti-Jewish/Zionist point of view needs exposure. In the USA the attitude is usually simplistic–Hitler was a bad guy who killed Jews therefore, the Jews are good guys. That is the level of thinking about almost anything in my country–we Americans don’t do nuance very well. However, I think the tone of this interview is a bit hysterical about Jews. Most people who subscribe to any religion or ideology do so unconsciously. A Jew is a Jew because he or she was born into it and does’t really look deeply into it other than share a common culture as we see from the work of people like Woody Allen and Larry David or reading the work of Isaac Beshevis Singer all of which I admire as artists. Most Jews I’ve known have lived to higher moral standards than most Christians particularly here in the South where I live where Evangelicals live relatively amoral lives since once they are “saved” they don’t risk Hell not matter what they do (not all churches say that but my local megachurch preaches exactly that).
My point is this, the tribal/religious affiliations we think mean a lot as providing an overall cultural identity but on an individual basis don’t mean that much. Since I’ve never been friendly with Orthodox Jews, I’m sure they live by very bizarre beliefs as do many religious cults in all cultures. However, when it comes to how the Empire uses Zionism and vice-versa, I do see the toxic nature of Jewry. Washington, in terms of foreign policy, is clearly dominated by Zionist interests and may be getting worse because of growing corruption in government where the national interest is even more confused making it easier for fanatics to have a strong influence on policy since the most corrupt will bend with whatever wind is blowing. As someone who has had some ties to the National Security State I can say that there was internal opposition to Zionist interests but it always was a rear-guard action. I also know that some Jewish high-ranking officials were fanatically pro-Israel and were deeply hostile to Islam in all its forms and may well have felt that way about all non-Jews.
Outstanding! I have read, and admired, the excellent work of Michael A. Hoffman II for decades. It was truly wonderful this morning to discover that the Saker has also taken note of the admirable work of Mr. Hoffman. The confluence of Mr. Hoffman’s wonderful scholarship with the Saker’s penetrating analysis gives great hope for this fallen world. God bless!
The accusations of pedophilia is old Nazi propaganda. It should really not go unchallenged. The section of the Talmud that Hoffmann points to is merely a legalistic explanation of why children under a certain age cannot be found guilty of sodomy, and hence subject to penalty.
There are plenty of facts about any religion that one could use to find its leadership guilty. All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. As a Baha’i who knows of the deep corruption within my own religion’s leadership, that verse has a special meaning to me.
That said, I believe that the Western alliance is a reenactment of the alliance between Pharisaic Judaism and Rome that put Jesus to death. The paganized Roman Church may be the “mother of harlots,” but certain of her offspring are worse than she is. In other words, Christians in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
mod-to note: Moderation Policy Rule #1: Absolutely no use of capital letters. (obviously excepting beginning of sentences and proper nouns).
‘Nazism’ and ‘ISIS’ are totally fake controlled opposition. They’re supposedly – according to Western (Nazi/ISIS) propaganda – driven by Jew hate.
They ‘mysteriously’ liquidate(d) stalwart opponents of Western imperialism and organized (Rothschild led) Pharisaic Talmudism. For instance Stalin’s USSR, the ‘holocaust’, Syria.
It’s irrelevant (apart from their false flag intention) whether these opponents are Jewish (many were) or non-Jewish. Like 9/11 it is blamed on non-Jews and Muslims, though, so the mafia had its pretext to demonize ‘anti-Semitism’ and Muslims. You’re right; its (the Latin Church) offspring, e.g. Calvinism, is even worse.
It’s very frustrating to find no mention of circumcision in this otherwise extensive analysis of Judaism. Circumcision is foundational to the jewish psyche! I could go down the rabbit hole with hard neurological and psychological research dealing with this but no one would believe me. It is truly a naked emperor and it will be the death of us all if the emotionally autistic maniacs and psychopaths that it produces start WWIII due to their imprinted rage.
This is self-perpetuating child abuse that creates damaged adults. Will someone please start paying attention to the plight of jewish (and american) children? No one deserve to be treated like this.
Here’s an article that has some links relating to MGM:
I could not agree with you more.
Circumcision is central to the tribal identity and is a physical brand: the sign of the supposed covenant with God that makes the Jews special and better, God’s own people.
It is absurd, and also kind of disgusting.
The idea of these old men perving over an infant’s organ and inflicting pain on an infant is too gross for words.
And making a big complicated ritual out of it. It is fetishistic and primitive.
Not that much different from a cattle brand,
or a tattoo, come to think of it . . .
Also circumcision seems to me to be interesting from the point of view that hereditary jewishness (if it can be called that) flows through the mother, not the father. So, how does circumcision relate to that? I mean, actually? Becuase I reckon no Jew is going to admit that circumcision means anything different than the covenant with God. But I think any anthropologist worth his or her socks would have different ideas. I wonder whether any anthros have written about this, the actual social function of circumcision, not the religious “legend.”
This amateur anthropologist speculates that circumcision has some function connected with paternity of Jewish children
Maybe circumcision is a way to make sure that, at least, the father of every Jewish woman’s baby is a Jew, even if she had intercourse with more than one man. That would imply that the sin of having intercourse with a non-jew might be even worse that cuckolding one’s husband and/or bearing a child out of wedlock. It was probably part of the traditional Jewish demographic strategy to produce as many children as possible—maybe that was the reason for the obligation to have sex with one’s wife every Friday—to increase the statistical possibility of conception. Anyhow, so if all the men are circumcised, that would provide an argument for keeping even suspected bastards: the father would have to be a Jew, so the baby was a member of the tribe, even if the real father wasn’t certain. Something like that.
?Are there any other amateur (or even professional) anthropologists out there? Any other ideas???
Here is an online discussion.
I would love to hear Professor Hoffman’s ideas on the subject.
Some more material on this at
And this writer states, more or less in alignment with Hoffman, although Hoffman doesn’t (I don’t think) mention circumcision:
“Although Evangelist Paul said that circumcision was unnecessary, for baptism replaced circumcision as a more universal ritual for both men and women alike, there is debate as to how circumcision plays a role in the Christian faith because both the Torah and the Old Testament are still viewed as the word of God and advocate circumcision, yet the new covenant provided by Christ was meant to release the people from such a confining ritual. ”
Hoffman also states that Christ’s arrival nullifies the old practices or old dispensation. Yet it seems to be Paul who first throws open the gates to Gentiles to join the new sect by throwing out circumcision as a precondition. I.e., “not circumcised” = not Isrealitle = not Jesus follower. Meanwhile, non-followers of Jesus were saying that the Jesus followers were not Israelites, even though they were circumcised and therefore, they were a priori Israelites. Right?
Paul had a logical mind. Maybe he got tired of this nonsense and decided to straighten out the logic. He changed the syllogism to circumcised, schmircumcised: “not circumcised” *or* “circumcised = of no significance and you are welcome to join us!
People really need to get beyond the small mindedness of ‘Jewish’ northern hemisphere mentality. The Jews were ME slave-class, and markings and earrings etc were often markers for ownership. Circumcision (male) is normally an adolescent (hence conscious) initiation rite — something that Islam carries forward. There is very little precedent for baby mutilation and zero for blood consumption under ‘magical thinking’ etc.
One only need move beyond the mesmerizing miasma of mentally manipulative mumbo-jumbo to find examples of how this practice can often be associated with climate. For example, the “circumcision line” identified between Australian Aboriginals in the South West of the continent. See brief reference on page 3 in this http://www.anps.org.au/documents/june_2010.pdf
You’re looking at cultures that go back 20-40,000 years (that’s right, European Old Testament mentalities!) — so suggest dropping the “G_d Approved” BS and look for climatic and cultural identity criteria. The only place it seems to occupy is as part of male initiation into adulthood in certain desert orientated tribes. As for modern ‘urbanites’ who cannot extract themselves from cult-related behavior on new born babies — I say take them to court for child abuse (which is what it is).
The association with desert dwelling is interesting but it’s important to recognize the self-perpetuating nature of child abuse. Once such an infection takes hold it tends to continue regardless of climate. MGM does however support the workaholic mentality which may have meant the difference between death and survival in a desert environment.
What is MGM (aside from a movie studio)?
“People really need to get beyond the small mindedness of ‘Jewish’ northern hemisphere mentality. ”
As in, who? What people? What, exactly, is the point of this statement?
THe whole point being made by some (including me) is that an atavistic tribal kind of thinking is flourishing in the 21st century and is the driving motor of a powerful, nuclear-armed state. That is the whole point, I think, of discussion circumcision, its continuing centrality not only to modern-day Jews but also to the Jewish State.
I am surprised at the didactic, absolutist, even patronizing, tone of many of the comments on this thread.
Perhaps that is to be expected–that is, when religion flies in the window, the ability to have an interesting and also respectful discussion seems to fly out.
@it seems to be Paul who first throws open the gates to Gentiles to join the new sect
Actually, the meme that Paul was the ‘inventor’ of Christianity is a Jewish invention. The call of the ‘nations’ is repeatedly uttered by the Christ Himself.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8:10-12)
“16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:16-20).
There are the Apostles Philip and Peter who start baptizing the Gentiles, Philip the Ethiopian eunuch, Peter the Roman centurion Cornelius.
“34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) 37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:34-48).
Here’s another morsel for this nightmarish stew: Mitochondrial DNA is solely inherited by the mother. Generations of MGM have probably had cumulative epigenetic effects which should be detectable in comparisons of MDNA in jewish vs say, scandanavian people. It would be interesting to see if this ties in with behavior.
I should have said “from” the mother.
Thinking about this, I’m not even sure it makes sense. Would the mother’s MDNA be epigenetically affected by her husband’s or son’s trauma via altered psychology?? I don’t know.
It’s great to see M. Hoffman appearing on the Saker, and to watch these “two birds of different feathers” soar together over the vineyard for a moment. Hoffman’s latest work, “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”, is one of the most amazing books I’ve ever read, uncovering a vast conspiracy in the RC Church going back 500 years, giving great insight into how we in the West have arrived at our present, tragic, situation.
Excellent piece! One mystery though, why aren’t we seeing open warfare between these Jewish groups? (e.g. the clear antagonism between Sunni & Shia sect in Islam).
Hoffman mentioned “Judaic unity is only possible due to an external threat like Jew hate”, is somewhat unconvincing in my view. If that was true, then logic dictates that core Judaic ideologies for these sects must mirror each other, with minor differences. Any Judaic opposition who plays along just vindicate the reason for all those hate … perpetually. Why would they do this?*
Look at Islam, just as hated nowadays, after its 9/11 image make over. The Sunni & Shia tear at each other’s throat, in blissful ignorance. Even ignoring the much more serious Zionist infiltration of the entire M.East power structure. Hell freezes over, they don’t care about any (perceived) external hate.
* imo, this deserves a deeper discussion than a scratch on surface.
“Look at Islam, just as hated nowadays, after its 9/11 image make over”
Maybe, just maybe. The last time I looked into 9/11 I saw Silverstein, Urban Moving vans, dancing Israelis in NJ, Israeli art students in some buildings in Manhattan and voila the necessary Pearl Harbor déjà vu for implementing PNAC and the Yinon plan. O yeah, an intact passport of one Mohammed Attah in the midst of rubble of some controlled-demolished buildings in Manhattan. By the way, “attah” is Hebrew for “you” or “you are” so “Mohammed U” seems like an intentional symbolic message like 911 itself is an emergency call
You may also be interested in Jay Dyer, who has studied a lot of theology and philosophy. He started as a Protestant, went through Catholicism and is now a proponent of Orthodoxy; as well as writing and making videos about modern degeneracy and its causes. He is very cautious about using the ‘J’ word, however. He likes to debate people of differing views.
Kevin Barrett, Philip Giraldi, Gilad Atzmon, Alan Sabrosky and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel aboutl anti-Semitism,
anti-Zionism, Judeophobia, Jewish power, Israel, Truth, Palestine, Zionist influence in the U.S, Talpiot and
PS: I understand much more English – especially text – than I can write myself
Please allow me to ask you to apply your keen eye and mind to great, really massive work of Mauro Biglino who meticulously translated jewish bible (mesoretic, the one kept in st petersburg/Leningrad from which all known subsequent publications i.e wild interpretations derive from ..
he took on a huge task of translating it from scratch, unbiased, not embued with dogma or fear of being laughed at by an army of “academic specialists”
he offers a literal translation, the content exactly as it reads and means..with huge implications, can’t be stressed strongly enough.
please look it up and find out for yourself,.some of his work can be found in english translations.
to begin with and so you can get an idea about seriousness and significance of the entire effort, maybe have a-listen to some of his lectures (youtube is good for that)..
I understand you lived in Swissland, so I am guessing your ear cannot be inpenetrable to Italian – he speaks most clearly, so even if your Italian is rusty somewhat, it won’t matter.
p.s. i do not work for Mauro or his publishers, just awe stricken by the accuracy of his findings.
pps. hope you find and read this post. sincerely
The (Hebrew) Masoretic of the 9th Century AD is nothing more than a forgery written with an anti-Yeshua bias. The Peshitta (Aramaic) Tanach (Old Testament) is at least 1000 years older, as is the LXX ( Septuagint), and thus is more trustworthy than the Hebrew Masoretic. For example: The Peshitta Tanach, not to be confused with the Peshitta New Testament, has “Bethulat” (meaning virgin in Aramaic) in Isaiah 7:14 while the Masoretic has “almah” (meaning young woman instead of Bethulah meaning Virgin in Hebrew). This “virgin” prophecy in the Peshitta Tanach is consistent with usage of “parthenos” in the Greek LXX ( Septuagint). There are many more flaws in the Madoretic ( Hebrew) forgery.
I am enjoying Israel Shamir’s Cabala of Power. He sites St. John Damascene’s notion of a three leafed flower: Orthodoxy (the Resurrection); Latin Christianity(the Crucifiction) and Islam ( the Spirit). This differs somewhat from the modern idea of the “Abrahamic Religions” as espoused in Lessing’s Nathan der Weisse. St. John’s notion is more correct. Going by number of adherents, Judaism doesn’t compare with Islam and the two branches of Christianity– also, Is it a religion? Or an ethnicity? If anything it appears to be a sort of left-handed path, something one would expect in a fallen world.
I will have to check out Hoffman’s work. Hopefully I will read him next.
You made a great job. This article is monumental as the issues which are discussed are so important!
I have been interested in the origins of Judaism for a few years now and, I have adopted your conception of modern Judaism as an anti-Christ war machine.
I found very interesting the answer that Mickaël Hoffman gave to your question because while validating your perspective, he enlarged it by proposing the idea that pharisaic orthodox Judaism has been very early, even before Christ, anti-Bible.
I must admit, however, that it is difficult to follow Hoffman’s criticism of Reed because, as you have recalled, we can suspect some forgery in the text Masoretic.
In short, I remain suspicious of the Old Testament and wonder how to separate the good divine grain from the tares from men. The idea of an elected people called to dominate the nations seems to me rather sulphurous.
As a social psychologist, I wonder how such an idea was able to sprout in the minds of nomadic tribes. It seems to me that the incredible efficiency of the social engineering implemented by the Jewish elite is almost superhuman and I confess taking into account the work of Graham Hancock on the existence of ah advanced antediluvian civilization because this provide a plausible explanation for the origin of these skills among the Hebrews, via, maybe, the Egyptian civilization.
I also find Mauro Biglino’s literal reading of the Bible from the Masoretic text extremely interesting as well as extremely disturbing, with many possible overlaps with Hancock’s theses.
It goes without saying that these considerations do not seem to me in any way contradictory with the Christic message as I understand it.
So my question is: do you believe that the project “Israël über alles”could just be pharisaic or don’t you think that it needs a deeper explanation?
There is a difference between ‘called’ and ‘chosen’. If you really want to understand it, read and re-read the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) and the whole chapter 22 of Matthew. Read the Scriptures, they have the words of Truth, not the Graham Hancocks of this world.
Jews were not called to ‘dominate’ the nations. They were called to the Wedding Feast of the Son, but they turned down the invitation and instead were “gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests” and the one who had no wedding garment “was cast into outer darkness, (where) there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
Thank you, it is an interesting point indeed but very tangential to my comment. I just wonder how a certain Jewish elite came to establish a theocracy with the stated ambition of bringing the enslaved people to dominate all nations. This is not a theological question, it is an anthropological and psychological question that I ask, which is why the Hancock and Biglino readings are interesting in this respect.
The difference between Christianity and other religions is that the behaviour of the priests is really a side issue. The Church is not the priests, it is Christ incarnate. The priests merely serve Him, and as people they are of course sinners, like everyone else. The Church is not the theology, either, that is an expression of the logical consequences of Christ’s presence. And the theology was set long before the Renaissance.
The thing is, if the priest’s/Pope’s activities and machinations were what the religion rested on, then the whole thing would be void, because it denies Christ’s incarnation.
So it is all very interesting, and largely beside the point.
What I think just about everyone finds hard to grasp is just how supernatural the Christian claims are. It is far easier to drag everything back to the world of humans, and human behaviour.
In actual fact priests serve the people. They represent Christ who came to save those “You have given Me; for they are Yours. All I have is Yours, and all You have is Mine”. Salvation is the ultimate goal for Mankind: “God became man that man might become God”. Not to bring the Kingdom of God to Earth (the dream of Judaeo-Communism), neither to cater for our ‘spiritual welfare’ in this world, but to raise Man to the spiritual Kingdom, which is ‘not of this world’.
“For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; 10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:1-14).
“For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore” (Hebrews 7:1-28).
“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:1-13).
It is clear that the ‘old testament’ is obsolete. Actually all the confusion is the result of the substitution of the term ‘testament’ – diateke- which is an unilateral command from God, with ‘covenant’ which is a bilateral ‘pact’.
Well, I think I will have to meditate on all that, but right now I can say that, yes, I do think that the Old Testament is obsolete.
I personally have no problem or doubt regarding the supernatural origin of Christ’s message. What interests me here is the origin of the superhuman ambition of this Jewish elite. Such an ambition does not fall from the sky (as we say in French) in the sense that it can be neither spontaneous nor supernatural. It necessarily has a “natural” cause or rather a “logical” one, i.e. it necessarily has an origin in THIS world. From my point of view, it can only have been imitated or intimated by a very advanced civilization (because of the exceptional quality of the social engineering implemented by this ambitious elite). One could imagine this civilization to be as much terrestrial (Hancock) as extraterrestrial (Biglino).
The Old Testament is not completely obsolete. You find there the answer to the question whence ‘the origin of the superhuman ambition of this Jewish elite’. Is the Chapter 6 of Genesis:
“And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 3 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown. 5 And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually, 6 then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered [it] deeply. 7 And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man with cattle, and reptiles with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them. 8 But Noe found grace before the Lord God. 9 And these [are] the generations of Noe. Noe was a just man; being perfect in his generation, Noe was well-pleasing to God. 10 And Noe begot three sons, Sem, Cham, Japheth. 11 But the earth was corrupted before God, and the earth was filled with iniquity”.
The ‘Sons of God’ were humans who reached a higher level of spirituality which they forfeited through their love for the flesh of the ‘daughters of men’, which arrested their further spiritual development while retaining the ‘magic’ powers. They are the ‘gods’ of polytheism. More about it in the Book of Enoch. The Giants are the equivalent of the Titans of Greek mythology.
Sorry, this doesn’t fit the bill. I don’t see here any reason why a jewish elite would endeavour to lead their people to a world domination. Biglino and Sitchin as well have far better (hebrew text-based) interpretations for the sons of God and the giants. Nothing suggests that it could be a matter of reaching a higher level of spirituality.
Biglino and Stichin are, unfortunately, unreliable impostors.
Broadly speaking, a very good summary: Levitism>Pharaseeism>Talmud/Kabbalism. Like Islam, what is commonly referred to as ‘Zionism’ IS an ideology; but so is Islam, whether Shiia or Sunni. Like all heresies,
they are ‘sectaries grown old’ [Augustine].
But, though it is hard to contradict such detailed study, my impression is that he paints subsequent Jewish
history with too broad a brush. Conversely, it is difficult to see what the ‘West’ can do about this dual
dynamic, given it is itself immersed in credulous ‘Enlightenment’ ideology, where Man is central… It too is
a form of ‘self-worship’.
Truly Christians will always be the minority on this weary earthly pilgrimage.
Donald S. Gillespie
An important chapter of the ‘occult’ subversion of the Church (generally overlooked or minimized) is the heresy of the ‘Judaizers’ (Zhidovstvuyushchiye) in Russia, contemporaneous with the phenomena described by Michael Hoffman. There is a general unawareness that the theory of Russia as the ‘Third Rome’ is a byproduct of this heresy. It was convincingly demonstrated that the mysterious monk Filofei who excogitated it was no other than:
“Feodor Vasiliyevich Kuritsyn (Russian: Федор Васильевич Курицын) (? – died no earlier than 1500) was a Russian statesman, philosopher and a poet. As a government official and a diplomat, Kuritsyn exerted great influence on the Russian foreign policy in the times of Ivan III. In 1482, he was sent to the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus to conclude an anti-Polish alliance. In 1494, Kuritsyn was sent to Lithuania for the same purpose. He took part in many negotiations with foreign statesmen in Moscow.
In 1485, Kuritsyn created a club, which later would be considered heretical. He was against monasteries and monasticism, expressed ideas about freedom of human will (“autocracy of the soul”), which he would interpret in a much broader sense than it was allowed by the orthodox theology.
Kuritsyn’s name was last mentioned in 1500, when Ivan III gradually changed his attitude towards heretics thanks to hegumen Joseph Volotsky, who had been Kuritsyn’s staunch opponent. The tsar’s leniency gave way to persecution, which would put an end to activities of Kuritsyn’s club. Ivan III, however, spared Kuritsyn due to Volotsky’s obvious exaggerations in his accusations”. (I have used the Wikipedia entry for convenience, obviously there is more to it).
The heresy lingered on in the underground. Russians might be loath to admit that what they consider the most authentic expression of ‘Russian’ Orthodoxy (the ‘Old Belief’) was in fact a sequel of the Zhidovstvuyushchiye. Like the ‘Russian religious philosophy’ of Soloviov (a seasoned Judaizer and Kabbalist and convert to ‘Catholicism’ – presumably the ‘occult’ one) who died ‘praying for the Jewish people’ and reciting in Hebrew the Shema Yisrael), Bulgakov, Berdiaev. Soloviov advised Tolstoy to learn Hebrew!
“There is also the general permission to lie to a gentile (BT Baba Kamma 113a).”
The Talmud is on the internet too. So I decided to look this up at
The text is rather long but the relevant part seems to be the last paragraph:
Still others read these statements with reference to the following: To [escape] murderers or robbers or customs-collectors one may confirm by a vow a statement that [e.g.] the grain is terumah or belongs to the Royal Court, though it was not terumah and though it did not belong to the Royal Court. But [why should] to customs-collectors [not] apply the statement made by Samuel that the law of the State has the force of law? R. Hanina b. Kahana said that a customs-collector who is bound by no limit [is surely not acting lawfully]. At the school of R. Jannai it was stated that we were dealing here with a customs-collector who acted on his own authority. But R. Ashi said: We suppose the customs-collector here to be a heathen publican as it was taught: ‘Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him! Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible? Has it not been taught that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was expounded by R. Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin: ‘Whence can we learn that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden? From the significant words: After that he is sold he may be redeemed again,
According to a note, the last sentence refers to Leviticus 25:48 which deals with the redeeming of Jews who have sold themselves to foreigners. That verse talks about buying back.
I can’t draw from this text the conclusions that Hoffman draws. So I get the feeling that he is the one deceiving.
The german scientist Dr. Riike Gerd Hamer, who has saved thousend lives all over the world thanks his knoledge, had writed in his books about the “New Medicine” and the “Five biological laws” that his discoveries have been applied for decades in Israel, and are applied nowadays to treat and heal exclusively the Jews, while it must be done everything to prevent these knowledge to reach the non-Jews. He has been jailed for years and was expelled from the medical council in order to force him to abjure his finding. This topic has been heavily exploited in order to discredit the person and his discoveries, so he has been branded mediatically as a xenophobic, racist and nazist.
“If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
When Austrian-American Edward Bernays transcribed those thoughts into his 1928 book, Propaganda, he was most likely reflecting on the grandest hoax in history – perpetrated on humankind by his Zionist forefathers roughly a century earlier – that “Jews” were (and still are) chosen by “God” to be an exceptional, superior, separate, people and nation.
Ever since, the masses (including “Jews”) – minds controlled and regimented according to the Zionist will, unconsciously and without a second thought – believe that “Jews” are a people, a race, and a nation, and not just adherents of the Jewish religion.
So now, after roughly 170 years of programming, humanity credulously accepts the con. What is most disconcerting for me is to see critical, independent thinkers; revisionist historians (including Israeli); authors; academics, and politicians, wrestling with how to refer to non-affiliates of the Jewish religion. Most simply continue to use the word Jew, and thus the scam continues, unquestioned.
But what else can any of us do, or say? How else to describe a non-affiliate of the Jewish religion?
Well, how do we describe non-religious Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, etc? We don’t. No such creatures exist. We refer to people by their nationality: American, Canadian, German, Russian, etc, or by their race (within the human race): white/Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black and Australoid, and most, or many, of us don’t give a damn about their beliefs.
As there is no way any of us is going to change the minds of the regimented masses and their Orwellian group-think – I’m suggesting a solution: when writing, we enclose with quotations the word “Jew” and its derivatives “Jews,” “Jewish,” “Jewishness,”, and preface any book, article, remark, or comment with something like:
“I enclose the word Jew in quotations to indicate that I’m referring – not to an adherent of the Jewish religion – but to a person who believes – wittingly or not – that (s)he belongs to the God-chosen, exceptional, superior, separate race, people, and nation.”
When speaking, we try to avoid using the word(s) at all, unless referring to followers of the Jewish religion. If necessary, we preface our remarks with something similar to the above.
Zionists will continue to disseminate the farcical lie and use it as their ancient and malicious Pharisaic-Talmudic WMD to instigate global mayhem; to destroy anyone who dares question their God-given right to world hegemony; to effect regime change worldwide (including the U.S.); to slaughter and exterminate Palestinians and Arabs; confiscate their land, and eventually annex the entire Middle East as their God-given “Jewish State.”
They will continue to distract us with such fabricated accessories as “Orthodox,” “Sephardic,” “Ashkenazi,” “Khazarian,” “Kabbalistic,” etc, as if there were not only a “Jewish” race but different tribes or sects within it. Whether Orthodox or Paradox, Sephardic or Sefarcical; Ashkenazi or Ashkenutty; Khazarian or Caesarian, Kabbalistic or cannibalistic, they do not exist.
The only evidence ever provided has been an anthology of ancient oral anecdotes – transcribed centuries after they allegedly happened – into what is commonly referred to as the Old Testament or Tanakh, or Mikra. (Although I understand they’ve gone as far as setting up their own DNA testing labs and sites, and claiming there are Jewish or Ashkenazi or Khazarian genes that prove their fiction to be fact.)
I appreciate that what I’m saying is simplistic, but I continue to try to understand how and why the con happened and how humanity swallowed the hook, line, and sinker. Thank you, Saker, for your insights and for introducing me to Michael A. Hoffman.
BS. There is no single mention of the Nile River in the entirety of the Hebrew Bible. The River or Brook of Egypt is a Wadi South of Gaza. There is no single mention of Jews, Judaism, Jewishness in tje entire TORAH. There were Judeans and Judaics at the time of Yeshua but no Jews. The word Jews was invented two centuries ago to give those who do not have Temple records proving 12 Tribes of Yacov tribal affiliation including the Judeans. The temple records were destroyed in the first century with the destruction of the Second Temple. Mothers can’t transmit the Y chromosome DNA required to ascertain tribal affiliation. Mothers can transmit mitochondrial DNA but this is inadequate for ascertaining patrilineal tribal identity. The Ashkenazi are Turkic Khazar identity thieves and squatters. The Ezekiel 38 Gog and Magog invasion happened in 1948.
Jewish ‘religion’ is inseparable of the Jewish ‘race’ (in the sense of lineage, descendants of a common ancestor, in that case Judah, one of the sons of Jacob). The ‘religion’ of the Jews is the belief that the race of Judah was set apart from the rest of humanity and destined to reign over it (the tribe of Judah was the ‘royal tribe’).
What needs to be understood in this context of discussing “Judaism” the religion vs Judah the tribe is that Judahite tribal affiliation cannot be inherited from Jewish mothers. This is a blatant contradiction of a) the Torah and b) Science. Judahite tribal affiliation comes from patrilineal lineage in the Torah and from paternal Y Chromosome DNA in Science. Mothers can only pass on mitochondrial DNA but not the Y Chromosome that identifies genotype and phenotype. The invention by the rabbis to have the “Jewish” mothers as guarantee of “Jewishness” is anti Torah as lineage is always patrilineal in the Torah. Judaism, defined as the new religion of the Yavne (aka Jamnia) second century Sanhedrin and middle age Spaniard Maimonides can be acquired by conversion and circumcision by an accredited mohel of an Orthodox synagogue ( Reform and Conservative conversions not accepted as valid in Israel). But Jewishness and Jews are topics not even covered in the Torah. When the Second Temple was destroyed, all genealogical and family tree records of the tribes were destroyed. Edomites were already assimilated (e.g. Herod dynasty were Edomites so was Antipater) into Judahites from at least the mid second Century BC when Yochanan Hyrcanus ( a prince from Hasmonean stock ) forced them to circumcise. Some other Arab tribes were also forced to circumcise and assimilate. The Edomites will fight Yacov for his alloted land to the end. That is the subject of the twins fighting inside Rivkah’s womb. These Edomites are identity thiefs leading by example to what the Turco Khazars Ashkenazi did in 1948. They forced the Western World through the Nazism guilt trip and blame to support the Land Invasion of Gog and Magog as per the prophecy in Ezekiel 38. So people who wouldn’t have any rights to theland of Israel by patrilineal genealogy acquired it by force. However, with YHWH, might DOES NOT make right! So the wrongs will be made right in the Har Meggido plains.
While I greatly enjoyed this interview, especially the men’s deep knowledge of Judaic/Israeli intricacies, mendacity, and motivations, I have to say that it would be helpful to include case studies of concepts, particularly in the case of The Revelation of the Method. I don’t doubt that this practice is quite real, but it would greatly help readers, I think, to get the details on how such a psychological warfare operation looks in the real world. Also, a great follow-up, in my opinion, would be to develop an action plan for people who might want to challenge the oppressive status quo.
I enjoy your blog and analysis. I found this interview very interesting but (invoking my freedom of thought, speech and opinion) I must confess Mr. Hoffman comes across a bit paranoid with Satanist and occult preoccupation. I suspect one might counter that being paranoid does mean one is not correct …
Every religion and tribe has it’s bizarre superstitions amd beliefs. Granted, the Chosen People / Jewish supremacy angle does strike an uncomfortable note, and the geopolitical landscape does also support the thesis of Judaism being cultish
Anyway, I’m trying to keep an open mind and an unbiased eye in seeking the truth, and also not to paint people with too broad a brush.
Michael Hoffmans’ approach is rather Protestant. It was Luthers’ and his followers explicit dismissal of “Dionysius” the Areopagite as “plus platonizans quam christianizans, “more a Platonist than a Christian”, and his warning to “stay away from that Dionysius, whoever he was!” which led to the iconoclastic rejection of all Christian ‘philosophy’ (including the sacred geometry and the sacred arts based on it) as ‘pagan’ (there were Protestant ‘critical historians’ who pushed that error to its extremes, inventing the dependence of Dionisyus on the anti-Christian ‘neo-platonism’, thus inverting the real relations between them). And with it all the vision of a rational, logical Cosmos ordered by the Divine Logos “in measure and number and weight” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:20 – Book excluded from the Protestant ‘Bible’), opening the way for the tunnel vision of a purely materialistic, irrational, fatalistic and amoral ‘Nature’ (the god of the religion of Atheism).
That split never occurred in the Orthodox Church (and actually neither in the Roman-Catholic). The interest for the so-called ‘occult’ philosophy of the Renaissance was sparked by the ‘rediscovery’ of the Greek sources (Plato and Dionysius) but was not alien to the Scholastics. Hoffman is too harsh on Pico della Mirandola (and too lenient on Luther) whose philosophical and spiritual endeavours he seems to completely misunderstand. The ‘Judaization’ of the Roman Church was a process that started long before the Renaissance and was a principal cause of the Schism.
I suppose the doctrines discussed in this interview, in the Talmud and elsewhere, require it by implication. If the goy are sub-humans created only to serve Jews, then control must be exercised over the goy to bring about that end. There’s also a phenomenon called “duper’s delight, ‘ referring to the satisfaction derived by those who are able to persuade large numbers of people to believe a big lie. Using the mass media to tell big lies is the principal means of Jewish control, along with purchasing politicians.