The Hoffman Wire
October 24, 2012 • www.revisionisthistory.org
The Stone in the Synagogue's Shoe
By Michael Hoffman
Below we reprint a report detailing the pleasure the World
Jewish Congress has derived from news of the dismissal of Bishop Richard
Williamson from the SSPX priest's fraternity.
Pope Benedict XVI does not dare to intervene in Talmudic
affairs, such as, for example, to publicly chastize Shas "spiritual
leader" Rabbi Ovadia Yosef for calling for the extermination of the
Palestinians. The Vatican
has surrendered to Orthodox Judaism and only maintains sufficient disagreement
to bolster the facade that it represents the Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
Meanwhile, the Zionists have no compunction against shaping
and influencing the Catholic Church through their power over the western media,
and the chutzpah which fuels their conviction that they have the right
to sanctimoniously lecture the gentiles.
As the following declaration makes clear, Bishop Fellay has
done the will of the Talmudists in expelling Bishop Williamson.
True, Mr. Ronald Lauder, the billionaire scion of the Estee
Lauder cosmetics firm, and Ronald Reagan's former US
Ambassador to Austria,
is not yet satisfied. It seems that the SSPX has not done enough. This is
consonant with the rabbinic ideology concerning the goyim -- the
incomplete nature of the soul of the gentile renders the actions of the gentile
incomplete even when, with the best of intentions, they bow to the synagogue in
abject submission.
The goyim, the pope and Bishop Fellay included, lack
that special soul with which morally and racially superior Judaic persons are
endowed. If you don't believe it, observe the fate of the thousands of sub-Saharan
African immigrants in the Israeli state who are bound for indefinite detention
in concentration camps in the Negev, precisely
due to their alleged inferiority to the Holy People. No western nation on earth
could get away with such draconian barbarity without earning international
opprobrium and sanctions, yet the concentration camps for Blacks in "Israel" are not an issue in America, for
Obama or Romney, or the media. This is in keeping with the Talmudic dictum: one
law for the "Holy People" and another for everyone else.
Bishop Fellay may speak of Bishop Williamson's
"disobedience" to Fellay, but philosophically that claim is bankrupt,
since Fellay himself continues to defy the pope by refusing to submit to the
jurisdiction of the local ordinaries in the dioceses where SSPX churches,
schools and seminaries are located. Archbishop Lefebvre, the founder of the
SSPX, taught that the salvation of souls, and not obedience to wayward
authority, was the highest priority. Salvation of souls is Bishop Williamson's
mandate. How then can Fellay, who is disobedient to the pope, accuse
Williamson of disobedience? The obedience issue is a smokescren which conceals
a larger truth. This truth is most transparent in the German precincts of the
SSPX.
Bishop Fellay is mirroring the idolatry and despotism of the
German SSPX, which labors under Germany's
Muslim-like blasphemy laws, which protect the sacred relics of
Holocaustianity from forensic examination, skepticism and ridicule. The means
of this protection are Germany's
dungeons, where heretics such as publisher Ernst Zundel, and erstwhile Max
Planck chemist Germar Rudolf, have rotted for years. Consequently, the SSPX
conforms to the demands of the false religion of Holocaustianity, and does not
contest the idolatry of its relics, id est, the “gas chambers."
Consequently, Bishop Williamson, who blasphemed those relics, represented what
Mafiosi term, "pietra di la scarpa," the stone in the shoe.
The stone had to be removed from the synagogue's shoe.
Lauder: Williamson dismissal from Pius Brotherhood
"too little too late" and not credible
24 October 2012
The head of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), Ronald S.
Lauder, has welcomed the expulsion of Bishop Richard Williamson from the
Catholic breakaway group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) but said it should have
been done years ago and “it does nothing to restore the credibility of this
organization”.
Lauder declared: “It’s good that the hatemonger and
Holocaust denier Williamson has finally been sent into the wilderness, but this
is a decision the SSPX leadership should have taken years ago, when the cleric
openly denied the existence of gas chambers. It is too little too late. The
reasons now given for Williamson’s dismissal do not mention the damage this man
has caused by spreading invective against Jews and others, be it from the
pulpit, via his weekly newsletter and in his statements to the media.”
In a 1989 speech at Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada,
Williamson had claimed that “There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers.
It was all lies, lies, lies”. In an interview with Swedish television conducted
in Germany
in late 2008, he reaffirmed his view.
The WJC president said that although not all members of the
SSPX were anti-Semites like Williamson, the group had yet to deal with the
issue of anti-Semitism in its ranks and part ways with those “who continue to
regard the Jews as the embodiment of the anti-Christ.” Lauder thanked Pope
Benedict XVI and Cardinal Kurt Koch, the Vatican official in charge of
relations with the Jews, for their unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitic
tendencies in the church. “We know where the Vatican stands on this. What we
don’t know is whether the SSPX leadership agrees with it. Until the Pius
Brotherhood takes a clear stand they should not be readmitted into the fold of
the Catholic Church,” Ronald Lauder pointed out.
The SSPX said in a statement issued on Wednesday:
"Monseigneur Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the
leadership and the government of the Saint Pius X Society over a period of
several years and refusing to show respect and obedience deserved by his
legitimate superiors, has been declared excluded."
The fraternity of traditionalists who broke away from the Vatican more
than two decades ago over its reforms said the decision had been reached on 4
October 2013. Williamson was one of four bishops who were consecrated by Bishop
Marcel Lefebvre in Econe, Switzerland, in 1988 against the
orders of Pope John Paul II, who later excommunicated them. In January 2009,
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four.
“Thank Goodness the Williamson saga will soon be behind us,
once the Regensburg
court has decided on his conviction for Holocaust denial,” said Lauder.
The Hoffman Wire
October 19, 2012
We Are Ruled by the Money Power
By Michael Hoffman
Two articles below demonstrate
how the Money Power decides our lives for us in the "free market."
Monsanto Corporation and its allies want food that has been tampered with by
Frankenstein laboratories to remain unlabeled, and they are pouring millions
into the election in California
that will decide the labeling issue.
In Britain
and Australia
meanwhile, bankruptcy is the weapon of choice against non-conformists. First in
the case of dissident historian David Irving, and now with revisionist
historian Fredrick Toben. As a legacy of the old British debtor's prisons, if
you owe money to lawyers in Australia
as a result of being sued by the "Executive Council of Australian
Jewry" for doubting the homicidal gas chamber legend of
Auschwitz-Birkenau, then Australia
becomes your rather large and personal debtor's prison. As a bankrupt, Dr.
Toben is required to surrender his passport to ensure he remains in the country
until such time as he pays the lawyers $175,618.97. You can be almost certain
that usury has been attached to that bill, meaning it will grow faster than
tooth decay in a candy addict. Those who are intellectually and spiritually
bankrupt have bankrupted an independent thinker and truth-seeker, because
they're rich and he's not.
Finally, thanks to everyone who
pre-ordered my book, Usury in Christendom (due to be published Dec. 15).
We pre-sold well over 200 books in two days! If this trend continues, the
entire first edition will be sold out in the next two weeks.
Turning Point in the Food Fight of Our Lives
Organic Consumers
Association • Oct. 19, 2012
The most recent voter poll on the
November 6 Proposition 37 California ballot initiative to label Genetically
Engineered foods and ban the marketing of GE-tainted foods as “natural” is out.
And the news is discouraging. After enjoying a 26-point lead for the past six
months, our side has dropped 19 points in the polls.
How did we lose so much support
so fast?
If you live in California, you know why. Flip on your TV –
at home, at the gym, in the airport – and there they are. Ad after ad, spewing
lies about higher costs for consumers, rampant lawsuits clogging the courts,
"confusing" labels, poor farmers and grocers facing "nightmares
of paperwork." Monsanto, Big Ag, and the rest of the pesticide and
junk-food manufacturers began flooding the California airwaves on October 1
with one million dollars a day in deceptive TV and radio ads – and they will
relentlessly pound the airwaves right up until midnight November 6.
We’re still ahead in the polls
48% to 40%. And we’re holding onto a comfortable lead among those who
don’t watch TV. But those who do watch TV – including many who were on our side
until the opposition unleashed a barrage of non-stop industry propaganda
and lies – are getting confused.
With only a few million dollars
in our own campaign war chest, we’re no match for Monsanto’s $36 million ad
blitz.
So, how do we overcome Monsanto
and Food Inc.'s onslaught of deceptive advertising? We do what the grassroots
knows how to do best – we fight back on the ground with our message about the
people vs. the corporations, the truth about our health vs. their obscene
profits. We expose their lies by talking to voters in supermarket parking lots,
on the phone, and by making sure voters get out to the polls to vote YES on 37.
Here’s how you can help. If you
live in California,
we desperately need you to hand out leaflets at grocery stores over the next
three weeks – we need to mobilize thousands more of you today! Sign up here.
If you live outside California, please volunteer for our national phone bank
to call millions of California
voters. It’s easy. You can get quick, easy online training and sign up for one or
more shifts here – and it won’t cost you a dime in phone charges.
Toben grounded
October 19, 2012
If Adelaide
man Fredrick Toben has any more plans to travel to Iran,
where he’s previously taken part in Holocaust denial campaigns, they are likely
to be thwarted, after he was declared bankrupt by a Sydney court.
The Holocaust denier did not
appeal last month’s bankruptcy declaration by the Federal Magistrates Court in Sydney by October 15, the
final date he could lodge an appeal.
Under Australian law, bankrupts
are required to surrender their passports to keep them in the country and make
it easier for their estate to be administered.
Toben, who has been jailed for
Holocaust denial in Germany,
visited Iran
in 2003 to give a speech denying the Holocaust and in 2006, when he took part
in a Holocaust-denial conference sponsored by the Iranian regime.
The bankruptcy declaration was
made after Toben failed to cover legal debts arising from a 2009 contempt case
against him by Jeremy Jones.
Jones, as president of the
Executive Council of Australian Jewry at the time, was the plaintiff in a
defamation case brought against Toben for rejecting the reality of the
Holocaust and claiming Jews who were offended by his denial possessed “limited
intelligence”.
In 2002, the Federal Court found
for Jones and ordered Toben to remove offensive, anti-Semitic materials from
his website. In 2009, Toben was found guilty of contempt of court for
continually uploading more of the same content in defiance of the court order.
He served a three-month prison sentence in Adelaide.
A creditor’s petition was made
against Toben’s estate for $175,618.97, the taxed legal costs incurred by Jones
during the contempt proceedings.
Toben told the court he was being
victimised politically and that he had no assets.
In being declared bankrupt, Toben
follows in the footsteps of British Holocaust denier David Irving, who was
bankrupted as a result of the costs of his ill-fated defamation claim against
US Holocaust historian Dr Deborah Lipstadt, which he launched after she
described Irving’s
statements as Holocaust denial.
The Hoffman Wire
October 25, 2012 • www.revisionisthistory.org
Christian Support for Romney Makes a Mockery of Christ
Michael Hoffman's Introduction:
Robert Parry's essay (below) offers good insight into the degree to which
Willard "Mitt" Romney is a creature of the blood-drenched, neo-con
butchers who brought us the disastrous Iraq and Afghan wars. Foreign wars
lead to trillion dollar US deficits and nation-building overseas, while US infrastructure
crumbles. If he is elected, Romney will very likely invade Iran, creating a
worldwide economic depression and gas prices at $6 or $7 a gallon in the US,
while killing hundreds or thousands of American soldiers, sailors and Marines
and tens of thousands of Iranian civilians (including pregnant Iranian women --
are you paying attention, anti-abortion activists?). The slaughter of
innocent men, women and children in needless foreign wars fought to make the
world safe for Zionist oppression of indigenous people, is just as evil as
homosexual marriage and abortion. War is a form of infanticide, since countless
children, born and inborn, die as a result of it.
In addition to his allegiance to
the neo-con butchers, Mr. Romney is the agent of predatory capitalism. He will
strip every protection and every safety net from American workers that he can
get away with. The poorest and most vulnerable in our society will suffer as a
result, and abortions will increase. His vice-presidential running mate is an open
advocate of the greed-is-good atheist economist Ayn Rand, for whom selfishness
and the mortal sin of usury were high virtues.
Neither Obama nor Romney
represent any kind of candidate that Christians can support, but Romney will
indeed get the so-called "Christian" vote on November 6 thanks to the
blindness of priests and ministers, from traditional Catholics to Billy Graham,
who are helping to fulfill the Mormon ambition of putting a spiritual
descendant of Joseph Smith into the White House. What is called Christianity
today is a mockery of the holy name of Christ.
“Moderate Mitt” -- Neocon Trojan Horse
By Robert Parry,
Consortium News
24 October 2012
Mitt Romney's peculiar sense of
geography - thinking Iran
was some landlocked country that needed Syria
as a "route to the sea" - may have raised some eyebrows over Romney's
lack of basic knowledge, but another part of the same answer, referring to the
civil war in Syria
as "an opportunity," should have raised more alarm.
Though Romney's goal in Monday's
foreign policy debate was to downplay his warlike neoconservative stand, his
reference to the Syrian chaos as "an opportunity" suggests that his
more moderate rhetoric is just another ploy to deceive voters and win the
election, not a real abandonment of neocon strategies.
In that sense, the new
"moderate Mitt" is less a sign of a neocon retreat from his earlier
bellicosity than a Trojan Horse to be wheeled onto the White House grounds on
Jan. 20, 2013, so the neocons can pour forth from its hollowed-out belly and
regain full control of U.S.
foreign policy.
The neocons don't really mind
that Romney has suddenly abandoned many of their cherished positions, such as
extending the Afghan War beyond 2014 and returning U.S.
troops to Iraq.
The neocons understand the political need for Romney to calm independent voters
who fear that he may be another George W. Bush.
In Monday's debate, Romney said,
"Syria's an opportunity
for us because Syria plays
an important role in the Middle East,
particularly right now. Syria
is Iran's
only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for
them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon,
which threatens, of course, our ally Israel. And so seeing Syria remove
Assad is a very high priority for us. Number two, seeing a — a replacement
government being responsible people is critical for us."
The "route to the sea"
comment - with its faint echo of a distant time in geopolitics - represented
proof that Romney lacks even a rudimentary knowledge of world geography, since
much of Iran's southern territory fronts on the Persian Gulf and Iran could
only reach Syria by transiting Iraq. Syria
and Iran
have no common border.
But more significantly, Romney
was revealing the crucial connection between the neocon desire for "regime
change" in Syria and
the neocon determination to strangle Israel's
close-in enemies, such as Lebanon's
Hezbollah.
Romney's demand for a new Syrian
government of "responsible people" further suggests that the
Republican presidential nominee shares the core neocon fantasy that the United States can simply remove one unsavory
Middle East dictator and install a pro-Western, Israel-friendly leader who will
then shut off aid to Hezbollah in Lebanon
and Hamas in Gaza.
That was the central fallacy in
the Iraq War, the notion that United States with its unparalleled military
might could shift the Mideast's political dynamics to Israel's advantage
through coercive "regime change." In Iraq,
the U.S. military eliminated
Saddam Hussein but then saw a new Iraqi government ally itself with Iran.
The new Iraq may be less of a military threat, but it
has not reached out and embraced Israel as some neocons had hoped.
Indeed, by removing Hussein's Sunni-controlled regime - and ending up with a
Shiite-dominated one - Bush's Iraq War essentially eliminated a major bulwark
against the regional influence of Iran's Shiite regime.
Yet, despite the bloody and
costly catastrophe in Iraq,
the heart of the neocon dream is still beating - and Romney's comment indicates
that he shares its illusions. Dating back at least to the mid-1990s, the neocon
idea has been to use violent or coercive "regime change" in Muslim
countries to secure Israel's
security.
The neocons' first target may
have been Iraq,
but that was never the endgame. The strategy was to make Iraq into a military base for overthrowing the
governments of Iran and Syria. Back in
the heady days of 2002-2003, a neocon joke posed the question of what to do
after ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq
- whether to next go east to Iran
or west to Syria.
The punch-line was: "Real men go to Tehran."
According to the neocon grand
plan, once pro-Israeli governments were established in Iran, Iraq
and Syria, Israel's hostile neighbors, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, would lose their benefactors and
shrivel up, without money or weapons. Then, Israel could dictate its terms for
"peace" and "security."
This neocon strategy emerged
after the lopsided U.S.
victory in Kuwait, in which
President George H.W. Bush demonstrated the leaps-and-bounds advantage of the
high-tech U.S. military over
the Iraqi army whose soldiers were literally blown to bits by U.S. missiles
and "smart bombs" while American casualties were kept to a minimum.
After that 1991 victory, it
became conventional wisdom in Washington that
no army on earth could withstand the sophisticated killing power of the U.S. military.
That belief - combined with frustration over Israel's
stalemated conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah - led American neocons to begin
thinking about a new approach, "regime change" across the Middle East.
The early outlines of this
aggressive concept for remaking the Middle East emerged in 1996 when a group of
neocons, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, went to work for Israel's Likud
leader Benjamin Netanyahu during his campaign for prime minister.
The neocon strategy paper, called
"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," advanced the
idea that only regime change in hostile Muslim countries could achieve the
necessary "clean break" from the diplomatic standoffs that had
followed inconclusive Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
Under the "clean
break," Israel would no
longer seek peace through mutual understanding and compromise, but rather
through confrontation, including the violent removal of leaders such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein who were supportive of Israel's
close-in enemies.
The plan called Hussein's ouster
"an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right," but also
one that would destabilize the Assad dynasty in Syria
and thus topple the power dominoes into Lebanon, where Hezbollah might soon
find itself without its key Syrian ally. Iran also could find itself in the
cross-hairs of "regime change."
But what the "clean
break" needed was the military might of the United
States, since some of the targets like Iraq were too far away and too powerful to be defeated
even by Israel's
highly efficient military. The cost in Israeli lives and to Israel's
economy from such overreach would have been staggering.
In 1998, the U.S. neocon
brain trust pushed the "clean break" plan another step forward with
the creation of the Project for the New American Century, which urged President
Bill Clinton to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
However, Clinton
would only go so far, maintaining a harsh embargo on Iraq
and enforcing a "no-fly zone" which involved U.S. aircraft
conducting periodic bombing raids. Still, with Clinton or his heir apparent, Al
Gore, in the White House, a full-scale invasion of Iraq appeared out of the question.
The first key political obstacle
was removed when the neocons helped engineer George W. Bush's ascension to the
presidency in Election 2000. However, the path was not fully cleared until
al-Qaeda terrorists attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001 (Editor's note: The US
government attacked the World Trade Center),
leaving behind a political climate across America for war and revenge.
Of course, the U.S. invasion of Iraq
in March 2003 had other motives besides Israeli security - from Bush's personal
animus toward Saddam Hussein to controlling Iraq's
oil resources - but a principal goal of the neocons was the projection of
American power deep into the Muslim world, to strike at enemy states beyond Israel's
military reach.
In those days of imperial hubris,
the capabilities of the U.S.
military were viewed as strategic game-changers. However, the Iraqi resistance
to the U.S.
conquest, relying on low-tech weapons such as "improvised explosive
devices," dashed the neocon dream - at least in the short run. The
"real men" had to postpone their trips to Tehran
and Damascus.
But the dream hasn't died. It
just had to wait out four years of Barack Obama. In Campaign 2012, the neocons
have returned to surround Mitt Romney, who like George W. Bush a decade ago has
only a vague understanding of the world and is more than happy to cede the
direction of U.S.
foreign policy to the smart, confident and well-connected neocons.
The neocons also understand the
need to manipulate the American people. In the 1980s, when I was reporting
Ronald Reagan's Central American policies, I dealt with the neocons often and
came to view them as expert manipulators whose view of democracy was that it
was okay to trick the common folk into doing what was deemed necessary. The
neocons learned to exaggerate dangers and exploit fears. They tested their
skills out in Central America with warnings about how peasant rebellions
against corrupt oligarchs were part of some grand Soviet scheme to conquer the United States through the soft underbelly of Texas.
When the neocons returned to
power under George W. Bush, they applied the same techniques in hyping the
threat from Iraq.
They pushed baseless claims about Saddam Hussein sharing non-existent weapons
of mass destruction with al-Qaeda, all the better to scare the American people.
The neocons faced some painful
reversals when the Iraq War foundered from late 2003 through 2006, but they
salvaged some status in 2007 by pushing the fiction of the "successful
surge," which supposedly turned impending defeat into victory, although
the truth was that the "surge" only delayed the inevitable failure of
the U.S.
enterprise.
After Bush's departure in 2009
and the arrival of Obama, the neocons retreated, too, to Washington think tanks and the editorial
pages of national news outlets. However, they continued to influence the
perception of events in the Middle East, shifting the blame for the Iraq defeat -
as much as possible - onto Obama.
New developments in the region
also created what the neocons viewed as new openings. For instance, the Arab
Spring of 2011 led to civil unrest in Syria where the Assad dynasty -
based in non-Sunni religious sects - was challenged by a Sunni-led insurgency
which included some democratic reformers as well as some radical jihadists.
Meanwhile, in Iran,
international resistance to its nuclear program prompted harsh economic
sanctions which have undermined the Islamic rule of the Shiite mullahs. Though
President Obama views the sanctions as leverage to compel Iran to accept
limits on its nuclear program, some neocons are already salivating over how to
hijack the sanctions on behalf of "regime change."
At this pivotal moment, what the
neocons need desperately is to maneuver their way back into the White House
behind Mitt Romney's election. And, if that requires Romney to suddenly soften
his hard-line neocon rhetoric for the next two weeks, that is a small price to
pay.
Which brings us back to Monday's
foreign policy debate in which Romney abandoned what had been his supposedly
principled stands, such as denouncing Obama's schedule to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
Though Romney had called that a major mistake - telling the Taliban when the
Americans were departing - he embraced the same timetable. The voters could
breathe a sigh of relief over "Moderate Mitt."
However, in Romney's comment
about Syria, he showed his real intent, the neocon desire to exploit the
conflict in Syria to replace Bashar al-Assad with a new leader who would
accommodate Israel and shut down assistance going to Lebanon's Hezbollah. It was
in that context that Romney termed the Syrian violence, which has claimed an
estimated 30,000 lives, an "opportunity."
But the real opportunity for the
neocons would come if the American voters, satisfied that Romney no longer
appears to be the crazy war hawk of the Republican primaries, elect him on Nov.
6 and then celebrate his arrival next Jan. 20 by pushing a crude wooden horse
through the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say what is on your mind, but observe the rules of debate. No foul language is allowed, no matter how anger-evoking the posted article may be.
Thank you,
TruthSeeker