MICHAEL HOFFMAN: Usury; a Talmudists Mentality...

Michael Hoffman

Usury

 Usury

MICHAEL HOFFMAN: The Hoffman Wire

The Hoffman Wire

December 3, 2012 

www.revisionist history.org

Günter Deckert will serve five months in a German prison for translating a history essay

By Michael Hoffman

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/12/researcher-gunter-deckert-sentenced-to.html

 Gunter Deckert

In the World War II revisionist history movement in Germany, Günter Deckert is among the most hard-working and humble of its martyrs.

I say "martyr" because any resident of Germany who persists in actively and publicly doubting the existence of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau -- the holy relic of the West's most sacred religion (Holocaustianity) -- will be fined and likely imprisoned.

Günter Deckert has been to prison before in Germany for this reason and he is about to be imprisoned again.

His "crime"? Translating from Italian into German historian Carlo Mattogno's treatise, "Auschwitz: The First Gassing" (überarbeiten, deutsche Endbearbeitung/ -fassung). 

The following was received from Mr. Deckert:

Friends, Comrades and Fighters for the Truth in World War II History,

The time has come! I must soon enter prison to serve my 5-month sentence although my constitutional appeal has not yet been decided.  I am to report to the prison on January 2nd, 2013. The release date will be June 2nd...

..."What does not kill me, does make me stronger!" With this in mind, my best comradely greetings and loyalty to our kin and people.I wish everyone a very good year of 2013 full of success and the best health possible.

Günter Deckert 

E-mail: guenter.deckert@gmx.de  

With those words Mr. Deckert prepares to surrender five months of his life to the German state that is called "democratic" by the U.S. government, the U.N. and the European Union, and which scruples to lecture Muslim nations on the pressing need to allow more freedom to their citizens. Fortunately, Muslims are increasingly aware of this hypocrisy and, unfortunately, it has only stiffened their resolve to enforce the repression of freedom of speech and press in their own nations. The Chinese Communists must also surely be aware of the German repression of revisionist thought criminals. "Example," observed Samuel Johnson, "is always more efficacious than precept." In other words, practice what you preach. But in addition to Germany, the governments of Canada, Australia and many European nations such as Austria, France and Switzerland, do not, and the world is made darker as a result.

Günter Deckert, a good and decent man, is again being tosssed into a dungeon with little or no protest or media publicity. The machinery of the German inquisition operates in near total silence and obscurity. Historians, researchers and scientists in Germany are imprisoned for blaspheming the Holy People's relics and it is all done with hardly any notice taken. Consequently, we know that this inquistion will grind on, and because it is in the German nature not to complain, the real, excruciating cost to Mr. Deckert and his family, their suffering and privation, will not be advertised on a poster soul.

What is called western civilization is actually western syphilization, and sometimes this writer finds himself ardently desiring that the Muslim invaders would arrive all that much sooner to scourge the golem of Europe, Canada and Australia, as God has so often in the past used hostile aliens to punish his people for their betrayal and idolatry. 

Make no mistake, the adoration of the gas chamber idol is no less an abomination in the eyes of the Most High; particulary in light of the fact that the organized denial of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ has never been more prevalent — a denial which is perfectly legal in every nation of the dishonorable western world.

__________________

Today's Hoffman Wire column is online here:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/12/researcher-gunter-deckert-sentenced-to.html

MICHAEL HOFFMAN: The Hoffman Wire

THE HOFFMAN WIRE

Nov. 13, 2012 • www.revisionisthistory.org

Did the Israeli Lobby Stage a Coup Against the Director of the CIA?

New York Times hints that the downfall of Petraeus was politically-motivated

By Michael Hoffman

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/did-israeli-lobby-stage-coup-against.html

Motives Questioned in F.B.I. Inquiry of Petraeus E-Mails

By Scott Shane And Charlie Savage

New York Times online, Nov. 12, 2012

WASHINGTON — Is a string of angry e-mails really enough, in an age of boisterous online exchanges, to persuade the F.B.I. to open a cyberstalking investigation?

...e-mails sent anonymously to Jill Kelley...prompted the F.B.I. office in Tampa, Fla., to begin an investigation last June....The inquiry traced the e-mails to Mr. Petraeus’s biographer, Paula Broadwell ...Some commentators have questioned whether the bureau would ordinarily investigate a citizen complaint about unwanted e-mails, suggesting that there must have been a hidden motive, possibly political, to take action. 

...Ms. Kelley, a volunteer with wounded veterans and military families, brought her complaint to a rank-and-file agent she knew from a previous encounter with the F.B.I. office... Ms. Kelly was fairly prominent in Tampa social circles and had previously had dealings with the F.B.I. agent who took her complaint...That agent, who had previously pursued a friendship with Ms. Kelley and had earlier sent her shirtless photographs of himself, was “just a conduit” for the complaint, a law enforcement official said. He had no training in cybercrime, was not part of the cyber squad handling the case and was never assigned to the investigation...But the agent, who was not identified, continued to “nose around” about the case...

Later, the agent became convinced — incorrectly, officials say — that the case had stalled. Because of his “worldview,” as the official put it, he suspected a politically motivated cover-up to protect President Obama. The agent alerted Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, who called the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, on Oct. 31 to tell him of the agent’s concerns. The official said the agent’s self-described “whistle-blowing” was “a little embarrassing” but had no effect on the investigation. (End quote from the New York Times online).

 There’s definitely a hint in the preceding report by the New York Times that Jill Kelley invites erotic responses from male FBI agents, one of whom was an asset of a powerful Israeli lobbyist, Republican Rep. Eric Cantor. On his own initiative this “shirtless” agent reported the case to Cantor. The New York Times does not say if this FBI agent breeched security by doing so.

Eric Cantor said “an F.B.I. employee whom his staff described as a whistle-blower told him about Mr. Petraeus's affair and a possible security breach in late October... 'I was contacted by an F.B.I. employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain (FBI) Director Mueller was aware of these serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security,' Mr. Cantor said in a statement.” (New York Times online, Nov. 11).

One wonders if Petraeus was set up, like Mordechai Vanunu; only in this case Broadwell may have been a patsy: “On Monday night, F.B.I. agents went to Ms. Broadwell’s home in Charlotte, N.C., and were seen carrying away what several reporters at the scene said were boxes of documents. A law enforcement official said Ms. Broadwell had consented to the search” (New York Times online, Nov. 12).

Her surrender of documents from her house without a search warrant would appall any competent defense attorney. It is the action of a scapegoat, or a person under some type of duress or mind control.

In 2010, General Petraeus fingered the Israeli-Palestine conflict as making life difficult for US troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan. His assessment violated the Israeli lobby’s sacred taboo against any such linkage:

“In March 2010, when Petraeus was still head of the US Central Command, he gave testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee which included this observation about one of the “challenges to security and stability” faced by the United States:

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Operations]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world...’

“Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was so alarmed he issued a statement condemning Petraeus’ testimony, asserting in part of it: ‘Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.’

“....Obama appointed Petraeus as CIA director after he made his Senate statement about Israel.” (Source: “When former CIA chief David Petraeus enraged the Israel lobby” http://electronicintifada.net/ Nov. 10, 2012)

In this writer’s opinion, the Petraeus sex scandal may have been intended to break during the presidential election campaign to embarrass Obama and cost him votes. The fact that it became public only after Nov. 6 shows that Obama’s forces inside the Cryptocracy successfully kept it under cover, and that’s some feat.

Nonetheless, there is a thinly-veiled message here for the President of the United States from the wing of the Cryptocracy which opposes him: we can bring you down too, if you don’t get on the Israeli bus and do the bidding of the necon war lobby, at least to the extent that your base will permit.

Of course, Petraeus should not have committed adultery. It is certainly gravely wrong. A man who will betray his wife will betray his country. But there are hundreds of high-level adulterers, to say nothing of thousands of practicing sodomites, working in La Cesspool Grande (Washington D.C.), who fornicate and sodomize with impunity. When one among this legion is singled out it is prudent to ask why.

Observe that the Zionist New York Times is subtly hinting at a possible conspiracy against Petraeus. By this means they display to the world the intimidating power of The Lobby. They don’t mind suggesting that Petraeus was deposed by hidden forces, knowing that informed observers are aware that Petraeus bucked the Israelis at one point in his career, and that’s all it takes for the axe to fall.

Unless serious investigative reporting and Congressional hearings dig up the conspirators behind this honey trap, we see in the Petraeus scandal a case of the Israeli lobby flexing its muscle on the national stage. The warning to Obama and his allies is unmistakable: pay and obey -- or else. It’s the old mobster’s dictum and that’s who Petraeus and company are dealing with -- hoodlum grandees with the power to ruin the director of America’s Central Intelligence Agency.

Think about the kind of clout this represents and then ask yourself, does anyone in gentile America have the power to depose the director of Mossad? Not bloody likely.

Petraeus was brought down in a coup d’etat. He is fortunate it happened like this, rather than in that other classic gangland sendoff, the arranged “accident” -- the chemically-induced heart attack; the automobile with “defective” brakes that sails off a cliff, or a strategic shove, like the one that led to the defenestration of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal in 1949.

Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press, where he investigated the Son of Sam and Double Initial serial murders. His latest book is Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not, due to be published by Independent History and Research in December. He edits Revisionist History Newsletter. As an independent scholar Hoffman’s writing is funded by the sale of his publications and broadcasts, and donations mainly from the working poor and middle class.

Today's Hoffman Wire column is online:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/did-israeli-lobby-stage-coup-against.html

Tell a friend!

MICHAEL HOFFMAN: The Hoffman Wire

The Hoffman Wire

November 5, 2012 • www.revisionisthistory.org

Usury in the Name of Jesus

Michael Hoffman's Note: Here below is current information from a generally reliable journalist on the usury bank ("IOR" - "Institute for Works of Religion") of the Catholic Church. This is another case where mortal sin is institutionalized and conducted without controversy. Usury in the name of Jesus Christ becomes business-as-usual, operated as the "religious works" of God. 

EXCERPT: “...there has never been a sample testing of the CDD files maintained by the IOR or a supervisory assessment by the FIA including the scrutiny of transactions and the origin of funds in transactions carried out by the IOR.”

Translation of the subtle code employed above: the usury bank of the Catholic Church has never been in compliance with anti-money laundering laws.  A certain "René Brülhart" has been hired to give the Vatican Bank a better image.  The report's emphasis is on the crime of money-laundering. The crime (and mortal sin) of usury is not an issue.

Here is another excerpt from the article, this time in uncoded language: "...the Italian judiciary...is looking into suspect money flows noticed in the Vatican Bank’s accounts...Despite the introduction of anti-money laundering laws and the assurance given by Vatican Bank heads that it no longer holds any anonymous accounts, investigators found that dirty money can also pass through non-anonymous accounts belonging to priests or clerics..."

It might seem strange to present this information on the day before the presidential election. Yet nothing exceeds the empire of the Money Power when it comes to nullifying the laws of God or threatening our liberties. Like more foreign wars in places like Iran, the rule of the Money Power has largely escaped scrutiny in the Romney-Obama election contest.

Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not (paperback, 416 pages), forthcoming  in December from Independent History and Research.

VATICAN FINANCES: SWISS JAMES BOND TO THE RESCUE

The Holy See’s Swiss anti-money laundering advisor, René Brülhart, is playing an increasingly key role in the Vatican’s finances. Meanwhile, the Vatican Bank (IOR) still has no president

By Andrea Tornielli

La Stampa (Italy) November 5, 2012

VATICAN CITY --[H]is success, combined with his good looks, led one magazine to dub the 40-year-old Swiss lawyer the James Bond of the financial world.”

This is how The Economist described René Brülhart, the director of Liechtenstein’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), in its 20 October issue. Brülhart is now the Vatican’s new financial advisor, whose job it will be to get the tiny State onto the “white list” of territories deemed to comply with international standards on combating financial crime. Last September, Fr. Lombardi had announced that Brülhart was being hired to strengthen the Vatican’s armor in the battle against financial crime.

In actual fact, Brülhart had, albeit in an informal and low key way, Brülhart had already started working with the Holy See back in December 2011, when, in a matter of weeks, the Secretariat of State changed its anti-money laundering law, in line with Moneyval’s requirements. Moneyval is the Council of Europe’s anti-money-laundering group. These changes, which were set in stone by a new law promulgated in January 2012, were at the centre of a heated internal debate, whose protagonists included the President of the FIA (Financial Information Authority), Cardinal Attilio Nicora and the President of the IOR (Institute for Works of Religion, commonly known as the Vatican Bank), Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. Both these figures were concerned about a downsizing of the body in charge of combating anti-money laundering.

In the Moneyval report published last July, Strasbourg experts recognised the progress made by the Vatican and indicated areas where work still needed to be done. The legislative basis for the surveillance of money-laundering practices needed further reinforcement. Assessors commented the role, responsibilities, authority, powers and independence of the FIA were not clear. The FIA is the financial authority created by the Vatican to intervene in cases where suspicious operations are performed or when transferrals of money of dubious provenance are made.

Furthermore, experts observed, “there has never been a sample testing of the CDD files maintained by the IOR or a supervisory assessment by the FIA including the scrutiny of transactions and the origin of funds in transactions carried out by the IOR.” Hence “it [was] strongly recommended that IOR is also supervised by a prudential supervisor in the near future as currently there is no adequate, independent supervision of the IOR and that the supervisor should have adequate powers of enforcement and sanction against financial institutions, and their directors or senior management for failure to comply with or properly implement requirements.”

Brülhart has begun to play an increasingly central and important role, significantly lightening the workload of American lawyer Jeffrey Lena who had been part of the Vatican Secretariat of State’s team in charge of changing the anti-money laundering law, right from the start. According to The Economist, Brülhart has two aims: the first is to “build a financial-intelligence unit that can investigate suspicious money flows properly.” The second is “to create a truly independent supervising authority for the Vatican Bank and the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, which manages the Vatican’s property and securities holdings.” This is given that the FIA “lacks the legal powers and independence necessary to monitor and sanction these financial institutions.”

The Vatican has assured it is not thinking about establishing a new body, although the idea was taken into consideration ten months ago. It is, however, working on responding effectively to Moneyval’s requests. In recent weeks the Italian judiciary, which is looking into suspect money flows noticed in the Vatican Bank’s accounts, sent some rogatory letters to the Holy See. Despite the introduction of anti-money laundering laws and the assurance given by Vatican Bank heads that it no longer holds any anonymous accounts, investigators found that dirty money can also pass through non anonymous accounts belonging to priests or clerics who are deceived or who are too complaisant. This problem exists in banks in every State but is particularly embarrassing for a “sui generis” State like the Vatican.

The path towards transparency which Benedict XVI is so eager for the Vatican to follow is not simple by any means, despite the impressive efforts of the sturdy young Swiss “Deus ex machina” the Holy See has placed its trust in. This is partly because there are some in the Catholic Church who, following the scandals of recent months, are wondering whether it is really necessary for the Vatican today to keep an institution like the IOR going.

Meanwhile, no progress seems to have been made in the choice of a successor to the Vatican Bank’s former president, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. He was fired last May in a way that had never been seen before in the history of the Holy See.”There is no hurry; there is no reason to do things in a hurry,” reliable Vatican sources assure. According to information “filtering through” from the Holy See, the Vatican Banks’ new president will neither be Italian nor American. Instead, it looks likely that a German (the 74 year old Ronald Hermann Schmitz, the former MD for Deutsche Bank and current vice president of the IOR who is temporarily standing in for Gotti Tedeschi, is a German). A decision is expected before Christmas. 

The selection process appears incredibly thorough, which is a sign of the significant interest and attention which Secretariat of State authorities are giving to this issue. The fact a new president has not been chosen, five months after Gotti Tedeschi’s dismissal, shows that the position does not urgently need to be filled and that the bank’s management, which has been entrusted to the IOR and its director general, Paolo Cipriani, is currently deemed satisfactory.

MICHAEL HOFFMAN: The Hoffman's wire

The Hoffman Wire

All Saints Day, 2012

www.revisionisthistory.org

Interview with Zionist Agent Maximilian Krah of the SSPX 

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/11/interview-with-zionist-agent-maximilian.html

(Krah is the attorney for the Society of Saint Pius X as administered by Bishop Bernard Fellay)

Editor's Note: Bishop Fellay is the prelate who expelled Bishop Richard Williamson from the SSPX. Maximilian Krah is the attorney who was assigned by Fellay to "defend" Bishop Williamson against prosecution in Germany for blaspheming the sacred relics of the religion of Holocaustianity, which is illegal in the German state. In the course of "defending" Williamson Krah actually attacked and insulted him in front of the German court.

Krah is an associate of the murderous Israeli army and has attended an Israeli army training event as a "tourist" as well as a fund-raiser for Tel Aviv University. He assures the interviewer that this all very innocent on his part.

Krah claims that Williamson was given Pressac's report on the alleged homicidal gas chambers to study "for a year" but he "failed" to do so. What actually transpired was that Bishop Williamson made contact with a revisionist researcher after a worldwide explosion of media venom was directed at him after he granted, on German soil, an interview with a Swedish television station. In the course of the interview he did not "deny the 'Holocaust." He questioned the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

As the media lynch mob grew in intensity, Bishop Williamson wanted to have access to the latest revisionist research on the subject of the gas chambers. The revisionist researcher he contacted in turn organized an international team of researchers and historians, led by an American editor (who I do not have permission to name), other youtheful revisionist historians, as well as the eminent Dr. Arthur Butz and Dr. Robert Faurisson.

Bishop Williamson carefully studied the documents and texts these scholars kindly made available to him. These included large portions of the Pressac material, because Pressac, toward the end of his life, threw up his hands in frustration and disgust over trying to scientifically prove the existence of homicidal gas chambers. Yet Mr. Krah is either too ignorant or too duplicitous to acknowledge Pressac's failure and instead invokes Pressac as a means of discrediting Williamson's skepticism toward the gas chamber dogma.

Why didn't Krah and Fellay study the books of Faurisson, Butz, Samuel Crowell, Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf and Fred Leuchter? Why was the burden of reading  and study on Williamson alone? Why does the Catholic Church sanctify and unquestioningly uphold secular consensus history that has no bearing on the Faith of Jesus Christ? Indeed, some would say that Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central ontological event of western history. In Europe there are no laws against blaspheming Jesus Christ or denying His resurrection. Only the relics of Holocaustianity are protected from scrutiny in Europe by the threat of criminal prosecution. Holocaustianity is the de facto civil religion of Europe; the last truly believed religion in that otherwise largely agnostic continent. 

In the interview Krah claims that the Israeli Zionists are the defenders of Christian shrines in the Holy Land. Krah makes no mention of the Israeli attacks on the Church of the Nativity during the Israeli holocaust in Jenin, during which the Church of the Nativity was shot up by Israeli soldiers and others churches bombed. He makes no mention of the large number of Palestinian Christians who have been driven out of Palestine or murdered by the Israelis. He makes no mention of the constant vandalism and assaults on Christian Churches by Talmudic terrorists. He makes no mention of the fact that Christian misionary activity is banned in the Israeli state. Spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the land of Christ is forbidden by the Israelis, but Krah praises them. He writes, "And there is also a rising group of so-called Hebrew Catholics, who are converted Israeli Citizens."

Really, Mr. Krah? Who converted them and where were they converted? Where do they reside in the Israeli state and where is there home church in the Israeli state? 

Has Mr. Krah bothered to ask native Palestinian Christians who they would rather be ruled by -- fellow Palestinians or Israelis? The Palestinians have no voice in Krah's obsequiously Zionist narrative. 

In Maximillian Krah we have a very serious and committed Zionist agent operating inside the highest levels of the SSPX, by Bishop Fellay's mandate.

The following interview with Mr. Krah was published in The Remnant newspaper. The Remnant's senior adviser is Mr. Christopher Ferrara who has excoriated Bishop Williamson. It seems that Mr. Ferrara knows for a fact that large numbers of people were gassed to death in Auschwitz. He also knows for a fact that it was Arab terrorists from the caves of Afghanistan who brought down the World Trade Center, and Building Seven of the WTC.  Using the publishing facilities of the Remnant, Mr. Ferrara has heaped abuse and contempt on Bishop Williamson for doubting execution gas chambers and believing that 9/11 was an inside job.

The Church of Jesus Christ is called to be counter-cultural; a pilgrim church in the midst of worldly people and their lies and hoaxes. Yet we observe in both the Vatican and the SSPX an imprimatur extended to establishment propaganda which is made holy and incumbent upon Catholics to believe, on pain of expulsion. This is truly a perversion of everything for which Jesus Christ stood. The fact that Bishop Bernard Fellay has Zionist agent Krah installed in the inner circle of the SSPX tells us all we need to know about Fellay and the current direction of his "traditional Catholic" SSPX.  --Michael Hoffman  www.revisionisthistory.org

[The following is an excerpt from Krah's interview]

Maximilian Krah: First, regarding the Williamson case. It is obvious to me that the statement he made concerning the Holocaust is historically wrong, and he is not open to arguments of historical facts. But, as a lawyer, it was clear to me that he did not violate the German law because, in the moment he made his statement, his wrong statement, he had no idea that the interview would be broadcasted in Germany. This is the whole reason why I believe he is not guilty of having violated the German law. I am not a criminal lawyer, so I had to find one for him. And in such a case I would always highly recommend to take a criminal lawyer, who was under no circumstances linked with, in any way, pro-Nazi movements. To explain, the neo-Nazi movement in Germany is extremely small. It is maybe 1% of the population. It is absolutely small, and you usually don't want to be linked with those persons, because they are exactly the persons you don't want your kids to play with. 

And so, to make his defense as successful as possible, I highly recommended him to choose an attorney which was more to the left side so that he can focus on the legal aspects, and was completely free of any political implications in his case. I explained it to him and I introduced Lossmann to him. Lossmann is a widely accepted criminal lawyer, who publishes in research journals on criminal law. He is not as left as the rumors have presented him, because even the Greens [the Green Party], has two wings. And he is definitely not from the left wing of the party. He is, I would say, comparable to an East Coast Liberal. That means he is definitely not a Communist or anything like that. He is just a liberal citizen, interested in the fine arts, and maybe in the fine wine. I introduced both to each other. I explained the reason why I think we needed a more liberal person, than I am myself, and most of my colleagues, with whom I usually cooperate. The Bishop absolutely was fine. Lossmann was doing a great job, and then Bishop Williamson decided, without any explanation, to choose a different attorney…

Robert J. Siscoe:…So when you initially presented Bishop Williamson with your recommendation, and the reasoning for your recommendation, he agreed?

Krah: I explained everything and made it transparent. And he understood and agreed.

Siscoe: And then he at some point changed attorneys?

Krah: Yes, and he changed to a completely unacceptable person, and he got a warning from the General House [of the SSPX] and changed lawyers once again. Now he has chosen, once again, a completely un-political lawyer, who by the way is the president of the Association for Pop Music. He is doing a brilliant job, just as Lossmann did. They argue exactly the same way. They don't argue in any way politically or historically. They say "look this is the law. This is what he has done. He had no idea at the time he gave the interview that it could be broadcasted in Germany, so the case will not have a successful prosecution". And it is the same argumentation, and the same style of defending. It is a deduction to the legal problems, and does not involve bringing the historical and political matters into the court room. And this is the only chance he has. This is what Lossmann did, and this is what Edgar Weiler is now doing. And in the middle, he had, for I guess one week, another approach, and I'm sure this other approach would have led to a catastrophe.

Siscoe: Can you explain your involvement with the Society when "the Williamson affair" first broke? What was the Society facing in Germany, and what did you do to assist the SSPX in this matter?

Krah: The interview was broadcast at the same time that the Pope lifted the so-called excommunications against the Bishops of the SSPX, including Bishop Williamson. So the headlines in Germany were "Pope rehabilitates holocaust-denier", and the SSPX became seen as a neo-Nazi-group in the masquerade of religion. The Chancellor herself expressed her misunderstanding about the Papal decision in favor of Bishop Williamson. The German District made plenty of public declarations, expressing that Bishop Williamson is in no way speaking for the SSPX and pointing out that the SSPX has absolutely no acceptance for anti-Semitism and such wrong ideas on history. But no one believed it, because no one trusted them. Many of the Faithful, and even some priests, began to get nervous, and demanded clear action against Bishop Williamson. Some even began attending the Fraternity of Saint Peter or Motu Proprio masses. 

In this serious situation, I was asked if I could help quiet things down by using my network of associates, and especially my connection into the media. Like in all countries, only a few media outlets have national impact. The Church's correspondent scene is very small, about 10 journalists for the whole of Germany. Most of them are aligned with the Novus Ordo, which means they are incurably hostile against the SSPX. One of the rare exceptions is Peter Wensierski of Der Spiegel – ("The Mirror") – who is really independent, which also means he is equally distant, some say equally hostile, to everybody. But as he is equal toward everyone, he was honest enough to state that the SSPX might be ultra-conservative, old-fashioned, etc., but they are certainly not Nazis. He is tough, but he is fair. Whatever one thinks of the SSPX, they are not even close to fascism or the Nazis. And since Der Spiegel is the "must-read" of the whole German elite, within two weeks the other media accepted the distinction of: the position of the SSPX, and the opinion of the one bishop. It could be seen in the wording of the headlines: Whilst before there was written about "these holocaust-deniers", then it was distinguished between the "conservative group SSPX" and "the Holocaust-denying Bishop Williamson". We had just one shot, and it hit. Clearly a sign of grace. I sometimes wonder myself how we succeeded. 

Siscoe: But this wasn't the end of it.

Krah: No, it was just a step. But it brought us back on track. It gave us credibility. We then communicated that the Superior General has given Bishop Williamson one year to study the facts and ordered him to read a book on the issue, written by Jean-Claude Pressac, who himself had doubts about the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz and later changed his mind after he started to look into the facts. This gave us a one year respite, and the media stopped it´s attacks, waiting for the year to pass by. Bishop Williamson did not read the book. So when the year was over, we had to explain it. We just chose to be honest and transparent. We showed the efforts taken by the SSPX, but we also conceded that there was no influence on the Bishop, who has started to go his own way, unfortunately. In the end, we were able to successfully communicate that the SSPX in no way shared these views of Bishop Williamson.

Siscoe: How were you able to influence the media?

Krah: By plenty of behind-the-scene talks. I went to many distinguished journalists and explained to them the SSPX, its mission, its history. Most of them were completely unaware. Look, for us all of these issues are very present; we live them, and are familiar with them. But for outsiders, the SSPX is something unknown; at least it was so in 2009. For a liberal journalist, who is not practicing religion at all, the idea of saying Mass in an ancient language like Latin is somehow curious. You have to explain it to him in a way he can understand. You have to convince, instead of judge. This is what I did and what I still do. And as I am far away from every kind of political extremism, and always have been, they considered me to be trustworthy, which allowed me to influence them in favor of the SSPX. This is something I would like to point out in general; we should always take in consideration the background and the thinking of our counterparts. Most people are not hostile. They are just uninformed. Instead of judging them, we should explain our views. In most cases we will see an acceptance, and in some cases, even support.

Siscoe: If you don't mind my asking, what impact did "the Williamson affair" have on the current developments concerning Bishop Williamson?

Krah: I am not involved in these current events. As far as I know, the 2009 affair is unrelated to the current threat of expulsion. Look, the affair of 2009 was settled with the final article in "Der Spiegel" early in 2010. Since that time, the public has distinguished between the official position of the SSPX and the private opinion of Bishop Williamson. What has happened since then is that Bishop Williamson has openly undermined authority and hierarchy, which has caused division within the SSPX. This is an internal affair, for which my advice is neither required nor requested. This is the core business of the superiors. I am used to mediate between the SSPX and different sorts of secular players: judges, journalists, politicians, state officials, bankers. But I have no share in internal affairs. Here I am an ordinary faithful like all others. And I´m happy with that.

Siscoe: There is another rumor claiming that you were fundraising for Tel Aviv University. Can you fill us in on that?

Krah: Yes, of course. I have a lot of friends, including many who are not Catholic. And I have Jewish friends, which I appreciate very much. They are wonderful people, and there is absolutely no reason for me to hide them, or to take their friendship into question. So, with that said, I have no understanding for these accusations or insinuations. They are my friends, and they can trust me as I trust them. I was in New York one evening when I received a phone call asking if I had plans for the night, which I hadn't. But my friend had one, and we went to a reception in a gallery in Chelsea, and there were plenty of people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, from different countries, and it was hosted by the American Friends of Tel Aviv University, and of course they took pictures [chuckle], and they posted them on the internet, and this gave those people reason enough to attack me without asking me what happened. It was just a nice evening, a gathering, in New York City. I´d attend it again, even if I knew about the rumors it caused. 

Siscoe: To clarify, you are not a member of The American Friends of Tel Aviv University, and you did not organize this event?

Krah: No, to both questions.

Siscoe: There is another picture online as well that has caused some controversy. It shows you attending an IDF military camp recruitment event. Can you explain?

Krah: Yes, it was not a recruitment event. One of my friends got married in the Negev Desert, and he invited friends from all over the world, including my wife and me. He generously arranged a tour, which included both the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem and a visit into a military camp, so we could have a personal impression of what the Israeli army is doing. It was, you could say, a tourist tour, on the way from Jerusalem to the Negev Desert, and included a luncheon. We were able to visit them and talk to them, in order to get a personal impression of the military. And as far as I know, it is widely common for groups that visit the State of Israel to arrange these kinds of tours. I received an e-mail from a member of the city council in Dresden, who told me that he himself had taken part in similar events. So, for me it was an interesting invitation. And as I was a German soldier for one year after High School, I enjoyed the opportunity to see how things are done in the IDF. 

Maybe a word about… it is common to read things on the internet about the State of Israel. Let's bring it back to history. In the middle ages, Christianity made several Crusades to the Holy Land for one reason: to get the holy places open so we would have access to them for Pilgrimages. We have, currently, more Pilgrimages to the Holy Land than ever in the past. We had more in 2012 than in 2011, and more in 2011 than in 2010, and in 2010 we had more than ever since. That means, the holy places are open; they get protected. They are safe, and there is money invested. And the Catholic Church gets tax benefits by the Israeli government in that country. I don't know anybody who believes that, if this country was under Islamic rule, we would have nearly as many Pilgrims there, and free access. And even the Pilgrim groups from the SSPX Germany, that go from Jerusalem and Nazareth to Bethlehem, always stay in a hotel on the other side of the wall – the Israeli side. 

If you just see facts and reality, than we have to say it is hard to attack those authorities that provide open access to those holy places. This is what I say: just calm down and judge by facts. We have to see the facts as they are, and we have to see that there are plenty of people living there. They have police, everything is organized, and they do not harm the Christians there. And there is also a rising group of so-called Hebrew Catholics, who are converted Israeli Citizens. We have none of those in the Islamic countries. I only can warn all those Christians who are so opposite, or hostile against the Israeli State, what would happen if that State would disappear. We would have a lot of problems with our holy places. And what would happen to the Christians in that country if we had a change on the political landscape? And so I have absolutely no problem to say that I have a positive attitude towards the state of Israel. The world is not perfect. It never has been. There are wars always. There is a state of imperfection. And if we see this, if we see the reality, we can say it could be much worse. And this should lead us to a more distinguished position towards the political situation in the Holy Land. 

 

MICHAEL HOFFMAN: The Hoffman Wires

 

The Hoffman Wire

October 24, 2012 • www.revisionisthistory.org

The Stone in the Synagogue's Shoe

By Michael Hoffman

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-stone-in-synagogues-shoe.html

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

www.revisionisthistory.org

Breaking News: Talmudic Shas Party Behind Concentration Camps for Africans in "Israel"

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

http://www.jewishnews.net.au/toben-grounded/27971

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.