Flattery - The First Principle of Mind Control

 If a patient does not regard himself as sick he cannot submit to a cure. The arrogant man does not need to see-he already sees almost everything and what he thinks he has yet to learn, he believes "the experts" will one day show him. Who are these "experts"? They are not really doctors of the soul. They do not have the man's interest at heart. They are in fact his worst enemies, his most cunning manipulators who lead him to do their bidding like any slavemaster since Egypt.

Nature Or Gnosis? Divine Creation and Its Counterfeit

A description of Anthony Shaeffer's protagonist in the film The Wicker Man: "…tearing around in dizzying circles trying to solve it, never able to guess the true plot beyond it although the evidence of it lies all around him."

Cinefantastique

"Almost all people of all eras are hypnotics. Their beliefs are induced beliefs. The proper authorities saw to it that the proper belief should be induced, and people believed properly."

Charles Fort

"As the mountebank delivered his harangue, the clown would repeatedly poke his head out from behind the curtain, making fun of everything his master said, parodying his patter and twisting the meaning of his words. The mountebank played the perfect straight man, meanwhile. Here he was, trying so hard to hawk his wares, and his own assistant was doing everything possible to undermine sales.

"The merriment was of course intentional. While the clown seemingly encouraged the public not to buy the proffered merchandise, the mountebank knew full well that the bystanders would easily be converted into customers as soon as they forgot that they were, in fact, supposed to be buying. Once the audience had been effectively hypnotized, once its judgment and willpower had been weakened, the real sales pitch could begin…"

J.H. Towsen, Clowns

"Hoodwink: A symbol of the secrecy, silence and darkness in which the mysteries of our art should be preserved from the unhallowed gaze of the profane." Dr. Albert Mackey, 33rd Degree Freemason, The Encyclopedia of Freemasonry

In a study of mind control and psychological warfare, it is not enough to simply review the latest technology of coercion, the most recent gadgetry and techno-junk littering the hardware and supply depots of governments and cults.

Far more dangerous than these appliances is the praxis behind them, the underground current which informs the modern project and this modern era. For life in our modern era is little more than life in an open-air mind control laboratory where a form of human alchemy has emerged to transform the mass of targeted percipients-targeted merely by virtue of their being urban dwellers plugged into the electronic and digital pageantry of the Establishment's system-of-things.

And what sort of creature inhabits the modern domain? Who is the modern man? The puppet-masters say he is the smartest, most advanced individual to ever strut the planet, the most relatively liberated being in history. But Louis-Ferdinand Celine said it well, "What does the modem public want? It wants to go down on its knees before money and before crap!"

The public have been trained to do this by two principle methods: direct "speaking" archetypal messages of pure terror ("psychic driving" as the CIA's Dr. Ewan Cameron termed it), encoded in massively publicized "lone nut" mass murders, and the sinister flattery heaped upon them by their masters in the cult of civilization and progress.

The acid test of a human being's freedom and will to protect the quality of his life, lies in a person's attitude toward his oppressor. What is modem man's attitude toward Wall Street and the bankers, toward Dan Rather and the ignorance-bestowing media and advertising man, toward Lincoln and Truman, FDR and Reagan, George Bush and Johnny Carson, Exxon and Monsanto?

As one writer has observed, "The most amazing thing about the American people is that they are constantly defending their worst betrayers." Who then is the modern man? He is a mindbombed patsy who gets his marching orders from "twilight language" key words sprinkled throughout "his" news and current events. Even as he dances to the tune of the elite managers of human behavior, he scoffs with great derision at the idea of the existence and operation of a technology of mass mind control emanating from the media and government. Modem man is much too smart to believe anything as superstitious as that!

Modern man is the ideal hypnotic subject: puffed up on the idea that he is the crown of creation, he vehemently denies the power of the hypnotist's control over him, even as his head bobs up and down on a string.

What we observe in the population today are the three destructive symptoms of persons whose minds are controlled by alien forces: 1. Amnesia, i.e. loss of memory. 2. Abulia, i.e. loss of will. 3. Apathy, i.e. loss of interest in events vital to one's own health and survival. Amnesia, abulia and apathy are nearly-universal among us today and gaining a greater foothold with each passing day.

Japanese philosopher George Ohsawa stated that there was only one incurable sickness--arrogance. If a patient does not regard himself as sick he cannot submit to a cure. The arrogant man does not need to see-he already sees almost everything and what he thinks he has yet to learn, he believes "the experts" will one day show him. Who are these "experts"? They are not really doctors of the soul. They do not have the man's interest at heart. They are in fact his worst enemies, his most cunning manipulators who lead him to do their bidding like any slavemaster since Egypt.

Flattery The First Principle of Mind Control

Why then does he revere them? Because they flatter him. This is the first secret of mass mind control and can be observed as the foundation stone of virtually every false religion, party, cult, philosophy, system and training. How can modern man free himself when he is told that he is already a demi-god, that the problem lies only in finding a pure enough economic or political system worthy of his high-minded brilliance?

If we look closely we will see that this mind control principle is so basic and simple it is almost stupidly so, to the point that we marvel that anyone would be seduced by it. But it is all a matter of attention, as we saw in the parable of the mountebank and the clown. Arrogant hypno-patsies have been told by their masters that they are "Demigods" and demi-gods are never deceived or distracted. They're too smart! And by their arrogant self-satisfaction they blind themselves to the simplicity of the device that ensnares them and that is when "the real sales pitch begins."

What the Alchemical managers have bred over a millennia is a human race of the most wretched stupidity and ignorance unrivaled in thousands of years. These blind slaves are told they are "free" and "highly educated" even as they march behind signs that would cause any medieval peasant to run screaming away from them in panic-stricken terror. The symbols that modern man embraces with the naive trust of an infant would be tantamount to billboards reading, "This way to your death and enslavement," to the understanding of a traditional peasant of antiquity.

I doubt any medieval man would have much difficulty in feeling a sense of overwhelming foreboding in the face of the Soviet hammer and sickle symbol. Yet most modern, literate people obviously don't know a thing about what that symbol actually represents except on the most profane level as the implements of the farmer and the worker.

Michael A. Hoffman II

SECRET SOCIETIES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

White Slavery Denial

Jim Goad: Throughout his purported “debunking,” Hogan floats the idea that white indentured servitude and black slavery were so different as to be incomparable. Why is he wrong?

Michael A. Hoffman II: White enslavement has a long history in Britain and Scandinavia. Mr. Hogan, like so many writers on this subject who conform to the Establishment line, overlooks several points and has a naive faith in the white ruling class of Britain.

The conforming authors don’t take into account that the study of white enslavement has been impeded over the centuries by two facts missing from their own studies and critiques. First, white enslavement carried with it a hereditary taint. As I demonstrate in my book, this extends back to the Vikings who looked on Scandinavian “thralls” and those born into “thralldom” as carrying a hereditary defect in part because their enslavement was hereditary. Something akin to this was operating in Anglo-Saxon England under the category of villeinage. The daughter of a villein could not be married without buying her way out of villeinage. The test of a young English woman’s status in early medieval England—whether she was slave or free—was decided by whether or not the local lord had control over her body, as all masters have over their slaves. Under English law, a villein woman was one who could not be married until she first offered the custom of the country as it was known, the “ransom of blood for merchet” (i.e., until she first submitted to sexual intercourse with the lord, prior to her marriage).

Both in early Britain and Scandinavia and much later in the sugar plantations of the West Indies and the tobacco plantations of America (before cotton became king), British-American whites whose parents or relatives had been enslaved, or who themselves had escaped it, or bought their way out (as did some black people), were exceedingly reticent to identify as former white slaves or as their progeny. “Servant” was a far more attractive category, and we see identifications with this status and less so with outright enslavement due to the stigma.

Hogan has a pictorial display allegedly confuting my thesis in which he displays a photograph of what appear to be mixed-race people in the West Indies who are Barbados residents circa 1908, and he is incredulous that no Irish white “redlegs” are in the photo or named as such. We know from primary source materials that white slaves worked alongside blacks in the West Indies and that the word “redleg” was applied to them by their darker coworkers because of the tendency of the white slaves to sunburn. Whether or not their descendants stayed on the island to pose for a camera nearly 300 years later is a flimsy device for casting doubt on a historical epoch. Limiting oneself to the search for Irish surnames is an even more egregious error because it excludes the search for traces of the English Protestants who were transported as slaves to those islands in the 17th and early 18th century.

Hogan and company also support the notion that white bondage was mostly carried out within a framework of law. Here they are swallowing the propaganda of the white ruling class who were permitting the mass kidnapping of white children off the streets of port cities such as London and Glasgow for shipment to America under no indentures whatsoever, or under forged indentures, or as criminalized paupers and “rogues.” Upon arrival these youth were often put to work clearing forests and draining swamps. They were regularly assaulted, ill-fed, and worked to death. Britain had a surfeit of poor white youth who represented a potential for a French-Revolutionary type of insurrection in the cities. The aristocracy was only too glad to be rid of them, and I draw my evidence for this from state papers and contemporary letters and eyewitness accounts.

Hogan accepts the official tale of the slavers themselves, as they obscured their monstrous crime against their own people. So for him, there is no mass “kid-nabbing” (as it was first termed). He is blind to the fact that to facilitate white bondage under penal enslavement, the British ruling class contrived laws such as the Waltham Black Act, which made simple misdemeanors (stealing lace, breaking down an aristocrat’s fish pond, poaching deer) into felonies punishable by “transportation for life into the colonies.” In the 17th century the tens of thousands of prisoners these laws netted were not sent to slavery in British America and the West Indies on indentures. They were sold at the ports on arrival. As prisoners they had no rights. Diaries, letters, and eyewitness accounts give testimony to their horrible mistreatment and slave labor. Mr. Hogan won’t call these wretches “slaves,” even though they were clearly handled like chattel (cattle).

It seems that a powerful lobby has decided that black folk have a proprietary relationship with the word slave. “You blacks are the slave race,” they are told by their liberal white alleged “allies.” If this designation is false, however, then it constitutes an act of psychological crippling. The history of the white race is in many respects synonymous with the long history of enslavement, and if blacks have a copyright on the word “slave,” someone should tell that to the Slavic people, who for generations were targets of Viking slave raids and from whom the word “slave” is derived.

The weakness of Mr. Hogan’s assertions can be found in his gullible acceptance of the party line of the white ruling class with regard to their whitewash of their role in white enslavement. The white ruling class is excoriated with contempt by the left when they minimize crimes of the British aristocracy and capitalists against people of color, but Mr. Hogan will believe them implicitly when they aver that white bondage was operated within a legal framework, and it only involved “servants.”

The kidnapping of poor whites has precedence in Britain. It does not have a legal basis per se, but it has color of law and we find it in the systematic mass kidnapping of British people for maritime slavery aboard ship for the Royal Navy. I can anticipate the objection: The bondage was for a determinate period of time. Officially, yes. An Englishmen was kidnapped of the streets and country lanes of Britain with the connivance of the judiciary and conscripted for a period of years, but in actuality these determinate number of years was not worth the ink that had been used to write the paper, when it so happened that the victim of abduction was returning home from a five- or seven-year compulsory voyage. He saw the blessed shore of England at long last, prayed that his wife had not run off and that his children and parents still lived, and then a few miles from shore, another man-of-war sailed up to his vessel, boarded it at sea with a press gang, and kidnapped him again for another multi-year abduction. This could happen two or three times. The kidnapped sailor could be gone from Britain ten, fifteen, or twenty years and killed or severely injured during that time. I doubt Mr. Hogan would confer upon this naval slave that title because if the slave survived his ordeal he eventually went home. He had been a slave for a time, and to quibble over it is to do a grave disservice to the memory of tens of thousands of Royal Navy slaves. Impressment was one of the rotten roots, along with villeinage, that created a precedent for an institutional framework for white slavery concealed under cover of “indenture” or some other deceptive and cosmetic rubric.

Jim Goad: In this passage, Hogan essentially accuses you and others of lying: “The inclination to describe these different forms of servitude using the umbrella term ‘slavery’ is a wilful [sic] misuse of language.” Didn’t contemporary legal documents often refer to alleged “indentured servants” as “slaves”?

Michael A. Hoffman II: The truth was in the writings of the white slaves themselves who referred to themselves as such, and eyewitnesses to their plight who wrote accounts of what they saw. This is in my bookThey Were White and They Were Slaves.

As for willful misuse of language, I suppose I should apologize for defying the Establishment-imposed monopoly on how the word “slave” is to be employed, but I cannot, because like all monopolies this one is a form of restraint, enforced by thought cops indifferent to truths that violate the whole foundation of their monopoly on history and white self-image.

Jim Goad: Hogan claims your book deceptively uses “selective quotations taken from nearly 200 different secondary sources,” that your motive is “to deny reparations for slavery in America,” and that your “denial has a pro-slavery ideological lineage.”

Michael A. Hoffman II: One usually can discern that something is defective about an argument when it is ad hominem, and we discover this ill omen in Mr. Hogan’s resort to Pavlovian incentives for stigmatizing a writer with pejoratives calculated to cue an intended audience of partisans that here is someone to despise and dismiss. If he’s writing mainly for the benefit of Mark Potok and members of the new religion of Multiculturalism and Diversity, then he’s in luck. If he seeks a wider audience, however, then I don’t see how such tactics help to make his case.

The idea of paying reparations to any aggrieved racial or ethnic group is something with no appeal to me. It devolves into one-upmanship in the game of guilt imposition. Even in the matter of the Irish Catholic slaves, the focus is too narrow, and the subtext is one that excludes English Protestant slaves, since the Irish narrative is too often beholden to a vision of near-perpetual victimization by the English, which excludes the reality that a vicious white ruling class in London has seldom had any compunctions against betraying and enslaving their own white English yeomanry.

Do the English pay reparations to the Irish for what Oliver Cromwell did in transporting Irish slaves to the West Indies? Do the Catholics pay reparations for the pro-Catholic Stuart King Charles II for having shipped criminalized and enslaved English Protestants to the West Indies? A world full of victims demanding payment is a definition of a madhouse, not a civilization. The reparations process is very often politicized, with war victors or the plutocracy with the most bloat apportioning the guilt and assigning the victim status.

As a revisionist historian, I wrote They Were White and They Were Slaves for the astonishing reason (to some observers) that it was a chronicle that had not been adequately addressed and thus was pure gold from the standpoint of historical rediscovery. My “sin” is to have detailed the history without regard to the idol of political correctness. My book is good news for black people: You are not inferior; you were not the only race or the main race in chattel bondage.

Jim Goad: In an earlier email you wrote to me: “the work of my opponents (at least Hogan that is; the distaff side of the trio today admitted to me that she has not read my book), is so blundering (at least what I have read so far) as to actually add ammunition to my thesis.” How so?

Michael A. Hoffman II: At this URL, Hogan, Matthew Reilly, and Laura McAtackney make the case for one of the assertions in my book. They write:

“If a white servant assaulted another servant or a slave, it was treated as a misdemeanor and they were fined. If they assaulted their master they were whipped. Their indenture was legal property therefore a servant’s remaining time could be left in wills, traded for commodities and sold. Since one’s labor is inseparable from one’s person, this meant indentured servants in Barbados were treated as a sort of commodity. The distinction between voluntary and involuntary indentured servitude is also important, but all too often serves as justification for the existence of “white slavery”. It is true that some Europeans, particularly prisoners of war or political prisoners, were sent to places like Barbados against their will and without a predetermined period of servitude. However, upon arrival, those without contracts were, by law, required to serve the master who purchased their labor for a limited number of years, depending on their age. It is also true that many servants didn’t live to see the end of their period of servitude due to brutal treatment and unsparing work regimens, but while under the conditions of servitude, they were subject to the same laws that governed European servants, not enslaved Africans.” (End quote; emphasis supplied).

Apart from the risible fiction that all white bondage was “indentured” and for a “predetermined period” and therefore all of it was scrupulously governed by some kind of “European servant” legislation and jurisprudence, Hogan, Reilly, and McAtackney concede that “many” whites in bondage suffered “brutal treatment and unsparing work regimens” which proved lethal.

Even they admit that many whites were sent into bondage in Barbados and then worked to death. This is not slavery and it cannot be designated chattel slavery? By what sufficiently dainty term do we describe it? The death of many “servants” was by accident? Were their masters prosecuted and executed for this? What sort of human being who is beaten and worked to death is undeserving of the name “slave”?

Notice as well the knee-jerk assumption the three critics of white slave history exhibit: They expect us to believe that in every case where a white person in bondage is whipped, it was because “they assaulted their master.” How do they know this? Imagine the outcry if someone made such a characterization about the whipping of blacks in bondage—that the flogging was always their fault?

How is the experience of whites in servitude, who were at the mercy of masters of all types, reducible to the notion that no master ever unjustly lashed an un-free white person? This myth presupposes that whites were never whipped due to having tried to run away, or because they were too sick to work, or they refused the master’s sexual advances. By some miracle, the human predicament by which nonwhites in bondage unjustly found themselves on the receiving end of a lash is not shared by whites in bondage. Here we observe the subhuman status of whites in servitude as we demarcate the dimensions of the distortion: They died as slaves yet must not be called slaves; unlike black human beings who experienced servitude and were unconscionably whipped, whites who were whipped almost always deserved it.

Jim Goad: Isn’t it true that several historians who can in no way be smeared as “holocaust deniers” or “white supremacists” essentially agree that white slavery existed in the colonies? In my research forThe Redneck Manifesto, I found historians across the political spectrum essentially agreeing with the historical facts you raise in your research.

Michael A. Hoffman II: The cumulative evidence of A. Roger Ekirch in Bound for America (1990) is conclusive, though he employs euphemisms for white enslavement. He certainly does not fit the hysteric’s categories of “denier” or “supremacist.” Oscar and Mary Handlin openly refer to whites in servitude in the seventeenth century as “slaves. ” See “Origins of the Southern Labor System” in William and Mary Quarterly, April, 1950. Personally, I rely mainly on testimony of the white slaves themselves, their own writings and pleadings and those persons high and low who encountered them and wrote of them.

Jim Goad: With all these allegations of people trying to deny white guilt, is it possible that others are trying to deny black responsibility? Couldn’t one argue that some people are lazily trying to use slavery as a blanket and bulletproof excuse for black academic and economic failure?

Michael A. Hoffman II: Some black people are angered that there is an entire industry in the U.S.

centered on the so-called “Holocaust” of Judaic persons in eastern Europe decades ago, with museums in America and innumerable college classes, books, and movies, and a de facto “Holocaust” tax on Americans in the form of billions of dollars in US aid sent to the Israelis, while the descendants of the black people who worked the plantations and helped to bring to market the cotton—the greatest material prize of antebellum America—never did receive their “40 acres and a mule.” One wonders whether the recent energy devoted to black slave reparations and African-American museums and university curricula would be as intensely promulgated and ubiquitous if there was no “Holocaust” industry to remind American black people that they are not getting their share of the white guilt pie.

Certainly if reparations are to be paid for slavery in America, they must also be paid to the descendants of the white slaves who also performed the requisite labor that enriched the planter class and before there was much of a planter class on the eastern frontier, the white slaves of the 17th century performed the most back-breaking labor of colonial settlement: land-clearing.

Jim Goad: So much of Hogan’s alleged “debunking” simply employs the fallacies of argumentum ad hominem and appeal to motive. But since he called your motives into question, what might be someone’s motive in denying the well-documented history of white slavery?

Michael A. Hoffman II: In my book I give examples of white British aristocrats speeding in their carriages to abolitionist meetings where the plight of blacks in America was decried, heedless of white children by the side of the road who had finished toiling 16 hours, half-naked in a mine; or having their arms and legs mutilated in the factory machinery of the early Industrial Revolution whose owners, such as Josiah Wedgewood, and the famous poet and mine owner Lord Byron, considered poor British whites entirely expendable.

Charles Dickens, who had been a child laborer in a chemical factory, termed this callous hypocrisy “telescopic philanthropy.” The white elite of Britain had the apparition of black enslavement constantly before their eyes, even though it was thousands of miles away, while they were oblivious to the English boys who were sold to chimney sweeps and who sometimes burned and suffocated to death in the chimneys of the magnificent mansions of the abolitionists. Almost no one was paying attention to their agony. It’s supposed to be naughty of me to refer to child labor in the factories, mines, and chimneys of Britain as white slavery. I do not know what else to term girls and boys stripped virtually naked toiling side-by-side in a mine for 16 hours stunted and blackened, or a factory, where they often were seriously injured or killed, because if they didn’t undertake this labor they would starve to death. They went to their labor before dawn and ceased their labors after dark.

Most of your readers are familiar with white self-hatred and this perverse loathing, coupled with the legacy of the betrayal of the masses of white paupers and laborers in Britain by their rulers, has created the current situation of ruinous psychological and spiritual alienation that would seem to desire demographic extinction of their own seed.

Jim Goad: The SPLC claims that you are engaging in “an ahistorical reimagining of real events weaponized by racists and conspiracy theorists.” Speaking of “ahistorical reimaginings,” has the Southern Poverty Law Center ever addressed the Jewish role in the transatlantic slave trade?

Michael A. Hoffman II: Mr. Dees’s poverty palace is a satrap in the Israeli orbit. His hate mill seldom grinds the racist libels and murderous deeds of the settler-rabbis. Goyim-hating Chabad rabbis travel throughout the US to disseminate their racist doctrines, and the SPLC purrs like a kitten in the face of it. Dees and Potok are not going to reveal to their duped supporters—and their numerous cronies at executive levels of the US media—the pivotal role Judiac-Americans played in the merchandising of black flesh prior to the 20th century. Black academics such as the late Prof. Tony Martin of Wellesley College are marginalized and their career opportunities severely curtailed if they dare to inform their students of the vast Judaic role in black enslavement in the Americas, as detailed in the magisterial history books, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volumes I, II, and III.

Jim Goad: Hogan claims that the purpose of reviving this alleged “myth” is that it “aims to shut down all debate about the legacy of black slavery in the United States.” Yet for someone who is apparently in favor of free and open debate, you claim he’s blocked you on Twitter. Would you be willing to debate Hogan…?

Michael A. Hoffman II: I would very much hope that Mr. Hogan would be true to his fighting Celtic heritage and consent to go a round with this writer.

(Written in 2016, published in the 2018 book Whiteness: The Original Sin. The Hogan/Hoffman debate never happened, but Jim Goad interviewed Hoffman on his podcast in 2017.)

https://jimgoad.net/podcast/?episode=13

From article White Slavery Denial →

On Talmud

 Talmudic Doctrine: All Opposition to Judaism is Representative of the Blind, Irrational Hatred that Esau had for Jacob “Halacha hi beyoduah she’Eisav soneh l’Yaakov”

This is one of the most contentious of all truths about Judaism and the one most hotly contested by its partisans. All manner of lawyer’s rhetoric and sly word play is employed to convince gentiles that they are not suspect in Judaism. Stories pour forth from the American media about rabbis counseling, educating, sharing and reaching out to non-Judaics. Elie Wiesel lectures in New York on “Talmudic tolerance.” These lies are laughable to those who were raised inside Orthodox Judaism. We document the practice of Judaism, not the public relations rhetoric it generates for dissemination by a friendly media intended for consumption by naive or mentally incapacitated gentiles. If we look at the precepts by which Talmudic youth are raised, trained, formed and educated we discover the reality of Judaism, aside from the hypocritical and fantastic image of benevolence that is projected on its behalf by the media moguls. 

This is what Talmudic children are taught from earliest childhood: all pretended friendship with gentiles is temporary. The gentile can never be your friend. The gentile is another Esau come to kill the Jews. He is incapable of loving us. War with him is unavoidable and eternal. The first step in the war is our segregation. We must keep separate (levado). 

This bigoted image of gentiles which Talmudic youth imbibe from Orthodox Judaism’s religious elders, begins and ends with Esau and Jacob (“Eisav and Yaakov”). In the eyes of the rabbis, the gentile is eternally Esau. The Judaic, meanwhile, as long as he remains loyal to Klal Yisroel (the Judaic people) is Jacob. Religious Orthodox Judaic children are repeatedly told from early youth: “Halacha hi beyoduah she’Eisav soneh l’Yaakov” (“It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob”). 

The essence of this teaching is as follows: “It is an irrevocable force built into the natural order that the Jewish people are hated throughout the ages. The nations of the world and the forces of evil will be forever locked in battle with us, determined to destroy us and what we stand for.” 549

An “ irrevocable force built into the natural order...forever locked in battle with us.” Does this strike the reader as an attitude that is amenable to ecumenical relations, dialogue or diplomacy? Talmudists are taught that nonJudaics by their very biological and spiritual nature are irrevocably “Jew”haters. “...the essence of anti-Goyism is passed to Jewish children with their mother’s milk, and then nurtured, fed and watered carefully into a full-blown phobia throughout their lives...Their attitudes are then perfectly formed. They know whom to hate...They want their children to hate the Goyim...They want to deny the humanity that links all people...Anti-Goyism is a foundation of the Orthodox and Hasidic philosophy and way of life.” 550The Talmudist smiles, shakes hands, offers conviviality and seemingly friendly words —and this includes alleged support for hot button conservative family values issues wherein they “join” Christians in giving the appearance of condemning homosexuality and abortion — all of this is a calculated ploy to win time and gain a definitive edge over gentiles, until the power of the synagogue and the Sanhedrin are total. If the synagogue and the Sanhedrin should establish supremacy over the West, and they are well on their way to doing so, the pseudo-humanitarian and pseudo-conservative camouflage will vanish, and all gentiles save the masonic variety will have the status of Palestinians: to be killed, tortured or imprisoned at will, without fear of prosecution, meaningful protest or even much notice being taken of their liquidation. Nothing can ameliorate the ultimate status of gentiles in halacha. Their status can be temporarily ameliorated for the sake of gaining opportunistic advantage, but beneath that expedient, the gentile is always viewed as another Esau, forever locked in battle with the Holy People of Judaism.

The objection may be raised that this teaching that Judaics are always and invariably hated by gentiles is limited only to the most retrograde bearded rabbi in some back alley shul in Mea Shearim. Au contraire, this rabbinic concept is full-blown within the West’s political, cultural and social avant-garde, as reflected in the repartee of the most “progressive” and “elite intellectuals” in the West:

 “The most discussed political book in France this autumn is  Ce grand cadavre à la renverse 551 (literally, ‘this big corpse lying on its back’), by Bernard-Henri Lévy ...He is only one of the most sophisticated proponents of the present-day widespread conservative Jewish rejection of any attempt to explain historical events by material or political causes. This rejection of analysis is central to the religious attitude toward the Holocaust, or Shoah  (that is, the Nazi massacre of the Jews understood in religious terms). For the defenders of this contemporary religion, it is wrong to seek material explanations for events that must remain ‘incomprehensible’ in their magnitude...Any explanation other than eternal and recurrent hatred of the Jews may even be denounced as anti-Semitism....This is consistent with the position that there can be no explanations for anti-Semitism other than the eternal nature of anti-Semitism itself. Above all, there can be no causes for which Jews themselves, in this case the State of Israel, might be in some way responsible.” 552Bernard-Henri Lévy is promoting these notions of hardly in the minority when it comes to recurrent and eternal, irrational hatred of blameless Judaics. The “given law” of  Halacha hi beyoduah she’Eisav soneh l’Yaakov is threaded throughout our news media and U.S. government policy. It undergirds the neocon Right and the Zionist left. It is the staple fiction of the western intelligentsia as well as the mainstream churches.

Judaic youth are taught about peace and peace-makers as follows: “Holding up the banner of Torah (Talmud) in a degenerate world is not easy. We are in the minority and always forced to be on the defensive. Sometimes Esau...advises us to make peace with our enemies who seek our destruction. He tells us to make compromises...He tells us to sacrifice our principles and bend the rules...We have to be prepared to do battle with him and his ilk. That means being prepared to be lonely, unpopular and unloved. Chazal  teach that it is only when Jacob is “levado” (segregated) that he survives. It is only when we stay apart from the Esaus of this world that we can survive and prosper...How can it be that the people in power have learned nothing about Palestinian mentality...Why does it always seem to be as if the Jews and the Israelis get treated so unfairly? Why is it that facts that are so obvious for us to see are ignored by the people in power? Those of us who learn the parsha553 every week have no questions, only answers. We know we are in golus.554 We know Eisav soneh l’Yaakov.” 555It is the teaching of the Orthodox rabbis that the  Palestinian mentality is that of Esau. Talk of a “Talmudic mentality” is met with the strongest disapprobation of course, but it is deemed necessary and appropriate to speak negatively of a Palestinian “mentality.” Westerners are accustomed to this hate speech from the Talmudists and tolerate it because they believe that the colonized Palestinians have wronged their colonizers. However, all gentiles have the same status in halacha as the Palestinians. The Palestinians are viewed as possessed of a gentile mentality. Esau is the spiritual father of both, according to the deepest teachings of Chazal. The rabbinic doctrine teaches that gentiles never have good will or true friendship toward Judaics. There are many modern exponents of this institutionalized paranoia, perhaps the most prominent and influential was Rabbi Eliezer Shach (1898-2001) whom the Israeli newspaper Haaretz termed, “the ultimate authority in the ultra-Orthodox world in Israel for the past quarter of a century...” 556Rabbi Shach epitomized the traditional rabbinic doctrine that when a non-Judaic comes in friendship to a Judaic, the non-Judaic has the voice of Jacob but the hands of Esau. The rabbinic lesson imparted under Orthodox Judaism to all Judaics, from youth onward: you can never trust a gentile. 

“The voice is the voice of Yaakov but the hands are the hands of Eisav” 

 —Statement by Rabbi Eliezer Shach on gentiles seeking peace with Judaics 

“Eretz Yisroel,” in Michtavim uMaamarim (1987), volume one, (“letters”)

The status of the gentile in the Oral Law of Judaism as bequeathed to the Tanna’im, and committed to writing and institutionalized in the formative Tannaitic period, are among the most hateful and homicidal in all of the sacred rabbinic halakha. Much of the extreme contempt for gentiles which Judaism imparts emanates from these foundational texts. In Jerusalem in 1975, Prof. Y. Cohen of Ben-Gurion University published a remarkable study, The Status of the Gentile in Jewish Law of the Tannaite Era:

The following is a translation of portions of Cohen’s dissertation: According to early Talmudic laws, all gentiles were automatically suspected of practicing the following abominations: 

 • Bloodshed and murder • Mishkav behema (sexual relations with animals) • Incest • Homosexuality • Theft. 

Gentiles were regarded as uncircumcised, dirty and impure. The words “gentile” and “robber” were considered inseparable. Gentiles were prone to violence that leads to murder and random and gratuitous violence for its own sake. The Halakha contains various rulings which teach caution against the bloodlust of gentiles. It was forbidden to employ a gentile as a surgeon, midwife or nurse. Having one’s hair cut by gentiles was also regarded as a life-threatening danger. The general rule was that a gentile is likely to kill a Judaic whenever circumstances would allow him to commit the crime without getting caught. The image of the gentile as a violent creature who endangers the lives and property of Judaics prevails in early rabbinic law. The gentile is regarded as a thoroughly corrupt being sexually. All gentiles are lustful and animalistic and commit adultery at the first opportunity. Incest is also a common occurrence among gentiles, as is homosexuality and mishkav behema. Gentile men and women alike are consumed by sexual passion at all times. The Tannaitic rabbis stress the absolute degeneracy of the gentiles and warn against their evil influence. As a principle, it is taught that gentiles are the product of incest. The gentile is suspected of homosexuality as well, and it is against the rabbinic law to allow a gentile to teach a Judaic child. In all sexual matters gentiles are filthy and their behavior is the lowest form of depravity. The fundamental legal status of a gentile in Judaism is that of a sub-human and this was taught by the revered rabbi of the Tannaitic period, Shimon ben Yohai, as follows: “Thou art called a human being but a gentile is not called a human being.” 557 This was interpreted as excluding the gentiles from the category of mankind. A gentile could mitigate his status by serving the Judaics as a ger toshav in the sense of an “inhabitant convert.” But even these “best of all the gentiles” could be enslaved and should be killed.

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanizes gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. Here are some of the Talmud Bavli passages which relate to this topic.

BT Kerithoth 6b: Uses of Oil of Anointing. “Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over gentiles (goyim) or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: ‘Upon the flesh of man (Adam), shall it not be poured” (Exodus 30:32); and cattle and vessels are not man (Adam). The goyim are not regarded as human by the rabbis. Various authorities have debated whether Judaism imparts to non-Jews a partly human status, i.e. the goyim are not regarded as fully human by the rabbis. Others authorities uphold the proposition that Judaism teaches that non-Jews do not possess the core attributes of the human person. Without doubt Judaism assigns to the goyim the status of sub-human; the degree of this sub-humanity, absolute or qualified, is open to dispute. There are many lines of inquiry to pursue in approaching this subject, in declarative statements and indirectly through the strictures of halakha. Rabbinic law states that ritual impurity is contracted from contact with a human corpse. “The Gemara relates that Rabbah bar Avuha once met Elijah the prophet standing in a non-Jewish cemetery.” Elijah’s presence in a cemetery creates a dilemma because of the ritual purity laws of Judaism which regard contact with a human corpse as defilement.558 The Talmud asks Elijah, “Why then do you render yourself ritually impure by standing in a cemetery? Elijah answered, ‘Have you not studied the order of the Talmud known as Purities? If you had studied that material carefully you would know the answer to your question. For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai states, ‘The graves of non-Jews do not convey ritual impurity, for it is said, ‘And you My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men, but non-Jews are not called men.” (BT Bava Metzia 114b).

“Only ‘you’ the members of the Jewish people, are called men, but nonJews are not called men.”

 Babylonian Talmud: Bava Metzia 114b

 BT Bava Metzia 114b (translation)

“Also with regard to the dead, (it is plausible) that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not a man (Adam). But why is one exempt in the case of gentiles (goyim); are they not in the category of man (Adam)? No, it is written: ‘And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man’ (Adam); (Ezekiel 34:31): Ye are called man (Adam) but gentiles (goyim) are not called man (Adam).” In the preceding passage, the rabbis are discussing the portion of the Mosaic law which forbids applying the holy oil to men. The Talmud states that it is not a sin to apply the holy oil to Gentiles, because Gentiles are not human beings (i.e. are not of Adam). Another example from tractate Yebamoth 61a: “It was taught: And so did R. Simeon ben Yohai state (61a) that the graves of gentiles (goyim) do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel (standing or bending over a grave), for it is said, ‘And ye my sheep the sheep of my pasture, are men (Adam), [Ezekiel 34:31]; you are called men (Adam) but the idolaters are not called men (Adam).” The Old Testament Mosaic law states that touching a human corpse or the grave of a human imparts uncleanness to those who touch it. But the Talmud teaches that if a Jew touches the grave of a gentile, the Jew is not rendered unclean, since gentiles are not human (not of Adam).

BT Baba Mezia 114b: “A Jewish priest was standing in a graveyard. When asked why he was standing there in apparent violation of the Mosaic law, he replied that it was permissible, since the law only prohibits Jews from coming into contact with the graves of humans (Adamites), and he was standing in a gentile graveyard. For it has been taught by Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: ‘The graves of gentiles (goyim) do not defile. For it is written, ‘And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men (Adam)’ (Ezekiel 34:31); only ye are designated men (Adam).” Ezekiel 34:31 is the alleged Biblical proof text repeatedly cited in the preceding three Talmud passages. But Ezekiel 34:31 does not in fact support the Talmudic notion that only Israelites are human. What these rabbinical, anti-gentile racists and ideologues have done in asserting the preceding racist doctrines about gentiles is distort an Old Testament passage in order to justify their bigotry. In BT Berakoth 58a the Talmud uses Ezekiel 23:20 as proof of the sub-human status of gentiles. It also teaches that anyone (even a Judaic male) who reveals this Talmudic teaching about non-Jews deserves death, since revealing it makes gentiles wrathful and causes the repression of Judaism. The rabbis’ citation of the Bible quote from Ezekiel as a “proof-text” is specious, since the quote does not prove that gentiles are animals. The quote from Ezekiel only says that some Egyptians had large genital organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were considered animals. Once again, the Talmud has falsified the Bible by means of distorted interpretation. 

Other Talmud passages which expound on Ezekiel 23:20 in this racist fashion are: BT Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a, Yebamoth 98a. Moreover, the original text of BT Sanhedrin 37a applies God’s approval only to the saving of Judaic lives (cf. the Hesronot Ha-shas, Cracow, 1894). 

“It was considered disgraceful to be hospitable to gentiles and to lodge at their homes. In ‘Eretz Israel’ (the God-given ‘land of Israel’), the rabbis forbade the selling of lands or houses to the gentiles, and Judaics are ordered to buy the lands and houses of gentiles.” It is a capital crime to give any part of “Eretz Israel” to a non-Judaic, i.e. to Palestinians. In the summer of 2004, Avigdor Neventzal, Chief Rabbi of the Old City in Jerusalem stated: “It should be known that anyone who wants to give away Israeli land is like a rodef, and certainly land should not be given to non-Jews. Anyone ceding parts of the Land of Israel to gentiles is, from a halakhic point of view, subject to din rodef.” This term, “subject to din rodef denotes “classified as a pursuer.” Apologists explain the killing of a rodef in terms of an understandable, common sense survival ethic: “someone comes to kill you, you kill him first.” 559 What apologists don’t tell you is that rodef is defined broadly —a tipster who identifies a Judaic child molester to the police, an unborn baby “pursuing” its mother, or an Israeli Prime Minister who signs the Oslo accords. In a tyranny, a word is anything the tyrants say it is, and in Orthodox Judaism a rodef is defined so loosely it encompasses whomever the rabbinate wants bumped off.

One can say that the entire nation of Palestinians have been classified en masse as din rodef. Several prominent Israeli rabbis, including Rabbi Haim Druckman, declared on Sept. 7, 2004 that “killing enemy civilians during war is normal.” So what problem do the rabbis have with Hitler? Simply stated, his sin was based on the fact that, mistakenly thinking he was head of the Master Race, Hitler killed human beings; whereas Israelis, who know for certain they are the Master Race, merely snuff-out sub-humans. 

“A group of fourteen prominent rabbis, led by Druckman, who are considered authorities by the religious-Zionist public, asked the Israeli army not to flinch from killing Palestinian civilians in the context of the ongoing military campaign against armed groups resisting the occupation. Druckman, 71, is one of the most prominent and veteran leaders of the religious Zionist movement, has been a public figure for over 50 years, since serving as a revered leader in the Bnei Avika youth movement in the early 1950s. In a letter to the Israeli defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, published on Sept. 7, 2004, the rabbis said killing enemy civilians is ‘normal’ during time of war and that the Israeli occupation army should never hesitate to kill non-Jewish civilians in order to save Jewish lives. The rabbis quoted a Talmudic edict, from the ancient ‘sage,’ Rabbi Akiva, as stating: ‘Our lives come first.’ The Israeli newspaper Haaretz (Sept. 9) warned that Israeli ‘...soldiers, and even officers, will see this call as a kind of halakhic-ethical commandment that ought to be obeyed...”

One part of the letter scolded Christian critics of Israeli policies against the Palestinians: “The Christian preaching of ‘turning the other cheek’ doesn’t concern us, and we will not be impressed by those who prefer the lives of our enemies to our lives,’ Rabbi Druckman declared. This is a concise and well-explained manifesto. The rabbis who issued it represent a dominant segment of Israeli Orthodox Judaics identified with settlers in the West Bank, including Druckman, a former Israeli Knesset member who heads the government’s conversion administration; Rabbi Yuval Cherlow of the hesder yeshiva, one of the leaders of the liberal wing, which, according to Haaretz, ‘is open to universal culture and discourse.’ Other signers include Eliezer Melamed, rosh yeshiva of an occupied West Bank Talmud college; Yehoshua Shapira of the ‘spiritual-Hasidic’ faction; Rabbi Youval Sharlo, the director of another Talmud school in Petah Tikva, which combines Talmudic studies with service in the Israeli army, and Zefania Drori of Kiryat Shmona, one of the rabbis with the most profound influence on Israeli young people. “The common denominator among most of the signers of the manifesto,” notes Haaretz, “actually lies in their charisma and influence on broad sectors of national religious youth. Among the admirers of Cherlow and Shapira...are hardalim (ultra-Orthodox nationalists), habkukim (disciples of Rabbi Kook and fans of ...Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, including Shapira himself), newly repentant Bratslavers, datlashim (formerly religious), settlers and the urban bourgeoisie.”

On May 19, 2004, Dov Lior, an influential rabbi in the Israeli settlement of Kiryat Arbaa near Hebron, issued an edict enthusiastically supporting the killing of Palestinian civilians in Rafah in southern Gaza, saying, “...it is very clear in light of the Torah that Jewish lives are more important than nonJewish lives.” The New York Times took no notice of the rabbis’ joint statement of Sept. 7. By Sept. 10, Haaretz had quickly rehabilitated Druckman, respectfully reporting in a lengthy article on his views as head of the Israeli government’s conversion administration, without once mentioning Druckman's call for the murder of Palestinian civilians (cf. article by Yair Sheleg, Sept. 10, 2004). In the Talmudic imagination, the Palestinian people are coming collectively to kill the Judaics, so the Palestinian people must be killed preventively. First strike. Din rodef. All very legal and ethical.

“The rabbis forbid buying property during Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, and on the Sabbath. But to save lands and houses from gentiles, real estate negotiations were allowed even on these holy days. 

“It is forbidden to buy food from gentiles, especially food which was cooked by a gentile or had been touched by him or her, such as wine, oil, bread or fish.”

Psak halacha, issued in New York, 11 Shevat 5765 (Jan. 21, 2005)

“Certain industrial products were not allowed to be sold to the  goyim  because of the fear that a goy would sell them back to Judaics who would not realize that these products were defective and unfit for use. The desire to cheat the gentile is strong. The Tannatic rabbinic tradition allows for robbery of a gentile. This also applies to the exploitation of the gentile’s mistakes and losses and his exploitation as an employee.” The prohibition on defrauding a worker of his wages by “delaying” payment of a laborer does not apply to the gentile. 

“Since it was forbidden for a Judaic to lend money to another Judaic at interest, certain lender-borrower exploitation was permitted between Judaics and gentiles.”

Actually Talmudists have a loophole for charging interest on loans even to their fellow Talmudists. Such loans violate Old Testament law, so the rabbonim call the loans by another name — heter iska — a way of arranging a loan to look like a “business deal that is not a loan,” under the Talmudic Halachos of Ribis (laws on interest). Under the provision of the heter iska, the loan at interest is called an “investment.” 

A more efficient loophole is created by incorporating. In dealing with a Judaic corporation rather than a Judaic individual, no pretense of heter iska is necessary. The poskim have ruled that, “A loan must have an individual who is responsible to pay for it. When a corporation borrows, no individual is responsible to pay for the loan. Therefore, a loan to a corporation does not incur the prohibition of ribis, provided that no individual personally guarantees the loan.” 560 It seems that the lawyers have managed to trick God again! In Judaism this is known as eis la’asos leHashem heifeiru Torasecha (a bending of the rules of the Torah in order to protect it.)

The Halachos of Manslaughter: “Lifting and Lowering”“In the formative period of rabbinic law, murderous hatred for the gentile was strong and very little value was attached to his life. But this desire was regulated along with rulings regarding three classifications of Jews who were to be killed: 1. converts to Christianity, 2. spies and 3. Heretics and Karaites. These groups (gentiles and allegedly traitorous Judaics) were divided and governed by two categories, designated by a play on words: lo maalin ve-lo moridin was the first category, and moridin ve-lo maalin the second. This translates as follows: ‘The gentiles and the shepherds of small cattle are not to be lifted or lowered” (lo maalin ve-lo moridin), but the heretics, the informers and the apostates are to be lowered and not lifted (moridin ve-lo maalin)” 561 The meaning is as follows: if a gentile is dying and in need of help, he is not to be assisted or brought medical aid (“lifted”). In a gentile dominant society, for fear of retribution, a gentile’s death should not be caused directly, but rather indirectly. But in the case of Judaics who are converts to Christianity, served as spies or informants, or are Karaites or heretics, they should be killed outright (“lowered and not lifted”). “The whole subject is extensively discussed in the responsa of R. Moshe Sofer — better known as ‘Hatam Sofer’ — the famous rabbi of Pressburg (Bratislava) who died in 1832. His conclusions are of more than historical interest, since in 1966 one of his responsa was publicly endorsed by the rabbi who at that time was Chief Rabbi of Israel, as ‘a basic institution of the Halakhah.’ The particular question asked of Hatam Sofer concerned the situation in Turkey, where it was decreed during one of the wars, that in each township or village there should be midwives on call, ready to hire themselves out to any woman in labor. Some of these midwives were Jewish; should they hire themselves out to help gentile women on weekdays and on the sabbath? In his Responsum, Hatam Sofer first concludes, after careful investigation, that the gentiles concerned — that is, Ottoman Christians and Muslims — are not only idolators...but are likened by him to the Amalekites, so that the Talmudic ruling ‘it is forbidden to multiply the seed of Amalek’ applies to them.” 562 This reference to the ban on “multiplying the seed of Amalek” —with Amalek constituting any non-Judaic ethnic group the rabbis arbitrarily deem to be their enemy— is a rabbinic mandate for genocide, since to stop the reproduction of any people is by definition an act intended to wipe out their genes, i.e. genocide: “The word genocide is a hybrid consisting of the Greek, genes, meaning race, nation or tribe; and the Latin cide meaning killing.” 

Judaism Discovered 

Michael Hoffman 

Anti-Semanticism

 What is interesting about the term “antisemitism” which has escaped analysis is that the use of this phrase is itself an instrument of hatred, since it is a means of equating a person with being “insane,” a “criminal” and a “sadistic hater.” Persons thus labeled are often subject to loss of employment, housing and curtailment of their civil and human rights. What is the definition of an antisemitic act? In so serious a crime, the felonious conduct should be clearly indicated. In spite of much palaver to the contrary, however, the definition is much akin to the logic of the Red Queen of Alice’s Wonderland who said that a word was “Anything I want it to be.” Someone is an “antisemite” simply by exposing rabbis, Judaism or the Israeli state. In other words, for any speech that Talmudists deem offensive. When journalist Patrick J. Buchanan criticized the Zionist role in the formation of U.S. Middle East foreign policy, Abe Rosenthal, contributing editor of the New York Times, compared Buchanan to Nazi soldiers who forced Jews into the Warsaw ghetto! 343 In Rosenthal’s view, antisemitism applies equally to the act of murdering Judaics and to the act of criticizing Zionism.

Professor Hugh Kenner in a letter to William F. Buckley Jr: “The points on which I agree with Joe Sobran are 1a) that the state of Israel is mighty arrogant in its presumption of entitlement to U.S. handouts and general compliance; 1b) that a large & influential U.S. Jewish population shares this presumption...2) that ‘anti-semitism’ is a rather facile label for habitual objections to 1a and 1b...I note from a recent New York Times that Abe Rosenthal...was not satisfied with your treatment of Pat Buchanan. It is surely evident that such as he will never be satisfied by anything short of a casting of whoever annoys them into outer darkness, and I think it is a mistake to let them control the terms of the discourse. ‘Anti-semitism’ — here I agree with Joe — has no stable meaning; it can run all the way from gas ovens to a mere wish that Abe R. would moderate his frenzies. And a term that has no stable meaning is simply not a profitable head for rational discussions.” 344It is questionable whether Kenner’s statement will even be allowed once Orwellian “hate speech” criminal codes are fully legislated and enforced. Any kind of deep, critical thinking which analyzes such matters as who sets the terms of public discourse and what the phrase antisemitism actually denotes and for what objectives it is wielded, are slated to be criminalized. The defense against Prof. Kenner’s thoughts must be in terms of the denunciation of a heretic who has the gall to deny the True Faith of Absolute Belief in the Infallible Goodness of Zionists. 

A superstructure of piety is erected over the framework of debate in order to stifle and extinguish debate. The state religion of the otherwise agnostic, terminal West emerges, viz. Holocaustianity, cloaked in the motheaten, dusty, ermine robes not used since the coronations of popes, czars and emperors. Zionist High Priest Eric Breindel of the NY Post announces that “after Auschwitz, express hostility to the essential Zionist endeavor on the part of a Western intellectual requires an explanation.” 345 The Los Angeles Times has decreed the fantastic dogma that public criticisms of Judaics are precursors of a Holocaust. 346 The New York Times has alleged that “It reeks of anti-semitism to suggest that survivors of the Holocaust are to be condemned for establishing a haven in the only state in which Jews form the majority.”347 Prof. Irving Abella, whose wife, Rosalie Silberman, is a Canadian Supreme Court justice, stated, “The Holocaust metaphor being used against Israel is a group libel...” 348 Here is the sacred state-church dogma of the “Holocaust” in action as it is invoked to block condemnation of the “holy” Israeli state. The association of a stench with condemnation of Israeli murder and dispossession of Palestinians effectively halts any further clearheaded analysis of the terms the New York Times has established for dealing with Palestine. That we are dealing with a religious impulse rather than merely a debate between competing ideas can be seen in the fact that the believers in Holocaustianity are unable even to imagine an alternative view. Joseph Sobran in his published debate with William F. Buckley Jr. eloquently stated: 

“ An anti-semite’ in actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews than a man certain Jews hate. The word expresses the emotional explosion that occurs in people who simply can’t bear critical discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience criticism as profanation and blasphemy. The term ‘antisemitism’ doesn't stand for any intelligible concept. It belongs not to the world of rational discourse, but to the realm of imprecations and maledictions and ritual ostracisms.” 349

Sobran’s epigram about antisemitism being both unintelligible and a function of Judaic hatred for others, is corroborated by the knowledge that when Judaics heatedly disagree with one another they sometimes call each other “antisemites.” When Michael Bar-Zohar of the Israeli Labor Party voted for religious Judaics to be subject to the Israeli army draft like all other ablebodied young Israelis, he was called an “antisemite” and a “Nazi” by members of the Shas and Degel HaTorah parties in the Knesset. 350When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin chose to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization in Gaza, his Israeli political rivals produced posters showing Rabin dressed in a Nazi uniform. 

It is fitting that in this modern age, when man has become puffed up on his own supposed scientific grasp of the universe he presumes to have mastered, that we should witness the crowning self-mockery of the creed of scientific progress, the bondage of the West to the superstitious religion of Judaism and its murderous, racist branch, Israeli Zionism. The European Union — whose symbol is the Tower of Babel— upholds the right of Zionist criticism of Muhammad and Islam, while criminalizing criticism of Judaism and Holocaustianity. According to the New York Times, to say that Zionism is racism “remains code language for bigotry.” 351 By the Times’ logic it is an act of bigotry to point out that Zionism constitutes bigotry against Arabs. The idea that speaking out about the racism of Judaism and Zionism, is itself some form of racism, is the Talmudic mentality par excellence.

Judaism Discovered 

 [Entdecktes Judenthum: Aus Ihren Eigenem Werken Gezogen]

 From Its Own Texts

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

By MICHAEL HOFFMAN

White children in chains

The kidnapping of English children into slavery in America s actually legalized during the first quarter of the 17th century. In that period a large number of the children of poor parents, as well as orphan children, were targeted for the White slave trade. These poor White children were described as a “plague” and a “rowdy element.” Aristocrats who ran the Virginia Company such as Sir Thomas Smythe and Sir Edwin Sandys viewed the children as a convenient pool of slave laborers for the fields of the Virginia colony. In their petition to the Council of London in 1618 they complained of the great number of “vagrant” children in the streets and requested that they might be transported to Virginia to serve as laborers. 

A bill was passed in September of 1 61 8 permitting the capture of children aged eight years old or older, girls as well as boys. The eight year old boys were to be enslaved for sixteen years and the eight year old girls for fourteen years, after which, it was said, they would be given land. (Robert C. Johnson, “The Transportation of Vagrant Children from London Virginia, 1618-1622,” in Early Stuart Studies, p. 139). 

A directive was issued for the capture of children in London, empowering city aldermen to direct their constables to seize children on the streets and commit them to the prison-hospital at Bridewell, where they were to await shipment to America (Johnson, pp. 139-140). “...their only ‘crime’ was that they were poor and happened to be found loitering or sleeping in the streets when the constable passed by.” (Johnson, p. 142). 

The street was not the only place child slaves were to be procured however. The homes of indigent parents with large families were also on the agenda of the slave-traders. Poor English parents were given the “opportunity” to surrender one or more of their children to the slavers. If they refused they  32 were to be starved into submission by being denied any further relief assistance from the local government: 

“To carry out the provisions of the act the Lord Mayor (Sir William Cockayne)... directed the alder-man ...to (make) inquiry of those parents ‘overcharged and burdened with poor children’ whether they wished to send any of them to Virginia... those who replied negatively were to be told they would not receive any further poor relief from the parish.” (Johnson, p. 142). 

The grieving parents were assured that the shipment of their children to Virginia would be beneficial to the children because it was a place where ‘under severe masters they may be brought to good-ness.” (Johnson, p. 143). 

In January of 1620 a group of desperate, terrified English children attempted to break out of Bridewell where they had been imprisoned while awaiting the slave-ships to America. They rose up and fought: 

“...matters were further complicated by the refusal of some of the children to be transported. In late January a kind of ‘revolt’ occurred at Bridewell, with some of the ‘ill-disposed’ among the children de-claring ‘their unwillingness to go to Virginia...” (Johnson, p.143). 

“A hasty letter from (Sir Edwin) Sandys to the King’s secretary (Sir Robert Naunton) quickly rectified the situation.” On January 31 the Privy Council decreed that if any of the children continued in their “obstinance” they would be severely punished. It is possible that one of the children was actually exe-cuted as an example to the others. What is certain is that a month later the children, mostly boys, were forced on board the ship Duty and transported to Virginia. 

From thence onward, English male child slaves came to be known as “Duty Boys” (Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 375). There would be many more shipments of these doomed children bound for the colonies in the years ahead. 

“From that time on little is known about them except that very few lived to become adults. When a ‘muster’ or census of the (Virginia) colony was taken in 1625, the names of only seven boys were listed (of the children kidnapped in 1619). All the rest were dead... The statistics for the children sent in 1 620 are equally grim ...no more than five were alive in 1625.” (Johnson, p. 147). 

On April 30, 1621 Sir Edwin Sandys presented a plan to the English parliament for the solution of the threat poor English people posed to the fabulously wealthy aristocracy: mass shipment to Virginia, where they would all be “brought to goodness.” When control of the colony of Virginia passed from the privately-held Virginia Company directly to the king, it was deemed more expedient, as time went on, to privatize the traffic in White children while placing it on an even larger basis to meet the cheap labor needs of all the colonies. In this way the Crown avoided the opprobrium that might have been connected with the further official sale of English children even as the aristocracy covertly expanded this slave trade dramatically. 

The early traffic in White children to Virginia had proved profitable not only for the Virginia Company but for the judges and other officials in England who administered the capture of the children: 

J. Ferrar, treasurer of the Virginia Company, indicated that he had been approached by the Marshal of London and other officials who had been involved in procuring children for the colony, proclaiming that they were owed a financial reward “for their care and travail therein, that they might be encour-aged hereafter to take the like pains whensoever they should have again the like occasion.” The officials subsequently received the handsome “cut” for their part in the loathsome traffic in kidnapped White children which they had desired. (Susan M. Kingsbury, ed., The Records of the Virginia Com-pany of London, vol. one, p. 424 and Johnson, pp. 144-145). 

This collusion between the public and private sphere generated profits and established a precedent for many more “occasions” where “like pains” would be eagerly taken. The precedent established was the cornerstone of the trade in child-slaves in Britain for decades to come; a trade whose center, after London, would become the ports of Scotland: 

“Press gangs in the hire of local merchants roamed the streets, seizing ‘by force such boys as seemed proper subjects for the slave trade.’ Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for shipment in barns... So flagrant was the practice that people in the countryside about Aberdeen avoided bringing children into the city for fear they might be stolen; and so widespread was the collusion of merchants, shippers, suppliers and even magistrates that the man who exposed it was forced to recant and run out of town.” (Van der Zee, Bound Over, p. 210). 

This man was Peter Williamson who as a child in 1743 was captured in Aberdeen and sold as a slave to the Planter, a “White Guineaman.” The Planter was destined for America with 70 other kid-napped Scottish children in addition to other freight. After eleven weeks at sea, the ship ran aground on a sand bar near Cape May on the Delaware river. As it began to take on water, the crew fled in a lifeboat, leaving the boys to drown in the sinking ship. The Planter managed to stay afloat until morn-ing however, and the slavers returned to salvage their “cargo.” Peter Williamson was twice-blessed. He not only survived the Planter but had the great good fortune to have been purchased by a former slave, Hugh Wilson, who had also been kidnapped in Scotland as a child. Wilson had fled slavery in another colony and now bought Williamson in Pennsyl-vania. He did so solely out of compassion, knowing the boy would be bought by someone else had Wilson not bought him first. Wilson paid for Williamson’s education in a colonial school and years later on his death, bequeathed to the lad his horse, saddle and a small sum of money, all Wilson had in the world. 

With this advantage, Williamson married, became an Indian-fighter on the frontier and eventually made his way back to Scotland, seeking justice for himself and on behalf of all kidnapped children including his deceased friend Hugh Wilson. This took the form of a book, The Life and Curious Adven-tures of Peter Williamson, Who Was Carried Off from Aberdeen and Sold for a Slave. But when he attempted to distribute it in Aberdeen he was arrested on a charge of publishing a “scurrilous and infamous libel, reflecting greatly upon the character and reputations of the merchants of Aberdeen.” The book was ordered to be publicly burned and Williamson jailed. He was eventually fined and banished from the city. 

Williamson did not give up but sued the judges of Aberdeen and took sworn statements from people who had witnessed kidnappings or who had had their own children snatched by slavers. Typical was the testimony of William Jamieson of Oldmeldrum, a farming village 1 2 miles from Aberdeen. In 1741, Jamieson’s ten year old son John was captured by a “spirit” gang in the employ of “Bonny John” Bur-net, a powerful slave-merchant based in Aberdeen. 

After making inquiries, Jamieson learned that his son was being held for shipment to the “Plantations.” Jamieson hurried to Aberdeen and frantically searched the docks and ships for his boy. He found him on shore among a circle of about sixty other boys, guarded by Bonny John’s slavers who brandished horse whips. When the boys walked outside the circle they were whipped. Jamieson called to his son to come to him. The boy tried to run to his father. Father and son were beaten to the ground by the slavers. 

Jamieson sought a writ from the Scottish courts but was informed “that it would be vain for him to apply to the magistrates to get his son liberate; because some of the magistrates had a hand in those doings.” Jamieson never saw his son alive again, “having never heard of him since he was carried away.” The testimony from Jamieson and from many others helped Peter Williamson to prevail. The Aberdeen merchants were ordered by the Edinburgh Court of Sessions to pay him £100. Williamson was personally vindicated and his book was printed in a new edition. The kidnapping continued, however. 

The enslavement of White children from Great Britain later became the subject of a much better known book, Robert Louis Stevenson’s Kidnapped, which was based on the real-life case of James Annesley whose uncle, the Earl of Anglesey, had arranged for him to be seized and sold into slavery in America, in order to remove any challenge to the Earl’s inheritance of his brother’s estates. 

Annesley was savagely whipped and brutally mistreated in America and it appeared he would die in chains. He was eventually resold to another master who accepted his story that he was an English lord and the heir to the Anglesey barony. 

 Annesley managed to make his way back to Scotland where he wrote a book, Memoirs of an Unfortunate Young Nobleman, Returned from Thirteen Years’ Slavery in America, which years later came to the attention of Robert Louis Stevenson. Unfortunately this rare case involving the enslavement of a member of the English nobility attracted attention only because it involved royalty. The far more common plight of hundreds of thousands of poor British children who had languished and died in slavery in the colonies was ignored and awareness of the history of their ordeal remained unchanged in the wake of the publication of Stevenson’s classic. 

The head of one kidnapping ring, John Stewart, sold at least 500 White youths per year into slavery in the colonies. Stewart’s thugs were paid twenty-five shillings for Whites they procured by force— usually a knock in the head with a blunt instrument— or fraud. Stewart sold the Whites to the masters of the “White Guineaman” slave ships for forty shillings each. 

One eyewitness to the mass kidnapping of poor Whites estimated that 10,000 were sold into slavery every year from throughout Great Britain (information in a pamphlet by M. Godwyn, London, 1680). 

From THEY WERE WHITE AND THEY WERE SLAVES The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America by Michael A. Hoffman II 

Michael A. Hoffman - Books Banned by "Banned Books Week"

Last week was the American Library Association’s annual “Banned Books Week,” the eponymous celebration of books forbidden by censors and pressure groups in the United States. While the event purports to focus on books deemed too dangerous for impressionable minds, the daring entries showcased this year include Huckleberry Finn and The Handmaid’s Tale, the televised version of which swept the Emmy awards earlier this month.

Missing from this largely self-congratulatory liberal exercise are the most interdicted books of our time, the contrarian World War II revisionist histories luridly emblazoned with the literary equivalent of the Mark of Cain, “Holocaust denial.”

Last February the World Jewish Congress and the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum succeeded in convincing the heretofore libertarian Jeff Bezos that books by leading revisionist scholars such as Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf should be made to vanish from the web pages of Amazon, where they had been sold for years. What little media coverage was accorded the ban made it appear as though only three books had been removed by Mr. Bezos, when in fact hundreds were banned (for a partial list see here).

We contacted the American Library Associations’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, as well as the co-sponsor of Banned Books Week, the American Booksellers Association, demanding to know when and how they intend to redress the scandal of mass book-banning at Amazon. Because revisionist critiques of the Auschwitz homicidal gas chamber dogma are grotesquely misrepresented and demonized, in our communication we included a link to an online pdf. file of Mr. Rudolf’s monumental work of erudite historiography, Lectures on the Holocaust. All we have received in return is the infamous silent treatment.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. An enormous facade of defiant freedom of the press has been erected by the Left, giving every impression of militant advocacy for books damned by small-minded philistines and powerful lobbies, and yet policed out of consideration are the very works that scintillate with the frisson of the anathematized, and which are consigned to literary oblivion by the supposed champions of the right to read what we please.

Banned books that are banned by Banned Books Week? Can it get any more surreal?

The answer is yes, if we consider the current controversy over Google’s manipulation of its search engine results. “Holocaust-denial,” the 800 pound gorilla that cannot be mentioned in regard to banned books, has also been banned from the current debate over Google’s corruption of its search engine.

Last year Jeff John Roberts, writing in Fortune (Dec. 20, 2016), revealed the original motivation for Google’s falsification:


“In recent months, Google has confronted a new and unsettling trend: Its top search results for questions about the Holocaust lead to neo-Nazi sites…on Tuesday, a Google spokesperson told Fortune it is making some changes. ‘Judging which pages on the web best answer a query is a challenging problem and we don’t always get it right,’ said the spokesperson. ‘We recently made improvements to our algorithm that will help surface more high quality, credible content on the web. We’ll continue to change our algorithms over time in order to tackle these challenges.”

“…The changes come in the wake of news reports that Google’s top search result for “Did the Holocaust happen?” was a page by the White Supremacist group, Stormfront: The update to the algorithms appear to be kicking in already as the Stormfront site has dropped, and the top result is to a link by the United States Holocaust museum.”

Earlier this week, when the New York Times reported on Google’s search engine demotion of a far-Left group, the World Socialist web site, the provenance of this algorithmic tinkering — Google’s attempts to suppress access to sites that question the “Holocaust” liturgy — was omitted.

Times reporter Daisuke Wakabayashi provided plenty of ammunition against Google, but only in connection with falsifying search engine results for Leftist web pages:

“They’re really skating on thin ice,” said Michael Bertini, a search strategist at iQuanti, a digital marketing agency. “They’re controlling what users see. If Google is controlling what they deem to be fake news, I think that’s bias.”

We agree. But to test the sincerity and force of these libertarian sentiments the datum that “Holocaust denial” was the inaugural victim of Google’s rigged search engine, should not be banned from reports on the controversy.

Denying web traffic to World War II revisionist web pages would appear to be unworthy of notice by the fake news media, just as Amazon’s ban on revisionist books is down the memory hole.