Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Molestation facilitator honored by “traditional Catholics"

Some “traditional Latin Mass Catholics” have issued a nauseating celebration of the life of a prelatical child molestation facilitator  Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos  who died earlier this month

Cardinal Hoyos

By Michael Hoffman

From the highly regarded Rorate Caeli blog: “Dario Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos passed away on the 17th of May, 2018, according to the Colombian Bishops’ Conference. He was 88. We ask all of our readers to pray and have Masses said for the repose of his soul...At the very least he was the one most outspoken in defending the rights of Traditionalists in the Church, and the Gregorian Rite itself...

“He celebrated more Pontifical Masses according to the 1962 Missal than his predecessors as PCED President, including the Solemn Pontifical Mass that he celebrated in Santa Maria Maggiore on May 24, 2003 in the presence of 5 other Cardinals, an Archbishop, 2 Bishops and 3,000 faithful. It was the first Solemn Pontifical Mass according to the 1962 Missal to be celebrated in any of the Major Basilicas since the liturgical reforms of Paul VI. 

"To mark the coming into effect of Summorum Pontificum he celebrated a Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Lower Church at the Basilica of the Holy House of Loreto on September 14, 2007. As late as 2013 and 2016 he celebrated Pontifical Masses for the annual Summorum Pontificum Pilgrimage to Rome. 

"His cordial attitude towards the Society of St. Pius X was indispensable to forming the necessary atmosphere for the resumption of the dialogue between them and the Vatican. Again and again he underlined that the SSPX is neither schismatic nor heretical...”

It doesn’t matter to these obsessive Latin Mass advocates that Cardinal Hoyos is on record congratulating French Bishop Pierre Pican for not notifying the police about a priest, Rev. Fr. René Bissey, who was molesting boys. He wrote to Bishop Pican: 

“I congratulate you on not having spoken out to civil authorities against a priest,” wrote Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who at the time was prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. “You have done well and I am delighted” 

Hoyos’ statement is the legacy of the secret, “higher soul” Kabbalistic doctrine that infiltrated the Church beginning in the Renaissance: that because of a “mark” conferred upon the souls of priests at their ordination, they have a higher type of soul than the Catholic laity (cf. The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, a book given “the silent treatment” by “conservative” and  “traditional Catholic” editors and journalists).  

Hence, for the sake of the alleged higher-souled priest, the molestation of little boys ought to be covered up and a bishop who, in the words of Cardinal Hoyos, in charge of all priests throughout the world, the guilty priest is to be protected from the police.

In 2018 nothing has changed about the molestation of children by the papalists; the rhetoric has been altered, and yes, whatever investigations and prosecutions necessary to placate a public now on the alert, have been implemented. But the diabolic doctrine remains in place and the Vatican, along with many (though not all) “traditional Catholics,” continues to bestow high honors on molestation facilitators such as Hoyos, and before him, the fugitive from justice Cardinal Bernard Law. 

When the public furor over molestations dies down, the molestation epidemic will resume, because it is inherent to the Hermetic-Kabbalistic post-Renaissance Church of Rome. Woe to those who share in these transgressions against children by making an idol out of advocacy of the Latin Mass while ignoring the corrupt of the earth who promote it for Machiavellian purposes.

Ignoramuses imagine that the “traditional Catholic Church of the great popes of yesteryear” fought the Talmud and totally defeated its theology. This was true of the pontiffs of the medieval True Catholic Church. It was subverted and overthrown beginning under the Medici popes however, starting with Leo X, who promoted the publication of the Talmud and protected the advocates of the Kabbalah (Pope Leo was not unique in this regard as the hidden record of his successors demonstrates).

The best edition of the Babylonian Talmud produced in world history up to that time was published with the blessing and assistance of Pope Leo X and his co-conspirators. 

Recall that the Talmud in BT Sanhedrin 54b absolves the Judaic adult male from all sin, and exempts him from all responsibility in the matter of molesting boys under the age of nine. This halacha was confirmed by the supreme legal authority in Ashkenazi Judaism, the “Rambam” — Rabbi Moses Maimonides, in his Sefer Kedusha, Hilchot Issurei Bia (1:14).

You know you are in the realm of the Talmud when you encounter a two tier legal system: one law for the privileged class and another for everyone else. This is the very root of tyranny: the Communist Party members and the non-communist people; the Judaic adult male and little children; the Church of Rome’s priests and children.

As a researcher investigating these recondite matters for the past 20 years, one would expect that my work would be welcomed, publicized and promoted by those who claim they are fighting for Jesus Christ. Instead, I am censored and suppressed at almost every turn by those claiming to be on God’s side in the fight for Truth. 

The con game by the corrupt of the earth continues.

For further research:

“Vatican Compares Molestation Scandal to “Persecution of the Jews”

“The Silent Parnter in America’s Molestation Culture”

Your donation = the survival of our Truth Mission


Tuesday, May 08, 2018

Talmud’s view of non-Judaic women

Documenting and exposing hate speech:

The Babylonian Talmud’s hateful attitude toward non-Judaic women

By Michael Hoffman 
Copyright©2018 by RevisionistHistory.org

The general tenor of the Babylonian Talmud and cognate halachic successor texts (Mishneh TorahShulchan Aruch etc.) is that all non-Jewish women are represented by the acronym NSHGZ, which signifies Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah, Zona (menstrual filth, slaves, heathens and whores - cf. BT Sanhedrin 81b-82a). 

In Yiddish slang, a non-Judaic woman is a shiksa ( שיקסע) which personifies the corrosive “NSHGZ” stereotype.

Caution needs to be exercised here, however, because the Babylonian Talmud has a low view of women generally, whether Judaic or gentile. Admittedly, Orthodox Judaism's view of non-Judaic females is much lower by comparison with Judaic women,  and unreservedly toxic. In Israeli, Judaic-American and Yiddish culture, the popular view of the non-Judaic female is that of a highly promiscuous woman, contrasted with the supposedly more sexually modest Judaic woman. 

This view was in the news last January when a researcher with the Washington Post sifted through Hollywood director Woody Allen’s writings and discovered this nugget by Mr. Allen: 

 “Unlike the Jewish girl the shiksa is not guilt-ridden—not a complainer—she is abandoned, fun-loving, and above all promiscuous. The shiksa will perform any sex act.” (Cf. Washington Post online, http://wapo.st/2DipDJ5 [January 4, 2017]).

In studying the halacha of permissible rape of gentiles, we find an expression from Bar-Ilan University Prof. Mordecai Kedar who is on record stating: “The only thing that can deter terrorists...is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped.” (Kedar is also a research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan).

Though it will be claimed by the usual public relations hacks that Prof. Kedar's monstrous rape/deterrent observation is “condemned by the Jewish tradition” (citing, for example, BT Kiddushin 22), there are rabbinic escape clauses which justify rape of non-Judaic women. 

First, the rape target must be classified as a zonah (prostitute) or a nokri (hostile alien). The supreme Ashkenazic halachic authority, Rabbi Moses Maimonides, rules that a Judaic soldier may rape this type of female POW ("Yefas Toar") when he is not actively fighting a battle (cf. Hilchos Melachim 8:3). For more on this line of thought consult Judaism Discovered, p. 904. 

Courtesy of Maurice Pinay, we have learned of a text from the Meorot theology journal of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinic School, on permissible rape: "It is the consensus of many halachic decisors (judges of rabbinic law) that the yefat to’ar can be subject to involuntary intercourse...”  Cf. Dov. S. Zakheim, Meorot, vol. 6, no. 1 (2006), p. 5. (Mr. Zakheim was Under Secretary of Defense in the administration of George W. Bush, 2001-2004).  

Eyal Karim (also spelled "Qarim”), the Israeli militarys chief rabbi, agrees: "Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.” Cf. https://972mag.com/idf-colonel-rabbi-implies-rape-is-permitted-in-war/39535/

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Youth for Palestine movement growing in the U.S.

Good News!

American youth movement for Justice for Palestinians is growing

April 2018   In another victory for the Palestinian rights movement on U.S. college campuses, students at elite Barnard College in New York City voted nearly two-thirds in favor of a referendum supporting divestment from companies profiting from Israeli war crimes and dispossession of Palestinians, most recently the slaughter of unarmed protestors at a border fence by Israeli army snipers. 

Israeli Brig. General Zvika Fogel

Concerning the murder of Palestinian civilians, including Palestinian children, Israeli General Zvika Fogel stated on Israeli radio April 21“... if that’s the price that we have to pay to preserve the safety and quality of life of the residents of the State of Israel, then that’s the price.”

Barnard College, a partner of Columbia University, is a prestigious women’s college with a large Judaic student population. Students say that despite attempts to influence votes against the referendum, including smears accusing supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement of “anti-Semitism,” the referendum was approved on April 18. 

The referendum result comes in spite of recent attempts by the Barnard administration and Israeli lobby groups to bully, intimidate and smear students and faculty supportive of Palestinian rights at Columbia University and Barnard College. 

Earlier this month, Columbia dismissed a lengthy complaint against Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) by Students Supporting Israel (SSI) a national campus organization which is backed by Israel lobby groups and has ties to the Israeli government (imagine the outcry if a national campus organization had ties to the Russian government). 

The companies that organizers of the referendum have targeted for boycott and divestment are:

Lockheed Martin 
Elbit Systems 
Bank Hapoalim 

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has steadily advocated for divestment since its founding in 2016 (Jewish Voice for Peace has recently exposed the ADL). 

According to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the Zionists’ complaint alleged that campus speech supporting Palestinian rights violated New York criminal law!

Students for Justice in Palestine notes that since 2016, the group Students Supporting Israel has filed “several complaints against professors and students for speech critical of Israeli policies,” but every complaint has been dismissed.  

Barnard’s alumnae, who count among their number actress and New York City mayoral candidate Cynthia Nixon, and entrepreneur and food personality Martha Stewart, are known for their strong connection to their alma mater. 

After Barnard students cast ballots that backed the boycott, a group of some 3,000 alumni pushed back with a petition condemning the referendum. They include Barnard board of trustees members Nina Rennert Davidson, and Ruth Horowitz, as well as former president of the New Israel Fund Naomi Chazan, and former Barnard Dean Dorothy Denburg.

Barnard President Sian Leah Beilock responded to the referendum on April 22 with defiance, saying that Barnard would not take any action to divest its endowment from companies complicit in the oppression of Palestinians: “First, taking an institutional stand amid the complexities of the Mideast conflict would risk chilling campus discourse on a set of issues that members of our community should be able to discuss and debate freely. Choosing a side therefore would be inconsistent with our mission,” President Beilock wrote. 

This is arrant nonsense. In the past Barnard took “an institutional stand” against apartheid in South Africa and the former white government there,  notwithstanding the “complexities of the conflict.” 

Those on the justice for Palestine side of the debate, are ecstatic after hearing the results of the referendum, sensing that the tide may be changing in support of their cause, though they were disappointed to read President Beilock’s letter. 

Meanwhile, at New York University (NYU), which has a satellite campus in Tel Aviv, more than fifty student groups recently endorsed a boycott of Israeli goods and academic institutions in an effort organized by NYU’s Jewish Voice for Peace. 

Rabbi Yehuda Sarna, executive director of NYU’s "Bronfman Center for Jewish Student Life," called the boycott “a source of sorrow and disappointment to me.” 

As a fall-back position, Zionists are claiming that the “boycott Israel” BDS movement is “creating an unsafe space on our campus.” 

This exemplifies the politically correct notion that the expression of certain kinds of political speech is dangerous and should be forbidden at colleges and universities. When the Left exhibits this attitude toward speech by conservatives and Republicans, Right wing newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal publish op-eds and editorials decrying it. Yet when it is Right wing Zionists who are demanding limits on freedom of speech at colleges, the Neocons are silent. 

Furthermore, watch for “anti-semitic incidents” clandestinely perpetrated by the Zionists themselves to erupt on these campuses as the last resort of those who have no other argument by which they can defeat the growing youth movement working for justice for Palestinians. The Deep State may also unleash neo-Nazi paraders at Barnard and NYU for the same purpose, to generate sympathy for the Israelis and associate the movement for Palestine “with a rising tide of anti-Semitism.”

These tactics have less effectiveness than ever in a  new media age where websites and Twitter and Facebook operate independent of the mainstream media and supply coverage of the slaughter of Palestinians in graphic detail, whereby the true nature of the genocidal Israeli government, increasingly staffed and led by hardcore Talmudic racists, cannot be denied.

Human Rights Freedom of Speech  Revisionist History®
Open Your Mind!

Sunday, April 15, 2018

The West Sides with Terrorists Against Syria

Swayed by the crudest and most suspect propaganda:

The West Sides with Terrorists Against Syria

“Pro-monster in all parts of the world”

By Peter Hitchens | Mail on Sunday

London, April 15, 2018 – Why do so many people in politics and the media want to start wars? Since I toured a sordid hospital full of wounded people in Bucharest at Christmas 1989, and even more after I saw for the first time (in Vilnius in 1991) what a human head looks like after a bullet has passed through it, I have seen it as an absolute duty to warn against armed conflict. It is a filthy thing.

No doubt there are times when we must fight. But there are plenty more when we should not. Any fool can kill a man in a second and ruin a city in a week. But it takes long years of nurture to raise a child to adulthood, and centuries to build a civilization.

Yet I look around me and see the mouths of intelligent people opened wide, yelling for an attack on Syria, when the only certain outcome of that will be blood and screams and ruins, and the deaths of innocents in 'collateral damage.' What good will this do? 

What is wrong with them? They are not cruel and stupid, yet they call for actions which are both.

Haven't we got enough misery in Syria already? The place is a mass of ruins, graveyards and refugee camps. To what end? The only mercy for Syria will come when the war ends, yet we seek to widen and extend it.

Don't we have more than enough of such disaster in Iraq and Libya, where state-sponsored panic and emotional claims of atrocities excused the launching of wars so stupid and dangerous that I wonder if these places can ever recover? 

Perhaps worse, by creating an unending river of migrants through the Middle East and the Mediterranean, I suspect they have ruined Europe for good.

Why are we even taking sides in Syria? As Julian Lewis MP, chairman of Parliament’s Defense Select Committee, rightly pointed out last week, President Assad is a monster. But his opponents are maniacs. 

The Syrian jihadi gangsters which the British Government crazily helps and backs – the Al-Nusra Front and Jaish al-Islam – are the sort of fanatics we would arrest on sight if we found them in Birmingham.

Anyway, Boris Johnson's Foreign Office is firmly pro-monster in all parts of the world where it suits it to be so. 

British Royals and Ministers literally bow down as they accept medals from the head-chopping fanatics of Saudi Arabia, now engaged in a bloody, aggressive war in Yemen.

Britain maintains a naval base in Bahrain, whose rulers in 2011 crushed protests with severe violence followed by torture. 

As Amnesty International puts it, 'using an array of tools of repression, including harassment, arbitrary detention and torture, the government of Bahrain has managed to crush a formerly thriving civil society and reduced it to a few lone voices who still dare to speak out'.

Britain daren't even admit that our 'friend' Egypt is ruled by a military junta that seized power illegally in defiance of elections which we had supposedly supported but which produced the wrong result.

Field Marshal Sisi's August 2013 Cairo massacre, in which almost 600 peaceful protesters were killed and thousands more wounded, is politely forgotten. 

So is the Chinese communist regime's mass murder (1,000 are estimated to have died) in Peking in June 1989. 

The men whose power rests on that ruthless massacre are welcome to dine at Buckingham Palace. But surely we can't allow Assad to use chemical weapons? 

We would never tolerate that. Would we? Well, when Saddam Hussein was our ally against Iran back in 1988, he undoubtedly used poison gas against Kurds in Halabja. 

And in September 1988 the Foreign Office declined to get outraged, saying: 'We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with others if we want to influence their actions. 

Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing Iraq's behavior over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail.'

Which brings me to the final point. Do we even know that Assad used chemical weapons? 

I have actually read the reports of the last such alleged attack in Khan Sheikhoun a year ago, and they prove nothing. In fact, they are quite fishy.

At the time of writing, I have yet to see a British or US media report on this alleged attack from closer than Beirut, 70 miles from the scene. 

Many seemingly confident and graphic accounts come from Istanbul, 900 miles away, or from London or Washington. 

Where are they getting their information from? Here's a clue. The Saudi-backed faction in control of Douma at the time of the alleged attack, Jaish al-Islam (the Army of Islam), were themselves accused of using poison gas against Kurds in Aleppo in April 2016.

They are not especially nice. Their other main claim to fame is that they displayed captured Syrian Army officers in cages and used them as human shields. 

They have spent several years indiscriminately shelling Damascus from Douma, having taken the local inhabitants hostage, and then squawking about war crimes if the Syrian government hit back at them, which it did much as the Iraqi government (our friends) did to Islamic State in Mosul and Fallujah.

I would not look for any heroes in this cauldron. And if you want to watch war games on a TV screen, can I suggest that you buy your own virtual reality equipment? 

The real thing may look pretty and neat, but real people die as it happens and, if you supported it, their deaths will be on your conscience.
Read more at: 


Monday, March 12, 2018

Farrakhan's Defense of Jesus against Talmudic hatred

On March 11 the Nation of Islam contacted Michael Hoffman to ask if he would corroborate Louis Farrakhan’s recent remarks about the contents of the Babylonian Talmud and its hate speech against Jesus. 


The media often attempt to put Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on the defensive for “his notorious anti-Semitism.” Since the term anti-Goyimism is not in use to describe Orthodox Judaism’s institutionalized hatred of non-Jews in their most sacred text—the Babylonian Talmud—the staged morality play almost always consists of offended Judaics pointing righteous fingers of accusation at “moral lepers” like Louis Farrakhan. It’s a kind of media-enabled psychological warfare. 

When Farrakhan defends Jesus Christ against hateful insults in the Babylonian Talmud, the ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center and mainstream media term him a “hater," while the Talmudists are cast as the perpetual victims. 

Hate speech against Jesus and bigotry toward his true followers is of little concern to the media. Their universe spins on their mission of suppressing exposure of the sacred hate in the Talmud. In their Wonderland world, anyone like Farrakhan who undertakes that exposure, is a “hater”—educating the public about hate speech in Judaism becomes an act of hate. This is a form of quintessentially Talmudic logic known as “pilpul.”

At present Mr. Farrakhan is at the center of another firestorm of controversy as a few leading members of the Leftist “Women’s March” are refusing to join the witch hunt against him: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/louis-farrakhan-facts-history.html

Watching Mr. Farrakhan’s brief remarks about the Talmud and Jesus, as part of his “Saviour’s Day” oration last February, I was stung by his final sentence. 

In his speech, Farrakhan accurately cited the exact passage in the Babylonian Talmud that teaches that for his alleged sins, Jesus is in hell being boiled in feces.  

Addressing the Christians of the West he stated, “You wouldn’t even have the courage — the testicular fortitude — to ask them (the rabbis) why did they want to boil the man you call your Savior, in excrement.”

Here is a Muslim despised by Republican Conservatives, doing for the glory of the Holy Name of Jesus what nationally known Christian leaders should be doing. Instead, they cower.

There is almost no public figure with the world renown and audience numbers of Louis Farrakhan who would dare to say what he said. 

Yes, Chuck Baldwin, Texe Marrs, Bishop Richard Williamson, Herman Otten and Dave Barley would do so, and may have have already done so, but they have not the fame or international influence of the Nation of Islam (NOI) leader—and few of us possess Farrakhan’s dramatic oratorical command of the spoken word.

After his remarks on the bigotry of the Talmud resulted in cries of “Bigotry!” from the usual suspects, including aspersions on the accuracy of his Talmud citation, this writer was contacted by the Research Department of the NOI, which is responsible for authoring the magisterial three volume revisionist history of Judaic involvement in black enslavement, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews

The Nation of Islam asked if I would corroborate Mr. Farrakhan’s remarks about the contents of the Talmud, and its statements about Jesus. The result is the article below, which is reprinted on the website of the Nation of Islam, where you can also find a nearly two minute video excerpt of Farrakhan’s stirring defense of Jesus. 

This writer is certainly no Muslim, but I am a Bible reader and believer. I have noted how often the Scriptures speak again and again of the vital importance of the holy name of God, whether in reference to Yahweh or His Divine Son:  

Your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake.” (John 1: 2:12). 

“I will sing praise to the name of the Lord Most High” (Psalm 7:17). 

“How excellent is your name in all the earth” (Psalm 8:1). 

“Those who know your name will put their trust in you” (Psalm 9:10). 

“In the name of God we will set up our banners” (Psalm 20:5).  

Meanwhile, the Talmud has placed the banner of Jesus in hell and the ministers of Churchianity are o.k. with it. 

Farrakhan is confronting today’s so-called Christians with the appalling fact that they hold in good repute a religion that splatters the Holy Name of Jesus with excrement. Other than some Church of Satan cult, I can’t think of any other creed on earth that would stoop so low or be more deserving of exposure, even as we offer Christ’s love to the Judaic people who are in bondage to its iniquity.

For all the derision of Muslims in Right wing churches and culture, I daresay that Mr. Farrakhan, notwithstanding his Islamic faith, shall perhaps reach Paradise long before many of his “Christian” detractors, who cannot summon the “testicular fortitude” to unmask the religion that teaches to generations of Judaic youth, such filthy and depraved fantasies about our Savior.

Are you listening, Mike Pence?

“The Nation of Islam Research Group asked Talmudic expert Michael Hoffman to view the clip and give his opinion on the veracity of The Minister’s statement about the Talmud. His response is below"

Farrakhan’s Truth about the Talmud

By Michael Hoffman
©2018 RevisionistHistory.org

The Babylonian Talmud tractate Gittin, which Minister Louis Farrakhan quoted truthfully and accurately in his Savior’s Day speech last February, is concerned in part with the fulfillment of Jesus Christ’s prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans, due to the transgressions of the Jews: 
“Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down...Therefore when you see the Abomination Of Desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24: 1-2; 15-16).

The “Abomination Of Desolation” was the Roman Army. Jesus was warning that in less than forty years it would advance to besiege Jerusalem, and that His followers were to flee to safety, which is what they did, leaving the unbelieving Jews to suffer the consequences. 

Because the creed of Orthodox rabbinic Judaism is one of unrelenting revenge, the Roman General Titus, who personally directed the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., is forever an object of hatred, second only to Jesus himself. The rabbis of Orthodox Judaism have never forgiven Titus for commanding the legions who fulfilled Christ’s prophecy and destroyed the Temple at Jerusalem, along with the Jews who maintained that corrupt and doomed system. The revenge of the rabbis upon Titus is to tell nonsensical lies about him in the Talmud. 

Few Christians or Muslims are aware that in the Babylonian Talmud Jesus shares his place in hell with the Roman Titus, who is depicted as being chastised for the destruction of the Temple by being burned to ashes in hell, reassembled, burned, reassembled and burned again—for eternity (Gittin 56b). In another depraved lie, Jesus is portrayed as being punished for “leading Israel astray” by forever remaining seated in a cauldron of boiling excrement in hell (Gittin 57a). According to the law (halahca) of Talmudic Judaism, “Anyone who mocks the words of the sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement (צוֹאָה רוֹתֵחַת).”

The typical rabbinic and Zionist response to the truthful description by Minister Farrakhan and others of what the Talmud teaches about Jesus, is to lie and say that in this passage the Talmud is referring to “another Jesus,” rather than Jesus of Nazareth: “Many commentaries suggest that some or all talmudic references to Jesus refer to another person” (Koren Talmud Bavli [Jerusalem: 2015], vol. 21, footnote to p. 319).

According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “To agitate Christian readers, anti-Talmud writers often attempt to portray the Talmud as demeaning the figure of Jesus.” 

By the ADL’s reasoning, “anti-Talmud writers” are never scholars who are dispassionately committed to the discovery of the truth about what the Talmud teaches, but rather, they are only agitators who, from impure motives, seek to “portray” the Talmud as “demeaning” Jesus. 

How the ADL arrived at this conspiracy theory is not revealed, but the undercurrent of intimidation is clear: those who speak or write candidly and accurately concerning how Jesus is defamed in the Talmud are seeking to “agitate Christians.” No reputable person would want a career-killing stigma like that attached to his statements and most Christians and Muslims are thereby intimidated from pursuing the truth about the Talmudic depiction of Jesus. Moreover, according to the ADL, “the Talmud only refers to Jesus in a handful of places, and though these references may not reflect the courteous ecumenicism of the modern world, neither are they particularly inflammatory.” (Anti-Defamation League, The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics [New York: 2003], p. 11).

The ADL expects us to believe that depicting the Christian Savior being boiled in feces is not inflammatory, while any critical observation that Mr. Farrakhan dares to utter concerning Judaism is nothing but inflammatory. The hypocrisy is all too familiar.

Long-standing denials by Talmudists and Zionists and their gentile apologists concerning the supposed absence of Jesus in the Talmud, are slowly being discredited after having held sway for centuries. David Klinghoffer elucidated this development in his essay, “What the Talmud Really Says About Jesus”:

 “...the scandalous passages indeed refer not to some other figure of ancient times but to the famous Jesus of Nazareth. What exactly is so scandalous? How about Jesus punished in Hell for eternity by being made to sit in a cauldron of boiling excrement? That image appears in early manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud, as does a brief account of Jesus’ trial and execution—not by the Romans but by the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin.” (Publishers Weekly, January 31, 2007).

Mr. Klinghoffer says that the “Jewish community” has been content to let the evil sayings of the Talmud about Jesus “remain obscure and unknown.” His claim is erroneous. The rabbinic “community” actively teaches these viciously bigoted statements about Jesus within their religion, while denying to the world that they are present in their sacred texts. These inconvenient facts must not be suppressed. The admission by Klinghoffer and other Judaic intellectuals that Jesus Christ is indeed targeted in the Babylonian Talmud, has brought with it no substantive analysis of the long record of rabbinic denials and falsification that preceded his revelation, and which continue in some instances, up to the present time. Mr. Klinghoffer is eager to have us pass over Judaism’s system of dissimulation as quickly as possible. 

Christians and Muslims are rightly offended at the disgraceful libels, pornographic scurrilities and hate speech in the Talmud. Louis Farrakhan, virtually alone among public figures in America, has had the courage to defend Jesus against these obscenities. 

Michael Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York Bureau of the Associated Press and the author of nine books, including Judaism Discovered, and Judaism’s Strange Gods.


March 14, 2018

From the Nation of Islam

Dear Mr. Hoffman,

We are pleased to report that the article you prepared is the most viewed on our website over the last 3 days. 

We have just posted this article that refers to your work: 

"WHY DO JEWS HATE JESUS AND MARY? Muslims and Christians Revere Jesus and Mary; Jews hate them both.”

Thank you very much.

Hoffman’s comment:

Strange Priorities 

While Mr. Farrakhan, who honors Jesus and Mary, is vilified by politicians and the media for allegedly saying “filthy” things about Zionists, the Talmudists and their sacred books may say any filthy thing they like about Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary without provoking controversy in the media, or among politicians and “Christian” leaders.


Keep Michael Hoffman working in defense of the Truth:
  donate, or purchase one of our publications or recordings