Judaism discovered

99

Not a word in his magazine or his column. (Pat Buchanan wrote about it, by the way). Well, he'd told me, hadn't he, that Arab Christians weren't his beat? In Bill's version of all this, his chief motive was selfless concern for the survival of the Jews. I remember it a little differently."

Buckley's kosher conservative movement and the New York Times newspaper are but a small part of the crooked Talmudic deck which is dealt to the American people on the level playing field created by the Founding Fathers, not because the Founders "accepted" or "admired" Judaism, but because they sought to avoid replicating in the New World the pattern of bloody Old World religious wars. Yet, when one side is playing mostly fair and the other is using every dirty trick to manipulate the system in order to gain unfair competitive advantage, Christians lose and Talmudists gain. The American Founding Fathers erred when they failed to openly state as the foundation of the Constitution and its government, the philosophy of Jesus Christ. No favoritism toward any denomination and no persecution of any dissenter is inherent in such a declaration. James M. Willson summarized the classic Christian critique concerning what the Founders omitted from the Constitution: "How...can a government be so acknowledged which puts no restraint upon the open enemies of the Most High, pays no regard to the prerogatives of Christ, and throws open its honors, and thus gives 'power' to

100

the avowed despisers of His law?...Surely the rights of God and of Christ are not less worthy of recognition than human rights..."

The notion of a "level playing field" created for every religion to "compete equally," with no special rights relegated to Jesus Christ, almost always results in rabbinic, Communist or Zionist supremacy.

This is why, in 1290, King Edward I of England, and in 1492 Queen Isabella of Castile and Aragon, expelled all Talmudists from their realms. The English suffered their presence so long as the Talmudists did not attempt to dominate the economy, as stipulated in the Statute of Jewry of 1275. This statute had possessed some of the liberality which the American Founding Fathers sought to extend five centuries later. The Statute of Jewry allowed Talmudists to trade fairly with English gentiles. Mercantile trade was allowed to them and therefore the old canard about Judaics being "forced" into usury because they had no other means of making a living was in this case, false. The Talmudists took advantage of the freedom, however, to ensnare the gentiles in mounting debt. They broke the law with their persistence in gaining supremacy through usury, which at that time was prohibited by Biblical, ecclesiastical and civil law. Their law-breaking resulted in their banishment until the time of Elizabeth I, the first monarch to bring these illegal aliens back to England, overtly at first (as a coterie of

101

alleged "physicians") and then, after exposure of this ruse by Christopher Marlowe, as covert policy.

Though ever since the Talmudic ritual murder of William of Norwich in 1144 no love was lost between the English yeomanry and the Judaic mercantile class, the expulsion in England in 1290 was enforced humanely. Aaron of Vives, for example, was allowed to sell and pocket the proceeds from his extensive property holdings in London. Cok Hagin, among other wealthy Judaics, was extended the same privilege. All other Judaics of whatever economic status were granted safe passage to port cities where they boarded ships. No riots or pogroms were inflicted upon them as they decamped. The Judaics had been given ninety days to leave. Their departure date was set for All Saints Day (November 1). After they departed, a kind of jubilee was declared, by which the interest on all loans due to Talmudic lenders was canceled throughout England.

Since the Talmud permits its adherents, under certain conditions, to act as rapacious fraudsters toward the citizens of the West (kochi ve'otzem yadi), from 1275 to 1775, any experiments in liberality or level playing fields afforded equally to Talmudists, have proved little more than a boon to their dominion. Expulsion of Talmudists is nothing new in history: St. Cyril "drove out of Alexandria the Jews, who had formed a flourishing community there since Alexander the Great. But they had caused tumults and had massacred the Christians, to defend whom Cyril himself assembled a mob. This may have been the only possible defense, since the Prefect of Egypt, Orestes, who was very angry at the expulsion of the Jews was also jealous of the power of Cyril, which certainly rivaled his own. Five hundred monks came down from Nitria to defend the patriarch." (Catholic Encyclopedia). The "Holocaust" lobby has made much of these expulsions, weaving them into the tale of hereditary woe that supposedly comprises "the shameful chronicle of antisemitic outrages throughout history." The history of massacres of Christians by Talmudists and Zionists is typically omitted in these weavings.

In our own view, mass expulsion, rather than selective banishment, is problematic and in most cases immoral, in that the many Judaics of good will are also lost to the country. The Harold Pinters, the Shahaks, the Chomskys would all be lost to us in any such revival of these expulsions in our time. Meanwhile, gentile and pseudo-Christian agents of the rabbis would remain in the land. What is the point of expelling Judaic rabbis while masonic

102

gentiles remain? Moreover, the expulsion of one minority paves the way for the forced exodus of any minority. We think of the dispossession and expulsion of the ethnic Germans of eastern Europe after World War II by the victorious Communist and Allied powers in places like Poland and Yugoslavia; of the expulsion of the Palestinians beginning in 1948, or of the expulsion of the Huguenots from France in the seventeenth century. Mass expulsion is a dangerous precedent to establish because it is a weapon that can be turned on anyone as the winds of fate shift the balance of power in our world.

A statement in the Constitution that America is a Christian nation would have been the affirmation of a patent truth. Whether deist or not, all of the Founders with a tiny handful of exceptions (such as occultist Benjamin Franklin and agnostic Ethan Allen) were Christians, however heteordox. America's Anglican, Puritan and Roman Catholic roots cannot be gainsaid by twenty-first century atheists determined to make of Thomas Jefferson a Christ-hating modern rabbinic sympathizer, which is a demonstrable falsehood, but does suit the myth of a rootless, deracinated United States which is nonetheless somehow perversely obliged to serve and shield a militantly racial-nationalist Israeli theocracy.

The Founders' decision to treat rabbinics as equal partners in the marketplace of ideas was motivated by enormous anxiety over "prelatical despositsm," i.e. the "priestcraft" of Churchianity's clerical bureaucracy which, in the eyes of early Americans, had served as an engine for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Christian dissidents and "heretics" over the centuries. The revulsion on the part of the American colonists at the persecution of fellow Christians by the hierarchy of Churchianity was intense and nearly universal. Any attempt to create a law code that discriminated against any belief, including Judaism, was viewed as a prelude to the imposition in the New World of priestly tyranny.

Where the New York Times-type of Judaic-secularists have it wrong is in their portrayal of early America as a Republic that viewed Judaics and rabbis similar to how modern Americans with their Spielbergian Hollywood lenses view them, and that is, frankly, nonsense. Whatever masonic buncombe Washington regurgitated to a handful of rabbis in America about fig trees (an

103

unlikely tolerationist image, in light of what Jesus said about the accursed fig tree in connection with the Pharisees), the American people by and large viewed Judaism as priestcraft, and this too was their view of "popery" (Roman Catholicism). Depending on the individual, other denominations also came in for scrutiny and abuse. Jefferson regarded Presbyterianism as the most potent priestcraft on earth.

American statesmen in the Age of Enlightenment sought to break the Old World pattern of persecuting one's ideological and spiritual rivals. Hence, Roger Brooke Taney, a Catholic child born in colonial Maryland in the reign of King George III, was not allowed to attend a Roman Catholic school. As soon as the American Revolution was successful he was free to attend the "papist" academy of his choice. The freedom to pursue a Roman Catholic education in the early Republic did not connote approval or admiration of Catholicism. It denoted the strict adherence of the Founders to a concept of governance that eschewed the institutionalization of persecution of unpopular ideas, be they papal or Judaic. For New York Times writers to claim that this tolerance signaled approval or acceptance is either sheer ignorance or willful deceit. As we have shown, Jefferson had no use for the Talmud or rabbis. Under the influence of Joseph Priestly and other "freethinkers," many of the Founders were in search of a reform of the reformed (Protestant) Christianity, in which the pure precepts of Jesus Christ would shine through the accumulated detritus of eighteen centuries of institutional Churchianity. This is a perpetual project in which every Christian generation has been engaged, including within institutions such as Roman Catholicism that did not lack for reformers from Francis of Assisi to Francis of DeSales in spite of being stereotyped as the archetype of "priestcraft." The Freemasons were among the foremost abusers of the "priestcraft" epithet — they wielded it against Christianity in service to Judaism; even as the Freemasons were hogtied to Kabbalistic sorcery, superstition and a priestcraft so far sunk in the dust of antiquity it would be difficult to distinguish it from the prestidigitation of the Pharaohs.

God commanded that we are to have "no strange gods" before Him. Judaism with its self-worship of the Judaic male as personified by the gedolim, was certainly beyond a doubt just such idolatry. We live now in an era that is the near-culmination of Talmudic and Zionist supremacy, wherein it is a criminal offense in much of Europe, and a career-ending ticket to

104

financial ruin and a destroyed reputation in America, to speak forthrightly of the errors of Judaism and rabbis in the same manner in which Judaics speak freely, and write and teach in public, of the defects of Nazis and Germans, Arabs and Muslims. The priestcraft of rabbinic Judaism is a protected idol in twenty-first century America to an extent that the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned and would never have countenanced. We live in an America where the huge menorah of Chabad-Lubavitch Judaism is mounted in Union Square, San Francisco, every December, while the Mary, St. Joseph and baby Jesus nativity manger scene of Christianity is banned from that very same public space. This is but one symptom of the extent to which Judaism has become the defacto state religion of the otherwise agnostic West; the main instrument for the encroachment of this rabbinism into our civic life and culture being the religion of Judaism-for-gentiles which this writer terms, Holocaustianity. If anyone is so delusional as to imagine that this state of affairs was the intent of the American Founding Founders, then their grasp of our nation's history is somewhat less than zero.

Because genuine Christians cannot persecute, hound, or oppress, we will always be at the mercy of those who employ those devices, after having sufficiently dehumanized us in the eyes of the public. But God is just and He has promised blessings to those who do His will. We react to the Christian-haters with the remedies of Jesus Christ, education, charity and mercy.

Surely, we are human and often we have it in us to strive and achieve, and some of that ambition causes us to seek the realm of military combat. It almost seems shameful at times not to pick up a weapon, particularly when we intuit that we would be proficient at so manly an art, which the world associates with honor and glory. These are natural sentiments and feelings. Christians are not natural, however. If we were, then handsome young Christian husbands and beautiful young Christian wives would have multiple bedmates whenever it seemed "natural" to do so. To be faithful to one wife or one husband is decidedly unnatural in a world saturated with relentless allurements to the contrary.

When Christians wish to go to war on the Greek, Roman, Zionist, Muslim or WWII "Greatest generation" model, because "manhood demands it" and it would be "shameful cowardice" to do otherwise, let us consider the terrible shame that was heaped upon Jesus, who was crucified half-naked on a piece of wood; or the scene of Him standing humiliated before Pilate, even

105

as legions of angels were at hand to instantly obey His bidding, with the power to turn Palestine into a smoldering cinder. How did Christ comport Himself under the circumstances? "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be handed over to the Jews" (John 18:36).

Those who gain greater knowledge of the perfidy of Judaism from this book should likewise grasp enough discernment in these pages to avoid falling into the devilish trap which the rabbis themselves have prepared, of behaving as so many ungodly crusaders and vigilantes have done in the past, and blasphemously so, in the name of God, to launch a violent struggle, as did some (but not all) Germans under Hitler, and as some (but not all) Muslims prosecute under Islamic fundamentalism, against rabbis and Zionists. Such a road is the pathway to defeat. There is victory over darkness only through spiritual weapons. Live, prosper and overcome through faithful adherence to the scriptural truths that form the knowledge {scientia, i.e. science) that Jesus imparted to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see His word.

If Yahweh chooses to visit His wrath on the Zionists and rabbis through the instrument of the Muslim fundamentalists, in that case it will be an act of God, and not by our hand. Personally, our prayer has been first and preferably, that God in His mercy would reform and convert the Zionists and Talmudists, and if not, that He would otherwise remove them by a means of His choosing. For God to use the Muslim fundamentalists in this fashion would not make them our allies, anymore than the Romans who visited God's wrath on the fledgling Judaism of A.D. 70 were any friends of Christians. Neither should any Christian claim (as certain rabbis themselves have done in stating that Hitler was a punishment from God on wayward modern Judaics), that the Nazis were the instrument of the wrath of God. Simplistic reductionism like that should be avoided, in part for the occult reason that behind Nazism and Hitler were the guiding hands of the Kabbalah and the rabbis, and behind Islamic fundamentalism are the cat's paw intelligence agencies of the West, which were patterned from their inception, after the Kabbalistic gnosis first conveyed to the British secret service by the Bohemian Rabbi Judah Loew and his disciple, Queen Elizabeth I's Astrologer Royal, Dr. John Dee. Where there is war (murder + lies) there too is the father of murder and of lies. Keep separate from these bloody men; work with

106

spiritual weapons alone, thereby keeping halt dich pur, lauter, keusch und rein ("pure, sweet, chaste and clean").

The weapon employed by this book is truth. Let it be for the reader an inducement to go forth and share with others the facts we have excavated, with sincere compassion and prayer for the pitiable Judaic souls, and those who ally with them, trapped in webs of violence, sin, lies, deceit and death. Let all who would misuse the information in this book for any other end, agenda or pretext, be known for the rabbinic agents provocateur which they, consciously or unconsciously, undoubtedly are. We condemn without reserve any act of persecution against any person, whatever may be their religion or race. We wish for the rabbis, as well as ourselves, to have in the words of the Christian poet John Milton, "the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all other liberties." More often than not, the rabbis and Zionists seek to withdraw those rights from us. Yet we are confident that it is through Christian liberty and its author, Jesus the Messiah of Israel, that Talmudists and Zionists will find the truth, if they be of good will. is the result of our God-given desire to know, utter and argue freely, by the light of the Scriptures and our conscience. Our Christian faith impels us to advocate this freedom for all mankind, as God sees fit to use this writing toward that end.

We make no apology. We court no human favor or respect. We write what we write not for a "sectarian cause," or "party," least of all for a cause of resistance to Judaism. All of that is so much dust and ashes. We write because we believe that what we write is the doctrine of the Bible in service to the only cause of which we wish to be counted, the cause of Jesus Christ.

Your Christian brother and companion in tribulation,
107

Oh blindness to the future! kindly giv'n,

That each may fill the circle mark'd by Heaven;

Who sees with equal eye, as God of all,

A hero perish, or a sparrow fall,

Atoms or systems into ruin hurl'd,

And now a bubble burst, and now a world.

Alexander Pope

An Essay on Man (I: 85-90)

108

A Note to Would-Be Plagiarists

Though this book, , is printed with ink, it is a different sort of ink, the ink of adversity. The energy that it has taken to produce it has necessitated all we had to give. In light of the struggle that has been required, however, we advise that the would-be plagiarist would consider carefully what he or she risks when plundering the information in this book for his or her own aggrandizement and tactical agenda. After our first work on Judaism, Judaism's Strange Gods was published in the year 2000, we were contacted by a journalist for a conservative Roman Catholic publication. This writer was much smitten with the book, expending a good deal of energy singing its praises. This led us to believe that he would review or recommend the book to his readership, or perhaps mention the book in public, in connection with some of the facts he had represented to us as being "so informative and valuable." Yet, when he published his own essay on Judaism in the Catholic magazine, our book was nowhere cited; nor was this writer's name mentioned. However, we noted that our assertion that Judaism was not an Old Testament religion, at that time a fairly novel proposition among the generality, was published, but without sourcing Judaism's Strange Gods. He used instead, a technique for backtracking through our footnotes to find a reference we had not specifically cited and he used that reference (which our book had inspired him to search for), as the footnote in his own writing. We inquired of him concerning why he had undertaken this elaborate process of evasion. If our book had inspired his search, why was all mention of it suppressed in his published essay? Was our own writing somehow suddenly diminished in his eyes — perhaps not as edifying as his initial assessment indicated?

Oh, no, he replied. It was nothing of the kind. Our research was quite valuable. The problem was that was not "respectable" and therefore, in front of a "respectable" audience (the readers of the conservative Catholic publication to which he contributed), neither Judaism's Strange Gods nor its author could be cited or credited. To quote would be to render the Catholic publication disreputable in the eyes of its readers. This Catholic journalist was so oblivious to his act of appropriation that he could not see that what he had done was an injury. His intellectual dishonesty was complete.

109

Another practice in which plagiarists engage, is to rifle our text for its rare and never-before seen facts and data, and then write a book, essay, pamphlet, newspaper, newsletter article or Internet manifesto showcasing this esoteric information as being their own discovery, thereby obtaining credibility for the rest of their text, which more often than not, is a lazy patchwork of personal enthusiasms absent scholarly substance or any indication that they had toiled in the archives. Why perform such toil when one can give the appearance of having done so, by "borrowing" from Hoffman's book? By plundering our work they gain credibility for their own work.

This plagiarism would be a fairly easy process to overcome and expose if this writer were well-known and our books were published by major houses in a print-run of a hundred thousand copies. This is not the case, however. This writer is obscure and our book will be printed in an initial print run of just a few thousand copies. It is a hassle-free transaction for someone who has a website that has good traffic on the Internet, to purloin the choicest quotations and citations from this book and pawn them off as their own work. This has happened repeatedly with a pamphlet co-written with Charles D. Provan, "The Truth about the Talmud." We posted it on the Internet with a prominent copyright notice. Our names were quickly stripped from it, the way locusts strip the grain from a ripened field of wheat. Spurious material was added to our work. Our pamphlet has since metastasized online into a shadow of its authentic self and this falsification and latter-day scribal interpolation suits the Cryptocracy very well indeed. Plagiarists are very much like the interpolating scribes of old about whom Jesus declared, "Woe unto you scribes."

Among social justice activists and authentic Christians, there is a growing sense that the immunity from skepticism and investigation which has been enjoyed by Orthodox Judaism since the end of World War II has done great harm to world peace and western civilization. Unfortunately, this field of study is also being exploited by ambitious hustlers trying to collect some cash and make their mark in the world. Just knowing the bare bones concerning the recondite information which our book Judaism's Strange Gods placed before the public in 2000: that the Talmud is pornographic, blasphemes Jesus and Mary and is anti-Scriptural, is not enough for these hustlers to succeed in accomplishing their ambitious goals. They need more

110

information. Scientia est potentia. They can obtain it the old-fashioned way, by searching the archives on their own, for close to eight years, as we have done since 2000, or they can steal it. The latter is a particularly attractive route because American society does not regard the theft of information with the same jaundice it views the theft of money or goods. The problem with the appropriation of the information we publish in these pages is that it removes the author of the information from the originating stream. In other words, when a plagiarist purloins our data on Rabbi Moses Maimonides, for example, but then in a follow up point/counterpoint confrontation with an opponent, is asked to elaborate on why he (the plagiarist) believes Maimonides' defense against atheism does not relieve Maimonides, in Thomistic terms, of the other liabilities that are assigned to him, what will the plagiarist say, by way of rejoinder? He is a thief, not a scholar. He cannot reply to a sophisticated challenge with the requisite scholarship. If he is challenged in a public forum, the thesis of this book and the cause of truth itself will needlessly suffer, indeed, even appear to be discredited, since the plagiarist can only copy and then add his own distortions. This entire process serves the rabbis well. Another case: very few persons, including even Orthodox Judaics, are aware that the rabbis put a formal curse on the nation of Poland. Just possessing that fact alone could cause a latter-day P.T. Barnum who is short on knowledge but long on public relations wizardry and self-promotion, and who advances this fact about Poland at just the right time and place, to gain an audience, or enlarge the one he already has obtained.

We will relate the relevant data here (to the best of our knowledge it is being published for the time anywhere, outside of the most recondite rabbinic literature). After many decades of controlling the Polish aristocracy, the rabbis fell out of favor with the royals. There is a common tendency for the aristocracy to use and then turn on rabbis, only to return them to favor at a later date. It's an interesting phenomenon worthy of a book in itself. Otto von Bismarck cultivated Edward Lasker, Ludwig Bamberger and the Bleichroeder banking house which facilitated the split with the Fortschritts-Partei and the founding of the National Liberal Party, leading in 1866 to German unification. Between 1877 and 1879 Bismarck dispensed with his backers and craftily rode the wave of populist revulsion against politicians and speculators of Judaic extraction. His political expediency has been

mistaken for statesmanship by the Right wing ever since; an old pattern of chicanery. In Poland something somewhat similar occurred after a dark night of bondage to rabbinic influence. It became expedient in the waning years of the eighteenth century for the rulers of Poland to assuage their people's rising demand for freedom by publicly burning Rabbi Yaakov Yosef's sefer, Toldos Yaakov Yosef. The Hasidic shetl of Polnoye soon circulated a miracle story containing a motif familiar to students of rabbinic pronouncements and controversies, in which God or a Biblical prophet is shown to intervene and justify the position of the particular rabbinic protagonist. In this case, Hasidic rabbinic legend has it that Rabbi Yosef, "appealed to heaven that the injustice be severely punished. 'Examine my sefer,' he cried out. 'See whether even one letter in it was written without proper intent.' In heaven they checked through the sefer and found that his contention was correct, and a ruling went out that the kingdom of Poland that had decreed against the sefer would cease to exist. Not long after...Poland lost its independence. This happened on October 24, 1795, when the Third Partition of Poland' divided up whatever was left of Poland between its three neighbors, Russia, Prussia and Austria, and Poland ceased to exist as an independent state (except briefly during Napoleon's time), until 1918."

Our hypothetical plagiarist would lift this data from these pages and make hay with it. He could omit this book as his source and choose the alibi that is most opportune: "Hoffman is too disreputable to be cited," or he may take the data without a face-saving excuse of any kind, confident that he will get away with his plagiarism undetected, or that if it at some point it is detected, no one will care. The difficulty with that attitude from the point of view of the cause of truth, apart from any personal considerations of our own, rests on the question, how will the plagiarist defend this information? Does he know what a sefer is? Does he know the contents of the Toldos Yaakov Yosef? Can he explain why it was banned and what was found to be offensive within its pages?

If all he can do is selectively pull our material and present it as his own, what happens if he wins a wide audience and is challenged on "his" data? How will he respond? Parrots can only repeat. By means of plagiarism, urgent intelligence is muddied, and dumped into a dead-end where it is made hostage to the very process we are deconstructing. These same unscrupulous hustlers maintain an air-tight boycott against everything related to our books

112

and website, just as the Cryptocracy does, even as they profit handsomely from exploiting our information. Awareness of our rights under the copyright law, is necessary in order to protect the right of readers to access the source of the information for genuine guidance and follow-up, from its originator. For purposes of legal action against plagiarists, adequate copyright notice is required. The extent to which the plagiarist who presents himself to the public as a scholar of Judaism's errors, responds inadequately to inquiries, he brings disrepute on the movement to document the iniquity of Judaism. If our ambitious hustler wins a wide audience he does so at the expense of the one who excavated the data in the first place. Our audience is at present relatively small. It is an exhausting and seemingly constant struggle to raise even the minimum amount of funds necessary to continue our research and publishing. Hence, it is not a matter of personal conceit or egotism for this writer to insist on the right to be credited for the data we have unearthed and presented in these pages, after many years of hard work. This writer is the investigator best qualified to answer the opposers who contend against and seek to contradict the theses and research contained in these pages.

This is the normal course of response for authors whose publishing companies have high-profile websites or who can arrange interviews for the author on television, radio and in newspapers and magazines. The author becomes sufficiently identified with his research in the mind of the public, that most plagiarism is discovered and the plagiarist is disgraced and discredited. But without the protections which connection with a large publishing company affords, an author is vulnerable to the crooks and cheats who would unscrupulously purloin the corpus of his book.

We wish to contend for the contents of this book before the bar of history and public assessment. We will be thwarted in that mission if plagiarists become recognized as the leading skeptical inquirers, researchers and investigators into Judaism based on the renown our research obtains for the plagiarist. We are as entitled to the fruits of our labor as much as any carpenter would be from a house he had constructed. "The laborer is worthy of his hire" (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18). Scripture, common law and human decency testify to that. Unfortunately, in the Right and Left wings, which constitute two appendages of a predatory bird of ideological prey, ethics and decency are often missing, and intellectual dishonesty is sometimes the norm.

113

It is our conviction that God wants this book to achieve maximum undiluted effect, and if this is to happen, then it will be necessary for readers to cooperate with the author so that he may become rightfully known as the source of the information in these pages, long before the plagiarists can appropriate it, while pretending that they have never heard of or its author.

114

"All the things in this world carry in them such evident marks of imperfection, are so liable to be infected with error, good is separated from evil by such slight partitions, and the deflection from what is right is so easy, that even undertakings which should seem most exempt from danger are yet insecure in their conduct, and uncertain in their issue."

Hannah More Christian Morals (1813)