Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Ariel Sharon and the Talmudic Mentality


Ariel Sharon and the Media's Talmudic Mentality of Holocaust Denial


By Michael Hoffman
www.revisionisthistory.org
______________
The Butcher of Beirut is dead.

Ariel Scheinermann “Sharon” died January 11. He was born of parents who emigrated to Palestine from Belarus, in the heart of the Khazar diaspora of Eastern Europe. His face was a road map of Khazaria, sharing the physiognomy of the Kagans and the rest of the Turkic tribe who masquerade as the progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and are accepted as such by the morons in the pews.

Scheinermann/Sharon is not infamous as the “Butcher of Beirut” in the way that certain Germans are universally derided as the “monster of Malmedy,” the “butcher of Warsaw” and other Allied and Judaic sobriquets. Talmudic Khazarians are a protected caste and war crimes cannot be laid at their door, no matter what the actual circumstances.

Sharon the mass murderer has landed on his feet in obituaries and eulogies throughout the West as a man who ended his career “seeking peace” and “angering the Israeli right wing.” What a masterful charade.

After Winston Churchill had gleefully instigated the incineration of all the major German cities during World War II, and 400,000 German civilians had been turned to ash, he had the wit to register his regret at the conflagration that engulfed Dresden, the Allies' last major German cosmopolitan crematory, which happened to have been perpetrated on Aschermittwoch (Ash Wednesday), by the good Christians in the American and English bomber planes. Most biographers and historians subsequently report that “Churchill regretted the bombing of civilians in German cities,” the way most journalists this past week reported that Ariel Sharon was a  “hawk” (Israeli war criminals are styled by that mild euphemism), who turned toward peace. Actually what Sharon did was engage in a little theatre for the benefit of the yahoos in America who are willing to accept that a token compulsory withdrawal of Israeli settlers from a few patches of stolen land, is tantamount to a major policy for peace.

The settlers, however, don’t go in for withdrawals, token or otherwise, and they arranged for Orthodox rabbis to place the pulsa d’nura Kabbalistic curse on Sharon, who fell into a coma afterward (like the victims of Haitian voodoo he may have fallen victim to his own belief in superstitious, rabbinic mumbo jumbo).

Ariel Sharon is presented in the media as not a villain, exactly, but an ambiguous, shades-of-gray, existential anti-hero, unlike the completely rotten, no-good Iranian and German war criminals. No loyal “Jew” (so-called) can be wholly or even predominately evil. This is the dictate of the Talmudic mentality which governs “our” American media.

We anticipate the groans: Aw, c’mon, Hoffman, the media barely know what the Talmud is.

Perhaps. Nevertheless, with remarkable similitude the establishment media mirrored the Talmudic mentality. The “reasonable” and “august” exemplar of the American press, the New York Times, in its January 12 edition, devoted less than one sentence to Ariel Sharon's mass murder of civilians in Beirut in 1982:
"...the Israeli invasion seemed not to end but to take on an increasingly punishing nature, including the saturation bombing of Beirut neighborhoods..." 
That's it.

That’s all the Times had to say about the Israeli terror bombing of a major Arab city for several weeks in the summer of 1982. Notice that no casualty figure is given (tens of thousands of Lebanese were killed). This is a very callous form of holocaust denial — the denial of crimes directed by Ariel Sharon (cf. "Israeli Hawk Sought Peace His Way, New York Times, Jan. 12, 2014, p. A12).

If tens of thousands of Israelis had been incinerated in Beirut, whatever goy who perpetrated that “cosmic evil unparalleled in the annals of the modern history of the Middle East” would be branded with the Mark of Cain for the rest of his life and in lurid detail in any obituary in the corporate media.

Not so with one of the bloodiest butchers in Israeli military history who “sought peace his way.” The “reasonable, liberal” New York Times wants us to remember “The Holocaust” (i.e. every detail of what they say happened to the Holy People, circa 1938-1945), while the Times devotes exactly twenty-two words to Sharon’s mass murder of Arabs in Beirut. Obviously the massive loss of Arab life doesn’t matter.

In the Talmud, a special category of evil is reserved for goyim and Christians. Roman emperors are burned up, reanimated and burned again, perpetually. Jesus of Nazareth boils forever in hot excrement. Rabbis, meanwhile, give God orders and defeat Him in debate.

By now some readers may be banging their heads in frustration at the chutzpah, the sheerly wrong and unjust nature of the media's hypocrisy concerning Sharon’s savage crimes — similar to the hypocrisy which the fellow being macerated in feces exposed on numerous occasions some 2,000 years ago. Yet, while frustration and anger can be motivators they are not educators. Therefore, let us peer deeper into the Talmudic dictatorship over the western media.

If we were to summarize the Talmudic mentality in one word, we would describe it as pilpul, which can be detected any time a New York Times editor or a Fox News pundit is committed to "prove" his point regardless of the evidence in front of him.

Reason is not the point when pilpul rules the rhetorical roost. What counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable position that can never be disputed: viz. Ariel Sharon cannot be a war criminal.

In this context, evidence is not primary; the status of the judge is what registers. Ergo, Michael Hoffman offering evidence of the media’s double standard on Israeli war criminal Ariel Sharon doesn’t count, because Hoffman has zero status in the establishment media. Consequently, “history” as written by the New York Times or broadcast by Fox News, is extra-factual; it exists without regard for the documentary record. To protest this Wonderland phenomenon would be antisemitic.

The Talmudic mentality as embodied by pilpul makes rational analysis impossible. Any dissent is criminal because it casts doubt on a point that has already been established to the satisfaction of the Talmudic media. There is no use trying to dissent inside the perimeters established by the controlled press, because any contradictory points will be twisted to validate the already-fixed position, and demonize the dissenter as either a “closet” or a “blatant” antisemite.

What makes this process possible, in part, is the cowardice of executives in the media who see through the double-standard and are privately infuriated by it. How do we know? We have letters from some of these executives. They give us an epistolary pat on the back on occasion. Someday (when they retire) they say that they will expose the Zionist enterprise. Yeah, well, after they retire there are their wives and husbands and adult children who will advise them "not to bring ruin on us,” so these executives, who know the score, may very likely go to their graves with their tails between their legs.

This is one reason why we respect the Khazarians. Though they are completely wrong, they fight for their errors with all their heart, soul and pocketbook, and risk everything for it. As William Butler Yeats observed, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.”

Tony Clifton's book God Cried, represents the main body of published photographic documentation of Sharon’s terror-bombing in Beirut in the summer of '82, when clearly marked schools, hospitals and apartment blocs were deliberately and mercilessly obliterated. Tens of thousands of civilians died in this now forgotten holocaust. There is still some notice taken of Sabra and Chatila, the September massacre of Palestinians by the Lebanese Phalangists under Israeli direction, but the far more horrid and extensive massacre represented by the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of the civilian neighborhoods of Beirut is almost completely forgotten, seemingly even by many Lebanese, and certainly by the US media. But until the last copy of God Cried is stamped out, the evidence of the ocean of blood on Sharon’s hands is in those pages, as it must also surely reside in the hearts of many of the unsung survivors of his holocaust.

In defiance of the Talmudic mentality, we protest this holocaust denial on the part of the pompous apportioners of German, Palestinian and Iranian guilt.

For further research:



Michael Hoffman is the author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare; Judaism Discovered;  They Were White and They Were Slaves; Usury in Christendom; The Great Holocaust Trial; Judaism's Strange GodsThe Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians, and sixty-nine issues of Revisionist History newsletter. This column is financially supported by donations from readers.

***

Friday, January 10, 2014

A Judaic woman escapes misogyny and mind control

A Judaic woman flees misogyny and mind control
_____________________

One Hasidic Housewife's Inspiring — and Unusual — Journey to College and Beyond

By Frimet Goldberger
Jewish Daily Forward | January 9, 2014

=  Excerpt  =

...I was born in Kiryas Joel, the exponentially growing epicenter for Satmar Hasidim in upstate New York. I attended the village’s only girls school through 11th grade, which is when Satmar girls graduate and begin preparations for their betrothal. Even before I pulled on my first pair of thick blue tights at the age of 3, I knew that a woman’s role is tending to her husband and children at home. Most women who worked were either supporting the family while their husbands studied in the kollel, the yeshiva for married men; some provided a supplementary income for their growing families. These latter women were the exception, not the rule.

The lives of Satmar women weren’t always so cloistered. My mother was among the first generation of Satmar-educated girls in America. She grew up in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg, the daughter of Holocaust survivors, in those early years when the Satmar community was finding its footing. Her academic and cultural experiences were radically different from mine: New York City public school teachers staffed the English department of Bais Rochel, the Satmar girls school. My mother spoke English with her siblings and peers, read secular literature, visited the library regularly, attended movies occasionally, listened to the radio and dressed fashionably.

As the Hasidic community shifted rapidly toward extremism, so did the curriculum in Satmar schools. Gone were the qualified public school teachers, replaced by recent Satmar graduates. Yiddish replaced English as the language spoken in school. My classmates and I were taught Judaic studies, starting with the aleph-bet in kindergarten and continuing with the weekly parsha, or Torah portion, stories in Yiddish. In maintaining the traditional ban on substantive Torah lessons for girls, biblical studies in Hebrew were forbidden, and knowledge of Hebrew texts was restricted to prayers.

Secular studies were limited to the rudiments, and focused on practical learning for becoming a successful balebuste. Math, beyond simple home budgeting, was considered unnecessary; Shakespeare and other classic or contemporary literature a waste of precious time that could be spent learning how to keep house, and science — aside from raising difficult questions about creation — an abomination. We had no access to the library, the Internet or any secular materials. Our textbooks were highly censored with permanent markers and crayons to block out material perceived as a threat to our sheltered brains.

...One snowy morning in December 2008, my husband and I packed our fragile belongings into our old, tan Buick and headed onto the road. Our destination was Airmont, N.Y. — just a 30-minute drive from Kiryas Joel, but truly a world away.

Our move was the culmination of years of questioning our radical community and the complete conformity required to live and breathe there. The friendships we’d forged with Orthodox couples living considerably less stringent lives outside Kiryas Joel also catalyzed the modest, incremental changes toward our more progressive Orthodox lifestyle. But the straw that broke the camel’s back was an incident the summer before our move, when a group of Satmar modesty enforcers threatened to expel my 3-year-old son from the only boys school in the community if I didn’t shave my head. I went home that night and buzzed off my long hair. But it was too late to go back to a strict Satmar lifestyle. The following morning, my husband and I decided to leave...

[Emphasis supplied] Read more at: http://forward.com/articles/190267/one-hasidic-housewifes-inspiring-and-unusual-j/


Michael Hoffman's Afterword 
Frimet Goldberger writes that the Hasidic Judaics "shifted rapidly toward extremism" after having risen from the ashes of World War II. Actually, the zeitgeist of the 1940s and 50s in America created pressure on the Hasidim to broaden their horizons, just as Goldberger describes. The extremism that was later imposed was a return to what Talmudic Judaism had always been before Christians and gentiles pressured Talmudic Judaics in Europe in the late 18th century to abandon the Talmud's superstition, misogyny, and hatred toward goyim. The result was the "haskalah" and the rise of Reform Judaism. Consequently, what Goldberger witnessed growing up in Satmar was not an anomaly. It was what every Talmudic-observant ("frum") Judaic woman experienced from the mists of antiquity.

Frimet Goldberger writes of her entrance into an allegedly more liberated Orthodox Judaism. Granted, modern Orthodoxy is more permissive and less suffocating than Hasidism, but as long as the Talmudic laws of Niddah are imposed on Judaic women (as they are even among the modern Orthodox), women who are captive to those rules remain slaves of one of the most severe and oppressive forms of micro-management of female behavior on earth. This is another taboo area where the self-censoring establishment media choose not to tread.  (Cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 729-748, for documentation concerning the Orthodox rabbinic laws of Niddah).

The Zionist media, from the New York Times on down, has nurtured a feminist resistance movement inside Christianity and Islam. They have published many stories undermining Islamic fundamentalism, while much of the establishment media's focus on Talmudic fundamentalist Judaism has consisted in supporting it against critics, and whitewashing its overwhelming misogyny. (Cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 41 − 44, for documentation of this media double standard).

Evelyn Kaye in her classic, now out-of-print book, The Hole in the Sheet, and Deborah Feldman in her recent work Unorthodox, offer further documentation of the misogyny and mind control of Talmudic Judaism.
_____________

Sunday, January 05, 2014

NY Times reports that Saudis support Al-Qaeda linked jihadists

The New York Times reports that Saudi Arabia supports Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria
“...the kingdom now supports Islamist rebels in Syria who often fight alongside Qaeda groups like the Nusra Front. The Saudis say they have little choice...they believe they must now back whoever can help them defeat Mr. Assad’s forces and his Iranian allies.”
End quote from the NY Times, January 5, 2014, p. A10.

Michael Hoffman’s question: Since the US has expended trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives purportedly battling Al Qaeda as part of President George W. Bush’s War on Terror (waged by President Obama as well), how is it that Saudi Arabia, an American-supported “ally” is not under sanctions or threat of diplomatic or military action in view of the fact that its proxy troops are fighting alongside Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria? If Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks in New York City, how can the US government in any way continue to support Al Qaeda-linked Saudi Arabia?


Friday, January 03, 2014

Walt Disney’s "unsavory parts"

Rebecca Keegan
Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

January 3, 2014

Dear Rebecca Keegan

In your article about Walt Disney and the film "Saving Mr. Banks," you lament the fact that Mr. Disney's alleged "unsavory parts" were not disclosed.

As evidence of his supposed iniquity you cite his association with "anti-semitic" personalities.

When was the last time you took a film to task for covering up the "unsavory parts" of Hollywood moguls who associate with anti-German, anti-Arab or anti-goyimitic personalities?

Why is one form of bigotry more worthy of protest or notice than another?

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
__________________