The Babylonian Talmud is a collection of writings considered by Talmudic rabbis as being legal interpretation and commentary (elaboration) on the law, and to them, rises to the level of the law (sacred writings) indispensable in understanding the books of Moses. The Babylonian Talmud, the rabbinists insist, contain the secret oral traditions handed down by Moses.
The Babylonian Talmud is antichrist written by Jesus-deniers. Everything that the New Testament says about those who rejected Jesus applies to the Babylonian Talmud and those who adhere to it.
According to Michael Hoffman and others, the Babylonian Talmud is racist. Of course it is. The current state of Israel and the false Zionists who created Israel and run Israel are racists. That's plain to see. Just look at Gaza and the West Bank. Just research the injustices heaped upon the Arabs simply because they are Arabs. Then the false Zionists will cry "anti-Semite." They are so utterly and transparently hypocritical that they are not long for this earth. Only the remnant of Jacob who accept Jesus in full and in earnest to become real Christians will survive. It is prophesied.
Hoffman cites passages from the Babylonian Talmud showing that it condones and advocates lying, as did Plato. If Hoffman is correct, the Babylonian Talmud contains some of the most abominable writings known to human kind that are held up as being beyond ridicule.
Well, of course Christ-deniers are satanic by definition. All those who convert to real Christianity know full well that they were under the satanic spell before conversion.
As for the Babylonian Talmud, certain rabbis have admitted that it blasphemes Jesus Christ. It calls for its adherents to enslave humanity under the Talmud's demonically laid out path.1
Hoffman quotes as follows:
Sanhedrin 107B of the Babylonian Talmud: "Jesus... stood up a brick to symbolize an idol and bowed down to it. Jesus performed magic and incited the people of Israel and led them astray."
Quoting now from another Talmud passage about Jesus, Sanhedrin 43A: "On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. He practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray...Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an enticer and the Torah says, 'You shall not spare, nor shall you conceal him!"
Let us recall that the Talmud, in Tractate Baba Kamma 113a, decrees that a Jew may lie to a gentile. The ADL [Jewish Anti-Defamation League] uses the unique and intimidating position it occupies as America's national thought cop and adjunct of the corporate media, to lie about what the Talmud actually says about Jesus. The ADL is too dishonest to quote directly from the Talmudic passages about Jesus.
To highlight the absurdity of the ADL's response, let us consider the horrible malice found in the anti-Christ Talmud Tractate Gittin 57a. In some censored versions of Gittin 57a, the name of Jesus is rendered as "sinner (or 'sinners') of Israel." The Talmud in Gittin 57a contains a filthy and unbelievably scurrilous attack on Jesus Christ pertaining to a punishment Jesus supposedly underwent after his death. As is its custom, the ADL shies away from actually quoting Gittin 57a. It falls to us to reveal the contents of this ugly and psychotic Talmud section:
"He (the rabbi) then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel. He asked them...What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling (in) hot excrement."
The Talmud decrees that Jesus is in hell, being boiled in feces, because he opposed the rabbis. That's what this sick, pornographic, "holy book" of Judaism says about the Christian Savior in Tractate Gittin 57a.
Without daring to cite or refer to Gittin 57a directly, the ADL's convoluted defense of this passage is as follows: "...the Talmud bears much harsher animus toward the Biblical figure of Balaam, the pagan magician who sought to curse the Jews...Rabbinic tradition...describes some of the punishments he (Balaam) may have suffered after his death...a small group of Jewish scholars suggested that in some cases the term Balaam in the Talmud may be a codeword for Jesus...later scholars showed that this suggestion could not be true...anti-Semites have ever since claimed that the true hatred that Judaism possesses for Christianity is expressed in these coded expressions against Balaam found in the Talmud."
Gittin 57a in the Soncino edition, with its reference to "sinners of Israel" being "boiled in hot excrement," contains a footnote for the passage, labeled footnote #4. Located at the bottom of the page of Gittin 57a, footnote #4 makes reference to the fact that "sinners of Israel" is indeed a coded reference to Jesus!2
We cannot say that we agree with all of Michael Hoffman's positions, but he has his point that the ADL avoided taking on the quotes from the Babylonian Talmud directly naming Jesus.
As for the holocaust of WWII and how this ties in, any group that advocates lying cannot be trusted. They have ulterior, sinister designs. It doesn't matter how much they attempt to wrap themselves in religion, God, the flag, or sheep's clothing, they are liars, which can be seen by their deeds.
The Babylonian Talmud followers and the atheist false Zionists are exactly what they are doing and have been doing to the Palestinians. What they are doing to the Palestinians, they will not hesitate to do to Anglo-Saxons or any other tribes not members of the twelve tribes of Jacob as those false Jews define.
Know them by their fruits. This applies to everyone: False Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, Communist, Capitalist, etc. One is what one is doing. Change what you are doing, and stop being that. Start doing something else, and be that. Be real in this, and be spiritually transformed.
Now about this thing called "holocaust denial" that is apparently illegal in so many places in the world, there are legitimate questions that by being ignored causes greater suspicion.
In several countries, including Israel, France, Germany and Austria, "Holocaust denial" is against the law, and "deniers" have been punished with stiff fines and prison sentences. Some frantic Jewish community leaders are calling for similar government measures in North America against so-called "deniers."
Should someone be considered a "Holocaust denier" because he does not believe — as Matas and others insist — that six million Jews were killed during World War II? This figure was cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It found that "the policy pursued [by the German government] resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions." 
Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians could be regarded as "deniers." Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he says that the Nazis didn't use Jewish fat to make soap? After examining all the evidence (including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets), the Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its Judgment that "in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap." 
In 1990, though, Israel's official "Yad Vashem" Holocaust memorial agency "rewrote history" by admitting that the soap story was not true. "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?," said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. 
Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe's Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe's Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985.  As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: 
In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the "Final Solution" have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: "Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended." In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.
A lack of hard evidence for an extermination order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust historians into "intentionalists" and "functionalists." The former contend that there was a premeditated extermination policy ordered by Hitler, while the latter hold that Germany's wartime "final solution" Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after the war, no one can point to documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or program. This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zundel. 
So just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be "denial." But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The 'Final Solution" in History': ... From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural' ones." 
Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz — allegedly the main extermination center — are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz.  Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: "Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945."  During a 1979 visit to the camp, Pope John Paul II stood before this memorial and blessed the four million victims.
Is it "Holocaust denial" to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead.  In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. 
...the testimony of Rudolf Hess, an SS officer who served as commandant of Auschwitz. In its Judgment, the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal quoted at length from his testimony to support its findings of extermination. 
It is now well established that Hess' crucial testimony, as well as his so-called "confession" (which was also cited by the Nuremberg Tribunal), are not only false, but were obtained by beating the former commandant nearly to death.  Hess' wife and children were also threatened with death and deportation to Siberia. In his statement — which would not be admissible today in any United States court of law — Hess claimed the existence of an extermination camp called "Wolzek." In fact, no such camp ever existed. He further claimed that during the time that he was commandant of Auschwitz, two and a half million people were exterminated there, and that a further half million died of disease.  Today no reputable historian upholds these figures. Hess was obviously willing to say anything, sign anything and do anything to stop the torture, and to try to save himself and his family.
[This is the only place we've ever seen this stated before. It warrants fact-checking. It is not the only possible explanation for Hess' perjury although it is a wholly reasonable line of inquiry. We've included it here in the spirit that it should be followed up. On first examination, this information about Hess does seem to fit with a general pattern of exaggerating the extent of Nazi war crimes, especially now that it can no longer be assumed that the US did not engage in torturing witnesses at the time. After all, before many of the reforms that came after WWII, police departments around the US were regularly beating confessions out of supposed suspects. The holier-than-thou veneer though has completely come off as a direct result of the Bush/Cheney administration. Bush/Cheney crimes have caused people to look back to discover, or rediscover, all the governmental corruption, particularly the most salient false-flag operations. The US government and military was certainly capable of beating false information out of Hess, although we must remain on guard not to jump to conclusions but rather to continue asking proper questions and digging for truth.]
In his 1988 book, Professor Mayer calls for "excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs" to determine more about the gas chambers. In fact, such forensic studies have been made. The first was conducted in 1988 by American execution equipment consultant, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. He carried out an on-site forensic examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek to determine if they could have been used to kill people as claimed. After a careful study of the alleged killing facilities, Leuchter concluded that the sites were not used, and could not have been used, as homicidal gas chambers. Furthermore, an analysis of samples taken by Leuchter from the walls and floors of the alleged gas chambers showed either no or minuscule traces of cyanide compound, from the active ingredient of Zyklon B, the pesticide allegedly used to murder Jews at Auschwitz. 
A confidential forensic examination (and subsequent report) commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum and conducted by Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow has confirmed Leuchter's finding that minimal or no traces of cyanide compound can be found in the sites alleged to have been gas chambers. 
The significance of this is evident when the results of the forensic examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are compared with the results of the examination of the Auschwitz disinfestation facilities, where Zyklon B was used to delouse mattresses and clothing. Whereas no or only trace amounts of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, massive traces of cyanide were found in the walls and floor in the camp's disinfestation delousing chambers.
...purposely mischaracterizing revisionist scholars as "deniers." But the truth can't be suppressed forever: There is a very real and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe's Jews during World War II.
Let this issue be settled as all great historical controversies are resolved: through free inquiry and open debate in our journals, newspapers and classrooms.3
The following is my update of July 20, 2009, for this post:
Simon Wiesenthal's site response by:
The figure of 3-4 million murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau was an invention of communist officials in Poland (and the former U.S.S.R.) which sought to blur the uniqueness of Jewish suffering at Auschwitz. To do this, they purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau by many times their true numbers. In a clever attempt to disguise the subterfuge, the figures for Jewish losses were inflated by nearly double, so that their losses would still be larger than those of non-Jewish victims, though now by a much smaller ratio. With the end of communism in Poland and the former Soviet Union, officials at the Auschwitz museum finally lowered the casualty figures in line with the estimates of historians who, for years, have insisted that between one and 1 1/2 million people perished at Auschwitz-Birkenau, 80 - 90% of them Jews.
The figure of 6 million Jewish losses during the Holocaust has always been in line with the lower Auschwitz figures.
Is that correct? If it is, fine then. It does though seem very inconsistent to say that the Germans didn't dispute figures and only said they were following orders as proof that the figures are right (see below) especially since those Germans were charged with killing 4 million at Auschwitz when that figure subsequently has been radically reduced. In other words, the argument that the Germans didn't deny it (something of which I'm not convinced) doesn't hold up as proof of anything. If that line of reasoning doesn't hold up, what else doesn't hold up?
Didn't the International Committee for the Red Cross report that only 300,000 people had perished in the German concentration camps, not all of them Jews?
The Red Cross never issued such a statistic, nor has it offered any estimate of the number of victims who perished in the camps. In its bulletin of February 1, 1978, the Red Cross declared that it had never compiled, much less published such statistics. The 300,000 figure was actually taken from the Swiss paper, "Die Tat," in 1955. This estimate, however, was only a figure for the number of Germans who perished in the concentration camps. No mention of any Red Cross figures, however, was ever made by the paper. Despite the obvious deception, Holocaust deniers, continue to peddle it, hoping that few people will actually check the sources.
No crime in history has been as well-documented as the Holocaust. Proof of the Holocaust is multi-faceted. It is demonstrated by a myriad of documents, the majority of them Nazi-authored, captured by Allied troops before the Germans had a chance to destroy them. Included are detailed reports of mass shootings and gassings. Some 3,000 documents on the destruction of Europe's Jewish community by the Nazis were, in fact, presented by the prosecution before war crimes tribunals at Nuremberg.
The first-hand testimony of survivors who lived through the horrors of the death camps as well as the reports and confessions by the perpetrators leave little doubt as to the nature of Hitler's "Final Solution." Horrifying films and photos of killing operations and their aftermath can only begin to give us a picture of the extent of Nazi bestiality; as do the reports of Allied Generals and troops who were sickened by what they saw at sites of slaughter they had just liberated.
Interestingly enough, Nazi war crimes suspects who stood trial in the post war years for their misdeeds never claimed that the crimes of which they were accused were fictional. [This is not about the 11 million figure, the 6 million figure, or the 4 million figure concerning Auschwitz. It doesn't support the 6 million.] They instead argued that they were "only following orders."
The evidence is, in fact, so overwhelming that on October 9, 1981, Judge Thomas T. Johnson of the California Superior Court, took judicial notice of the Holocaust ruling that, "The Holocaust is not reasonably subject to dispute. It is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to resources of reasonable indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact."
Did the Nazi war crimes suspects know they were being accused of killing 11 million? This seems strangely out of place. One should think that those accused, tried and found guilty would only have been charge with the crimes of their specific geographical area for which they had been specifically given charge. The only Nazis who could have been specifically charged with the murder of 11 million would have been those at the very top and the direct chain down until the authority became regional rather than covering all concentration camps and death-squad areas. Perhaps they were thusly charged and did not contest the figures. Is that the position of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others who hold out the 6 million figure? I don't know at this point. Did no Germans on trial ever say that the Germans did not kill 4 million at Auschwitz? Were they not tried for killing 4 million there?
I didn't include other question/answer from the Simon Wiesenthal file because they were more speculative and subjective.
The response handles the Zyklon B issue by stating that the remaining gas was vented and then the body handlers use gasmasks. This strikes me as worthy of more investigation since venting so much pesticide would itself present a problem (not necessarily insurmountable though).
The response also makes clear that the person most often cited for having said that the gas chambers were not fit for execution from an engineering standpoint turned out not to be an engineer, per se. It is true that there are people who can properly use the title engineer who do not have a degree or license, but those people have demonstrated expertise via life and work experience. Fred Leuchter did not even rise to that level apparently.
However, why was he possibly right that there is hardly a trace of Zyklon B and were is all the ash and bone from the crematoria? It would be huge. The ground would be mounded or if leveled with bulldozers, at least sound detection would show the digs and different strata. Where are the core samples? Why hasn't this been done to silence the critics?
It's too important not to do it! The world is talking about bombing Iran and using holocaust denial as part of the reason. (Although Ahmadinejad has made clear that he's not denying that a holocaust took place, only that if it did, the Palestinians should not have been made to pay for it.)
Authentic German documents confirm the slaughter of Jews in the millions. The famous "Korherr Report,"(named after Richard Korherr, chief statistician for the SS) puts the number of Jewish losses at more than 2,454,000 by the end of 1942 alone. The war in Europe would not end until May, 1945. [Of course, there are those who inflate numbers of their victims all the time. So, one must do more than simply accept this as sufficient evidence. It needs to be checked against actual rigorous scientific investigation of the burial sites. That's not unreasonable. It's smart.]
The Anglo-American Commission of Enquiry, meeting in April 1946, put the total Jewish Holocaust losses at 5,721,500. On the basis of wartime statistical reports on ghettos, concentration camps and mass murder operations carried out by the Nazis, historian and international jurist, Jacob Robinson, arrived at a figure of 5,820,960. German historian, Helmut Krausnick, put the number of Jewish losses nearer to seven million. While the exact figure will never be known, scholars of the Holocaust find the rounded-off figure of six million to be in line with all the evidence.
The Korherr Report certainly is self-damning for the Nazis. The trouble with the cited historians is that one wonders how incestuous the data. One need only look at the 9/11 Commission and before it, the Warren Commission to understand how such commissions can be and are used for sinister purposes. Therefore, without knowing more about the evidence used by the Anglo-American Commission of Enquiry and named historians, I reserve judgment. Certainly, many people died in WWII and many of them were Jews. The Nazis made no secret of their hatred for Jews, even though there were some strange dealings regarding Jews, such as Jews in the Nazi Party and German military, etc. (albeit in relatively small numbers). Anyway, the historians cited are a group selective in support of the 6 million. There are other reputable historians who do not accept that figure.
The Wikipedia has the following to say about Helmut Krausnick:
The following historians from the Institute served as expert witnesses for the prosecution; Helmut Krausnick, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Hans Buchheim, and Martin Broszat. Subsequently, the information the four historians gathered for the prosecution served as the basis for their 1968 book, Anatomy of the SS State, the first thorough survey of the SS based on SS records.
If his 7 million figure comes largely from SS records, it would be difficult to argue against it. However, why then would the Korherr Report loom so large if there are SS records indicating higher totals? Perhaps the SS sought to hide the total in case they were to lose the war. They should have thought about losing it before they started it.
So, I am not a holocaust denier, but I definitely do not agree with the policy of making "holocaust denial" (vaguely defined) illegal and punishable. That's counterproductive.
These statements do cause an inquiring mind to want to know more about exactly on what the six-million figure was based. Just look at the controversy over whether or not some 655,000 Iraqis have died on account of the US invasion of Baghdad as of mid 2006. Thinking people wanted to know the methodology and evidence used in arriving at that estimate, which ranged as high as some 900,000 on the high end, according to the pollsters. Well, what's wrong with subjecting the holocaust figures to the same questioning? Nothing is wrong with it.
Just because there are real anti-Jacob racists who want to destroy all the descendants of Jacob, including those who have turned to Christ in earnest and those who will yet do so, is not a legitimate reason for censorship concerning research into the holocaust.
The Nazis did terrible things. There is nothing wrong with wanting as accurate information about it as possible. Any nation or nations that outlaw such inquiry are erring and playing directly into the hands of exterminators of all stripes.
It isn't a question of whether or not people were murdered in WWII, including Jews. It is a matter of how many and by what means. It is also a matter of liars who lie for the psychological effect it has and how they may then steer others to get what they want. Look at the magnitude of the lies Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Tenet, and others told over and over and over again, all of which have been exposed. This group was backed up by neocons, most of whom are false Zionist in line with all the false Zionists going back to the beginning. They cannot be trusted.
The false Zionists absolutely have lied about WWII. It is only a question of finding out the details of those lies not if.
"No one will ever be able to disprove it. If we say it often enough, we'll burn it into the psyches of the Gentiles. They'll be manipulated into giving us what we want." That's how they felt, thought, spoke, and acted. We know this by their fruit. The only things missing are the exact details, the exact degree of exaggeration and twisting and fabricating.
Hoffman has said, "There are no autopsies available from any source showing that even one Jew died as a result of Zyklon B (hydrocyanic acid) poisoning, among the millions who are alleged to have been killed in this manner." If this is true, why is it? Are there no bodies left? We know that Zyklon B leaves traces.
Hoffman also has said the following:
...in the movie The Wall giant crematorium "smokestacks" belch massive clouds of evil-looking black smoke and ash. It was scientifically impossible for the crematoria in Auschwitz to emit smoke or ash, according to the builder's patent by Topf and Son. In fact, no crematoria produce these emissions. Cremation technology was devised in the late 19th century specifically for the purpose of suppressing the emissions which accompany open-pit burning. There are no such things as crematorium "smokestacks." Cremation uses heat, not flame for reduction of the corpse into ash and crematorium chimneys emit heat and not smoke or flames.
Is that true or not? The reason it matters is because if there had been such smokestacks, which have been depicted in other films as well, it renders all those in and around such camps as much more culpable. However, if there were no such smokestacks, people in surrounding towns might truly have remained more ignorant of what has been alleged to have been happening. It matters.
...revisionists are never perceived as independent thinkers or skeptical inquirers researching "Holocaust" anomalies out of concern for historical integrity, but as satanists, butchers, terrorists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis and perverts. For example, Lucy S. Dawidowicz, author of The War Against the Jews, labels revisionists as "rabid," "neo-Nazi," "crackpot," "paranoid" and "oddball." 7 Elie Wiesel, chairman of the U. S. Holocaust Commission, adds the invectives "spiritually perverted" and "morally deranged" to the list.
Just exactly what hard evidence is there of the numbers of gassings and incinerations? That's what the fair-minded deserve to know. "Just trust us" is getting old. The Nazis were bad enough without embellishment.
We know that terrible things were done. There is proof enough. Those who deny that there were concentration camps are themselves liars. Those who deny that many tens of thousands died of starvation and disease at even single camps and that there were over three hundred such camps are themselves liars. Some camps were huge. They varied in sized.
The truth lies between the high numbers and those who claim the camps didn't even exist. The problem lies with politicizing at both ends, liars at both ends, people who don't understand what truth is.
Horrific film from 1945 shown on public broadcasting in the US in 1985 contains narration that states that four million were exterminated at Auschwitz.4 The larger the number, the more the Gentiles would owe the Jews, the more the Germans would be humiliated, the more power would be in the hands of the so-called victors. The victors write the history to control, to own, the future.
The losers attempt constantly to overcompensate in the opposite direction. The truth is sacrificed.
The truth is that the entire process is evil and corrupt. Repeating the same cycle of lying at both ends is evil and corrupt. The only right thing is not to fabricate anything but rather to see the truth that all lies and coercion and selfish manipulation is satanic and leads to hell.
History has been twisted into propaganda. That is a horribly selfish result. It is why there are still Nazis, called neo-Nazis, who would gladly repeat the same errors of WWII concentration camps. It is also why there are false-Zionist terrorist, terrorizing Arabs while their perception-management machine they've created works the whole system of Empire, which Empire itself is just an extension of the Nazis Empire. It is why the British and Americans can pretend to be holier than thou, despite their own brutal histories full of lies and atrocities.
Hoffman said, about the, "Talmud, it is stated that the Romans slaughtered 40 million Jews during the siege of the Israelite fortress of Bar Kokhba."5 That's impossible. There weren't 40 million Jews on the face of the entire earth at the time, not even close. Why would anyone lie so?
"Well, have pity on us. Look at our history. Look at how we've been persecuted in the name of our religion." That's what it says. It was also aimed at the Jewish tribes themselves. It says to them to rally together so much so that such events can never be repeated; yet, they were repeated in the form of pogroms and at the hands of the Nazis.
What was the false Zionist response to WWII? They intensified ruthless tactics to force their fellow tribesmen together.
For the state to have an official history is evil when laws deny people the ability to question. There is no God-given (freewill) choice in such matters. It comes from Satan in hell. It is history coercively rammed down people's throats. It is fascism. It is the police state, the thought-police state. It will not stand. It denies God and Jesus.
Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II.
As a number of Jewish scholars have acknowledged, the "Holocaust" campaign is a major weapon in the Jewish-Zionist arsenal. It is used to justify otherwise unjustifiable Israeli policies, and to extort enormous sums of money, especially from European countries and companies. Even a few courageous Jewish writers have spoken out against what they call the "Holocaust cult," the Holocaust "racket," "Holocaustomania," and the "Holocaust industry."6
These issues really are complicated by the way Nazis and White Supremacists glom onto anything and everything that can make any descendant of Jacob look bad.
We say categorically that the Nazis and White Supremacists are no better than those they condemn.
Understand though that these particular descendants of Jacob, not all by any stretch, are the exact same spirit that murdered Jesus and the other prophets. They will cry "blood libel," but their spirit is the same spirit. They are the same Pharisees upon whom Jesus pronounced woe and against whom he was sent by God to prophesy as the Son of man.
Don't become confused by the false Christians, the fake Christians, quoting scripture saying, "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:3). That statement concerns the remnant who convert to real Christianity. They are the real descendants of Adam, where real is understood as truthful.
1 Michael Hoffman states many facts about the Babylonian Talmud. One must be careful not to verge into racism when researching those who link to Hoffman for their own despicable reasons.
Hoffman insists he is not a racist. In fact, he denounces white supremacy. He has been vehemently attacked by Christ-deniers.
We have not fact-checked every quote from the Babylonian Talmud nor Hoffman's interpretation of those alleged quotes nor their context.
Michael Hoffman. "Truth about the Talmud: Racist, Rabbinic Hate Literature." http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html. (last accessed: Saturday, February 17, 2007). Return to text body.
2 Michael Hoffman. "Laughing at the Expense of the ADL: Part I: Jesus and the Talmud: A Rejoinder by Michael A. Hoffman II." THE HOFFMAN WIRE. http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wire1.html. (last accessed: Saturday, February 17, 2007). Return to text body.
3 Michael Santomauro. "The Most Important Book I Ever Read in My Life!" A book review on The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry. Amazon.com. November 1, 2005. http://www.amazon.com/Hoax-Twentieth-Century-Extermination-Holocaust/dp/0967985692/sr=8-1/qid=1171765291/ref=sr_1_1/105-1814349-6745264?ie=UTF8&s=books. (last accessed: Saturday, February 17, 2007). Return to text body.
5 Michael Hoffman. "The Psychology and Epistemology of 'Holocaust' Newspeak." The Journal for Historical Review. Spring 1986. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p467_Hoffman.html. (last accessed: Saturday, February 17, 2007). Return to text body.
6 "A Few Facts About the Institute for Historical Review." Institute for Historical Review. July 2005. http://www.ihr.org/main/about.shtml. (last accessed: Saturday, February 17, 2007). Return to text body.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)