Thursday, August 20, 2015

“Hoffman Takes Buchanan to the Woodshed”

Another home run by the Babe Ruth of revisionist historians. Mr. Hoffman again takes Mr. Buchanan, who should know better, to the woodshed. 

Michael, I regret we missed you as a speaker at the 2013 Rebuilding Christendom Conference hosted by ISOC back in 2013 when one of the topics there was Usury. With your Usury in Christendom book having been published around that time, your unique perspective  i.e., not compromising on 15 centuries of Church teachings against usury in any form  in comparison to the opinions of contemporary Catholics would have been invaluable to the attendees. Sadly, Catholics continue to serve Mammon to this day and I do not see a peaceful way out. Godspeed my friend.

— Nicholas Landholdt, Texas

Dear Nick

Thank you for your assessment of the August 19 Hoffman Wire column.

I was invited to the ISOC Conference this year, but after having given speeches in Michigan and Idaho in April and June and now working frenetically on my book on the “Occult Renaissance Church,” and a big September issue of our Revisionist History newsletter no. 80, I could not find the time to fit the three-day conference on the east coast into my schedule without further delaying these important projects

Of course I would have made usury the centerpiece of my oration to the assembled Catholics because most of them, whether “traditional” or not, continue to create lucrum cessans loopholes for profiting from loans of money  loopholes which Aquinas rebutted 800 years ago. Moreover, any open-minded person of goodwill can access my usury history through my book or the DVDs of my speech and question and answer session conducted in Lansing, Michigan last April. 

The question is, are these folks motivated to learn? Increasingly I see confirmation bias creeping in, with our people dismissing facts that will upset their most closely held illusions. This mental closure seems to be occurring at the same time as another aspect of decay enters our field of awareness, the fact that great literature is being neglected in favor of cinema. Nowadays, even among the educated, dialogue from movies is quoted and referred to more often than passages from Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Dickens and Dostoyevsky. One cannot sustain our civilization without being well-acquainted with these authors and the world-historic lessons they impart.

Usury after the Middle Ages  a Judaic invention?

For example, the Cryptocracy has led the Right wing into imagining that usury after the Middle Ages was a Judaic invention, a wholly owned subsidiary of “Jewish bankers.” By this ruse, the gentile agents of the conspiracy are given a pass, which is one reason why conservative Catholics have scant awareness that usury was revived in the West by Catholic, and not Judaic, robbers who called themselves bankers. This was two hundred-fifty years before the Rothschilds climbed out of the ghetto. Their Renaissance precursors were overwhelmingly gentile, not Judaic, yet the Cryptocracy and its useful idiots have misdirected attention away from gentile shylocks, rendering them invisible, and therefore twice as deadly as Judaic speculators.

The Cryptocracy has confined Conservative economic reformers in a phantasmagoric playpen where the stock characters are “Dutch-Jewish” bankers and “the Rothschilds.” Meanwhile, the names of the immensely wealthy and corrosive Catholic usury bankers of the 15th and 16th centuries, who battered down the walls of Christendom’s ban on profits from loans, are virtually unknown. Cui bono? How many even know that the current pope oversees a usury operation?

Trying to convey this knowledge to the goyim in the pews is like the proverbial head banging against concrete. The typical reaction amounts to withdrawal of support for our work. Our offense? We upset cherished myths. Is it necessary to state the obvious, that unless these myths are dispelled, the Enemy will continue to go from victory to victory?

Pivotal Importance of Classic Literature to our Cause

How does the classic literature of the West assist us in decrypting the grand deception? Dante teaches that usury and sodomy have the same root. This is an astonishing revelation to minds steeped in post-Renaissance capitalism, but it was a commonplace of the medieval mind. 

Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist features his famously sinister Judaic character, Fagin, and we can all hiss at him, but that was not Dickens' principle intent. Fagin was evil, Dickens acknowledged, having patterned him after a real-life receiver of stolen goods, Ikey Solomon. But Dickens taught a deeper lesson of vigilance concerning the most insidious treachery which does us the most harm, the enemy within. Fagin was the enemy without. Far worse than Fagin was Oliver’s own wicked half-brother Monks, the enemy within. How many have studied Dickens?

Fyodor Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment features Raskolnikov, a former Russian university student who is troubled in mind. He murders a viciously greedy usurer who is “as rich as a Yid.” But she is not a “Yid” (Judaic). She is a gentile, and a nominal member of the Russian Orthodox Church. She is of the same race, religion and nationality as Raskolnikov, yet she has oppressed him and many others like him. Dostoyevsky is imparting a message of vigilance concerning the Judases of our kind. How many study Dostoyevsky?

The American writer Frank Norris, in his novel McTeague, features an avaricious Judaic, as did Dickens. But Norris shows that this outsider cannot do the damage that an insider does: McTeague’s own wife surpasses the Judaic in greed. She is the cause of  McTeague’s downfall, and at one point Norris depicts her sleeping in a bed full of gold.

Our movement, such as it is, from Pat Buchanan to the lowliest Internet blogger, is more often than not lost in the coils of delusion. It will take a massive project of education and ennoblement to regain what has been lost.

In the first book of the Aeneid, the Roman poet Virgil remarks, “What a massive task it was to form the Roman people.” At one time, before we lost our collective mind to a Revelation-of-the-Method process described in Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, the American people were a peace-loving nation suspicious and vigilant toward the machinations of the robber-barons and pretty much anyone who did not earn their living from honest labor. Buchanan, at the start of his remarkable career, was certainly of this American breed. But the Money Power, being the mightiest engine of decay the world has ever seen, is hollowing us out, fulfilling T.S. Eliot’s observation in The Wasteland, that we would become, unless we changed our ways, “the hollow men.”

It doesn’t have to be. We need not fulfill the script written for us by the Cryptocracy. We can write our own script in conformity with God’s Law and Will. But shall we? Or are we too mesmerized by Virtual Reality to do anything but succumb to the sense of inevitability with which the Cryptocracy invests its futuristic script? If so, then we love death, just as God warned: “All those who hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36).

Michael Hoffman’s columns are made possible by gifts from readers and the sale of the fruits of his research labors: his history books, newsletters and speeches.


Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Pat Buchanan vs. Pope Francis

Capitalist Materialism as the 21st Century “Conservative” Ideal

By Michael Hoffman 

On July 14, 2015 Patrick J. Buchanan confronted Pope Francis’ economics in an essay titled, “Is Capitalism Diabolic?” (

Mr. Buchanan, a Knight of Malta, sought to preserve this pope’s “Vicar of Christ on earth” status while at the same time attempting to deconstruct the papal rhetoric concerning the predations of the Market.

Mr. Buchanan is a leader of the “paleo-Conservative” movement which supposedly distinguishes itself from neocon “Conservatism” by its fealty to the Old Republic and Jeffersonian ideals and values. Fifty years ago such fealty would have been synonymous with some critique, however token or anemic, of predatory capitalism and its enabler, usury. But in his July riposte to the pope, Pat makes no such distinctions. He’s over the top for capitalism without qualifiers, reminiscent of Ludwig von Mises, the anti-Christian, Austrian-Judaic arch-usurer (see our book, Usury in Christendom, pp. 276-277).

Buchanan commences his column with one of his trademark laurels for a Judas who is supposed to represent an admirable Conservative leader of the past who stood tall against whatever it is Pat seeks to denounce. In this instance, he chooses Pope St. John Paul II as the exemplary figure. Mr. Buchanan writes:

“On arrival in La Paz, Pope Francis was presented by Bolivian President Evo Morales with a wooden crucifix carved in the form of a hammer and sickle, the symbol of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Fidel. Had Pope John Paul II been handed that crucifix, he might have cracked it over Evo’s head. For John Paul II had seen up close what communism did -- to his country, his church and his people in 45 years of Bolshevik rule. On his arrival in the Nicaragua of Daniel Ortega in 1983, Pope John Paul castigated a priest-collaborator who dared to serve that Sandinista Marxist regime as culture minister. And, while in Managua, he warned Catholics they were being threatened by ‘unacceptable ideological commitments.” 

Good ol’ Saint John Paul stood tall against the Left. We have a hero and a leader! 


Pat engaged in this archetypal showcasing with President Ronald Reagan’s legacy as well, mostly ignoring the catastrophes that Reagan initiated or enabled, fueling our national decline (the Martin Luther King holiday, the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, the U.S. “Holocaust” Museum,  deservedly earning terrorist Yitzhak Shamir’s accolade as “the best friend ‘Israel’ ever had,” deporting anti-Communist statesman Andrija Artuković  back to Communist ghouls in Yugoslavia, enshrining the Talmud’s “Noahide” halachos as US law in the name of goyim-hating Grand Rabbi Schneerson, and permitting a San Francisco astrologer to determine his schedule, including treaty-signings, to name but a few of Mr. Reagan’s “achievements”).

John Paul II is another of Buchanan’s cardboard paragons. He’s the pontiff who kicked the Carmelite nuns out of Auschwitz after a New York City rabbi, Avraham Weiss, and several of his thugs, invaded their convent on the grounds of Auschwitz and threatened them ( He surrendered the women who should have been defended, to the hoodlums who should have been repulsed, and stabbed in the back Polish Cardinal Glemp who had upheld their honor. John Paul II also ordered that the hundreds of crosses which devout Catholic Poles such as Polish patriot Kazmirierz Switon had placed around Auschwitz, be removed. The rabbis had decreed that the crosses “defiled” the premises and the papal saint agreed ( 

It was John Paul II who implemented a classic expression of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Rev. Fr. Marsilio Ficino’s Neoplatonic-Hermetic syncretism when he convened the Assisi world day of prayer in 1986, and allowed Buddhists to place their idols in the sanctuary of the Assisi church. The papal saint then prayed with Buddha’s followers, as well as representatives of almost all religions, including pagan animists who worship the infernal one. “Oh, for a pope like Saint John Paul!” the Buchananites fondly dream. 

But this cherished desire of theirs has been rudely interrupted by Pope Francis, the South American Leftist “for whom,” opines Mr. Buchanan, “free-market capitalism is the ‘unacceptable ideological commitment... Pope Francis does ‘not just criticize the excesses of capitalism. He compares them to the ‘dung of the devil.’ He does not simply argue that ‘greed for money’ is a bad thing. He calls it a ‘subtle dictatorship that condemns and enslaves....Now the church has a long tradition of criticizing capitalism, dating back to the encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891. ...This pope goes beyond that.” 

Well, let’s hope that he would go beyond it. Rerum Novarum was toothless rhetoric intended to raise the prestige of the papacy in an age of worker revolutions while keeping the parish priests and laity in their subservient “pay and obey” mode, by maintaining the fantasy that the Church of Rome since the Renaissance was battling the Money Power like no other force on earth. Rerum Novarum  was a papal hoax; a false step to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheeple. It succeeded spectacularly in bamboozling the booboisie. A close examination of the encyclical will show that Pope Leo XIII did exactly nothing to restore the ancient Catholic dogma forbidding profit from loans and decreeing such profit to be theft. He failed to do it despite repeated lobbying by Count Blome and the Catholic Fribourg Union to restore the prohibition (cf. Usury in Christendom pp. 332-334). Oh yes, the pontiff mouthed a rhetorical condemnation of biting, i.e. “rapacious usury,” yet failed to make all usury, without loophole distinctions about rapacity, the mortal sin requiring confession, absolution and restitution which it had been for one thousand five hundred years. But how could Pope Leo XIII in 1891 restore the mortal sinfulness of profiting from loans when the Vatican had been in hock to the Rothschild bank since 1832? (Usury in Christendom, p. 265).

Leo XIII spoke against rapacious interest (in other words, biting interest). Anglican Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, the leader of the translation team that produced the King James Bible, rightly observed that “All usury is biting...There is no form of usury that is toothless.” Andrewes wrote: “It is an evil rule that decrees, ‘let it be done provided it does not bite.’ Evil I say, and Pharasaic. This is Christian: let it be done provided it benefits. For whether it bites or not, does not matter, if we are looking for true justice; what matters is whether it benefits or not.”

Pat Buchanan: “While capitalism does indeed generate inequalities, freedom, too, produces inequality. For all men and all women are unequal in abilities, energy and opportunities. In a free society, some inevitably succeed, others fail. For as the Biblical parable teaches, some are given 10 talents, others two, and God judges us on how well we use the talents we were given. The only way to achieve absolute equality is absolute tyranny, the remorseless redistribution of wealth by an all-powerful regime.”

Lancelot Andrewes was echoing the truths of the early and medieval Catholic Church when he spoke as he did.  In Pat Buchanan’s capitalist system, where is the attempt to achieve “true justice”? Where is the goal of benefiting our fellow man, even if he or she is an abysmal “failure” in matters of money-accumulation? Buchanan insinuates that the predatory capitalist, dog-eat-dog society is the price we pay for “freedom,” and he even cites the New Testament to justify this state of affairs by referencing the Parable of the Ten Talents. How bizarre for a Catholic Conservative to fail to conserve the Traditional Catholic teaching concerning that parable. Pat’s spin is a modernist interpretation. In the parable, Christ taught that it is a hard man who requires interest on money, and that this view was a product of the low morals and negative mentality of the man’s servant. The parable teaches that if Christ is a cruel master, then the servant is justified putting the money at interest. Is Jesus a cruel master? 

Next, Buchanan switches terms. Pope Francis is, in public, excoriating greed, but Pat avers that he is demanding rigid equalitarianism. Since according to the Gospel riches are a soul-threatening burden to those who hold them (and this teaching is one reason Von Mises execrates Christ), no faithful Christian leader would demand that everyone be on the same level as the wealthy. Jesus said blessed are the poor. Thomistic theology makes important distinctions about inordinate wealth and wretched poverty. Historian Christopher A. Franks outlines some of these:

“Thomas’s economic teachings reflect an assumption that justice in exchange depends on commensurating the terms of exchange with the shape of the provision God unfolds for human beings. When Thomas says, ‘one man cannot overbound in external riches without another man lacking them,’ we are tempted to read it as a mere pious assertion to shame the rich. But it is firmly rooted in Thomas’s assumptions about how God provides for human beings through fruitfulness of nature...To make a claim to wealth that outstrips that provision, as usury does, is to produce injustice.”

This is Catholic to the core. Godly prosperity derives from His bounty, the fruitfulness of nature. It is what that tribune of western civilization, Dante Aligheri, illuminated in his Divine Comedy, in The Inferno:

 Dante: “Go back a little, to where you told me that usury offends against the divine goodness —  unravel that knot.”

Virgil: “Philosophy, to one who understands it, observes, and not just once, how nature takes its course from the divine intellect, and art; and if you pay attention to (Aristotle’s) Physics you will find, after just a few pages, that art follows nature as far as it is able, as a disciple follows its master, so that it is God’s grandchild.

“From these two, if you call to mind the beginning of Genesis (3:19), comes the advancement of life and prosperity.  The usurer goes another way and scorning nature, he puts his hopes elsewhere.”

 [Inferno 11: 95-111, emphasis supplied]

The capitalism that Mr. Buchanan hallows is an alien thing born from the love of money, the root of evil. In his dotage Patrick J. seems to have gone off the deep end. It matters not whether he flies the flag of “The Old Republic” and the values he ascribes to it, if he imagines that those values consist in the mammonism that holds sway over contemporary America.

Buchanan alludes to the spectre of dictatorship if capitalism (and by corollary the usury that drives it), is smashed: “The only way to achieve absolute equality is absolute tyranny, the remorseless redistribution of wealth by an all-powerful regime... it is egalitarianism that has proven to be the road to dictatorship, dictatorships run by egalitarians in the name of the ‘proletariat.”

The only way to extirpate usury is by imposing a Soviet-style tyranny? This is hyperbolic nonsense. The ordering of Christian society does not require a dictatorship, unless Mr. Buchanan believes that the usury-busting reign of the penultimate Saxon King of England, St. Edward the Confessor, was a “dictatorship.” If he does, then we declare that we would infinitely prefer life under St. Edward the Confessor to life under St. Ronald the Reagan.

Buchanan: “Free enterprise has brought more millions out of poverty, enabled more billions of people to live longer, freer, healthier and happier lives, and produced more widespread prosperity than any other economic system.”

Here we have one shabby materialist Weltanschauung competing with another one. The Soviets claimed to seek as their apogee, just what Pat boasts that capitalist society has obtained: material prosperity. What is that on the scale of the inner spiritual life of man, his duty, self-sacrifice, love for building the Christian community predicated on the Kingship of Christ and the brotherhood of believers? What value does the Market put on these holy aspirations? Zero. What qualifies us for this most sacred vocation —  dollar trapping?  

Buchanan writes: “Christ did not come among us to end colonialism, or redistribute wealth, or start a social revolution against the empire of the Caesars. As he told Pontius Pilate, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world.’...Why not leave the socialist sermons to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?”

Pat, you can spin it any way you want, connecting the battle with the Money Power with abortionist Democrat politicians or with Francis, the latest pontiff in a line of religious con-men in post-Renaissance Rome who mouth jeremiads contra avarice while merrily cutting little publicized mega-deals with perfidious bankers and shylocks (Pope Francis’ own usury bank recently logged record profits; see:  

You were the wordsmith for two presidents, Mr. Buchanan, and you have sufficient mastery of your craft to set up straw men, the better to knock them down. Jesus Christ however was not made of straw, and with all your eloquence we doubt that even you will be able to honestly find an escape clause in the following revolutionary words of Our Lord, which are a sign of contradiction to the modern American system, and its master, Mammon. For us, these are the greatest words ever committed to writing, setting forth the loftiest aspirations of what it means to be a human being who has been reborn in the grace of Jesus Christ:

“Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 

“And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.”

 — Luke 6: 30-36

The revolution of Jesus is the heart-revolution of mercy.

DVDs: Catholics, Protestants and Usury in the Renaissance and Early Modern Europe: A College-level Course in the Christian Theology of Money in under two hours

The Dante Alighieri issue of Revisionist History newsletter (issue no. 67):
(Scroll to the bottom of the page)

Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not 
Softcover, illustrated, 416 pages. Order from us:
Or from Amazon:

An Index to the contents of Usury in Christendom is online at no cost:

Michael Hoffman’s columns are made possible by gifts from readers and the sale of the fruits of his research: his history books, publications and recordings.


Monday, August 17, 2015

New Revisionist History DVDs

Right Wing “Patriots" 
— Usurers Inc.

Your editor briefly stopped by the Independent Idaho Republicans conference held at a local hotel here in Coeur d’Alene over the weekend. The meeting might just as well have billed itself as Usurers Inc. or Shylock and Co., so numerous were the members of the Birchers, Mormons, Ludwig Von Mises Austrian School of Economics and Ayn Rand institute for enlightened godless selfishness. (Like Rand, Von Mises also detested Christ). Not one of them was familiar with 1500 years of Christian teaching against profiting from loans. Independent Idaho Republicans is a front for the kind of dog-eat-dog, predatory capitalist society that dumps unwanted children in abortion dumpsters. Idaho’s legal rate of usury is more than 450% on loans. These “patriots" could not care less. Usury simply is not an issue for them. In their indoctrinated minds, to restrict usury would be “socialism.” 

These people are dupes of the plutocracy. The Conservative movement is lost in the money vault of its own grasping avarice. “Conservatives" worship a God-forsaken idol, “The Market.” If these “Conservatives” ruled America, nothing about the reign of the love of money would change. And what else matters in comparison? 

We do not recognize usurers or usury-enablers as allies. For fifteen hundred years Christian civilization believed as we do. The First Revolution was the one that made profit on loans legal and moral, thereby making parasites (bankers and “wealth managers”) supreme over most creators: farmers, manufacturers, inventors, scientists, builders, mechanics, teachers, poets, writers and cognate vocations. Most in the latter category cannot accumulate wealth like usurers can. Hence, the Money Power becomes the supreme power in the land while “Conservatives" chase after symptoms, rather than this root of evil.

The following set of DVDs will help to educate men and women of good will who dwell in enforced ignorance on this vital subject. These DVDs are a relatively quick and painless way to learn the suppressed basis of western civilization and what made it great: the subjugation of the Money Power, which is the most important campaign of our time. Every other issue is a palliative in comparison, because all evil emanates from the Love of Money and from perverse defiance of and disobedience to the Words Jesus Christ clearly stated (Luke 6:30-36). How can we be blessed when the Austrian School of Economics continues to triumph over the Nazareth school, among the Right wing? If you think there are New Testament quotes that justify taking profit from loans, think again. These revisionist history DVDs prove otherwise—  and much more concerning medieval theology, Renaissance banking in Italy and Germany, and other learned topics vital to your understanding.

DVDs: Catholics, Protestants and Usury in the Renaissance and Early Modern Europe: 
A College-level Course in the Christian Theology of Money in Under Two Hours

In this fascinating lecture, given at Lansing Michigan in April of 2015, historian Michael Hoffman covers the contents of his book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not and answers challenging questions from the audience. Here is a unique opportunity to learn and understand what Christ, the Bible, the medieval thinkers and the Church taught about profit from loans and how that sacred doctrine, faithfully upheld for nearly 1500 years, was first overthrown by the situation ethics of revolutionary change agents within the Church of Rome. Hoffman’s history of how God’s law was slowly whittled away and how usurious bankers began to choose the personnel of the Church at the highest levels, represents a fascinating rebuttal to the laissez-faire Shylock economics which today controls the Conservative movement, the Church of Rome and most Protestant churches, rendering us powerless against our plutocratic enemies and making a mockery of true Christianity. Set of two all-region DVDs. In color and digitally recorded before a live audience. Approximately two hours. 

"It truly amazes me how you are able to deliver so much information in such a short space of time, and yet with such accuracy and in accord with all of the pasages in Scripture which pertain. You not only have studied the documentary record of history in great detail, you have also not missed the important parts of the historical narrative... And your oral delivery is flawless."  — Daniel Krynicki, Michigan


Saturday, August 08, 2015

Obama battles Israeli lobby — NYTimes says he’s gone “overboard”


Fears of Lasting Rift as Obama Battles Pro-Israel Group on Iran 
FRONT PAGE  AUG. 8, 2015
WASHINGTON — President Obama had a tough message for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, the powerful pro-Israel group that is furiously campaigning against the Iran nuclear accord, when he met with two of its leaders at the White House this week. The president accused Aipac of spending millions of dollars in advertising against the deal and spreading false claims about it, people in the meeting recalled. So Mr. Obama told the Aipac leaders that he intended to hit back hard. The remarks reflected an unusually sharp rupture between a sitting American president and the most potent pro-Israel lobbying group, which was founded in 1951 a few years after the birth of Israel.
The next day in a speech at American University, Mr. Obama denounced the deal’s opponents as “lobbyists” doling out millions of dollars to trumpet the same hawkish rhetoric that had led the United States into war with Iraq. The president never mentioned Aipac by name, but his target was unmistakable.  

The next day in a speech at American University, Mr. Obama denounced the deal’s opponents as “lobbyists” doling out millions of dollars to trumpet the same hawkish rhetoric that had led the United States into war with Iraq. The president never mentioned Aipac by name, but his target was unmistakable. WASHINGTON — President Obama had a tough message for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, the powerful pro-Israel group that is furiously campaigning against the Iran nuclear accord, when he met with two of its leaders at the White House this week. The president accused Aipac of spending millions of dollars in advertising against the deal and spreading false claims about it, people in the meeting recalled. So Mr. Obama told the Aipac leaders that he intended to hit back hard. The remarks reflected an unusually sharp rupture between a sitting American president and the most potent pro-Israel lobbying group, which was founded in 1951 a few years after the birth of Israel. 

Ronald Reagan opposed Aipac when he defied Israeli objections over the sale of Awacs reconnaissance planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981. A decade later, George H. W. Bush took on the group during a fight over housing loan guarantees for Israel, saying he was just “one lonely little guy” going up against a thousand lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

But the tone of the current dispute is raising concerns among some of Mr. Obama’s allies who say it is a new low in relations between Aipac and the White House. They say they are worried that, in working to counter Aipac’s tactics and discredit its claims about the nuclear accord with Iranthe president has gone overboard in criticizing the group and like-minded opponents of the deal.

“It’s somewhat dangerous, because there’s a kind of a dog whistle here that some people are going to hear as ‘it’s time to go after people,’ and not just rhetorically,” said David Makovsky, a former Middle East adviser for the Obama administration and now an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. But Aipac’s claims, he said, had been just as overheated. “There’s almost a bunker mentality on both sides.”

Mr. Obama’s advisers strongly disputed the suggestion that he used coded language to single out Aipac when he said in his American University speech that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.”

“This has nothing to do with anybody’s identity; this is a policy difference about the Iranian nuclear program,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. “We don’t see this as us versus them,” Mr. Rhodes added, predicting that the White House and Aipac would work closely in the future on other matters, including Israeli security. “This is a family argument, not a permanent rupture.”

But for now, the struggle is critical for Mr. Obama, who regards the agreement — which lifts some sanctions against Iran in exchange for restrictions aimed at restraining its ability to obtain a nuclear weapon — as a landmark achievement. He is fighting to rally enough Democratic support to preserve the deal ahead of a September vote on it in the Republican-led Congress. Aipac is working to deny him that by leaning hard on Democrats, including Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who on Thursday announced his opposition.

The group had sent 60 activists to Mr. Schumer’s office to lobby him last week, while Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, (how about "Citizens for a Nuclear Free 'Israel”? — Hoffmanan offshoot Aipac formed to run at least $25 million in advertising against the deal, ran television spots in New York City. As Mr. Schumer deliberated, he spoke with Aipac leaders, but also with representatives of the pro-Israel group J Street, which supports the deal.

The White House courted Mr. Schumer heavily even though officials always suspected he would oppose the agreement, they said Friday. “I don’t know if the administration’s been outlobbied,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Thursday before Mr. Schumer’s announcement. “We certainly have been outspent.”

Besides individual meetings with Mr. Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Wendy R. Sherman, the chief negotiator, Mr. Schumer had three hourlong meetings with members of the negotiating team, who answered 14 pages of questions from him.

Mr. Schumer hashed out further details with Mr. Kerry, Ms. Sherman and Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz in a recent dinner at the State Department. Mr. Obama, in the White House meeting with Aipac leaders, sharply challenged the group after one of its representatives, Lee Rosenberg, a former fund-raising bundler for Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, said the administration was characterizing opponents of the deal as warmongers, according to several people present, who would speak about the private meeting only on the condition of anonymity. The meeting included some 20 leaders of other Jewish organizations.

“Words have consequences, especially when it’s authority figures saying them, and it’s not their intent, perhaps, but we know from history that they become manipulated,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, repeating a concern he had raised directly with Mr. Obama during the closed-door session. “Of all political leaders,” Mr. Hoenlein added, “he certainly should be the most sensitive to this.”

Mr. Obama told the visitors he would be careful with his remarks, but quickly pointed out that Aipac was spending $20 million to campaign against the agreement and was sending hundreds of activists to Capitol Hill armed with what he called inaccuracies to persuade lawmakers to reject the deal. He complained about advertising that portrayed him as an appeaser by comparing him to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler in 1938.

Aipac says it is not behind those ads, (who is? -- Hoffman) and that its arguments with Mr. Obama are about the deal, not him. And the group denies it lobbied for the war in Iraq, on which it did not take an official position (what was its unofficial position? -- Hoffman). “This critical national security debate is certainly not about an organization but rather about a deal which we believe will fail to block an Iranian nuclear weapon and will fuel terrorism,” said Marshall Wittmann, an Aipac spokesman. “We hope that all those who are engaged in this debate will avoid questioning motives and employing any ad hominem attacks.”

The friction between Mr. Obama and Aipac over the Iran deal has been building for months. Last week, as Mr. Obama made his way back from Africa on Air Force One, White House officials learned that Aipac would be flying 700 members from across the country to Washington to pressure their members of Congress to reject the deal. Mr. Obama’s team asked to brief the group at the White House, and was told instead to send a representative to the downtown Washington hotel where the activists were gathering before their Capitol Hill visits, according to people familiar with the private discussions.

Ms. Sherman; Adam J. Szubin, the Treasury official who handles financial sanctions; and Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff, all made presentations to the group, but were barred from taking questions to further explain it. White House officials said they were told from the start there would be no questions, while Aipac supporters said that they would have allowed questions but that there was no time

Whatever the case, Mr. Obama took offense and later complained at the White House to Aipac leaders that they had refused to allow Ms. Sherman and other members of his team to confront the “inaccuracies” being spread about the agreement, leaving him to defend the deal to wavering lawmakers who had been fed misinformation about it...

End quote from the NY Times. Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.


Wednesday, August 05, 2015

David Irving’s Speech in London July 24

By Michael Hoffman

1. Traditional Lutheran Newspaper Reprints our Column

2. David Irving’s Speech July 24 in London, England


1. Traditional Lutheran Newspaper Reprints On the Contrary column

Even though I am a Catholic, Rev. Herman Otten, editor of the traditional Lutheran (LCMS) newspaper Christian News, frequently publishes my columns in his newspaper. My writing is not considered for publication in “traditional” Catholic newspapers such The Remnant and Catholic Family News. The online “traditional” Catholic blog Rorate Caeli has blocked us from even re-tweeting their material. The American Conservative magazine, with a preponderance of Catholics on its editorial staff, refuses to carry paid advertisements for our book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not. The John Birch Society, led by “traditional” Catholics John McManus and Bill Jasper, will not allow us to advertise our books in their magazine or on their website. 

The only occasions that I have spoken in public on the subject of usury have been at Protestant-sponsored meetings. Judith Sharpe in Virginia, who does not publish a newspaper or magazine, but helps to organize a yearly Catholic forum, is one of our few contacts in the “traditional” Catholic world who does invite us. 

I’m not complaining — I consider all of these boycotts and bans self-indicting and in some respects, comical, in light of the red meat rhetoric these groups dispense to their naive supporters.  The supposed "leaders of the Conservative movement in America” are too timid to accept our advertisements or to print our columns. Certain Lutherans possess that courage, among them Pastor Otten. Without courage we are lost.  Otten knows it. Many conservative Catholic publishers do not. Should I conceal this fact?

The On the Contrary column that was reprinted by Christian News, “The Biggest Failure in America is the Establishment Church” authored by Chuck Baldwin with a lengthy Afterword by yours truly, appears in the August 10 issue, pp. 14 and 15

Over the years the conservative Lutheran Christian News has regularly reprinted columns by Catholic pundit Joseph Sobran and Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson. Furthermore, his newspaper has published some of the most extensive critical analyses of the Babylonian Talmud (by the late Charles D. Provan, a brilliant and tireless Scripture scholar), and of the claims of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz. Pastor Otten has been severely persecuted by elements of the hierarchy of the Lutheran church in America. Yet, his base of support among Lutheran people and other Christians of good will, is intact. His parishioners in Missouri have also maintained their fidelity to him. He operates a large summer Bible camp attended by dozens of youths. All this is testimony to the fact that if we are courageous in a cause for God, we have nothing and no one to fear. That is a lesson many “Christian Conservative leaders” have yet to learn.

2. David Irving’s Speech in London
77-year-old British historian David Irving gave a speech July 24 in London to an audience of 120 at the four-star Rembrandt hotel. His subject was the perfidy of Winston Churchill and a correction of received opinion concerning the standard account of the Nazi bombing of Britain, Rotterdam and Guernica. I have had the privilege of being acquainted with Mr. Irving since 1985 and have heard him speak many times. His London talk last month is among his best. He was more relaxed and his mischievous sense of humor was spontaneous and refreshing in light of what he has endured (more than a year in prison in Austria for a speech much like the one he gave July 24; impoverishment, physical assaults and relentless libel in the media). 

The meretricious movie industry is doing a film on his famous legal battle with Judaic academic Deborah Lipstadt. She will be portrayed by the beautiful gentile Hollywood movie star Hilary Swank. To say that Lipstadt looks nothing like Swank is the understatement of the year. (This fits a long-standing Hollywood pattern of having Judaic heroines played by non-Judaic actresses). The part of Mr. Irving will be played by Tom Wilkinson.

  In the course of his speech last month Irving commended the RAF crews that flew the bombers over Germany and even advocated honors for the RAF’s Chief Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris. I disagree with Mr. Irving’s admiration for Harris. Nevertheless, he furnished important facts that deflate the historical myth that Churchill was “reluctantly goaded” by Harris into the criminal saturation bombing of German cities. In fact, as Irving shows, this titanic war crime was Churchill’s brainchild. David provided revisionist information on the German bombing of Guernica and Rotterdam and the Allied incineration of Dresden, the German city which was the subject of one of his early bestsellers. 

The malicious British press, which makes the Wall Street Journal look like Little Bo Peep’s gazette in comparison, dripping with venom, lied with customary indifference to reality concerning what Irving said. The odious Daily Mail, in a headline in its Sunday edition, stated: “David Irving tells secret rally ‘the RAF are war criminals.” Actually, Irving said precisely the opposite. Moreover, the “rally” was only “secret” (private) out of concern for the need to evade attacks by Communist or Zionist terrorists.

It is gratifying to see Irving is still at it, wittier and feistier than ever, obviously having a ball defying the enemies of truth and still with something important to say. The astoundingly obtuse, Churchill-as-Sage-of Western-Civilization folderol remains a fixture of the American Right in bastions like Hillsdale College.  We may disagree with Irving on any number of historical subjects but when it comes to the Churchill legend, he is the most effective demolition expert living. Though they often contest Irving’s opinions, the sight of the continuing insubordinate truculence of elderly fighters for World War II veritas in addition to Irving, such as Professors Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson, sustains an incandescence in what would otherwise be darkness. Can we do any less?

On the Contrary is made possible by donations from readers and the sale of our recordings and publications

Independent History and Research • Box 849 • Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816


Friday, July 31, 2015

Naval officer who led investigation of Pollard

US Naval officer who led the investigation of Jonathan Pollard and personally interrogated him  
relates the extent of Pollard and his wife’s treason for “Israel,” and the gross incompetence of 
the US government


The On the Contrary blog is made possible by donations from readers and the sale of our recordings and publications