Dust7:  Please define "h0Ɩ0cαųst denier".  If it's someone who wants to get to the bottom of the truth, and not count one person's life as more valuable than another's... then I guess count me in.

On the subject of "making mincemeat" of other people.

Maybe this Hoffman character could also make mincemeat of any one of us were any one of us to accuse him of splitting our mother's head open with an axe right after he split our mother's head open with an axe in front of us, with ten thousand other eyewitnesses, on national TV.

This can easily be done if you're bold enough and slick enough. Truthfulness and fairness are another story, one which gets very little play nowadays.

I don't recall Miss Marcia Clark making mincemeat of a single witness whose testimony was favorable to the defendant in the OJ Simpson case. But Johnny Cochran? Robert Shapiro?

I'll bet that there are hundreds of Jєωιѕн Lawyers in this world who could make mincemeat of the illustrious Mr. Michael Hoffman II if he contradicted their claim that the h0Ɩ0cαųst claimed twelve million Jєωιѕн lives in Europe and wiped out the Orthodox population of Flatbush in Brooklyn NY.

Is he a Catholic? If he isn't- and I get the impression that he is not from what I've read of his rants- I thought that we were always supposed to point out the lack of Catholicity in anyone who gets his name in the paper and say tsk-tsk. Are good Traditional Catholics supposed to give a pass to those Prot heretics who have rendered the Cause the boon of writing things that will get the Perfidious Jєωs riled up?

I don't care who allegedly can make mincemeat of whom in a debate. Hoffman is a coarse bully and he is boldly deceitful. There is great power in that and I grant that that power often does win the day in human courts, as the futilely brilliant and shrewd advocate for Truth named Jesus of Nazareth found. His enemies made mincemeat of Him and then some.

What I want to know is: do Hoffman's cases stand up beyond the bluff and the bluster and the crowd-pleasing (some crowds, anyway) shtick? Sometimes they do. Sometimes he doesn't even have a case. But that doesn't matter. He is most impressive (to some) when he doesn't have a case.

You missed the point. You chose to extol your little pal in terms that were hostile to the members of this forum and I quite understandably and properly called you on it. You thought that "most of" the members of this forum were going to hang their heads in shame and think, "Yes. It is true. With a rare being like Michael Hoffman II in the world, I am potential mincemeat."?

Well, I think that the members of this forum who, by your own account, would NOT be rendered mincemeat by Hoffman in an open debate were obligated to speak up for themselves and for those who know how deluded he is yet might not have the wherewithal to argue against him.

It is a dangerous fool who attempts to whip up loathing for "Judaism" generally by singling out a weird and disgusting  aspect of a Jєωιѕн ritual as practiced by some (and not all) and putting a certain moral connotation on it which is wildly off-base on the face of it, and this in vulgar terms designed to appeal to the types of skinhead thugs who might burn down ѕуηαgσgυєs with the worshipers inside.

Have a nice day, too. And always remember. "Spiritually, we are Semites."

Who called anyone antisemitic here? Who threw that word around? Who denied that Hoffman makes some valid points in some areas?

I am weary of people who don't know what they are talking about and throw around terms such as "THE Jєωs" and "Judaism."

I am also weary of goy hayseeds from parts of this country where racist fanaticism is rife and Jєωs are rare who don't know how laughable it is to speak of a Jєωιѕн Conspiracy. All my Jєωιѕн neighbors and friends joke, "Oy, as if any two Jєωs ever agreed even on having lox or gefilte fish on the bagels."

Yes, I have read some of this person's screeds. I would say twenty to thirty. That was enough. I read the one to which I alluded. Out of which I quite easily made mincemeat.

 

You chose to extol your little pal in terms that were hostile to the members of this forum

My "little pal?"  Really, sir!  
 

I quite understandably and properly called you on it.

Why is it that I have no sense or awareness of being "called" on anything?   Perhaps, sir, you are delusional.

 

It is a dangerous fool who attempts to whip up loathing for "Judaism" generally by singling out a weird and disgusting aspect of a Jєωιѕн ritual as practiced by some (and not all)..

For purposes of this thread, "attempts to whip up loathing for 'Judaism' generally" were, until now apparently, not at issue.  But now that you broach the matter, I must admit that I, for one, find тαℓмυdic, Cabalistic Judaism quite loathsome.   That is not to say that I find all Jєωs loathsome.  By the way, who was singling out a particular Jєωιѕн ritual? Me? Mr. Hoffman? Miss Fluffy?
 

designed to appeal to the types of skinhead thugs who might burn down ѕуηαgσgυєs with the worshipers inside.

Does not dignify a reply.

Have a nice day, too. And always remember. "Spiritually, we are Semites."

Like in: Jesus was a Jєω?

"Spiritually we are Semites." It's a quote from His Holiness Pope Pius XI. All questions about conversion to Judaism relative to that extraordinary statement should be directed to that worthy Pontiff and Patriarch of the West.

I don't know how keen Jєωιѕн leaders of different sects or persuasions (Orthodox, Liberal, Conservative, Hasidic etc...) are on conversions these days. I know that Cardinal O'Connor of NYC, a supposed "conservative" who probably would have had sweet things to say about the Motu, attributed to God pleasure in the apostasy of a young Catholic who wanted to become a Jєω.

Apparently Pope Pius XI thought that the People of the New Covenant were ready to start showing an untraditionally sympathetic attitude towards the people of the old one in the face of the Third Reich's goosestepping march to the Final Solution. I read the quote once in context: I didn't get the impression that His Holiness was making a theological statement about Christ's being descended from Israel according to the flesh. He seemed to be speaking more as a Responsible World Leader who, let's say, would have wanted Anne Frank to have nothing more interesting to report in her diary than the birth of kittens to her pet cat.

No one here has used the term anti-semitic as a reproach. I indicated a specific example of what I find objectionable in Hoffman's writings. I did not say that he was antisemitic for attributing extremely vile immorality to those who act in accordance with certain weird and disgusting rubrics related to a certain ritual in a certain form of Judaism: I said that he was a dangerous fool. If someone asks, "So you're saying that he is antisemitic?" my response is, "I don't even know what that term means: when I say that he is a dangerous fool  I'm saying that he is a dangerous fool."

People who express doubts about widely received h0Ɩ0cαųst figures don't like it when they are accused of being antisemitic on that basis. They shouldn't try to turn the fact of that meaningless term into a two-edged sword: they should not try to neutralize criticism of the likes of Michael Hoffman by trotting out that term as a booby-trap for those who have not used it.

I don't care about any alleged crimes of thought on his part and any good feelings or ill feelings in his heart. I care about his statements about Judaism and The Jєωs, many of which I find very stupid and nasty. I get nervous when someone like that is all but called Father and Teacher by those I thought would know better.

What happened here  is no big mystery and no big drama. I did not respond to a plug for Michael Hoffman's request for alms. I responded to a disdainful remark passed about "most of" the members of this forum which was made to bolster the reputation of someone whom I think is bad news and NOT intellectually or academically remarkable.

"You think that Michael Hoffman II can make mincemeat of most of the members of this forum? Well, number one, I resent your saying that because I think that it is just a rude and unfriendly thing to say, and number two, I don't even think that it is true."

Why the nonsensical bluster about my being delusional? This is precisely what is known as calling someone on something. "Maybe you thought that you'd get away with that jab, but I for one am calling you on it." It is immaterial if the person "called on" experiences the reality of his having been called on as being called on. The fact of his having been called on something remains.

And I hope that he doesn't get one thin dime from his appeal.

Cletus, everything you have written implies that you are bringing up accusations of anti-semitism.  And if it wasn't meant to imply that, why even remind us that we are spiritual semites?

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your disgust with Mr. Hoffman and his works.  I guess you are only accusing him of being foolish and inaccurate?  Well, that's fine.  Those of us who disagree will continue to support him.