"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.