In Defense of Jesus and Mary Against Media Libel

In the Easter Season the corporate press routinely escalates its hate speech against Christ and Christianity. It's time we challenged it.

An earlier version of this post was published April 4 for paid subscribers. I have since expanded the text with new information. For the sake of the widest possible dissemination of this vindication of the Gospel, readers throughout the world now have free access to this entire study. I pray you will recommend, publicize and share it far and wide. Imagine if a million people were to read and absorb it!

“We believe the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth and we await his return. They believe Jesus is in Hell and that his holy mother Mary was a prostitute. There is no meeting place in this.”

— George Galloway

What follows is a controversial defense of human rights for Christians desiring to be free of the defamation of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and His blessed Mother Mary.

Why controversial? Because so much hatred has been directed at our traditional beliefs and worship that people have grown accustomed to it. The hatred is anticipated, and in so far as the indoctrination has been successful, in some quarters the prejudice against us is regarded as well-deserved.

Our appeal for respect for our faith is grounded in truth, and our right to be as free of hateful attacks upon us as any religion. It should not be open season on Christ and Christians, and yet it is a deplorable fact that hate speech directed against us is now pro forma.

Much of the corporate media in the US consider stories which degrade orthodox Christianity as endlessly instructive and worthwhile.

The media often publish and otherwise circulate these tales bi-annually, often timed to coordinate with the holy Lenten season leading to Easter, and in December during the Advent prelude to Christmas.

Perhaps this is all “coincidental,” as the defenders of this twice yearly festival of falsehood claim.

Alert orthodox Christians on the other hand, view this ritual as a malevolently sacrilegious debasement of a Gospel which is hated by much of the corporate media when it manifests in its traditional praxis, in contravention of prescribed liberal-modernist church norms so diluted they bear little or no resemblance to the faith expounded in the Word of God.

I have monitored this ceremonial blasphemy for years.

Like clockwork, the hate speech reared its head again in 2025, on cue during the Easter season. As always, the rabid bigotry is dressed in the habiliments of scholarship.

Hatred and False Witness toward Christians in New Yorker magazine

Adam Gopnik, writing in the March 31 issue of the famed, highbrow New Yorker magazine, on pages 58-63, in an article titled “We’re Still Not Done with Jesus,” re-enacts a dreary ritual which has been performed by the New York Times and other “prestigious” publications, television networks and Hollywood movies repeatedly.

He begins by portraying radical hate-monger Elaine Pagels as a moderate critic of Christian orthodoxy, after which he favorably surveys all the latest tomes of anti-Christian hate speech, thereby propagating that movement.

Mr. Gopnik excludes the contrarian views of traditional Christian scholars who might have offered a cogent defense of the Faith. Why bother with fairness, or balance? It goes without saying that the New Yorker is a publication intended for the traducers of Christ’s Gospel as it has been understood by an inspired majority consensus for millennia, up until the mid-20th century.

Mr. Gopnik grants Prof. Pagels the New Yorker’s stamp of approval: “Princeton professor emeritus Elaine Pagels, who has written many imposing and engrossing books on early Christianity, is back with a kind of culminating work, Miracles and Wonder..."Gopnik monotonously conforms to and repeats the reverence and awe with which the Jesus-denigrating media have most always ornamented Pagels.

In The New York Times: “A Conversation about the Virgin Birth that Maybe Wasn’t”

For instance, a few days before Christmas Eve 2024, the New York Times published, “A Conversation about the Virgin Birth that Maybe Wasn’t.”

It was a dialogue between veteran Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, and the academic who serves as his source for the attack on Jesus and Mary. He too extols: “Elaine Pagels, a prominent professor of religion at Princeton University and an expert on the early church.” Pagels seems to have undergone canonization in her lifetime, something which the traditional Catholic Church, one of the butts of Mr. Gopnik’s essay, never conferred upon any living person.

For Mr. Gopnik, Pagels’ books are “imposing and engrossing.” She “ably navigates…the events of Jesus’ life and death.” Mr. Kristof of the Times meanwhile, bestows his benediction upon her as an “expert” in the field who has penned a “fascinating” book. The book is so “expert” and “fascinating” that Kristof and his editors at the Times believed it was deserving of about a $100,000 worth of free publicity, in the form of a fawning interview—in time for heaping a bucket of slime on Jesus and Mary at Christmas. Are we having fun yet?

Kristof states, “Miracles and Wonder is the title of her fascinating forthcoming book. It raises questions about the virgin birth of Jesus, even pointing to ancient evidence that Jesus might have been fathered by a Roman soldier, possibly by rape.”

“Evidence.” What evidence?

Pagels’ dreadful falsehood about Our Lord and Lady is little more than a jumble of Talmudic canards. The Babylonian Talmud in the abhorrent tractate Gittin 90a teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary was so lascivious she had to be locked up to prevent her from copulating with all and sundry.

Kristof to Elaine Pagels: “You cite evidence going back to the first and second centuries that some referred to Jesus as the son of a Roman soldier named Panthera. These accounts are mostly from early writers trying to disparage Jesus, it seems, so perhaps they should be regarded skeptically. But you also write that Panthera appears to have been a real person….You write that there were early accusations against Mary of promiscuity, connected to this allegation of an affair with Panthera…How should we think about this?”

Pagels to Nicholas Kristoff: “Yes, these stories circulated after Jesus’ death among members of the Jewish community who regarded him as a false messiah, saying that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier. I used to dismiss such stories as ancient slander. Yet while we do not know what happened, there are too many points of circumstantial evidence to simply ignore them.

“The name Panthera, sometimes spelled differently in ancient sources, may refer to a panther skin that certain soldiers wore. The discovery of the grave of a Roman soldier named Tiberius Panthera, member of a cohort of Syrian archers stationed in Palestine in the first century, might support those ancient rumors.” (End quote from the New York Times, December 21, 2024; emphasis supplied).

The 800 pound gorilla in this evidence-free room where defilement of Jesus and Mary is domiciled, is the Talmud of Babylon, the source of this revolting and baseless pornography. It is in Talmud Tractate Shabbat 104b where it is taught that Jesus was born of the adultery which His mother supposedly committed with Panthera (also sometimes spelled “Pandeira”). The Talmud in Sanhedrin 106a states that Mary was a harlot.

Where else on earth is there a theology which has institutionalized so foul and outrageous a libel?

I take no satisfaction in bringing these horrible imprecations to public notice. It is important to state that of the Jewish people I have consulted concerning these texts the majority condemn them unequivocally.

It is an extremist minority, such as can be found in any faith community, which propagates this hate speech. Unfortunately they often happen to be the leaders of the Talmudic faith. They are spurred onward by the media in the absence of concerted, vigorous exposure and protest by putative Christian leaders.

Very few academics, scholars and churchmen dare to defend Jesus and His mother against this Talmudic blasphemy by naming it. This was the case with the celebrated “conservative Catholic” Bishop Robert Barron as we demonstrate in the appendix to this study.

The Left-wing New York Times rather conspicuously chose to suppress the fabrication’s origin story when it published Mr. Kristof’s creampuff interview with Professor Pagels.

On the Right, “The Ingraham Angle” broadcast on Fox News, December 23, 2024, with guest host Raymond Arroyo, conducted a segment on Kristof’s column and Pagels’ defamation, while — exactly like the Times — omitting the falsehood’s Talmudic provenance.

The issue of anti-Christian hate speech in the Talmud is kryptonite both to terrified pseudo-Conservatives as well as the haughty gatekeepers of the Leftist legacy media.

Advent came and went. In the prelude to the observance of the anniversary of the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord in 2025 it was judged time to savage Jesus and Mary yet again, hammering away on schedule at their holy purity and sanctity.

The corporate media have a penchant for attacking Jesus and the faith he founded near Good Friday and Easter.

The New York Times notoriously publicized the “Jesus Had a Wife” imposture on April 10, 2014. Their headline read, “Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake.”

This libel appeared ten days before Easter, written by Laurie Goodstein. It was demolished six years later by Ariel Sabar, an investigative reporter who meticulously unraveled the forgery in his book, Veritas: A Harvard Professor, a Con Man and the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.

There are many instances of suspiciously-timed defamation, such as what appeared in March 2025 in the New Yorker, during the holy season of Lent, a few weeks from the Christian high holidays.

Ritual Defamation: A Few Examples

St. Crispin’s Day, October 25, 2009: Season 7, episode 6 of the HBO television series “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” featured its star, Larry David, urinating on a portrait of Jesus Christ. Mr. David wrote the scene.

HBO defended it as part of the show’s “satirical style,” claiming that Mr. David’s “humor” often targets everyone.

Mr. David’s career did not suffer in any appreciable way following his urination sacrilege.

The desecration had no lasting negative impact on his trajectory in show business.

If anything, it reinforced his reputation as a “fearless provocateur.” He has since gone on to achieve triumph after triumph in Hollywood.

Saints Crispin and Crispinian, twin brothers, were martyred in 286 A.D. by the Roman governor of Gaul for preaching the Gospel. Their memory would be obscure were it not for the famous play Henry V, in which King Henry gives his renowned “St. Crispin’s Day Speech” prior to the Battle of Agincourt on October 25, 1415. St. Crispin’s Day was forever hallowed by Shakespeare in his 1599 drama, and befouled by Hollywood 410 years later.

Advent, 2015: “The Night Before” is a Christmas-themed movie starring Seth Rogen and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, written by Jonathan Levine, Ariel Shaffir and Evan Goldberg, and directed by Mr. Levine.

It was shown in 2,960 theaters across the U.S during the Christmas season, distributed by Columbia Pictures. Mr. Rogen plays Isaac Greenberg, a character who enters a Catholic church where Midnight Mass is underway.

The scene unfolds in the packed church during the solemn candlelit worship, with parishioners singing hymns and the priest presiding. Isaac is dressed in a tacky Christmas sweater.

As the Mass reaches a quiet, reverent moment, the Greenberg character stumbles out of his pew into the aisle, lurches forward and spews vomit onto the floor of the sanctuary, splattering the pristine tiles in front of stunned worshippers.

The sound of his vomiting is exaggeratedly loud, a guttural retch. The camera lingers on the disgusting mess—a vivid, greenish pile.

December 21, 2016: In the Washington Post in an article appeared titled, “The Christmas Story: History or Holiday Myth?” by Joel Baden. Published four days before Christmas, it questioned the historical accuracy of the New Testament’s nativity accounts.

April 14, 2017, two days before Easter, the Guardian newspaper of England published, “The Crucifixion: A Historical Inaccuracy?" by Andrew Brown. It questioned the Gospel accounts of the death of Jesus, claiming they were hyped for exaggerated effect.

March 30, 2018, in the Washington Post: "Was Jesus’ Resurrection a Sequel?" by Prof. Candida Moss, published two days before Easter. She argued that Christ’s resurrection was a rehash of pagan mythology in Christian form.

The New Yorker’s 2025 Contribution to the Perpetual Defamation

The New Yorker magazine, www.NewYorker.com, published twenty days before Easter, March 31, 2025:

“…an early Jewish polemic claimed that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier nicknamed Panther..”

“Pagels…begins by ably navigating through the shoals of the essential but surprisingly unsettled sources that seem to relate the events of Jesus’ life and death. There are, first, the Epistles of St. Paul, the late convert who brought the Jewish heresy to the Gentiles…Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened….

“Pagels’ (is) working within a tradition of historical-Jesus studies that took shape in earnest more than two centuries ago, and for her the Gospels are palimpsests of lore, legend, and propaganda, beneath which a core of oral transmission and shared recollection remains detectable. The shifting Nativity narratives, for instance, suggest that rumors about Jesus’ parentage existed from the beginning…

“In various texts, including Apocryphal works that date to around the same time as the Gospels proper, Joseph appears to suspect Mary of infidelity.” (End quote)

Mr. Gopnik appears to be so ignorant of the gospel of Matthew that he imagines that news of St. Joseph’s perplexity — knowing he had not been intimate with Mary, he would have naturally assumed she had been with another man, in that she was pregnant — is supposed to be a shattering revelation to Christians.

Of course it is not, since Christians are well familiar with the account in Matthew 1:19.

Moreover, the apparent dilemma was resolved in Matthew 1:20-21 when the angel appears to St. Joseph in a dream, explaining that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

This heavenly message resolved his concern. Furthermore, the New Testament text doesn’t state that Joseph “suspected her of infidelity.”

His initial plan to divorce Mary quietly suggests he grappled with the possibility of divorce before receiving divine assurance that she remained, miraculously, a virgin.

By seconding Prof. Pagels, Mr. Gopnik is dismissing this Scripture as what he terms “palimpsests of lore, legend, and propaganda” — a rather precise description of the Babylonian Talmud itself, the mother of lore, legend, and propaganda. The irony escapes Mr. Gopnik.

The hidden inspiration for the blasphemy to which Pagels and Gopnik are lending their imprimatur is the Talmud. Here’s how he spins it:

“Meanwhile, an early Jewish polemic claimed that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier nicknamed Panther—perhaps employing a tasteless but pointed pun on the Greek word parthenos (virgin).”

Mr. Gopnik is channeling halachic hate speech from the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 104b. He is either ignorant of his source or he chooses to conceal the origin of the defamation, describing it in generic terms as a “polemic.”

If the latter, it is a device for attempting to cloak the bigotry by reducing its commanding position from that of the fixed dogma of a sacred volume from the most authoritative of Pharisaic texts, to a vague, vitriolic opinion from erewhon.

The tenor of the next four pages of Mr. Gopnik’s New Yorker essay endeavors to confirm the hate speech by furnishing the reader with a blibliography of extremist anti-Christian books in which Gopnik finds some merit.

No conservative Christian is quoted to offer a balancing, alternative view. The New Yorker article is entirely from the point of view of Gospel disparagers. This is grossly unfair.

Why do faithful Christians shy away from contending with it? The dereliction emboldens those who violate our human right to be free of hate speech.

Mr. Gopnik writes:

“The story of the virgin birth, Pagels argues, was introduced by Matthew and, in another version, by Luke in order to address…lingering doubts. The consoling notion of divine impregnation was commonplace in the Hellenistic world, with countless tales of gods foisting demigods on virgins. Plutarch, for instance, described Rome’s founder Romulus as born to a divinely impregnated vestal virgin.

“As Catherine Nixey, a writer for The Economist, shows in Heretic: Jesus Christ and the Other Sons of God, an irreverent reassessment of the Jesus stories in light of similar myths, early Christians didn’t merely acknowledge these parallels but actively traded on them, as precedents for their own claims.

“The second-century apologist Justin Martyr argued that Christianity’s central tenets were no different in kind from the divine births of Zeus’ many sons—though, of course, he insisted that his divine-birth story happened to be true. The only real originality in the accounts of Jesus’ virgin birth is their distinctly Jewish and prudish tone, with the impregnation dignified and at arm’s length…”

Nixey’s thesis is hardly new. Kersey Graves wrote The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors in 1875, offering a similar conclusion, that the so-called “Jesus Story” was merely another chapter in the recurring pagan mythology of virgin births and resurrection tales associated with various ancient sorcerers and man-gods.

The sorcerer calumny is a doctrine of Pharisaic ideology. In Jesus’ time it was asserted that He was demon-possessed, for example in Mark 3:22, and worked miracles by means of the devil as it is recounted in Matthew 12:24 and Luke 11:15.

The Talmud built on those heresy-hunting libels and institutionalized them. This is a documented fact. Is it permissible to quote documented facts, or must the researcher who does so be canceled by the Censorship Industrial Complex?

In the uncensored passage in Sanhedrin 107b the Talmud states, “Jesus practiced sorcery and led Israel astray.”

Here again is verbatim documentation, this time from Sotah 47a: “Jesus the Nazarene performed sorcery.”

It appears that Professor Pagels and Mr. Gopnik doubt the New Testament, but not the Talmud.

One can track the progress of Mr. Gopnik’s Talmudic processional with each anti-Christian book he recommends. His essay gives the impression that it is intended to serve as an inducement to defiant freethinking, without regard for the consequences of giving offense to orthodox Christian beliefs.

There’s a dualism here:

The beliefs of orthodox Talmudism introduced through the agency of Mr. Gopnik’s ventriloquism, are not to be questioned, while the most sacred tenets of Christianity’s New Testament are trod under foot.

The pure truth of the Gospel of Jesus, and the affirmation of that verity by Saints Peter and Paul, loosened the control of the rabbis over the Judean people and led to the recognition that The Church is Israel Now, to borrow the title of the late theologian Charles Provan’s impressive book.

To stand loyally by this first century Christian truth remains, 2,000 years hence, an unpardonable sin in the eyes of many of those who superintend the corporate media and cloak their loathing for the orthodox Christian faith under the mantle of enlightened, no-holds-barred, radical inquiry which defies all sacred cows, except for the sanctified belief that the Babylonian Talmud and its successor texts are beyond reproach.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS: “AN OCCASION OF SHAME”

The accusation that Mary the mother of Jesus was an unchaste woman appears in the New Yorker, where the birth of Jesus is made into an “an occasion of shame” — this is undistilled Talmud.

According to Mr. Gopnik: “…Pagels’ larger point is that the most improbable Gospel tales serve to patch a fractured narrative—using familiar tropes and myths to smooth over inconsistencies…She concludes with a delicate rereading of the Magnificat, suggesting that Mary’s gratitude is not for the child himself but for the miracle that transforms an illegitimate birth into a blessing—an occasion of shame recast as a song of salvation” (end quote, emphasis supplied).

The healing miracles of Jesus must not be allowed to stand either—we’re informed that there’s “powerful support” from a “scholar” for the accusation that Jesus faked them:

“…the outlook of Jesus’ world made it particularly receptive to psychosomatic illness…Certainly, this offers powerful support to the scholar John Dominic Crossan’s claim that Jesus’ originality lay in his…his willingness to touch lepers he could not heal…He may not have cured those he healed, but the act of trying to heal anyone who asked was in itself a kind of miracle.”

Gopnik and Crossan have just trashed the Book of John, chapter nine. They behave as the Pharisees did in denying that Jesus healed the blind man.

His blindness was, according to Crossan and his mouthpiece Gopnik, “psychosomatic.”

In John 9: 24-27 we read: “So for the second time they (the Pharisees) called the man who had been blind and said to him, ‘We know that this man (Jesus) is a sinner.’ He answered, ‘Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.’ They said to him, ‘What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?’ He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen.”

The New Testament is no more reliable than a “newspaper…in Kalamazoo”

The Easter season would seem to be the ideal time for Adam Gopnik to step out of his academic affectation and descend into the bottom of the hate speech barrel, by associating the testimony of the Resurrection of Jesus with “hallucinations” and “Elvis is Alive!” tabloid sensationalism.

We are expected to believe the New Testament is no more reliable than a “newspaper…in Kalamazoo”:

“…resurrection narratives serve, Pagels suggests, both to address the practical difficulties of reclaiming the bodies of the executed and to counter skeptical claims that Jesus’ corpse had simply been stolen. Stories of resurrection and rebirth, after all, recur throughout history. Bereavement hallucinations—intensely vivid encounters with the deceased—are reported by as many as half of all grieving people.

"“Elvis, for one, was seen by many in the years following his death, with a newspaper report of a sighting in Kalamazoo at least as reliable as the spotty accounts shared by fervent believers two millennia ago…”

“No Historical Jesus Ever Existed”

“A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start. There were no rips in the fabric of memory, in this view, because there were no memories to mend—no foundational oral tradition beneath the narratives, only a lattice of tropes…

“At the extreme edge of this revisionism is the work of Richard Carrier, whose book On the Historicity of Jesus (2014) forcefully presents the ‘mythicist’ view—the argument that no historical Jesus ever existed.

“Carrier contends that early Christianity began as a purely visionary movement worshipping a celestial figure, an angelic being who took on human flesh to be crucified by Satan, buried, and reborn in the sky. Only later, he thinks, did a competing sect within the movement historicize this figure, placing him on earth….his arguments in print are much more measured than his online persona might suggest.”

Concerning Josephus’ favorable testimony about Jesus—even it has to be shot down: “…convincing arguments for joining those who think that it is a forgery in its entirety…”

“He’s cogent, for instance, about the so-called T, the interpolated passage in Josephus’ history which seems to discuss, and extravagantly praise, Jesus. Though it is universally recognized to be at least in part Christian embroidery, Carrier offers convincing arguments for joining those who think that it is a forgery in its entirety.” (italics supplied).

“Universally recognized”? Not one of the Catholic priests and Protestant ministers of this writer’s acquaintance recognize any such thing.

A Baseless Allegation: “Christianity invented religious intolerance and the persecution of dissenters”

Mr. Gopnik piles on indictment after indictment. On the authority of Nixey, Gopnik and the New Yorker, the reader journeys from theology to a pontifical judgement on history. He seems to endorse the post-modernist howler put forth by Catherine Nixey who “insists” that “Christianity…largely invented religious intolerance and the persecution of dissenters.”

How did the New Yorker’s theological pontificators gain historical expertise? To those who are conversant with uncensored revisionist history, the preceding “insistence” by Nixey is a breathtaking act of exculpation of those actually guilty of the charge.

Does the argument contain the requisite scholarly apparatus, not the least of which would include mention of one or two other candidates for the “invention” of persecution of dissenters and religious intolerance? Certainly not. The door has been slammed shut on considering alternative facts which debunk received opinion. In this obstruction one sees that the supposed protest against persecution is a sham —a diktat as close-minded as any ecclesiastical decretal.

In their world, restricted by the demands of Talmudic omertà, there can be no other candidates for the stigma of heresy-hunter. Christians are it, alpha to omega. Ms. Nixey insists. Mr. Gopnik appears to be fine with her insistence.

If I may be so bold as to contradict writers verified as erudite by the editors of the Establishment’s august New Yorker magazine, a few contrary facts come to mind.

Jesus Was the Most Famous “Heretic” in History

His condemnation by the Pharisees and their pressure on the Roman Pontius Pilate to execute Him, are notorious. Yet this most spectacular of all inquisitions is not to be found in the Gospel-According-to-Gopnik.

Consequently, down the memory hole also goes the stoning of St. Stephen. Likewise the persecution of the Apostle Paul, and the solemn historic proclamation of Jesus Himself in Matthew 23:29-36, wherein Our Lord convicts the Pharisees of being: “…the sons of those who murdered the prophets…some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah.”

Did the Pharisaic praxis of crushing dissent, which Jesus excoriated, evaporate after a few decades, with the mantle passed almost exclusively to early Christian persecutors and inquisitors? This is the preposterous notion it seems we are expected to entertain.

Mr. Gopnik adds: “Nor was Christian intolerance simply a response to persecution, the Notre Dame professor Candida Moss contends in The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (2013). Her book, as the title indicates, attempts to dismantle the idea of Christianity as a faith forged in suffering. Moss argues, instead, that Christians “constructed a cult of victimhood while stamping out dissent and violently opposing any pluralism of thought.”

This is remarkably similar to what the Talmudic creed constructed: a cult of victimhood while stamping out dissent and violently opposing pluralism of thought. Most professors and corporate journalists can’t expound the truth about heresy-hunting and hate speech in all of its manifestations, without having their careers destroyed.

Forbidden Truth: The Talmudic Persecution of Dissenters and Heretics

For whatever reason, there is an erasure at the center of Mr. Gopnik’s argument—the overwhelming record of Talmudic punishment of heretics and dissenters.

Yitzchak Ginsburg is a follower of “Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rabbi) Menachem Mendel Schneerson” who is mentioned in passing by Gopnik in connection with resurrection tropes. (Some Chabad-Lubavitchers believe he outlived his death).

Otherwise, Mr. Gopnik finds neither Schneerson nor Ginsburg of any interest in regard to the focus on the persecution of dissenters in history, which is passing strange when one considers that Schneerson’s powerful branch of Hasidism, Chabad-Lubavitch, has as its founding text a volume titled Tanya, which is a manual of defamation of non-Jews .

Rabbi Ginsburg has served as an officially promoted lecturer for Chabad-Lubavitch. He is implicated in celebrating the murder of gentiles and has served as one of Chabad’s highest profile spokesman. For Ginsburg, the paradigmatic “perfect man” was the mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein, a “messianic catalyst” who slaughtered 40 Palestinians at prayer in Hebron in 1994 (the media repeatedly give the erroneous figure of 29 victims).

Ginsburg has said that Goldstein “fulfilled the commandments with total self-sacrifice and voluntary martyrdom for the honor of God, and annihilated himself in the sanctification of God’s name in order to hasten the final redemption.” ( Cf. Liran Shia Gordon and David Ohaha, Restorative Utopias [Tel Aviv University, 2005]).

Kabbalah Hate Speech: Gentiles as “Refuse”

The alleged “sanctification of Gods’s name” through genocide, rather than being notorious in association with persecution in the theology of Chabad-Lubavitch and Schneerson, is invisible in the New Yorker.

Tanya is the sacred text of Chabad-Lubavitch, penned by its revered founder, Shneur Zalman of Liady. (Schneerson was the grand rabbi of Chabad-Lubavitch). It is among the most ferociously racist texts extant, replete with withering contempt for non-Jews. It is one of the foundations of the persecution and victimization of Palestinians and Israeli-Christians. Nixey, Moss and Gopnik are oblivious.

In Tanya it is taught that Jews possess a “divine soul” (nefesh elokit)—a literal fragment of God which gives them a uniquely divine status—while gentiles lack this divine soul. The entire being of the gentile—soul and body—is said to be solely from the kelipot, i.e. the three entirely impure realms (shlosh kelipot temeiot; and in some contexts, kelipat nogah).

In Tanya, Chapter 1 the kelipot non-Jews are “refuse.”

This racism is Kabbalistic dogma, expounded for instance in Chaim Vital’s text, Etz Chayim. Cf. Gate 1 [Drush Igulim v’Yosher], Chapter 2; Gate 6 (Kelipot), Chapters 1–3). In Gate 1, Chapter 2, Vital describes the Shevirat HaKelim, the locale where the lower seven Sefirot (divine emanations) allegedly shattered.

According to Kabbalah their sparks fell into the primordial void, becoming encased in kelipot—these non-Jews—these “shells”—are explicitly linked to impurity. They are said to arise from the “overflow” of creation which couldn’t be contained and became a cosmic “residue.”

In the text Etz Chayim Gate 6, Chapter 1, Vital teaches that the kelipot, “derive from the refuse of the upper worlds” (mi’pesolet ha’olamot ha’elyonim).

Non-Jews are said to be loathsome byproducts which sustain the Sitra Achra (the realm of evil).

[Cf. Sha’ar HaKlipot (“shells of impurity”) in Isaac Luria’s Sefer HaLikutim (Gate of the Shells, Section 1).

Hate Speech: “Jesus Boiling in Excrement”

The non-human status of non-Jews is also taught in the Babylonian Talmud’s Yevamot 60b-61a: “You are called human; gentiles are not called human.”

It gets worse. Talmud tractate Gittin 57a places Jesus in hell, forever boiling in excrement.

This is the fate of our Savior according to the Talmud of Babylon and it’s not a “marginal note.” It is taught in Gittin 57a in the pivotal context of the fate of those connected to the central catastrophe that befell Phariseeism, the destruction of the Temple, which Jesus prophesied.

I discovered the section in Kabbalah which elaborates the Talmud’s Jesus-in-feces dogma.

The Kabbalah takes the obscene teaching of Gittin 57a to an altogether deeper level by establishing a disgusting taxonomy of excrement. This writer tracked down the poop “levels” outlined in the Zohar, 2:150b:

“There is a place in Hell and levels there called Boiling Excrement where there is filth of souls…that filth remains there; and those wrungs called Boiling Excrement are appointed over that filth…And there are those wicked who soil themselves by their sins constantly and are never cleansed and die without teshuva (“repentance”)—those who sinned and incited others to sin…These are punished there in that filth, in that boiling excrement, never leaving there.”

The Zohar in 2:150b identifies those who are made to dwell in Hell’s deepest level of filth and are never cleansed of excrement, as those who “incited others to sin.” This of course is Jesus. I know this from my study of the Talmud, specifically Sanhedrin 43a, where Jesus of Nazareth is identified by name as He who “incited others to idol worship.”

This is the fate of of our Lord and Savior according to the Talmud and Kabbalah. This is the theology which is so consumed with rabid hatred that it would dream up and forever institutionalize so putrid a fate for Jesus. There is nothing like this in Islam, or any other religion.

This is a testimony. Pay attention to it.

Muslims have been known to vigorously protest insults to Jesus. For example, after Terrence McNally's play Corpus Christi, which depicts Jesus and His apostles as homosexuals, premiered at the Pleasance Theatre in London, on October 28, 1999, a British Muslim group, Al-Muhajiroun (“Defenders of the Messenger Jesus”), issued a religious edict against McNally, condemning the play as blasphemous. It was signed by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, a judge of the Shari'ah Court. Crowds of Muslims picketed the Pleasance Theatre.

The one instance in which a powerful American Christian leader in modern times exhibited testicular fortitude in this respect was Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In October 2007, Cardinal George responded to a controversy sparked by the Southern Baptist Convention’s decision to distribute a new edition of the Good News Bible, which included a mild suggestion that Jews could find salvation through Jesus Christ—a counsel which offended some important Judaic leaders, which in turn led to criticism from Talmudic and Zionist spokesmen who condemned the statement in the Good News Bible as an attempt at conversion, and a “violation of interfaith respect.”

Cardinal George sought to turn the issue toward mutual accountability. Since it was the case that some rabbinic leaders were calling for Christians to reconsider certain theological stances and texts, Jews might wish to reciprocate and reevaluate their own tradition.

He specifically said, “Maybe this is an opening to say, 'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?”

The backlash was swift. His mere suggestion to examine the contents of the Talmud was twisted into accusations that he was advocating censorship and “Christian demands for Jewish texts to be altered or burned.”(Cf. Chicago Tribune, "Cardinal’s Words Stir Dispute with Jews," by Manya A. Brachear, October 24, 2007, Section 2, Page 1).

To this writer’s knowledge that was the one and only time a leader of American Catholicism offered the slightest public reproach over Talmudic hate speech.

Among American Muslims, the most prominent and fearless critic of the Talmud’s hate speech has been Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam, who revealed and deplored the contents of Gittin 57a to his worldwide audience on February 25, 2018. Furthermore, at St. Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago on May 9, 2019, Minister Farrakhan forcefully defended the Blessed Mother against Talmudic blasphemy.

The next day, on the aptly named “Friday Follies” segment of the “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News, in what appears to have been a Pavlovian reaction, Laura Ingraham and her co-host, Catholic activist Raymond Arroyo, condemned Farrakhan and the priest who had invited him to speak. They castigated a speaker who defended Mary against repulsive Talmudic blasphemy when no one else had dared to do so.

Mr. Farrakhan provided an international platform for this writer when I was invited to address the subject of hate speech in the Talmud at the National Convention of the Nation of Islam, before an audience of 4,000 at the United Center in Chicago on February 17, 2019—an address which was broadcast throughout the United States, Africa and the Caribbean.

One would think that the horrible imprecations about Jesus and Mary in the Talmud would attract the public rebuke of Pagels, Nixey, Moss, Gopnik and the others, but this is not the case. Christianity alone in their eyes, it would seem, is vile and ugly. Talmudism is granted a pass.

In Talmudism Heretics and Heresy are the Primary Evil

Karaites in Theodosia, Crimean Peninsula (Ukraine), circa 1848. Cf. M.A. Démidoff, Voyage dans la Russie méridionale et la Crimée.

Mr. Gopnik’s description of the allegations of Nixey is an erasure that stares at us like a gaping hole in a fading papyrus. Facts about rabbinic hatred and persecution of heretics and dissenters like Jesus have been expunged to make the case that Christianity is uniquely the sum of evil, and the most grotesque and insidious of all Grand Inquisitors. This foul falsehood can only be successfully imparted in a knowledge vacuum where we are made to depend as heavily on Mr. Gopnik’s authority as medieval Catholics depended on the pope’s.

The Talmudic faith is predicated on the belief that the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem came about due to the widespread disrespect which Judean apikorsum (heretics) displayed toward scholars of the Torah sheBeal peh (the oral law which the Pharisees allege also constitutes the Torah given at Sinai).

Heretics are the object of intense hatred in neo-Phariseeism: “As for King David, who said, ‘I hate them with a consummate hatred,” the Tanya wants us to believe that David was “referring to Jewish heretics who have no portion in the God of Israel, as stated in the Talmud, Tractate Shabbat.” (Tanya, Likkutei Amarim, Chapter 32).

Karaite Jews who rejected the faux oral law “Torah” were savagely persecuted as heretics by the Talmudic establishment.

The Karaite movement arose in the eighth century at a time when the Talmud of Babylon began to spread from its roots in the rabbinic academies of Sura and Pumbedita in Babylonia (Iraq). Karaitism was founded by Anan ben David, a Jew who had been a Talmid chacham (Talmud scholar). He taught that the Mishnah and Gemara (Talmud) were at odds with the Bible. He bequeathed to his followers a free-thinking adage: “Search diligently in the Scriptures and do not rely on my opinion.” The Karaites would suffer dearly for adhering to his spirit of open inquiry.

The primary distinguishing characteristic of Karaite Jews is their adherence to sola Scriptura (God’s Word in the Bible alone). Their fealty is to the Old Testament exclusively; adhering to the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and dismissing the Talmudic tradition as a human construct which twisted the original Mosaic revelation in favor of the heavily enforced imposition of the traditions of men—the oral Torah: the Torah sheBeal peh (תורה שבעל פה ).

“Heretical” Karaites were hounded as a result of their adherence to the Old Testament and rejection of the Talmud.

Historical records, including accounts from medieval Judaic chroniclers, demonstrate that Karaites were branded as heretics and faced a range of punitive measures — from social ostracism, legal and economic sabotage, to violent retribution — beatings, property destruction, and targeted killings. Talmudists gave false testimony to Muslim rulers accusing Karaites who were residing in Islamic nations, of disloyalty and sedition, thereby exposing them to fines, imprisonment, torture and execution.

Yet we are told that it was “Christianity (that)…largely invented religious intolerance and the persecution of dissenters.” One finds maledictions on heretics throughout Talmudic and post-Talmudic sacred and pedagogical texts.

Legal authorities of the highest reputation and stature, from Maimonides to Joseph Karo, issued commands to put heretics to death. Here is a representative example of that instruction:

ON PERSECUTION:

From the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides, in the section titled, “Rebels 3”

“A person who does not acknowledge validity of the Oral Law is not the rebellious elder mentioned in the Torah. Instead, he is one of the heretics and he should be put to death by any person. Since it has become known that such a person denies the Oral Law, he may be pushed into a pit and may not be helped out. He is like all the rest of the heretics who say that the Torah is not Divine in origin, those who inform on their fellow Jews, and the apostates. All of these are not considered as members of the Jewish people. There is no need for witnesses, a warning, or judges for them to be executed. Instead, whoever kills them performs a great mitzvah (blessed deed) and removes an obstacle from people at large.”

Not one American or European in ten thousand is aware that Jews who “deny the Oral Law”—the Torah sheBeal peh of the Babylonian Talmud—are no longer considered Jews and can be killed on sight by any vigilante who chooses to do so, confidant that the murder is a “blessed deed.”

So who are the anti-Semites if not the Talmudists themselves, whose highest legal authority, the law-giver Rabbi Maimonides, urges the execution of Jews for doubting the Talmud’s claims to being a Torah equivalent to the Pentateuch? Jews no less than gentiles are targeted when they are classified as heretics.

Mr. Gopnik and company are educated people. They appear to be dedicated to identifying and certifying persecutors. How did they miss Maimonides? How did they fail to grasp the unavoidable fact that opposition to “any pluralism of thought” is the very essence of the Talmudic creed, and the authoritative texts derived from it?

There isn’t the slightest hint of these facts in Mr. Gopnik’s essay in the New Yorker, concerned as he seems to be with with indicting Christianity as planet earth’s main engine of heresy-hunting. The Church is presented as being guilty of that charge. If so, is the Church alone guilty? Are other faiths that employ persecution to police beliefs equally culpable, or is there an escape clause that renders it permissible for another creed to do what Christians must not do?

A caricature of Christianity has been fashioned so that the name has become a swear word synonymous with heresy-hunting, and made to bear that discrediting stigma, while another faith tradition enjoys immunity, and escapes scrutiny in the pages of the elite publications of the American intelligentsia.

This intellectually dishonest process generates hatred toward Christians founded upon the suppression of facts. Talmudic hatred is a neglected and under-reported human rights issue.

For some reason it has been decided that at Easter and Christmas, and on other holy days significant to the worshippers of Jesus, loathsome libels will be heaped upon Him, His Blessed Mother and the Gospel.

The presumption seems to be that Christians will passively sit and shrug while egregious offense is given. It is true that we are commanded to pray for our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. Jesus did not however, enjoin us to apathy or indifference.

In the United States, dozens of Christian pregnancy counseling centers offering women support for giving birth to their babies, have been vandalized and torched. In Canada, Britain and European nations the right of Christians to preach publicly from the Bible and witness for unborn human beings about to be aborted, has been abridged or outlawed altogether.

Many disciples of Jesus are at present suffering grievous persecution in China, India, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Egypt, Mali, Burkina Faso, Mozambique and Nigeria. Palestinian Christians are subjected to imprisonment, torture and mass murder in areas under Israeli control.

Extremist Israelis Burn the New Testament

Artist’s rendition

Copies of the New Testament which had been distributed by missionaries were reportedly burned by adult Israelis and students from the local yeshiva in Tel Aviv, on May 15, 2008.

Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon allegedly used a loudspeaker to demand that residents turn over the hundreds of volumes of Christian scripture that had been distributed. (Cf. Haaretz, May 19, 2008). This is not a rare occurrence in “Israel.”

On July 17, 2012, Israeli Knesset (parliament) member Michael Ben-Ari publicly destroyed a copy of the New Testament and defiantly trashed it. The New Testament had been sent to all Knesset members by Jewish-Christians. Ben-Ari asserted that it “belongs in the garbage can of history.”

Youthful Talmudic extremists among the Israeli settlers, known as “Hilltop Youth,” frequently violently assault and taunt pro-Palestinian human rights activists on the West Bank, near outposts like Havat Ma’on, and in the South Hebron Hills, by chanting, “We killed Jesus and we’ll kill you too.” They are lavishly funded by “evangelical Christians.”

Philippians 2:9-11

APPENDIX

Catholic Bishop Barron’s Criticism of Gopnik is instructive for what he studiously evades

Robert Barron PhD., who was consecrated a bishop nearly ten years ago, is the leading “conservative” prelatical Catholic controversialist in America. He is the author of 19 books. He has 3 million Facebook followers and 529,000 YouTube subscribers. In 2022 Pope Francis appointed him the bishop of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester in Minnesota. Barron is a a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News and the Catholic cable television network EWTN.

I am republishing an excerpt from his column of April 2, 2025 which appeared on the “conservative” website, “First Things,” which also publishes the writings of Rabbi Dr. Meir Soloveichik, propagator of the risible notion that Talmudic theology bolsters western civilization.

At a glance Barron’s column might appear akin to my own study, but look again. One evaluates a statement in part by observing what the author evades. It is in the bishop’s willful omissions and misdirection that we discover the nature of his pseudo-jeremiad—conducted alas, in conformity to pre-set strictures of permissible speech established by the thought police.

It’s Always Open Season on Christianity

By Robert Barron

As surely as the swallows return each spring to Capistrano, so the elite media can be counted on to write pieces debunking Christianity precisely at the holiest time in the Christian calendar. In the March 31 edition of the New Yorker, Adam Gopnik has a lengthy review of Elaine Pagels’s latest book, Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus. Pagels, a scholar of ancient Gnosticism, has been questioning orthodox Christianity for decades. Gopnik’s deeply appreciative piece is a masterclass in condescension toward a religion that boasts 2.4 billion adherents worldwide.

In an objective assessment of a controversial text, one might expect the author at least to consult some dissenting viewpoints. But in the course of a substantial article, Gopnik quotes numerous scholarly figures who support Pagels’s skepticism but not one biblical expert who espouses the Christian faith. If he had asked, I might have recommended N. T. Wright, Ben Witherington III, Brant Pitre, James D. G. Dunn, Richard Bauckham, Gary Anderson, or Matthew Levering—all of whom would sharply contest Pagels’s conclusions. But the game here isn’t honest scholarship; it’s attacking Christianity.

Gopnik, following Pagels, speaks of the “surprisingly unsettled sources that seem to relate the events of Jesus’ life and death.” In point of fact, in the manuscript tradition of the Gospels and the epistles of Paul, we have more historically reliable information than we have about practically any other figure from the ancient world—more than we have concerning Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Hammurabi. But who doubts the fundamental historicity of the accounts surrounding those worthies?

…Gopnik dismisses the central Christian texts with a sadly typical wave of the hand: “Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened.” First, I’m not sure at all what the language has to do with the facticity of what is being described. Would an account of the French Revolution in English, Edmund Burke’s for instance, have nothing true to say about what happened in Paris in 1789?

Besides, since the evangelists wanted the message of Christ to go far and wide, they naturally turned to Greek, the lingua franca of that time and place, the language spoken by both the cultural elite and much of the merchant class. But more importantly, I’m not sure why being written decades after the Crucifixion would necessarily undermine the Gospels’ historical reliability. Would an account of the JFK assassination written in, say, 2003 have nothing truthful to say about what happened on November 22, 1963? Even if the author of that text was not himself there that day in Dallas, he would, presumably, rely upon reams of evidence coming directly or indirectly from eyewitnesses. And this is precisely what we have in the Gospels…If the requirement for historical veracity is that the author of a text must have been himself a witness to the events described, we would rule out 99 percent of the historical accounts that we have.

Another argument employed by both Pagels and Gopnik is one that goes back to James George Frazer and his colleagues in the nineteenth century. This is the contention that the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are simply iterations of the old mythic trope of the dying-and-rising hero that can be found in innumerable religions. The problem is that this attempt at “debunking” was, long ago, itself debunked. Even the most casual survey of the relevant literature shows the difference between mythic stories that are detached from history and are purely archetypal in form and the Gospel accounts that are historically specific and correlated to the experience of identifiable witnesses. One of the telltale demarcations is this: There are no evangelists of the obviously mythic figures of Osiris or Dionysus or Hercules, but the evangelists of Jesus’s Resurrection went careering around the world and to their deaths declaring the truthfulness of their message. As C. S. Lewis put it, “Those who think that Christianity is just one more myth haven’t read many myths.”

Perhaps Gopnik’s most outrageous assault on Christianity is his embrace of Candida Moss’s claim that early Christianity wasn’t “forged in suffering,” that the age of martyrdom is a historical fiction amounting to a “cult of victimhood.” Well, tell that to St. Stephen, to St. Peter and St. Paul (indeed to all of the apostles save St. John), to every pope of the first century, to St. Polycarp, to St. Justin, to St. Cyprian of Carthage, to St. Lawrence, to St. Sebastian, to St. Lucy, to St. Cecelia, to St. Agatha, to Sts. Felicity and Perpetua—a tiny fraction of those killed in brutal persecutions in the first few centuries of the Church’s life. This was no cult of victimhood; these were real victims whose courageous witness had a great deal to do with the spread of Christianity.

A final observation, which I realize is more than a tad provocative: Why, I wonder, are there no similar pieces on Islam written during Ramadan? Why is Upper East Side condescension not directed toward the Qur’an, a book sacred to 1.8 billion people? The questions answer themselves of course. Yet, it’s always open season on Christianity. Even as Pagels and Gopnik trot out tired old arguments… (End quote)

AFTERWORD by HOFFMAN:

I willingly concede that Barron is a talented writer and what points he does make contra Mr. Gopnik’s allegations and those of Gropnik’s cronies, are useful.

However, without courage we are lost. I can’t emphasize that verity enough.

In terms of the defense of Christianity as it was taught from A.D. 33 up until the past 150 years, the field has been deserted, and I regret to say that Barron is one of the deserters, as we see here, where he writes:

“Perhaps Gopnik’s most outrageous assault on Christianity is his embrace of Candida Moss’s claim that early Christianity wasn’t ‘forged in suffering,’ that the age of martyrdom is a historical fiction amounting to a ‘cult of victimhood.”

Really Bishop? This strikes you as more outrageous than the atrocious allegation that the “birth of Jesus was an occasion of shame”? — or the foul and despicable assertion that Jesus was born of an act of adultery committed by His Blessed Mother with a Roman soldier named Panther?

If those contentions were true, it would spell the end of the Gospel as we know it, yet Barron didn’t believe they were worthy of the least notice in his critique.

We know why the bishop did not venture into this unmentionable territory. The hate speech about Jesus and Mary is derived from the Talmud, what Gopnik daintily terms “an early Jewish polemic.” Barron is no Savonarola, or even a Cardinal Francis George. He knows what he must avoid.

If Bishop Barron wants to continue residing in his episcopal mansion in Winona, overseeing his diocese in Minnesota, and being the media’s go-to guy when New York requires a paper prelate to help them appear as though they are providing balanced coverage, he needs to toe the line, and he did just that in his exercise in pusillanimity in First Things.

He concluded his column with a Right-wing audience’s favorite applause line, a dig at Islam, the easiest target in Churchianity. He asked:

“Why, I wonder, are there no similar pieces on Islam written during Ramadan? Why is Upper East Side condescension not directed toward the Qur’an…”

You tell ‘em bishop. Gin up, for the millionth time, American rancor toward the Muslims, the same ones who defend Jesus and Mary.

I have accused Mr. Gopnik of erasure, therefore in fairness it is necessary to arraign Bishop Barron for his expunction of the most edifying “provocation” he might have offered, if he had some gallant audacity with which to color his discourse. Rather than repeat what we’ve all heard ad infinitum from Right wing media and pulpits, Barron could have “wondered why there are no similar pieces on Judaism written during Yom Kippur? Why is Upper East Side condescension not directed toward the Talmud?”

Had he done so we might have had a breakthrough in the imposed silence—the omertà to which the bishop was impelled to submit. The long-delayed, unhindered national conversation about the Babylonian Talmud might have finally been launched, and liberation slowly dawn across our land.

Courage was lacking however, and we are in the same place, until such time as the facts documented here will somehow, by the grace of God, gain sustained publicity and study in America. I am ready to debate, dialogue and teach when given the opportunity. Pray for the success of our Truth Mission. Give a donation if you can, and help share in this work.

O Jesus, my Savior and Redeemer, Son of the living God, behold, I come before you to offer you my reparation; to make amends for all the blasphemies and indignities against you and your Blessed Mother. I ask that you accept this act of reparation and forgive those who defame your holy name and gospel. Amen.

For the Advancement of Knowledge Contra Cancel Culture

Copyright ©2025 by Independent History and Research • Box 849 • Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816 USA | www.RevisionistHistory.org

I am grateful to the paid subscribers who make these columns possible. Please give serious consideration to joining them.

Revisionist historian Michael Hoffman explores the ascendance of the Neoplatonic-Hermetic-Kabbalistic mind virus in his book The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. He explicates the alchemical processing of humanity in Twilight Language. He is the author of eight other volumes of history and literature including Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, as well as Usury in Christendom, Judaism Discovered, and Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People. Michael has written extensive introductions to Alexander McCaul’sThe Talmud Tested, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger’s Traditions of the Jews, and The 1582 Rheims New Testament. Purchase our 2025 Revisionist History® Calendar here.

Mr. Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and a former paid consultant to the news department of the New York Times. Michael’s books have been published in translation in Japanese and French. Listen to his broadcasts on the Revisionist History® podcast, and find him on X (Twitter).

Revisionist History® is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the trademark of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816. All Rights Reserved.

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Judaism Discovered. Michael Hoffman’s massive, encyclopedic textbook. Illustrated. Softcover. 1,102 pages. 1,194 notes. 164 illustrations. Softcover.

Strange Gods. This is a condensation of the 1,102 pages of the textbook Judaism Discovered, and with new information added. 381 pages. Easy to read and understand—it has enlightened thousands of people previously blinded by propaganda. “A blockbuster, must-read book!”—Rev. Dr. Chuck Baldwin. Softcover. Illustrated. Notes and glossary.

The Neo-Nazi Attack on the Bible

Jesus in the Talmud According to Grok A.I.

Douglas Wilson’s “Cheers for the Talmud”