Abortion, Race and Talmud

An interesting exchange took place in the otherwise suffocatingly scripted marionette show of the U.S. political scene. This one featured the genuine and sympathetic Star Parker facing a rhetorical fusillade by Representative Steve Cohen of Memphis, TN.  (Video from Parker’s Youtube channel viewed courtesy of Liveaction.org via Vox Cantoris on Twitter.)

As if the video didn’t make the case perfectly clear, it didn’t end there. Parker adds in her WND column, linked below, “Cohen attacked me in the hearing, calling me “ignorant,” and suggested that my telling the truth somehow showed disrespect to him. After the hearing, he approached me, put his finger in my face, and told me to come to his office and personally apologize to him.”

Cohen’s Memphis, Tennessee, USA boasts this Bass Pro Shops mega store. Talmudic teaching holds ancient Egypt as the powerhouse of occult magic. [Hoffman 779-780.]
While this story is all too real, in theatrical productions with sufficient patronage, the job of the dramaturg is to both gain an understanding of the play’s essence as conceived in the mind of the playwright, and convey the same to the director, who can then bring this kernel of the writer’s inspiration faithfully to life on stage. To gain this understanding however, both the dramatic text and subtext must be understood at a deep level. While the lines that are spoken aloud comprise the text, the subtext includes all the unspoken inner realities of the character: his history, hopes and expectations, or her demand to be heard, or known, or loved, etc. The exchange between Cohen and Parker is most striking and instructive when viewed at its subtextual level, so without transcribing the entire three minutes, let’s summarize first the text, followed by the necessarily subjective subtext.


It is disingenuous that assistance through Medicaid is linked to abortion. Planned Parenthood targets Blacks. Abortion is the number one cause of death for Blacks, with its twenty million unborn dead. This is a narrative that sets women as victims not in control of their own sexual impulses. We see reckless behavior and the collapse of marriage between black men and women. These problems are the subjects of different legislation. The concern of the Heartbeat Bill is to protect the innocent.

And now Cohen


Chair, we’ve got more important people that we should be hearing from right now. I’d also like to say that I am not disingenuous about anything I say about Medicaid or Medicare or LIHEAP or SNAP programs. To suggest I am disingenuous shows your ignorance, or your absolute inability to deal {repeated overhand jabbing of index finger downward on table} with Congress people the way they should be dealt with. I believe in those issues and to say I am disingenuous I think is just wrong and I expect an apology.

Analysis of subtext is by nature subjective, and it is important to distinguish that in so doing I convey my reading of the subtext, and that out of respect, do not presume to know, for example, Star Parker’s inner experiences.


It is dishonest for Planned Parenthood, with its record of twenty-million unborn dead, to insinuate that black women are safest if they kill their own children rather than birth them. Margaret Sanger lied. We don’t need your abortion mills in our neighborhoods. Women are not victims. Women have the ability to control their own impulses, yet you impose this narrative on us with brute force, and what do we see? Recklessness. Black men and women marry at less than half the rate they used to. This leads to further disintegration of families and more laws, aside from the Heartbeat Bill. We are left to defend that which remains, the heartbeats of our unborn children.

Parker’s eloquence both governs well, and is enlivened by the force of her emotions. Cohen, by contrast, manifests the inverse. His tone, body language and words paint quite clearly the very portrait of pride and passions overruling intellect.  Here again looking at subtext, no attempt is made to get inside Cohen’s mind (to do so could be a traumatizing look through a kaleidoscope of moral horrors). His outward signs tell the tale. This Cohen has all the subtlety and noblesse oblige of the pharisee’s sentencing to death Almighty God; thus the subtext of his words can be read entirely by external factors, obviating any suppositions about the life within.


Chair, I don’t want to hear this. I want to hear from my side. Also, I am not disingenuous about anything. How DARE you address me in that tone? You are ignorant and you are too stupid to be present before me and address me properly. I take offense at your statements and I take offense at you. You should know your place and act accordingly. You are out of line and you will apologize.

This is a skirmish in which reason itself confronts the rejection of logos, or the order through which the universe was made. The latter of these two opposing sides is described as such by E. Michael Jones in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit[1].  Justice and decency accuse criminal instigators of their murder and mayhem. Shame itself seems banished from the scene, leaving the blood-soaked ground alone to cry for Heavenly vengeance, without doubt drawing ever nearer.

Hence we have before us two topics which would stun our ancestors of saner nations and times as to how on earth such horrors would even emerge (much less divide the populace) namely, race hatred and the willful murder of the unborn. Church teaching forbids both. Now what about that other religious doctrine that rules with iron fist the perfected (that which others might describe as fallen) American republic in matters of executive control, legislation, jurisprudence, buying and selling, medicine, education, media and (alleged) culture, the use of military force, conduct of local police; a.k.a. the Talmud? Have the Mishnah and Gemara anything to say? In his scholarly diligence, Michael Hoffman finds facts and delivers answers to these and other questions in his writing Judaism Discovered, overviewed and linked to previous post here.

Abortion in the Talmud

Neither the crypto-Judaic conciliar religionists nor those somnambulant watchmen of the Catholic citadel, the trad-servative tribunes, want to discuss the Talmud. Therefore with confidence we can anticipate that the topic is worth investigating, especially with regard to abortion.

Hoffman details the importance of the Talmudic principle known as rodef [2], which operates in the following manner. Rodef means pursuer, that is, one who pursues the life of the Judaic. Killing the one who pursues the life of the Judaic is an act of lawful self defense. Thus far the principle is consonant with natural law. However, according to halachic [3] (legal) interpretation of the Talmud, the threat of imminent physical harm is not the sole determining factor in declaring a person to be rodef. The Talmud teaches that the pursuer can be killed preemptively. In fact, a gentile living his life peacefully in his own home can be judged rodef, and killed, if said gentile’s home occupies territory coveted by a Judaic.[4]  If such an idea is inadequate in its demonstration of sheer absurdity, try this: the unborn child can be judged rodef in relation to its mother. Hoffman quotes and explains

Rashi, the venerated twelfth century Judaic interpreter of the Bible and Talmud, says of the fetus: “lav nefesh hu – it is not a person”. Rabbi Meir Abulafia decreed, “So long as the fetus is inside the womb, it is not a nefesh, and the Torah has no pity on it.” The noted Judaic legal scholar Rabbi Isaac Schorr stated: “The sense of the Talmud is that a fetus is not a person”[5]

Hoffman goes on to describe that the fetus is considered as its mother’s thigh, a part of her body (i.e., my body, my choice). ‘“For rabbis who feel it would be okay to terminate a pregnancy, it’s seeing the fetus as a pursuer…”’[6] Certainly herein we can hear strains of the raving leftist’s madness that the unborn child is the parasite threatening the material gain and carnal gratification of the woman. It would seem that the abortion faction didn’t write the script on abortion as physical self defense, they borrowed from the Talmud.

This Talmudic teaching is by no means without practical effect on the public mind, as Hoffman cites Mathew E. Berger and the Jewish Telegraph Agency that ‘“Jews support abortion rights and Roe vs. Wade more than any other religious or ethnic community.”’[7]  Further down in the same citation, Hoffman quotes Roni Berkowitz, President (as of 2004) of the Jewish Chesapeake Reconstruction Federation, who clinches it with the following. ‘“It’s not just a matter of choice. The Talmud teaches us there are times that it is incumbent on women to have an abortion.”’[8]

Thus it can be seen that Mr. Cohen adheres ultimately not to political ideology, because politics and ideology are merely accidents of religion. In his apoplexy, Cohen is reacting to the worst sort of attack on Talmudic law, the kind that exposes its criminal hypocrisy.

Finally, whereas the conciliar ideologue or clueless conservative might argue that liberals support abortion; and not their beloved, Judaic fellow conservatives, and elder-brethren-in­-the-faith-of John-Paul-the-Great, we ask the following in rebuttal. Which is more foundational to Judaism, left-right politics or the Talmud?[9] If the left-right paradigm is contradicted by the Talmud, which of the two systems is for real? It can’t be both. Neither space nor topic allows for a discussion of the Talmud’s hermeneutic of concealment and dissimulation; however, Hoffman explains both concepts at length in Judaism Discovered, claims as yet unrefuted in their tenth year in print.

Anti-Black Racism in the Talmud

Cohen’s outrageously indignant diatribe against Parker evinces an additional and no less odiously salient aspect of the Talmudic mindset: race-hatred crassly founded upon skin color. Here goes.

The most virulent source of anti-Black racism in the West, often mistakenly attributed to the Bible, centers on Ham and Noah’s cursing of Canaan. Let us make clear a fact which others have concealed: the Biblical curse of enslavement in Genesis ch. 9 has no specific racial identification and contains no anti-Black bigotry.

Judaic scholar Harold Brackman in his 1977 Ph. D. dissertation indicated that the source of racial taint attached to Ham and his son Canaan and their descendants, is the Talmud, not the Bible…[10]

Hoffman, quoted above and referring again to scholar Brackman below, goes on to describe the interregnum in the ancient prominence of the Cush era and the later great Negro states of the Sudan, and that coinciding with this interregnum was the advent of the Christian era.[11] Of course the revolutionary reaction to Christ’s conquest was the ever-metastasizing religion of the Pharisees. Observing from without this lack of prominence once enjoyed during the earlier Cush era may have given the rabbis creative inducement to confect anti-Black legends and graft them onto the oral Torah, thus connecting skin color to Noah’s curse upon Ham.[12]  Hoffman further quotes Brackman citing the Talmud

‘“Ham is told by his outraged father that, because you have abused me in the darkness of the night, your children shall be born black and ugly; because you have twisted your head to cause me embarrassment, they shall have kinky hair and red eyes; because your lips jested at my expense, theirs shall swell.”’[13]

Here again the source material speaks best for itself when applied to this week’s thirty seconds of hate leveled at Star Parker. Hoffman describes a big problem for rabbinic and Zionist powers today as the struggle

to recover the lost glory of their once untarnished reputation as the planet’s primary champions of “Black Civil Rights,” something that has been difficult to maintain, given the unabashed racism and tribalism of the Israeli apartheid regime and its mass murder, extrusion and discrimination against Palestinians of color.[14]

Given the behavior manifest by Cohen toward Parker this week, it would seem that the recovery of this glory was pushed even further away. Because I’m at my limit of documenting the ugliness on display, an ugliness which must be exposed in order to be corrected, I won’t go into detail on the meaning of the Talmudic words shiksa and zonah, both of which I think come into play as religious foundations for the diatribe against Parker.  As for the larger problem facing us, confronting and putting in check those who rule but cannot be mentioned, Congressman Cohen is not its cause, but ultimately its victim. If we refuse to acknowledge the depth of depravity made manifest here, then we consign ourselves its permanent and obtuse slaves. However, the evil that we do know, discuss and document can be exposed. This exposure is our greatest weapon in not only assisting courageous persons like Star Parker, but most importantly in calling the purblind Judaic Talmudist to rend at last the veil over his heart and enter the Catholic Church, as She obeys Her command to worship Christ the Eternal King, and make disciples of all nations.

Dedicated to Star Parker, who battles against the annihilation of the Black race, and the general extermination of the race of men. Stabat Mater stands with you.

[1] Jones, Michael E.; The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History; Fidelity Press; South Bend, Indiana; 2008, 2015.

[2] Hoffman, Michael; Judaism Discovered; Independent History and Research; Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; 2008; p. 878.

[3] Ibid., 167.

[4] Ibid., 473-475.

[5] Ibid., 878.

[6] Ibid. Here Hoffman cites Sandy Falk, MD and Rabbi Daniel Judson in Boston Globe article of 17 Jan 04.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 855.

[10] Ibid., 505.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., 506.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s