Reason: None provided.
- Chamorro and Ussuf: Two letters in these names have circulated since the 16th century in various redactions. They are most certainly forgeries; the version placing the action in Arles is clearly a later forgery of the version placing it in Toledo. Their several textual incongruities demonstrate a poor fit to "Ussuf" being a real Jewish "prince" of Constantinople. In the 19th century it was demonstrated that their first appearance was their alleged discovery in the Toledo archives, an incongruous repository for such damning documents, by Archbishop Silecio. However, their being exactly what he needed to convince Pope Paul III to place strictures against Jews entering church offices in Toledo against the latter's tendencies, the best inference is that Silecio forged them himself, putting such poetic justifications for subversion in the Jewish mouth that the correspondence was remembered and even parodied. There is simply no serious historical argument that these two letter-writers existed; the fact that Chamorro was the former name of a prominent accepted converso family, the Clementes, does not indicate that they were using their deadname secretly but that it was appropriated by the archbishop.
-
Hebraeorum gens: False and true text.
-
Emanuel Rabinovich: Invented by Eustace Mullins 1952 for Women's Voice and Common Sense. Supposedly described WW3 and Jewish world domination in Budapest. No evidence of any reality. FBI, 1968: "Inconceivable that any rational person would consider seriously Mullins' demented allegations and outrageous distortions". H. Keith Thompson, who worked with Mullins, confirmed its complete fabrication to researchers John George and Ernie Lazar.
-
Israel Cohen: Invented by Eustace Mullins 1954 for Common Sense. There was no communist writer Israel Cohen in 1912, there was no Racial Program for the Twentieth Century in 1912, there was not even a "Communist Party" in 1912. Washington Star, which had republished the quote, retracted it 1958-02-18 and blamed Mullins, according to John George, They Never Said It, pp. 14-15. (There did exist a writer Israel Cohen active in the 1910s, who roundly denied the title and quote when he found out his name was being misused in the 1950s.)
3 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.
- Chamorro and Ussuf: Two letters in these names have circulated since the 16th century in various redactions. They are most certainly forgeries; the version placing the action in Arles is clearly a later forgery of the version placing it in Toledo. Their several textual incongruities demonstrate a poor fit to "Ussuf" being a real Jewish "prince" of Constantinople. In the 19th century it was demonstrated that their first appearance was their alleged discovery in the Toledo archives, an incongruous repository for such damning documents, by Archbishop Silecio. However, their being exactly what he needed to convince Pope Paul III to place strictures against Jews entering church offices in Toledo against the latter's tendencies, the best inference is that Silecio forged them himself, putting such poetic justifications for subversion in the Jewish mouth that the correspondence was remembered and even parodied. There is simply no serious historical argument that these two letter-writers existed; the fact that Chamorro was the former name of a prominent accepted converso family, the Clementes, does not indicate that they were using their deadname secretly but that it was appropriated by the archbishop.
- Emanuel Rabinovich: Invented by Eustace Mullins 1952 for Women's Voice and Common Sense. Supposedly described WW3 and Jewish world domination in Budapest. No evidence of any reality. FBI, 1968: "Inconceivable that any rational person would consider seriously Mullins' demented allegations and outrageous distortions". H. Keith Thompson, who worked with Mullins, confirmed its complete fabrication to researchers John George and Ernie Lazar.
3 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.
- Chamorro and Ussuf: Two letters in these names have circulated since the 16th century in various redactions. They are most certainly forgeries; the version placing the action in Arles is clearly a later forgery of the version placing it in Toledo. Their several textual incongruities demonstrate a poor fit to "Ussuf" being a real Jewish "prince" of Constantinople. In the 19th century it was demonstrated that their first appearance was their alleged discovery in the Toledo archives, an incongruous repository for such damning documents, by Archbishop Silecio. However, their being exactly what he needed to convince Pope Paul III to place strictures against Jews entering church offices in Toledo against the latter's tendencies, the best inference is that Silecio forged them himself, putting such poetic justifications for subversion in the Jewish mouth that the correspondence was remembered and even parodied. There is simply no serious historical argument that these two letter-writers existed; the fact that Chamorro was the former name of a prominent accepted converso family, the Clementes, does not indicate that they were using their deadname secretly but that it was appropriated by the archbishop.
272 days ago
0 score
Reason: Original
- Chamorro and Ussuf: Two letters in these names have circulated since the 16th century in various redactions. They are most certainly forgeries; the version placing the action in Arles is clearly a later forgery of the version placing it in Toledo. Their several textual incongruities demonstrate a poor fit to "Ussuf" being a real Jewish "prince" of Constantinople. In the 19th century it was demonstrated that their first appearance was their alleged discovery in the Toledo archives, an incongruous repository for such damning documents, by Archbishop Silecio. However, their being exactly what he needed to convince Pope Paul III to place strictures against Jews entering church offices in Toledo against the latter's tendencies, the best inference is that Silecio forged them himself, putting such poetic justifications for subversion in the Jewish mouth that the correspondence was remembered and even parodied. There is simply no serious historical argument that these two letter-writers existed; the fact that Chamorro was the former name of a prominent accepted converso family, the Clementes, does not indicate that they were using their deadname secretly but that it was appropriated by the archbishop.
318 days ago
1 score