By Michael A. Hoffman II
©1997-2006 All Rights Reserved
Why you deny The
Holocaust?
I don't deny the Allied
holocaust against the German people, in which 600,000 civilians lost their
lives in deliberate, premeditated, terror bombings of German cities. Several
more million Germans were slaughtered by Soviet troops, starved to death in
Neither do I deny the
Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians, the Judaic
Bolshevik holocaust against Russia and Eastern Europe or Mao's holocaust
against the people of
I certainly do not deny
holocausts. I think it's more likely that you are the "holocaust
denier."
The events you mentioned
simply were not holocausts. It is racist to detract from The Holocaust the
Germans perpetrated against Jewish people, by claiming there were other
holocausts.
Well, then I guess history
is racist because, like it or not, the facts of the documentary record clearly
show that there have been many other holocausts.
How can you compare the
unparalleled sufferings of God's Chosen People who, throughout time have been
hunted, persecuted, massacred and finally, exterminated--how can you compare
that colossal and appalling slaughter with the mere fights and wars that other
people have experienced?
The squeaking wheel gets
the most oil. The Judaic establishment has the highest profile in the mass
media and therefore to the ignorant, all this Judaic public relations noise
translates into some sort of definitive judgment of history.
What you're really peddling
is racism--the racism that Judaic suffering, alone among all of the
blood of the innocent spilled on this planet, has some special claim on our
sensibilities.
I'm sorry, I don't believe
it. My understanding of the documentary record doesn't support it. Auschwitz
was a much safer place to be than
Lenin
killed ten million Christians, not six million.
Mao killed upward of fifty
million, not six million.
The
Israelis have wasted tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese and
expropriated 97% of the Palestinians' land. In context, what happened to
the Judaic people under Hitler was very much in keeping with the disgusting record
of this most horrible of all centuries--a minority was targeted for persecution
and oppression--with the connivance of the Zionist leadership in
Unfortunately, as Albert
Camus warned, the victims of the Nazis soon became the executioners of the
Palestinians. In fact, it can be said that Hitler is the real founder of the
Israeli state, which was what the Zionists intended.
Why do you deny that as
a revisionist, you are surely a white separatist, a supporter of Hitler and a
neo-Nazi?
Now you are revealing your
bigotry and stereotypes. Everyone who doubts the holohoax religion must be made
to fit into a Freudian psychoanalytical model. The dialogue is supplied for us,
it is put into our mouths, so that we are made to speak of a "cabal"
and of course we goose-step and we are neo-Nazis and so forth. The costume of a
stock villain is trotted out. In this way, you true believers won't have to
entertain our doubts. This is your line of defense-- your ridiculous stereotypes
of revisionists. You project onto us the worst absurdities and then convince
yourself that you know us and that you need not consider our facts and
research. The ADL and the
So what are you saying
revisionism is?
Revisionism is an
adventure, a reality check, the original project of every thinking man: to wake
up every morning and re-vision everything he holds dear in the secular realm.
You're just mouthing
reasonable-sounding rhetoric and cliches to make your hatred palatable.
My hatreds don't need any
window dressing. I hate compromise and cowardice, idolatry, and conformity and
demands from authorities for obedience. I hate those who can't or won't think
for themselves.
The Zionists react
hysterically to any re-vision of their sacred dogma. Revisionists come along
and say, "Hey let's take a look at this huge edifice of belief called, in
the recent Newspeak, 'the Holocaust" and Judaic religious fanatics react
and say, "How dare you?"
Then begins their process
of name-calling and demonization intrinsic to every dogma and cult. Those who
doubt the existence of homicidal gas chambers in
In the West there have
always been individual thinkers, however. Our culture has a long heritage of
that, of doubters, nay-sayers, obstreperous skeptics and curmudgeons who just
will not be commissared or silenced.
We still pay lip service to
that tradition nowadays, but in reality, as soon as someone stands up and
doubts one of the contemporary sacred dogmas of our informal state relgion,
these doubters lose all prestige and reputation and most likely their
employment and maybe even their physical security.
What do you mean by a
state religion?
I mean that the traditional
religion of Western Civilization, Christianity, has been supplanted by a new
state religion, which is Judaism, presented in the palatable guise of
"Holocaust" Newspeak.
Can you seriously and
honestly claim that your revisionist research is not motivated by Jew hate?
You have swallowed, hook,
line and sinker, the hysteria of Judaic religious fanatics whose insecurity and
fear of opposition are so great, they can't conceive of intellectual curiosity
as a motivating factor for those who scrutinize their dogmas.
To the supremacist, Zionist
mentality, those who question and doubt their sacred dogma must, ipso facto,
be "haters." Being
perfect, being God's Chosen, and in every way the superior people on the
planet, the saints and martyrs of the cosmos, they can't conceive of opposition
that is not satanic.
Hence they propound this
very primitive notion, that the man who dares to contradict them has got to be
banned.
This is the hidden irony
buried at the core of the primitive nationalism informing the Deborah Lipstadt style of "denier"
nomenclature. For all of their melodrama about victimization and martyrdom, it
is these supposed "victims" and "martyrs" who currently are
the most avid stokers of the fires of persecution for whoever would dare to ask
skeptical questions of them.
Under a boatload of corrupt
rhetoric about "human rights," revisionist writers in
You are trying to
diminish The Holocaust by making invidious distinctions which trivialize its
uniqueness and reduce it to just another persecution or atrocity, thereby
whitewashing it and preparing the groundwork for the rise of neo-Nazism again.
This is the theology in
which you have been trained. It's your catechism answer. It doesn't represent
your own reaction as a human being to my thoughts, but rather the pre-digested
tractarianism of the Lipstadts and the other thought cops who police this
discourse.
They don't want you and I
to ever have a real conversation. That would humanize the 'revisionist devil,'
and that must never be done!
Again you will note the
hidden irony here, of a Judaic ideology that presents itself as an antidote to
dehumanization, which is at the same time dehumanizing one special class --the
revisionist sub-human skeptics-- or, in Lipstadt's canon, the
"deniers."
Making these "invidious
distinctions," as you term them, are what distinguish us from robots and
bond-servants. It is precisely our ability to make distinctions, to sift and
weigh and compare that qualify us as thinkers, as men and women who wrestle
with notions promulgated by official sources and then discover for ourselves
what is true and what we reject. That after all is the vocation of man, to
think, to question authority, to strive for originality. It's an eminently
normal and healthy response, which leads to growth both spiritual and
intellectual.
But as soon as a person
takes these normal and healthy attitudes and begins to apply them to the
received opinion about World War Two, he or she encounters an incredible
hysteria, a legion of traumatized true believers who will psychoanalyze and
denounce the skeptic, as "sick, hateful, neo-Nazi" and so forth.
There is an inability on
the part of the True Believer in the Gas Chamber Creed to conceive of the fact
that a person isn't necessarily a "Jew-hater" or seeking the
"revival of Nazism" just because one wants to do some individual
thinking and exploration, independent of their prescribed formula.
One of the first things
that someone who is free of the hysteria encounters in this realm, is the fact
that history teaches that suffering and genocide are most assuredly not unique
to one people or nation. Surely
Why do you keep focusing
on Israeli actions as bearing some special notoriety?
Because there you have as
dogmatic and formal a philosophy of racism and hate as was ever expressed and
formulated in Hitler's
That's an anti-semitic
libel!
Here we go with the
response from the catechism again. I can't help it if you haven't read the
books and pamphlets issued by Zionist professors at the
This racism is very
deep-rooted in the Lubavitch orthodox Judaics, whose founder referred to all
goyim (non-Jews) as "superfluous garbage." This was his answer when
his students in his kollel (Talmud school) asked why Gentiles were so numerous.
His response was that there were a lot of Gentiles because they proliferated
like garbage, because in fact they were garbage.
Just because you are
hostage to a thought-control system that largely ignores the
contemporary ravings of homicidal Israeli racism, does not make it less true or
potent.
Reality has a rather odd
propensity for chugging along on its redoubtable old track, whether or not true
believers like yourself take note of it.
Recall that something is
only a libel when it is untrue. If it's true, then we have the right to state
it aloud. It may not be politic or prudent to do so, but we can shout the truth
whenever we find the courage to do so, ever honing and refining that truth to
an even higher level of magnitude by the constant process of revisionism--to
which all historical perception should always be subject.
I don't see revisionists
doing this re-vision that you claim. Revisionists are more committed to their
fixed dogmas than those you accuse of having dogmas to protect.
Well, revisionists are a
motley crew. We have elderly survivors of the Allied holocaust against
But there are many
revisionists who have demonstrated a propensity for changing their views based
on the excavation of new data. The most prominent of these is David Irving,
who, upon discovering statements in Goebbels' diaries referring to mass
liquidations of the Judaicsa, has emphasized that massacres did occur to Judaic
people but these were not "gassings." Killings of Jewish civilians was more an
ad hoc process from the middle level commanders rather than some orchestrated
"plot" from the executive level.
How dare you nitpick
this mass murder! However it happened, it was an abominable crime.
Yes, of course, mass murder
is always just as you, say, an abominable crime and by that criterion, as
Robert Faurisson has stated, war itself is a crime. However, I find it interesting that
whenever we get down to the nitty-gritty of finding discrepancies in the Allied
and Zionist account of World War Two, these are dismissed as
"nit-picking."
Since the establishment has
put the entire German nation on trial for genocide, then in fairness, we are
duty-bound, as in any murder trial, to weigh the evidence both pro and contra
and scrutinize it with a high degree of rigorous analysis, to determine what is
true and what is a lie and what emanates from that middle ground of human
foibles known as exaggeration.
But you cannot deny that
there was a holocaust of Jews.
I would hesitate to apply
that Newspeak word in the official sense it which it has been decreed, to the
Judaic situation in World War Two.
If we're going to maintain
fidelity for the integrity of our language, then the word holocaust cannot
apply in its denotative sense, to the situation of the Judaics.
Holocaust means death by
fire. Few Jews were killed by fire. But more than a half-million German
women, children and elderly died by that horrible means from Allied air force
fire bombings.
I would agree however, that
some Judaics in
Anyway you look at it or
attempt to explain it away, it still adds up to a Holocaust.
Well, this issue of
nomenclature ought to be considered from the point of view of the science of
Zionist propaganda, or as the Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky called it in
Hebrew, hasbara.
For example the word
"holocaust" was formerly applied by most objective observers, before
circa 1978, to the German civilian experience during World War Two, at the
hands of the tender mercies of Bomber Harris and the American Air Force.
But slowly, in a process of
gradualism which we have observed before in other behavior modification models,
Elie Wiesel and other hoaxers, used their prestige and aura of religious
authority and sanctity, to slowly introduce, around 1978, the term
"holocaust" as the exclusive, proprietary word for only the Jewish experience
in World War Two.
But history shows that, at
the very least, World War Two as a whole, with its mass fire bombings of
every German city of any size and the atomic incineration of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the siege of Stalingrad and Berlin, the mass shootings perpetrated by
Tito's partisans, and by the French resistance, the Soviet Red Army and NKVD,
and the Nazi Einsatzgruppen--in light of the full force of all that
horror, it would seem a monumental absurdity to deny that World War Two
itself was a holocaust for everyone involved and especially for the
defeated peoples of the Axis nations.
No matter how much you
cite other alleged war crimes against other people, these cannot undo the
reality of the Holocaust against the Jews!
And therein in lies the
particular propaganda utility of this Newspeak word coined circa 1978 with
regard to the difficulties Judaics experienced in the 1930s and 40s. The word
"Holocaust" has come to mean anything you want it to mean. It has
that Red Queen/Wonderland tenor: "A word is anything I say it
is."
Some of the second rank
revisionists have incorporated this Orwellian shorthand that Wiesel concocted
and they incorporate it in their own statements, so that they say, "The
holocaust never happened."
By that they mean there
never were any mass killings in homicidal gas chambers and there was no
executive document ordering an extermination.
But when the public hears
or sees such a comment ("There was no holocaust"), they think the
person making that statement, is denying the whole panoply of World War Two:
the piles of dead bodies, the photo of the little Judaic boy with his hands in
the air, the deportations, the concentration camps and so forth.
The two groups are talking
at each other, at cross purposes, thanks to the imposition of this circa 1978
neologism and this confusion is deliberately generated.
As long as you are talking
about "The Holocaust," then, like the Red Queen, you can make that
word mean anything you want it to mean. It's a brilliant maneuver, and most
revisionists and almost all of the public have fallen for it.
If by "Holocaust"
you mean that hundreds of thousands of Jews suffered and died at the hands of
Nazi Germany and its agents, due to starvation, disease and gunfire, and that
many other Judaics were deported from Germany under conditions of cruelty and
hardship, then by that specific and limited definition the
"holocaust" word can be assigned to those specifics as an Orwellian
exercize in pop Newspeak.
However, if by
"Holocaust" you allege that millions of Judaics were put to death in
homicidal gas chambers in
The Holocaust is not a
"thesis." All right-thinking people are obliged to believe what is in
fact an undeniable truth. Any doubts about of it constitute a hidden agenda of
pernicious racism or a case of full fledged insanity.
Once again you usher our
conversation into the realm of psychoanalysis and pontificating about what is,
effectively, an essential right of human beings--to doubt what they cannot in
good conscience believe.
That his been the great
contest throughout history, between those who regard their political and
religious dogmas as self-evident truth which necessarily command assent from
all "right-thinking people," and those who have examined this
supposed "truth" and found that, in all honesty, they just can't
believe it.
In former times such doubts
were regarded as error and the ecclesiastical theorem was that, "Error has
no rights."
Therefore the doubter could
be ostracized, banned, beaten or killed, by stigmatizing him with any one of a
number of heinous epithets: heretic, witch or demon.
Today the same process
holds forth against the hapless doubter, who cannot find it in his conscience
to give assent to the homicidal gas chamber dogma.
He can be ostracized,
banned, beaten or killed and liberal and conservative editorial and moral
opinion, from church pulpits to newspaper pundits, will applaud or condone it
as long as the victim is labeled a neo-Nazi, a racist or an anti-semite.
The Church doctrine is
invoked today: the revisionist "error" has no rights.
We are compelled to
believe. But why is it incumbent on any citizen to believe undocumented claims
about a fifty year old event?
To doubt such claims is the
most ordinary function of the thinking person's intellect. There is no need to
be a Nazi or a racist or a "Jew-hater" to doubt.
The Holocaust is the
most documented event in all world history. To deny it would be like saying
that the Civil War didn't happen.
Not quite. No revisionist says
that the concentration camps "didn't happen" or that persecution of
the Jews "didn't happen."
What revisionists raise is
the question of what specifically did transpire in those camps.
So the accurate analogy
would be to doubts concerning the official teaching about the Confederate
prisoner camp in
If you want to say that
questioning what went on in Auschwitz would be like questioning what went on in
No Confederate historian
today claims that the Andersonville prison camp didn't exist, but many do
challenge the claims for what supposedly happened there and more importantly,
the motivation for what transpired. By the same token, no revisionist denies
that
To answer the first part of
your statement, it may be that "The Holocaust" is the most documented
event, if by that you mean the persecution and deportation of Jews.
But since you refuse to
stop using ambiguous Newspeak to mystify and will not be specific, what you are
evading by this means is the fact that the engine that powered this so-called
"holocaust--the homicidal gas chambers--are not documented at all.
Certainly, you can show me
a mountain of film footage of trains chugging down tracks, Nazi soldiers
goose-stepping, Hitler hollering, Jews with yellow stars sewn on their
clothing, piles of dead bodies and you can mix those ingredients together and
call the resulting hodgepodge, "The Holocaust." But you can't furnish
a single autopsy report to show that even one Jew died from poison gas and that's
why you hide behind "Holocaust" Newspeak and evade citation of
specific accusations.
Alright then, I can say
without fear of contradiction that the gas chambers are the most documented
event in history.
Which ones?
What do you mean which
ones? Are you saying there were two types of gas chambers?
Yes of course. The ones
that actually existed and the fantasy ones.
This is very interesting
in that you now do concede the existence of gas chambers that you've been
denying all along. So I have you.
The only thing you have is
a possibly congenital dose of credulity.
I have never said in the
course of our debate that gas chambers didn't exist. I always qualify the gas
chamber term by preceding it with the word, "homicidal."
This is not a debate.
There is no possibility of debating The Holocaust.
The catechism has spoken.
What, pray tell, are we doing then?
I am enduring your
racist invective long enough to expose it for what it is.
In other words, when I
distinguish between real and imaginary gas chambers, it is racist of me to do
so? Can you explain that?
I don't need to explain
anything to the likes of you. There were no imaginary gas chambers. The gas
chambers existed, it's a documented fact and your distinctions are just a
smokescreen.
Well you certainly are
confident. Perhaps I should feel the need to trust official pronouncements of
historical "authorities," like you do, but I can't. The voice of
doubt forever raises its impolitic head and off I sally, daring to doubt yet another
fixture of your catechism.
The great irony of World
War Two is that the German prophylactic for preserving the lives of the Judaic
people in Auschwitz, the facilities for treating their clothing and bedding
with the pesticide Zyklon B in order to help limit the typhus epidemic then
raging, which is transmitted by a parasitic louse attached to clothes and
bedding, has been turned against the Germans and used as the basis for false
claims of homicidal gassings in Auschwitz.
You know very well that
it was the Jews themselves who were viewed as the "pests" and the
Zyklon B was for them.
I don't understand how you
can "know" that without any evidence for it. Perhaps you have a
crystal ball?
I know it from the
testimony of the Survivors of The Holocaust.
The vast majority of the
people who survived
So you are saying they
are all liars?
Of course not. I do say,
with the Jewish sociologist Samuel Gringauz, that the East European Khazar has
a remarkable propensity for story-telling and embellishment, but to their
credit--and this is obviously something you don't know because you haven't
studied it independently--the vast majority of the Judaic people who lived
through the war do not claim to have seen homicidal gas chambers in operation.
Rather, if you examine
their testimony, they will say they heard rumors, they saw smoke, they guessed
that this is what happened. Only a minority claim to have been in the
supposed homicidal gas chambers, pulling bodies out and so forth.
So you're saying the
Again you're failing to
distinguish between real and imaginary gassing facilities. Must we convict the
Germans of extermination by gas because they sought to exterminate the typhus
bug? Facilities for gassing clothes and bedding existed.
Homicidal gas chambers on
the other hand were indeed nothing but a rumor and the rumor was started as a
cruel jibe of the Judaic concentration camp police--the kapos--who would
torment their fellow Jews with stories of people being gassed. Under the
circumstances of crowding, dislocation, fear, and death from typhus, such rumors
are understandable, but we now know they are without substance.
Now you're the one
expounding the omniscient knowledge.
Not at all. We
"know" not based on some mystical confidence, but upon forensic
examination. The Swedish investigator Ditlieb Felderer was the first researcher
to thoroughly explore and document the
It's interesting to note
that for years these fake gas chambers were upheld by all the top Jewish and
Allied historians. But now that revisionists have risked their reputations,
livelihood and even their lives to prove that these alleged homicidal gas
chambers were fakes, the establishment media is beginning to drop hints of a
change in their official World War Two liturgy. Here and there I have seen
fleeting references in the media to the homicidal gas chambers in
This is how they operate
their damage control, rather like the Soviet encyclopedia that had the habit of
making formerly featured claims and personages disappear from subsequent
editions.
I predict that at some
point in the future the establishment will hint--rather than proclaim--more as
an aside than anything else--that mainstream academics never said that the
homicidal gas chamber exhibits in
But just a few years ago,
even the idea of forensic examination of
In fact many establishment
historians used to regard forensic examination of
In 1978 he finally got
around to going to
Ditlieb Felderer spent
months in Auschwitz in the course of 27 forensic explorations, taking thousands
of photographs and measurements, for which he was denounced and eventually
imprisoned in
So who is advancing human
knowledge and discovery and who is following in the wake of this great
intellectual adventure, issuing anathemas and scrambling to impose damage
control?
In my book, The Great
Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for Freedom of Speech,
I have reproduced a photograph of Pope John Paul II standing solemnly in
Auschwitz, before a huge swarm of media, as he examines a series of massive stone
tablets engraved with the figure of four million dead at Auschwitz and listing
the alleged facts behind that figure. The pope decreed that anyone who doubted
that sacred figure of four million, as promulgated by our great Judaic and
Allied historians, was an anti-semitic racist.
In an accompanying photo in
my book I show these same sacred tablets a few years later, after they had
their inscriptions removed by the
I notice that you limit
yourself to
The establishment churches
have been among the most subservient and uncritical true believers in the
homicidal gas chamber allegations. For them, in practice, if not in actual
pronouncement, Auschwitz has replaced
So I think it's quite
natural that we revisionists focus our investigation and our scrutiny on
The Zionists and the Allies
have staked their prestige on
But do you deny the
gassings that took place in Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec and the camps
in the East?
It's a not a matter of
denial. It is simply not incumbent on me to believe anything. If someone comes
running up to me to announce that Santa Claus lives on the moon in an emerald
castle, it doesn't make me some hateful "denier" if I smile, say,
"I'm sorry I don't believe that. Won't you excuse me I must be on my
way."
Belief is not incumbent. I
can live my life and be a good, productive citizen without accepting a single
iota of rabbinic theology about their "Shoah." If Judaics want to
believe it, fine. Every religion is entitled to its own story. Mormons can
believe the Angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith the golden plates. The Shakers can
believe that Mother Ann was the Messiah. The Quakers can hold that George Fox
was divinely inspired.
But if the Shaker or the
Quaker, or the Mormon or the Judaic, establish as criteria for citizenship in
our nation at large, their peculiar religious notions as something necessary to
be believed by all, on pain of excommunication from society, then they are
going to find that they have a fight on their hands.
I will not be compelled to
believe any superstition no matter who parades it or how loud the brass band
that accompanies it or how august the personages who serve as its grand
marshals.
As far as the camps like
Treblinka and Sobibor goes, it's an open question as to what transpired. The
means alleged for execution in those camps--diesel engine exhaust--have a
little more credibility from a scientific and technical view than the Zyklon B
nonsense alleged for
But establishing the
feasibility of a weapon doesn't mean it was employed. There has to be more
evidence and I haven't seen it, but I'm keeping an open mind. I am willing to
re-vision not just the dogmas of the Zionists and the Allies but of the
revisionists too. Artaud said, "No more masterpieces." The radical
wing of revisionism says, "No more dogma," and that necessarily
translates into refuting any attempt to erect a revisionist dogma .
David Irving has been
attacked by many other revisionists for "keeping an open mind," as
you say, which goes to show that revisionists are as bad as the people they
claim to be opposing.
I have noticed that people
in general stink and revisionists, being people, stink no less. It is not
revisionists that have my faith but the process of re-vision itself.
A radical commitment to
revising all our secular beliefs in the face of new discoveries is the great
charter of Western history. A lot of maps had to be thrown away once Francis
Drake returned from his voyage and a lot of historical maps are being discarded
as revisionism hoists its sails upon the roiling waters of the sea of history.
I don't think one can make a dogma out of cartography or history and it's
disastrous when a religion begins to establish a proprietary relationship
between theology and history or when historians stake claim to a particular
historiographical turf in defiance of new evidence to the contrary.
If some revisionists fall
into the perennial temptation and they too make fixtures of the views they
hold, it's just as tragic; though I am not surprised when it happens. However,
it just means that such people are no longer revisionists. Revisionism itself
is, I think, invincible. It can't be stopped. It's too interesting and too
delightful.
Keep in mind that some
revisionists are Judaic, like Israel Shahak, John Sack, Prof. Arno Mayer and
others who, at great personal cost, have attempted to delineate between history
and theology and to pursue fidelity to the documentary record without partisan
prejudice.
Even if I were to
concede that certain parts of the holocaust story were not true, one fact that
is not dogma would remain and that is that the Jews undoubtedly suffered a
catastrophe in World War II for which the German regime at that time--and the
people who supported it--were responsible.
It was a catastrophe for
Judaic people and a catastrophe for the 54 million gentiles who died. There is
no argument there.
Then don't you see the
essential contradiction in your argument? What separates us are only mere
details. We both agree that something terrible happened to Jews and people are
responsible for it and we should ensure that it never happens again.
These "mere
details" are the crux of any historical issue. William Blake said that is
was the scoundrel who dealt in generalities and that truth lay in "minute
particulars." It's the disease of modernism to be exhausted by details and
gloss over them in order to present a composite image that is supposed to
substitute for it.
You haven't thought out the
full implications of these "mere details." Taken together, they show
that the persecution of the Jews in World War Two is actually part of a
seamless garment of 20th century totalitarianism on the part of the Left and
the Right, which targeted and massacred a whole host of ethnic groups--not just
Jews. This is the missing context that must be suppressed in order for the Six
Million propaganda to have the influence it does.
The theology of Judaic
uniqueness, the racist exclusivity which Zionists claim in virtually every
other field--from the "right" to establish segregated, for-Jews-only
settlements in occupied Palestine, to the "right" to be exempt from
Constitutional separations of Church and State in the U.S., to their demands
for special immunity from criticism in politics and media--this macrocosm is
mirrored within the official, approved accounts and interpretation of the
history of World War Two.
I am not so much interested
in saying "it" didn't happen to the Jews during World War Two, as I
am in pointing out that the core truth--that hundreds of thousands of Jewish people
were hounded and persecuted--has been embellished and wildly exaggerated to
such an extent that it has become the cash cow of the Israelis, and the moral
hammer with which they strike anyone who dares to criticize Zionists in any
field of human endeavor. It has become part of the process whereby Judaic
supremacists gain and maintain their power on earth.
It must be said that this
so-called Six Million genocide against the Judaics has been wildly exaggerated
by them and shamelessly accepted without scrutiny by media and academia, until
it has become a sacred belief and prerequisite for employment, socialization,
education and in some cases, life itself.
Beyond pointing out the
exaggerations and the perennial whining that amounts to an industry, is the need
to place the Six Million story in the context of the other holocausts of the
20th century, and once you have done that, I don't think that the Nazi
dictatorship will be rehabilitated, but rather that equanimity and balance will
be reestablished and Israeli racism and slaughter of
Palestinians, curtailed and discredited. If skepticism toward Judaic
theology disguised as history increases sufficiently, Nazism will not be
rehabilitated. It will be seen as misdirection from the Cryptocracy in the name
of reviving the life force of the European people that was doomed from the
beginning by Hitler's social Darwinist, occult racialism and hatred for the Old
Testament, all of which derive from the Kabbalah as filtered through the Catholic
Renaissance humanist occult movement personfied by Marsilio Ficino, Pico della
Mirandola, Johannes Reuchlin and Giordano Bruno, among others.
It is not healthy
skepticism toward all dogma, i.e. revisionism, that will revive Nazism, but the
hysterical aura of the forbidden and the damned with which the establishment
media now surrounds Nazism, sans any shades of gray or mitigating
circumstances.
In an era of unprecedented
degeneracy, youth who are seeking a radical alternative to the diseased society
they inhabit will inevitably gravitate toward that which the System condemns
unreservedly.
Whatever is held up as the
polar opposite of the current order will inevitably attract young reformers and
angry revolutionaries. Nazism has been inflated into a supernatural level of
potency by Jews and their retainers in media, education and government.
Revisionism, on the other hand deflates Nazism, showing it to be another 20th
century totalitarianian creed.
Any responsibility for the
revival of Nazism rests with those in the Overclass who helped to mystify and
mythologize it. The Hitler dictatorship and its crimes were hardly unique in
the annals of the 20th century. In fact, of Stalin, Mao, Roosevelt and
Churchill, Hitler was no worse than those other mass murderers of women and
children.
An authentic re-vision of
World War Two will reveal the extent to which the Zionist leadership
deliberately provoked the Germans into acting as they did and deliberately left
the Judaic middle class and proletarian Jews hostage to Hitler, after the Oberjuden
had emigrated.
The Zionists sought to make
a bloody point--that the only safe haven for Judaics was in
That is why the revisionist
truth about World War Two must be suppressed at all costs and those who dare to
bring it to the fore--especially in
If there is a lesson to be
learned from this city-of-dreadful-night that is the 20th century, it is indeed
the clarion call of "Never Again." But this phrase is today just a
cynical manipulation, a reference to defending Judaics alone.
But if we commit ourselves
to protecting any targeted population from annihilation, we will begin in Palestine, in protecting the Palestinian
people from their holy executioners, and go from there to defend every
group targeted by state power, be they Muslim, Christian or Jewish, African or
Oriental or yes, even poor and working class Whites in the trailer parks of
America.
There is a lot of
blathering bullshit nowadays about keeping an "open mind." But if we
are really serious about opening our minds to their greatest capacity, we will
venture far beyond the shuttered claustrophobia of the reigning forces of religious
fanaticism, and the timid liberals and conservatives who cooperate with it.
The vehicle for that
venture is revisionism. The price of admission is courage and curiosity.
Copyright©1997-2006 by Michael A. Hoffman II
Webster’s Dictionary
(1913)
Hol"o*caust
(?),