Saturday, December 27, 2008

The Israeli Nazis and the Palestinian Allies

The latest Israeli slaughter in Gaza and the rockets of Hamas in the context of Allied "Good War" morality

by Michael Hoffman

Copyright©2008. All Rights Reserved
www.RevisionistHistory.org

The latest Israeli war crime in Gaza reminds me of a central idea of a book I hope to one day complete on the Cryptocracy's great game with Islam, in this case pertaining to the morality message of World War II.

In World War II the Allies conducted themselves, as Franklin Roosevelt stated, as though the entire German people were collectively involved in a conspiracy against civilization. With this rationale in hand, the Allies proceeded to terrorize the German people as no people have ever been terrorized by a state. Every instrument of the terrorist was employed: assassination, bombing and mass murder. Rather than being condemned or prosecuted, the Allied terrorism was characterized as history's one, certain "Good War" and I will not exhaust you with a litany of the other sterling sobriquets with which moralists and alleged humanitarians have laurel-wreathed the Allied bloodbath.

The Muslims, along with the rest of the world, observed the Allied morality play and in the midst of the West's media blitz have had a center seat at all of the movies, documentaries and official commemorations of the heroism and goodness of the Allied attacks on civilians, on the basis that the Germans, including German women, children, infants and the unborn of pregnant German mothers, were occupiers, colonizers, aggressors and exterminators who got what they deserved.

I have witnessed no serious attempt anywhere across the spectrum of western public opinion to overthrow World War II Allied morality. If anything, it has become more extravagant in its claims of moral purity and ethical crusading.

The Palestinians, having learned the lesson of World War II as perpetually imparted by Hollywood and New York, identify the Israelis as Nazis who colonize, occupy and yes, exterminate -- in so far as they are able in a media age where little is done in secret that escapes hand-held video cameras and Internet blogs.

For example, in the Gaza ghetto, for years the Israelis have forced 1.5 million people to go without food, medical care, heating fuel, electricity, clean water and facilities and infrastructure necessary to life or even a half-way decent standard of living. In response to these Nazi-like actions by the Zionists, Hamas fires primitive rockets at Zionist civilians. The West tends to see only the Hamas rockets, not the record of Israeli mass murder, dispossession and occupation which led to the rocket fire.

According to the Allied logic of World War II, Hamas is completely in the right and nothing Hamas does to the Nazi-Israelis is wrong; in fact, the Hamas rocket fire must be classed, by Allied logic, as a step on the path toward civilization and against barbarism.

This writer believes that attacks on civilians are always wrong, whether they be German, Palestinian or Israeli. But the West can't have it both ways: it can't teach, as it has for generations, that one may burn and slaughter German civilians righteously, without restraint of any kind, and then celebrate that terrible carnage for the next six decades in every possible forum, while telling Hamas and the Palestinians that they dare not imitate the Allied/World War II example. Muslims have no regard for western hypocrisy and they will hurl themselves at the Israelis as the Allies hurled themselves at the Germans and this will probably continue for as long as the Allied slaughter of Germans is held to be the gold standard of ethical conduct in war.

Those who uphold the myth of Allied morality ought to uphold Palestinian resistance to Israeli conquest and slaughter. In view of this, the Israeli-Nazi attacks today in Gaza will only further enflame the resolve of Arabs and Muslims throughout the world to resist by any means -- including guns and bombs -- the "collectively guilty" 21st century Israeli people, just as the Allies murdered, burned and bombed the "collectively guilty" German people of the 1940s. Few in the West today view the Allies as terrorists and few in Islamic countries view Hamas as terrorist.

The next "Good War" has only just begun.

Hoffman is co-author of The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians. His latest work is Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit, now in its second printing, in spite of having been banned by Amazon.com (the only book about Judaism which has that distinction). Ordering information is here: http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html

***

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

When an IED planted by a roadside explodes and kills and maims Western soldiers occupying Iraq or Afghanistan, some talking-head commander as often as not appears on TV to decry the cowardice of the bomb-planters for skulking in the shadows and being insufficiently manly to "fight out in the open." Jump, cut to events in Gaza. Curiously, you don't and won't be hearing from the same talking-heads deploring the cowardice of the Israeli Air Force for its shooting-fish-in-a-barrel tactical advantage delivering devastating volley after volley of air strikes on the Palestinian masses huddled in squalid refugee camps.

Anonymous said...

"on the basis that the Germans, including German women, children, infants and the unborn of pregnant German mothers, were occupiers, colonizers, aggressors and exterminators who got what they deserved."

---why do you say "including" Hoffman? You're saying it's right to suspect the German men? Why is it that in matters of deaths or murders, male deaths are always downplayed as if it's expected, appropriate, or "not as bad" as women and children dying? When will the depraved idea that men are expendable be done away with?

I see it everywhere, "10 people died, including women and children" what does this actually mean to say? It means to say, "of the 10 people that died, the ones that mattered were the women and children, and the men dying is not a tragedy, that's why we say 'including' women and children, because that way it somehow makes it 'worse' that they died, whereas if all 10 people that died were men it's 'not as bad'"

that's the sick twisted view our society has of male deaths, so it would be appreciated if you didn't accentuate "including women and children" because it always downplays male deaths

Anonymous said...

---why do you say "including" Hoffman? You're saying it's right to suspect the German men? Why is it that in matters of deaths or murders, male deaths are always downplayed as if it's expected, appropriate, or "not as bad" as women and children dying? When will the depraved idea that men are expendable be done away with?

Well biologically, women ARE more valuable then men. If 95% of your men and 5% of your women are killed off, you could be back to normal in one generation, but if the numbers are reversed, you're totally screwed! And our instictively based socialbiological morality reflects this in our social mores. You can call it "sick and twisted" but you are spitting into the wind.

Anonymous said...

To the poster who made the comments about the seeming unimportance of men dying: thank you.

This is likely the first time I've seen this salient point illustrated so coherently, or at all, by anybody. ;-)

James said...

Anonymous quotes Hoffman: "on the basis that the Germans, including German women, children, infants and the unborn of pregnant German mothers, were occupiers, colonizers, aggressors and exterminators who got what they deserved."

I am absolutely amazed to see that someone (anyone!) would then go on to make the comments Anonymous does here about Hoffman. To very strongly imply, if perhaps even express, that Mr. Hoffman holds the "deprived idea that men are expendable" due to his above, and similar, word usage is nothing less than ludicrous.

I am 60 years old. I didn't fall off the turnip truck and I wasn't born in a closet, nor was I fed from a silver spoon. I have been around the block a few times. In all my years I have never seen or heard of anyone claiming our society (as truly sick as it is!) has a "sick twisted view ... of male deaths." Until now!

James B. Phillips

Anonymous said...

Whew! The thesis of this article boggles me. Since it was the Allies in WWI who bombed much larger numbers of German civilians than the Germans bombed of Allied civilians, doesn’t that make the Allies in WWII equivalent to the Israelis in this conflict?
What's the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians vs. Palestinians by Iraelis?

And wasn't it the Allies in WWII who, like the Israelis now, demonized their enemy and used copious falsehoods (for example, the falsehood that the present attack on Gaza is retaliation for recent rocket attacks when it was actually planned months ago) in order to make palatable to the public a wholly unjustifiable degree of slaughter against a helpless civilian population?

Or the relative strength of the two sides: basically the whole world was against Germany in WWII, which parallels a US-armed and financed Israel with the allegedly 4th-strongest military in the world vs. Gaza - a tiny enclave with no military and a few puny rockets.

And what people was ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands in Europe at the behest of the Allies - and many of them massacred - a few years before the same thing was done to the Palestinians by the Israelis? The Germans.

I was amazed to find that the author of an article with this title - and not used sarcastically - is Michael Hoffmann, whom I would expect to know better.

For that matter, I doubt that all the "Palestinian rocket attacks" against Israel are indeed by Hamas. It would be unlike the Israelis to simply wait for a provocation in order to carry out a planned attack when they can manufacture it themselves at just the right time.

Anonymous said...

An excellent essay; of the same calibre as your response to Jean Raspail.

Igor Alexander said...

"Why is it that in matters of deaths or murders, male deaths are always downplayed as if it's expected, appropriate, or 'not as bad' as women and children dying?"

Good point.

"Well biologically, women ARE more valuable then men."

What is this? Darwinian feminism?

You certainly have a novel approach to rationalizing the pervasive misandry in our society.

Anonymous said...

Well biologically, women ARE more valuable then men. If 95% of your men and 5% of your women are killed off, you could be back to normal in one generation, but if the numbers are reversed, you're totally screwed! And our instictively based socialbiological morality reflects this in our social mores. You can call it "sick and twisted" but you are spitting into the wind.

the fact of a woman's biological restrictiveness compared to that of a man's doesn't AT ALL make a MORAL CASE that the death of men AREN'T AS BAD as the death of a woman!

we're talking about morality here, not "how fast can we reproduce and 'restore' the generation because we're Eugenic National Socialists therefore the death of men isn't as bad because reproduction is the ultimate goal"

lol, Eugenic National Socialism based on a psychotic desire to "reproduce" the generation, is not a moral case, and "social mores" are just that, social agreements, it doesn't make them right, and especially because they're social mores it makes them bad, because they promote herd thought and herd action

and devaluing the death of men is sick and twisted, no matter if I'm "spitting in the wind."

Hell saying the Talmud is sick and twisted is also "spitting into the wind" but that doesn't stop us

Anonymous said...

James,

I didn't mean that Hoffman strongly held the view that men were expendable, but that he may have implicitly? accentuated women and children deaths by making it seem 'worse' because they died by having the terms, "including" in it.. Granted, it's worse that CHILDREN died than ADULTS, but NOT worse that WOMEN died than MEN, therefore "including children" is appropriate, but not "including women and children" as that overtly discriminates against men

If you're 60 and in all your years have not at all heard the view that men are expendable in our society then I am bemused

from men getting shafted in areas of war, divorce, custody, alimony, domestic violence, health funding, to the double standard anti-male portrayals on T.V. as reported here http://www.mens-rights.net/sexism/television.htm

"men are expendable" is an unconscious, implicit prejudice in the West that I am puzzled you haven't noticed yet

shumila said...

Perhaps it is just a little silly to sneer at Hoffman's perceived misanthropy. In the future we might come to a stage where we weak, delicate, precious little creatures (women) are just as likely to take up arms as men, but we are not at that stage yet, and we most definitely were not at the stage back in the 1940s... I have mixed up sarcasm and truth here and even I am confused by what I mean. All I know is that, while we are striving for equality, in general it is women who are the victims. I volunteered at a crisis center and I never once saw a man beaten black and blue by a woman. I am sure it happens but, hey, it is not the norm. Of course, if I ever did see a man beaten by a woman, I would offer him the same comfort.