Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Monday, November 18, 2019

Attacks on Hoffman and his book "Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People" are increasing

Attacks on Hoffman and his book Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People are increasing

On Nov 17, 2019, at 1:55, Nicholas Landholdt <nlandholt@hotmail.comwrote:

Have you seen this film “The Greatest Story Never Told”? In spreading the word around social media and links about your latest work on Hitler, the neo-Nazis and their useful idiot detractors of yours are referencing that pro-Hitler film as if it debunks all the criticism of Hitler.

Dear Mr. Landholdt:

The movie you reference is standard neo-Nazi propaganda and it neither anticipates nor refutes the information in my book about Hitler’s suicidal invasion of Russia, his lawless murder of Gregor Strasser,  the derogation and internal exile of Gottfried Feder and the betrayal of the NSDAP anti-usury platform which was a major factor in Hitler’s appeal to the German people.

Like the Talmudists, the Hitlerites won’t study that which contradicts their dogma. They furnish no coherent counter-arguments to my thesis, which they mostly haven’t read, even as they denounce it. They mindlessly parrot the party line, "Stalin was about to invade Germany."

Even if that disputed claim were true, it in no way vitiates the thesis of my book, but to understand that fact, the Hitler cultists would actually have to think. You'd be surprised what a tall order that is for many of them.

The Hitler cult includes mass shooters and potential mass shooters misled by the Cryptocracy into attacking synagogues. My book is the antidote to this madness and manipulation, but because I wrote it I am facing attacks almost equaling in fury those I have received from the Talmudists. Does anyone seriously imagine that the Cryptocracy wants my book to gain a significant readership among the young and impressionable?

The ADL is doing all in its power to have my presence online entirely canceled, as witness their role in removing all of my videos from YouTube on August 26, five days before the publication of Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People

For anyone who understands what the result of Hitler's catastrophic Masada-rule actually was, it is no surprise that when it comes to suppressing Hoffmanthe neo-Nazis and the ADL are on the same page.

For the past 35 years I have expended my professional career as a journalist and historian defying the powers-that-be. Hitler fans who imagine that aspersions on my integrity, sneak attacks in Internet forums, and whispering campaigns to boycott my books and Revisionist History® newsletter are going to deter me from my truth mission, are seriously deluded. Come hell or high water, I will reveal the revisionist truth about Hitler, just as I have done with the Babylonian Talmud, the history of white slavery, and the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians.

I welcome informed criticism and exchange of research in light of new discoveries, since that is the essence of re-visioning history, without which there is no revisionism, only an empty shell exploited by those who are determined to resurrect the führer’s legacy. I deplore the Zionist tactics now being used contra my book, with the aim of continuing the whitewashing of the reputation of the most guilty Zionist of them all, Adolf Hitler, true founder of the "state of Israel."

Michael Hoffman

Softover, illustrated. 216 pages.

Friday, November 01, 2019

"Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People" reviewed by Counter-Currents Publishing

Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People was published in softcover on September 1 and none of the revisionist institutes, organizations and magazines seeking to rehabilitate the Hitler hologram have vouchsafed to review it, until now. 

Other than a couple of less than stellar two-line attacks at Amazon terming it “Garbage, garbage….” it has otherwise been given the infamous silent treatment, which has also been the fate of The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, which “conservative” and “traditional Catholic” intellectuals cannot refute and are hoping will fade into the woodwork. (You will note that this is the tactic of Zionist media when confronting books at radical variance with their own world view).

On Oct. 31, at the website, Counter-Currents Publishing, a writer with the byline “P.J. Collins” ventured a quick dismissal of Hitler Enemy of the German People. You can read the critique here:

Counter-Currents has also published a reply from this writer, in the comments section following the “review” on their website. 

Here below is that reply (the book can be purchased at this link).

Reply to P. J. Collins by Michael Hoffman

The insouciance with which the reviewer greets the murder of Gregor Strasser—the casual dismissal of a great crime with profoundly negative consequences for Germany, is representative of other iniquities, for example, Hitler’s betrayal of the anti-usury platform that helped elect him, and his mass suicide operation in Russia—that are blithely mentioned and then dismissed with indifference to the facts.

Moreover, outside the corpus of the "review" itself, P. J. Collins offers the following in a rejoinder to a comment:

"... it was a weak argument to say Stalin wasn’t a threat in 1933 or whatever..."

I have never said any such thing. I refer in Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People to the "Molech of the Soviet Union," and acknowledge Stalin's horrendous crimes.

P.J. Collins also writes in his rejoinder:

"The reason the rank-and-file populace gave Hitler a pass on such excesses as the Night of Long Knives, is that the NatSocs crushed the communist menace. That wasn’t a side worry but the central issue. Hoffman knows this, but is giving us sophistry to buttress the rest of his argument."

This claim of clairvoyant knowledge is always noteworthy. It is reminiscent of the mind-readers who say that they "know" that WWII revisionists do indeed believe in the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz, and are "denying" them out of sheer perversity.

According to documents related to the ascendance of the NSDAP and Hitler's popularity prior to his gaining rule, the "central worry" for the German people was the Money Power, as weaponized by usury, including by "Aryan" banks. I document how Hitler turned his coat in this matter after he achieved power. I don't "give sophistry" to prove this. There are facts in my book for those who actually wish to cite or debate them, rather than issue a quick, sarcastic dismissal.

The murder of Gregor Strasser and other innocents was not mere "excess." Hitler killed dozens over the course of the "Night," some guilty, many innocent, and all without due process of any kind, not even a show trial having been accorded them. Hitler demonstrated that he was the law. How can anyone regard Hitler's murderous dictatorship as only excessive? What he did to Gregor and the others was a harbinger and template of what this "gambler at the map table" would do to millions of Germans with his grotesque incompetence and magical thinking.
Copyrighted material. ©2019


Friday, October 11, 2019

Garbage-Mouths and the Decline of Our Civilization

Garbage-Mouths and the Decline of Our Civilization

By Michael Hoffman

It will appear trivial to some — because they have become inured to it — but the loss of civility in our society appears ever more in the breakdown of our civilization. 

When I was growing up adult males were solicitous of the presence of women and keen to the possibility that young ears might overhear an obscenity. They might “swear like sailors” among themselves, but it was a judgment on their manhood if they did so “in mixed company." To do so at a public meeting or in print would have been unthinkable, and would have disgraced them and their families for years.

Now the garbage-mouth President of the United States, at his Oct. 10 Minnesota rally, stated before 20,000 people and broadcast nationally, that former Vice-President Joe Biden “kissed Obama’s a**.” 

Conservative Paul Craig Roberts rails in his Oct. 10 column about “dumbs**t Americans.” 

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) wields “Impeach the mother-f****r” (her campaign sells T-shirts with her vomit-inducing term abbreviated). 

There are hundreds more examples.

"Don’t sweat the small stuff, Hoffman.”

Right — but this isn’t small stuff. The devil is in the details. Foul-mouths are a subliminal reinforcement of general degeneracy and decay, which is advanced in increments.

Either we are an example or we are nothing.

Michael Hoffman is the author of ten books and the editor of Revisionist History® published six times a year.

Thanks to the readers whose donations make possible these "On the Contrary" columns.

Copyright©2019. All Rights Reserved

Monday, October 07, 2019

“Joker” Movie: Mental illness and misfortune in 70s America

“Joker” Movie

Mental illness and misfortune in 1970s America 

By Michael Hoffman

(Warning: this column reveals some aspects [spoilers] of the “Joker” movie that viewers who intend to see it may not wish to read) 

Perhaps the bleakest assertion of ‘Joker,’ is the one that’s hardest to disprove: that the ghastly world (the Joker) inhabits, and by extension ours, is the one we deserve.” — John Wenzel

Earlier this year I was asked to write an introduction to a new book examining occult symbolism in America. I declined. In my judgment the author was mistaking mundane phenomena for occult conspiracy. He wasn’t able to see that if everything is occult then nothing is.

The inability to make the distinction is reflected in the reception that the “Joker” movie has received from many researchers who attempt to study the intersection of the arcane and the Deep State in popular media. These researchers, along with certain celebrity movie critics, have decided that Warner Brothers and Village Roadshow had, with their 2019 “Joker” movie, created a sequel to Heath Ledger’s unrelievedly evil Joker character in Christopher Nolan’s 2008 film, “The Dark Knight,” and its follow-up, “The Dark Knight Rises” which allegedly contains esoteric references to the Sandy Hook and Aurora mass shootings (which had not yet occurred when the film was released). Without having seen the “Joker” movie, we initially tweeted that it looked like it was another dastardly recruiting vehicle for inspiring more “lone nut” white mass shooters. 

Such things do happen. Heath Ledger’s Joker character inspired at least one mass shooting by Jerad and Amanda Miller of LaFayette, Indiana. They killed two policemen at a pizza parlor in Las Vegas (“CiCi’s”), and then continued their shooting at a local Wal-Mart, where they killed an armed good samaritan who had attempted to stop their spree. Jerad was known for dressing like the “Joker.”  The Millers’ online persona was that of militia patriots but they behaved more like demon-possessed individuals.

At age 28 actor Ledger died of a drug overdose in the year of the release of “The Dark Knight.” The Joker character he portrayed is utterly merciless and sadistic, someone who kills even his own comrades and partners. There is no rationale to his violence. It is purely demonic, the personification of what William Butler Yeats termed the “blood red tide” which drowns “the ceremony of innocence.”

Many of the actual mass shootings in America, whether inspired by Hollywood or not, have been in line with the Joker’s violence in “The Dark Knight” —that of cold-blooded, anarchistic mega-atrocities against innocent persons including school children, exhibiting a diabolically heinous disregard for human life.

The “Joker” movie of October, 2019 is something else altogether. It is disenchanting and anti-occult (with one possible exception noted below). If it “inspires” violence it would be no more culpable than Alfred Hitchcock for depicting a cross-dressing homicidal maniac in “Psycho.”

The protagonist in “Joker” is Arthur Fleck, played by Joaquin Phoenix, a mentally ill man whose every benevolent act is misunderstood. He attempts to overcome his affliction but the circumstances of his life and chosen occupation (clowning and standup comedy) conspire to obstruct his intentions. 

There is no depiction of “random mass shooting” in this movie. The only time multiple people are shot is in one scene where Arthur is viciously assaulted by three drunken junior executives in suits on a subway train. The beating they administer is brutal enough to paralyze or kill him, had it continued. It does not continue because Arthur saves his own life by drawing his revolver and shooting all three of his attackers. Only because he is wearing clown makeup (as part of his employment), does the media exploit the incident and sensationalize the shooter as a clown-killer who murdered innocent bystanders. 

While some mass shooters pen suspiciously eloquent “manifestos” somehow timed precisely for release online, either shortly before or during the execution of their crimes, Arthur travels with a battered notebook filled with crossed-out, barely legible scrawls and sentence fragments which he reads aloud at a dive that’s hosting an open mike night. It’s as if the film-makers were mocking the media’s cooperation with the Cryptocracy’s surreal accounts of real-life shooters; a situation which leads us to wonder which is the movie and which is the reality. 

Without spoiling a core surprise, I cannot relate the details of a pivotal betrayal Arthur discovers. I can say that Arthur learns that in his past he was repeatedly brutalized with the connivance of someone he trusted implicitly. As his condition deteriorates, so does what is left of his composure.

It’s interesting to note that the pistol he possesses was forced on him by a co-worker. In a key scene, he takes revenge on the co-worker while sparing the life of another with the words, “You were the only one who was good to me.” If this were a pathological Batman movie, Arthur would have gone ahead and shot the person who had been good to him. The mercy he dispenses is a significant marker separating him from the gunmen who have made the news in massacres of distressing frequency.

“Murray Franklin,” the Johnny Carson-type evening television host in the film, is played by Robert De Niro. Franklin wears the mask of 1970s pop culture respectability, yet is exploiting Arthur for callous audience amusement, as Hop Frog was exploited in Edgar Allan Poe’s retributive story of that name. And like Hop Frog, Arthur strikes back, and does so on national television. It’s at this juncture that we see director Todd Phillips’ “Joker” movie stepping outside the occult clown-shooter genre and holding a mirror up to our corrupt society, as Oliver Stone did in “Natural Born Killers," a film which depicted the corporate media as complicit in the violence of the feral pair of shooters at the center of the action.

Arthur Fleck and Antonin Artaud

Joaquin Phoenix portrays Arthurwho will morph into “Joker” toward the end of the movieas an emaciated, chain-smoking mental patient (eerily resembling in appearance the real life French poète maudit and theatre-of-cruelty theorist Antonin Artaud). Arthur, in spite of his illness, is attempting to recover his humanity in the midst of an inhuman mise en scene. There is little that is occult here. Arthur Fleck is someone Artaud would have termed “The man suicided by society.” This is not to negate anyone’s responsibilities for their actions, or to grant a homicidal prerogative to the mentally ill. Life in the American big city “Gotham” in the 1970s, and more so today, was and is a dehumanizing and degrading experience, particularly for the poor and disadvantaged, some of whom do improve their situation and become useful citizens, while others sink deeper into despair and delusion.

By the conclusion of the movie, a mob produced by a sick urban youth culture that Arthur Fleck did not create, has made him an anti-hero, “the Joker.” In these scenes Joaquin Phoenix’s character becomes markedly more youthful underneath now well-tailored, suit-and-tie clown attire and expertly-applied makeup. Much of the agony in his now more youthful face is gone. The blood he has shed and the notoriety he has gained seem to strip away years of age and grief as he dances a choreography that celebrates his transformation from troubled human struggling to do good and be understood, into a figure of almost superhuman agency and potency, having managed to “succeed” by gaining entrance to society’s demented pop culture celebrity circus, whose ruling clowns, like the De Niro character, are more malevolent than the Joker.

The movie ends with a bizarre and vaguely unsettling Charlie Chaplinesque slaptick chase in the halls of a mental hospitalas if to say, it’s all grist for the entertainment mill.

Production values are high. Cinematography, acting, sets and costumes are all accomplished and well staged. The soundtrack by Icelandic composer Hildur Guðnadóttir jabs the audience with a relentlessly propulsive gloom, impressively melancholic and disturbing; a sonic migraine for dead souls.

Unlike the final two installments in Christopher Nolan’s occult Batman films, “Joker” is not a movie intended to worsen our collective mental health, or immerse us in the shadowy twilight language of the subliminal Cryptocracy. Rather, it is a toxicology report on the effects of fermentation in the pernicious brine that is “life in the American big city.”  

It is art and has validity on that basis alone, without possessing a message leading to a remedy. It is a cinematic document about one rejected and oppressed person from our nation’s past, a kind of everyman who could be anyone of us if we were so unlucky, and it necessarily foreshadows our future, should America choose to continue on its grossly materialistic, fantastically cruel, mass abortionist, Christ-less path.

Were it not for the following revelation, we would opine that to mistake this sobering reflection on the decayed state of our nation, with a cryptogram from the Deep State, would be a significant failure of perception, intuition and detection. However... 

Gary Glitter and “The Hey Song” on the soundtrack of “Joker

Gary Glitter and Sir Jimmy Savile

One iconic scene in the film shows Arthur Fleck fully transformed into the Joker as he dances on a set of stairs outdoors, to a tune by British rock musician Paul Gadd, whose stage name is "Gary Glitter. Gadd/Glitter's “Rock and Roll (Part 2)” was a 1972 hit which was later broadcast in sports stadiums as an anthem (popularly known as “The Hey! Song"). It was also on the soundtrack of at least two Hollywood movies, “The Replacements,” and “Meet the Fockers” (starring Robert De Niro). 

In October 2012 evidence emerged in Britain that Glitter had been part of Sir James "Jimmy" Savile's child sex ring. The now 75-year-old Glitter is currently in prison serving a sentence of 16 years after conviction on four counts of indecent assault and one count of having sex with a girl under 13. All the crimes were committed in the 1970s and '80s. He was first jailed in 1999 when he admitted to possessing images of child porn. He has been accused of dozens of acts of molestation in Asian countries. In 2008 Glitter finished serving nearly three years in a Vietnamese prison for molesting two children. (New York Times, Aug. 21, 2008, p. E5).

Savile (1926-2011) was a Satanist. The Queen of England awarded him the Order of the British Empire in 1971. She knighted this ghoul in 1990. Savile supplied children to elite members of British society for sexual exploitation.  He was known to perform necrophliac acts on corpses and wore rings fashioned from glass eyes taken from the dead

In 1984 Savile was accepted as a member of the Athenaeum, a high society gentlemen’s club in London’s Pall Mall, after being proposed by Church of Rome Cardinal Basil Hume.  Another clerical member of Savile's pederast ring was the Anglican Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt. Rev. Peter Bell, who was deeply connected to the royal family including Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles, heir to the British throne

Savile’s enablers: Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles

Sir James Savile met Prince Charles through "mutual charity interests." The Prince reportedly conveyed to Savile gifts on his 80th birthday, along with an enigmatic note reading: “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country, Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.”

Savile was a close friend of "conservative" British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: “Correspondence showing the depth of the friendship between Sir Jimmy Savile and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is unveiled today in a secret Downing Street file that has been heavily redacted by civil servants following revelations about sexual abuse by the late entertainer. The 21-page dossier released under the 30-year rule by the National Archives shows Savile’s extraordinary access to the highest echelons of British society.” 

Throughout his career as a rapist of some 500 youth (!), beginning as early as 1955, Savile enjoyed total immunity from police arrest, Crown prosecution, and imprisonment. He died a multi-millionaire, respected and honored.

In 2009, in a taped interview with his biographer, Savile defended Gary Glitter, convicted in 1999 of possession of child pornography, whom he described as a celebrity being vilified for watching ‘dodgy films...It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is up to him as a person... they [viewers] didn’t do anything wrong but they are then demonized.’ The interview was not published at the time, and the recording was not released until after Savile’s death.” Cf. “Jimmy Savile claimed paedophile Gary Glitter ‘did nothing wrong” (Daily Telegraph [UK], Oct. 1, 2012).

Here's the kicker: is this a case of an indifferent Hollywood filmmaker insensitively using Glitter's song in the Joker” movie without regard both to Glitter's child-molesting past, as well as the certainty of a scandal that would arise when it was discovered that Glitter was receiving a percentage of the royalties generated by the song? The filmmakers had to know that their use of the song would generate publicity for Glitter, a convicted pederast

Either this is an arrogant act of defiance of conventional morality, or it's something entirely different: this writer's hunch (and that's all it is at this point), is thatin keeping with our assessment of "Joker" as documenting the evil and corruption of the 1970s, and by extension of our more perverted 21st centurythe inclusion of Glitter's 1972 song is yet another mirrora signpost deliberately placed in the film to point to the existence of extraordinary malice and wickedness in high places. Child molestation rings operating at elite levels of government and entertainment are explosive charges that can (and should) detonate the people’s faith in their leaders.

Is it naive to entertain the possibility that the filmmakers were willing to ignite this dynamite? Perhaps it isBut from alpha to omega, "Joker" demonstrates that "the respectable” are not. Any sustained examination of the life of Gary Glitter turns up the name of Sir James Savile. From there, one overturns one rock after another concealing venomous snakes who our civilization venerates as the worthiest and most respectable people among us: monarchs, prime ministers, pop stars and by implication, Hollywood moguls.  

In other cases, it is a fact of our media-bombarded lives that we often suffer from attention deficit, as well as compassion fatigue, and what alarmed us yesterday is, tragically, mostly forgotten today, despite the dreadful consequences of such amnesia.

Did the makers of "Joker" deliberately include child molester Gary Glitters 1970s "Rock and Roll (Part 2) as a trail marker on the road to refreshing our memory of the horrors of the Jimmy Savile-linked Satanic depravity thats threaded throughout the centers of power in the western world? Or did they do it as part of the Satanic threading process itself?

Michael Hoffman is the author of “Mass Hypnosis and Mass Shootings: The Curtain Rises on the Cryptocracy’s Summer of Terror” in Revisionist History® no. 104 (September, 2019).


Monday, September 23, 2019

Contra the Hitler Hologram

Contra the Hitler Hologram

Editor’s Note: Ron Unz, former publisher of The American Conservative magazine, has published my work on his website unz.com and has been an indomitable supporter of freedom of speech.

Dear Ron

I have studied your essay, “American Pravda: Understanding World War II,” which is among the more approachable and easily readable of your recent papers (at least for me). 

I have scrutinized Deborah Lipstadt since 2001 when I spoke at David Irving’s revisionist conference in Cincinnati, Ohio, documenting her description of him as “another Amalek,” which was an invitation to his assassination, for those conversant with what Amalek signifies in Orthodox rabbinic theology. Years ago the video of this 28 minute speech was banned from the original Google Video service (pre-dating YouTube), and banned again this summer from YouTube at the request of the ADL. (It can be viewed online [at least for now] at archive.org). Prof. Lipstadt meanwhile, has always disclaimed foreknowledge of the ban and says she opposes it.

Vladimir Rezun (“Viktor Suvorov”) was a British intelligence asset and this writer has cited sources refuting his thesis in my new book, Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People. The exculpation of Hitler and his reputation turns on claiming that his suicidal invasion of the USSR was absolutely necessary. 

The tenor of your article is indeed the rehabilitation of the Führer, which is a melancholic thing to witness, as well as your brisk dismissal of the Polish case against Hitler’s war crimes with a jibe at “arrogant” Poland. 

You proceed to the repetition of the Nazi propaganda line that Germany’s “Jewish population” had a “stranglehold” on German media and finance. In the Weimar Republic however, Hjalmar Schacht and his circle of high finance German “Aryan” usurers were independent of Judaic control. Furthermore, thousands of books and pamphlets critical of Communism, as well as conservative Christian critiques of Orthodox Judaism and the Talmud, were published and circulated. We note that Hitler, after he came to power, obtained a “stranglehold" on the media and the banks. Presumably that was o.k.

You reference the “half-Jews” who served faithfully in the Nazi army but say nothing of the full Jews who served with honor and distinction during the First World War, including in Corporal Hitler’s own List Regiment. Under Hitler’s rule they were extruded from German lands just as ruthlessly as any other Judaic, and often fell victim to the Judeocide for which Hitler is justly notorious, having been shipped by train into combat theaters in the East where they were often shot en masse, or to the death camp at Auschwitz where, in 1942, hundreds of slave laborers died daily from the filthy and diseased conditions. 

I am well familiar with the terrible slaughter at Dresden and every major city in Germany by the RAF and US Army Air Force. It haunts and infuriates me. But too often those who lament those terrible crimes have little or nothing to say about the Nazi slaughter of the civilian population of Stalingrad with a brutality every bit as savage as what was inflicted on German towns.

Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were all monsters of iniquity and sorting out who was more or less iniquitous is an unenviable task. Disastrously for our movement for American renaissance, the Hitler hologram continues to have cachet and his model of murderous dictatorship is something of a template for young radicals on the Right.


Michael Hoffman

Mr. Hoffman is the author of ten books of history and literature, three of which have been translated into French and Japanese. His latest work is Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People. He is the editor of Revisionist History® newsletter.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Legacy media whining about investigations into their bigotry

The Karmic Consequences of Heresy-Hunting 

Oozing with aristocratic entitlement and indignation, the legacy media are whining about the insolence of writers and broadcasters who have the effrontery to investigate the skeletons in their closet

By Michael Hoffman
Former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press

These investigations have been declared to be off-limits and “clearly not journalism.” So saith Washington Post’s Lord High Emeritus Executive Editor, Leonard Downie Jr. 

He alleges that an "organized, wide-scale political effort to intentionally humiliate journalists and others who work for media outlets is something new. 

One wonders on what desert island hes been sojourning. The censorship, doxing, boycotts and obstruction of revisionists, black nationalists and Conservative and Christian journalists dont seem to register or even exist for media Brahmins of the upper crust.

Follow the money: the legacy media will brook no competition that harms its lucrative monopoly on news. Therefore, we dissident journalists are supposed to know our place and be content with our lot as virtually invisible. The many attempts to humiliate, libel, obstruct and remove us from Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and Instagram are of no concern to the High and Mighty in the legacy press.

"It’s one thing for Spiro Agnew to call everyone in the press ‘nattering nabobs of negativism, Mr. Downie said, referring to Agnew's critique of how journalists covered President Nixon. “And another thing to investigate individuals in order to embarrass them publicly and jeopardize their employment.” 

This is precisely what several corporate newspaper chains, cable television news, websites, blogs and podcasts have been doing for years, including the NY Time calling for the dismissal and loss of employment of alternative reporters who have been smeared as anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, and so on.

A. G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, said in a statement that exposure of shady biographical facts about Times reporters was a case of taking Trump's "campaign against a free press to a new level. They are seeking to harass and embarrass anyone affiliated with the leading news organizations that are asking tough questions and bringing uncomfortable truths to light,” Mr. Sulzberger declared. 

When such tactics are used against the leading"news organizations they are immoral and wrong. However, when the Times, Washington Post and CNN smear, intimidate and prevent alternative journalists who work for smaller online operations from asking tough questions and bringing uncomfortable truths to light,” then it’s not at all a matter for outrage. The news aristocrats have spoken. You may now kiss their designer shoes.

Mr. Sulzberger takes the moral high ground on behalf of his very profitable and powerful business behemoth: 

“The goal of this campaign is clearly to intimidate journalists from doing their job, which includes serving as a check on power and exposing wrongdoing when it occurs. The Times will not be intimidated or silenced.”

What about journalists who seek a check on your monopoly power and wrong-doing Mr. Sulzberger? What of your newspaperendeavor to jeopardize our employment?

Mr. Sulzberger’s heresy-hunting NY Times has shown zero interest in defending conservative reporters who are not members of the legacy media from calumny and blacklisting. 

Often the Times has been guilty of these odious tactics, which it now indignantly protests when its political rivals and business competitors employ them to deflate the reputation of the Times, and inform the public concerning the questionable character of some of its writers and editors.

In many cases Sulzberger’s newspaper has encouraged those attacks and covered up for thought police groups like Right Wing Watch and "Media Matters for America that closely investigate and attack conservative journalists, and Sleeping Giants, which is sworn to threaten and shame any platform online that dares to host radical alternatives to politically correct dogma and revolutionary social change.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a prominent thought police group campaigning for the censorship of history books at Amazon, the silencing of black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, and of activists who are outside the established boundary of permissible opinions about Israeli settler-colonialism and the racist creed of the Babylonian Talmud. Over the years, the New York Times has been a dependable mouthpiece for the ADL and complicit in its libel and intimidationyet the Times is horrified now that such tactics are being wielded against its own writers. Here we observe the grotesque hypocrisy of the entitled.

In June the heresy-hunters at Google’s YouTube removed several legitimate revisionist history videos, together with many white supremacist and hate speech videos. Having accepted without investigation Google’s deceitful description of all the videos it removed from YouTube as constituting "hate speech," the New York Times mechanically reported the entire ban in terms of taking down hate speech. Our video exposing Deborah Lipstadt’s hate speech toward historian David Irving was one of the films banned from YouTube. Consequently, our video which fulfilled a public service by advancing knowledge about the hate speech of an Establishment-revered Zionist celebrity (Lipstadt), was banned in the name of combating hate speech. The Times cooperated and was party to the masquerade. Revisionist researchers and activists are barely human in the eyes of the Times, and unworthy of the anguish and hand-wringing now being expended to defend their own hired hands from suppression and removal. This corrosive double standard undercuts Mr. Sulzberger’s protestations and reveals the corruption at the heart of his newspaper’s reporting.

Below is our note, which we e-mailed to the two NY Times employees who, in the August 25 online edition, told of the supposedly immoral and impudent move to investigate the background and statements of their distinguished fellow reporters at the legacy medias most honored and acclaimed flagship, to which every decent American is expected to demonstrate fealty.

Dear Messers Vogel and Peters

You wrote, "In the case of the pro-Trump network, research into journalists is being deployed for the political benefit of the White House.”

I can’t abide Trump but I consider these exposures of privileged  members of the legacy media delightful, due to the fact that said media have acquiesced in massive censorship and denial of service on Facebook, YouTube, Google and in Amazon’s censorship of historians’ dissident books. In these instances involving alternative writers and journalists who compete with the NY Times and other legacy media, there has been little or no solidarity offered by your fellow reporters and editors. 

In many cases where the harassed and interdicted alternative journalists are Conservatives, there have been expressions from members of the legacy media of satisfaction at the heresy-hunting, doxing and removals.

Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, we’re supposed to believe the process of sleuthing into journalists' public and private foibles and failings is somehow an outrage against press freedom? 

Freedom of the press does not begin at the gate of the legacy media. The Times, the Post, CNN etc. were the ones who first let the genie out of the bottle. You ought to deal with the karmic consequences without whining. 

Better yet, work for the freedom of expression of your lumpen proletariat rivals online.

Michael Hoffman

Your donation keeps Michael working for Truth