Our Dissenting Enterprise
By Michael Hoffman
On Feb 27, 2020, at 3:17, J.A. <@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
I must read your book about Hitler. Your opinions are always valuable, even though one may not agree with them. And I have the advantage of having been born in a neutral country and having access to books and documents from both sides and in various languages.
May I make a brief comment? Hitler as the enemy of the German people may be, as Oscar Wilde would say, a pleasing paradox, but I do not set very high store on it as an axiom. One could also say that Churchill was the enemy of the British people, for having destroyed the Empire and being responsible for an economic crisis which lasted until the 1960s. I would even venture that Hitler was only the enemy of the German people because he lost – but that, of course, is just my reasoned judgement.
But please don't be discouraged for any hate mail you may receive. You have the right – and I dare say the duty – to express your opinions. And if you ever think I may be of some use to your work, by all means do let me know.
Dear Dr. J.A.
I almost hesitate to reprint your e-mail in my column because my brief revisionist history book on Hitler’s career, Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People, has resulted in so many unfounded accusations and reproaches, as well as such hatred, that it almost inspires the fear that, if it continues, it will be the end of our truth mission and thus, perhaps my silence would be best for the greater good of the overall survival of our enterprise.
However, one could say the same about the false accusations, reproaches and hatred directed against us by the Zionist and Talmudic community. For more than 35 years, by the grace of God, we have managed to overcome both the fear of Israeli and rabbinic power and their direct assaults; and here we are in 2020 continuing onward. Therefore, I do choose to persevere in publicly defending my Hitler book from what have been thus far, with a few exceptions like your own welcome note, obtuse regurgitations of propaganda lines fed to true believers who imagine themselves revisionists when they don’t even grasp the epistemological adventure which revisionism represents, in contrast to their profoundly anti-revisionist dogmatism.
The revisionist praxis has been misused and exploited to promote the rehabilitation of Hitler’s reputation. Generally, this has been an exercise in propaganda, not historiography. The talking points against my book for example — or should I say the talking point — is almost always the same monotonous, mynah bird refrain, as evidenced by the most recent “review” of the book at Amazon, wherein the critic opines:
“Stalin was preparing to launch a surprise attack of Nazi Germany at the end of summer of 1941, and Operation Barbarossa was, therefore, a preemptive strike by Hitler, and really the only option to gain the initiative against overwhelming odds. Just read Icebreaker, a masterful book with written by the Soviets who actually planned it!!!”
(End quote from a review at Amazon.com by someone signed "1984AD" posted February 23, and still online as of 3:40 p.m., Feb. 27).
If I had a dollar for every time this tune has been parroted, I could afford to buy myself all the doppelbock lager I need to get through Lent!
As I argue in my book, it ("Operation Barbarossa") was not “the only option.” The fact that this “1984AD” person, and many other of Hitler’s defenders will not address is that, aside from whether or not Stalin was about to launch an invasion of Germany —and personally, Icebreaker by an author who is a British intelligence-connected asset, did not persuade this writer— Germany could have fought a defensive war from its own supply lines, rather than a delusional, suicidal invasive march across the vast distance of the Russian interior.
Hitler gambled the lives of hundreds of thousands of German youth that he would conquer Russia in five months! It was a reckless, demented gamble with no foundation in reality. This is a major thesis of my book and it is scrupulously avoided by Hitler’s defenders.
You suggest that perhaps “Hitler was only the enemy of the German people because he lost (the war).” With all due respect, if your suggestion were to be accepted, it would constitute a serious misreading of what Hitler personified: an anti-Christian dictatorship that denied the sanctity of the individual human being who bears the image of God, and who derives his or her individual rights not from rulers or governments, but “endowed by their Creator”—as Jefferson wrote in the founding document of our republic, the Declaration of Independence—and consequently irrevocable.
Hitler’s template for governance was the model of a secular messiah who is above humanity, uniquely qualified to dictate his will to the people. This megalomania, which has a great deal in common with the rabbinic mentality evinced in the Talmud and in the micromanagement of the lives of its adherents, is the original sin of totalitarianism. As early as 1921 Hitler demanded that he become the “No. 1 Chairman with dictatorial powers” of the NSDAP (Nazi Party).
In October of 1923 he repeatedly called for the establishment of a dictatorship in Germany. In an interview with the Daily Mail on October 2, he drew a significant parallel with Mussolini: “If a German Mussolini is given to Germany, people would fall down on their knees and worship more than Mussolini has ever been worshipped.”
Twelve days later, at a Party meeting in Nuremberg, Hitler stated, “...a real dictator does not depend on anyone; the nation depends on him...not relying on anyone else but only on my immense resolve and with it and through it either gaining victory or going down to defeat.”
During his speeches leading up to the Reichstag election of 1930 (to be held Sept. 14), Hitler stated, “At moments of crisis,” nations should look “always to dictatorship and never to democracy.”
The German people, the culture-bearers of Europe, the people of Bach and Beethoven, the most advanced scientific nation on earth, were so retarded that they required a one-man dictatorship to lead them to liberty and peace?
Catastrophe is inevitable under such an arrangement, whether or not success at arms has been achieved. The crucial question is: does the government, as the elected representative of the people, recognize and enforce the God-given rights of the individual to self-rule? Such a right was the ancient patrimony of Germany. Hitler’s messianic occult tyranny wreaked havoc upon it. This is another truth my opposers dodge.
Isn’t it interesting that no credible member of the revisionist fraternity will confront the research in my book in a public forum? There is a concerted effort to ignore it, treating it with the silence for which the Zionist media are notorious.
The silence is nearly total, and thus far support for the free discussion of my theses has come not from the revisionists with whom I have worked since I reported the Zündel trial from Toronto in 1985, but rather from freethinkers like the Muslim-American academic Dr. Kevin Barrett, who interviewed this writer on his “Truth Jihad” program, and about which revisionist editors, publishers and writers are almost entirely silent. Does not this silence signal that these individuals do not have sufficient confidence in their own arguments to entertain mine?
We mentioned Hitler’s denial of the God-given rights of the individual. I wish to briefly address his attitude toward the Christian faith and the cynical and deceitful pose he maintained in 1932 and early 1933, to present himself as a conservative leader in the illustrious tradition of German-Christian statesmen, as well as to gull President Paul Von Hindenburg, who had repeatedly refused Hitler the Chancellorship out of anxiety that he would become Germany’s tyrant. From private correspondence of November, 1932 we know that Hindenburg feared “...that any cabinet under your (Hitler’s) leadership, ruling by Presidential decree, would develop into a party-dictatorship...”
February 1, 1933, shortly after gaining power, while his hold was still tenuous, Hitler broadcast on national radio his “Appeal to the German People.” In it he hypocritically articulated common conservative Christian themes as being “the eternal foundations of our morals and our faith,” and declared, “Christianity as the basis of our whole morality” (Franklin D. Roosevelt feigned a similar Christian conviction). These statements by Hitler and other malarkey like them, are what the führer’s dupes point to when they allege he had a fundamental Christian orientation. That’s a lie. He frequently dismissed the role of religion in the hearts and minds of the people and the destiny of Germany in his orations to the Nazi Party in the 1920s. In Munich in 1929 he informed the Party faithful, “Religion is the least of a nationalist’s concerns.”
Was it a reflection of Hitler’s supposed Christian orientation and consequent respect for the dignity and rights of the individual when he told the commanders of the Reichswehr two days later (Feb. 3, 1933), “...it is our task to seize political power, ruthlessly suppress every subversive opinion and improve the nation’s morale.” Was this the friend of the German people speaking? By what right do Hitler’s defenders today protest Zionist suppression of opinion when suppression of freedom of speech was the founding principle of Hitler’s regime?
Moreover, it was at this February meeting with Germany’s military leaders that Hitler announced his “probable” plans for war with Russia. He declared that the military would be rebuilt with: “...the goal of extending the German people’s living space by force of arms. The objective will probably be the East.” He said that, since it was “possible to Germanize only the land” and not people, in the course of the conquest they would have to “ruthlessly expel several million people.”
Allow me to anticipate the farcical neo-Nazi retort: “When the Israelis said this about the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948, and say it again now in the settlements, it was and is, a horrible war crime, but when Hitler said it about the Slavs it was understandable.”
In 1933, where was “Stalin’s imminent invasion” as the alibi for Hitler’s dispossession of the Slavs?
From early in his career Hitler had been set on the path of “ruthlessly” extruding the Slavic people from their land, no alibi about a Stalinist invasion being necessary.
At the end of 1922, he was already planning an attack on Russia as well as “colonizing the East.” In a secret conversation in December with financier Eduard Scharrer (an Anheuser-Busch heir through marriage, and co-owner of the "Müchener Neueste Nachrichten" newspaper), Hitler stated that Germany should aim for the destruction of Russia with the aid of England. Hitler told him:
"Germany’s future lay in the east, the destruction of the Russian empire and the distribution of its land and property, which will be settled by German settlers and exploited by German power. There are vast areas there for us to colonise. But not by way of land reform à la Damaschke. The solution is to smash Russia, and to win land and real estate for the Germans to settle and cultivate. After successfully invading Russia the newly powerful Germany could deal with France without any intervention by Britain.”
(Cf. David Irving, “Hitler sets out his secret plans to a wealthy donor in December 1922”).
Again we ask, this time in 1922, where was “Stalin’s imminent invasion” as Hitler’s alibi for the dispossession of the Slavic people?
Winston Churchill and Roosevelt were, like Hitler, also enemies of their people. The “Blitz” and the “Battle of Britain,” about which Hollywood waxes eloquent in dozens of movies and docudramas, was Churchill’s doing. As we have seen, Hitler in the 1920s and '30s was exceedingly naive about the masonic ruling class in Britain. He had no designs on England and was among the nation’s most fervent admirers. Peace was proposed to Britain by the Germans as late as 1940. Rather than peace, Churchill proceeded to have his people killed in another fratricide. Roosevelt was even more culpable in this regard.
I appreciate the civil tenor of your letter. Most of the responses I receive are similar to the “reviews” at Amazon, replete with eloquent witticisms such as “Your book is garbage!!”
I will not importune you with another notice of the threats and boycott underway. One does however, smile at the timing of the ADL’s attack in August on our work (getting YouTube to ban videos of my talks after more than ten years on YouTube and 178,000 views). Then in the following month Hitler’s enthusiasts initiate a whispering campaign, which continues to grow, alleging this writer is a “Jewish agent.” This scurrilous rumor is accepted by more than a few concerning the author of what are generally regarded as the two most potent deconstructions of Orthodox Judaism in the English language.
To my mind, the most prominent “Jewish agent” in modern history is the fellow who is the object of my detractors’ veneration. Perhaps someday, in the fullness of time, we shall have an authentic debate on these vital controversies in revisionist history. Meanwhile, young radicals in the alt-right movement and elsewhere, are convinced that America and the West need “a new Hitler to lead us to freedom.” Here we observe the hidden hand of the Cryptocracy, scripting another defeat —another dead end— for our people.
Copyright ©2020 by Independent History and Research
Box 849 • Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The Nazis and Abortion: What are the Documented Facts?
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The Nazis and Abortion: What are the Documented Facts?
I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept the thesis of your book.
Rabbis wanted to "Reenact the Exodus" for centuries in order to regain the land of Israel for themselves. With that in mind, it's not confusing as to why there was a lot of Jewish involvement in creating and raising up a Pharaoh (cf. Jim Condit's Final Solution to Adolf Hitler). Pharaoh would enslave the Jews, put them in forced labor camps, but ultimately, Pharaoh would have to be defeated, a sacrifice would be offered to God (a holocaust), then Jews would travel en masse to the Promised Land. The Exodus reenacted. Whether or not the Pharaoh (Hitler) knew he was being set up for defeat is questionable, but he was created to fail, and to get the Jews to Israel. It worked, so he was, knowingly or unknowingly, the enemy of the German people.
Keep up the great work!
1- The Jews created Hitler.
2- The Jews knew that Hitler would be defeated,
3- They also knew Hitler would enslave them,
4- But a sacrifice (the Holocaust)had to take place,
5- So that the Jews would be made "en masse" to go to the "Promised Land";
6- And so the Exodus would be reenacted.
7- In short, Hitler was created to get the Jews to Israel,
8- And so, and so and ergo, Hitler is "the enemy of the German people"
Bold and unsubstantiated statements, lacking any factual and logical foundation, machine-gunned one after the other to 'prove' Hoffman's point that Hitler was the Enemy of the German people. With friends and helpers like this Mr. Brian, Mr. Hoffman has no need for enemies.
M. Hoffman writes:
"By what right do Hitler’s defenders today protest Zionist suppression of opinion when suppression of freedom of speech was the founding principle of Hitler’s regime?"
Jews, (not precisely Zionists), _by the overwhelming control they exert over the MSM_, (which they own), suppress 'freedom of speech' wherever and whenever it is convenient and expedient to advance their interests and their Jewish political agenda (that which is good for the Jews).
Isn't this obvious Mr. Hoffman?, and isn't it obvious too why those that you pejoratively corral into the label "Hitler's defenders" do indeed protest the suppression of free speech; although they are not the only ones that protest its suppression, but all those truth seekers as well, among which, you as a historical revisionist are included.
The speech that the Jews want to ban is that which they deem as bad for the Jews, but the problem is that generally speaking that which is good for the Jews is bad for everybody else. Conversely, the speech that the Jews actively promote and disseminate is that which is bad, very bad for the non Jews, which the Jews heartily dislike, despise and want to subdue, so they can be "Uber Alles". Do you want proof? Suffice two examples: Identity Politics and Political Correctness; not to mention, _Jews forbid_, the Holocaustianity Dogma (your words Sir).
The XX Century is known as the century of ideologies, mortal ideologies I would add, and the two most antagonistic were ZIONISM (with its two main branches: Liberal-Democratism and Communism) and NAZISM or National-Socialism.
Both ideologies still fight each other under different names: Nationalism vs Globalism. Which side are you in Sir?
Both are mortal enemies and the fate of mankind depends on whom ultimately wins, both in the praxis and in the minds and consciences of the people. Both have antagonistic discourses and Weltanschauung and both rightly try to ban and suppress each others discourse. Not to acknowledge this is disingenuous and naive. Opposite fundamental values and mores are at stake. Don't you agree Sir?
Your second comment is a convoluted defense of a free speech double standard, such as the Zionists assert: free speech for me but not for thee.
The Nazi mentality bears numerous similarities to the Talmudic, though you fail to see it and insist they are fiercely antagonistic. According to you, Hitler’s censorship and banning of his rivals and their ideas was beneficial for the good of the world, but Zionist censorship is "bad, very bad.” Why am I not persuaded by the totalitarian values you espouse?
Dressed up in your religious jargon of apocalypse — "mortal enemies” and fate of mankind” — the truism that has existed in the West since John Milton’s “Areopagitica” and our Bill of Rights— that free speech for all sides is necessary to the pursuit of knowledge and truth — is overthrown in favor of ruthless war to the hilt.
No, I do not agree that "opposite fundamental values are at stake." Stalinists and Hitlerists have the same values with regard to freedom: it must be suppressed for the sake of “the fate of mankind.”
You fail to comprehend that your thesis: Hitler friend of mankind; anti-thesis: Stalinist Judaics enemy of mankind; is vulnerable to a dialectical process whereby the resulting synthesis produces a victory for evil no matter who wins, in that the imposition of tyranny, whether of the Hitlerian or the Stalinist type, is always a defeat for freedom-seeking humanity.
Stay the F**k at Home
Will I regret purchasing the Hitler book?
Identifying as “half Slav”
And as “half “little” Slav”
Starting at age 4,
And a too-soon viewing of the Russian Revolution / Civil War movie “doctor Zhivago,” I have gone from a Slavophile, to “obsessive.”
The chapter title about “Naziism’s Russian roots” — alone — could put me in a hospital.
Hitler was on very good terms with Zionists from 1933 up to 1940.
The proof is the deal he(German Gov) made with Warburg Banks, to resettle the over 100k of midel-class/educated Jewish to Palestine.
So Brain & Michael are write.
Post a Comment