Hoffman’s remarks are “radically counter-productive” and “untruthful"

Hoffman’s remarks are “radically counter-productive” and “untruthful”

The following is a reply from a reader to our note on Hate Mail 

Hoffman's rejoinder follows the critic’s e-mail

On Feb 19, 2020, at 9:31, E.P.G. wrote:

"rising attacks on Judaic people and synagogues by mentally fragile persons who have proven susceptible to the whitewashed image of Hitler"

For what it is worth, these attacks you're speaking about are almost uniformly carried out by African Americans in New York city.  I'd be surprised if any of them knew who Hitler was or admired him.  And if any do, I think you have the causation backwards: these people are not attacking Jews because Hitler and neo-Nazis told them to; rather, they like Hitler or sympathize with neo-Nazis because they have personal experience with Jews.  The attacks on orthodox Jews in NYC are in all likelihood motivated by run-of-the-mill ethnic tensions that arise where one ethnic group encroaches, expands or takes over previously diverse communities or communities previously the exclusive preserve of another ethnic group.  

I'm entirely sympathetic to your critiques of National Socialism and Hitler, but the idea that the black individuals attacking orthodox Jews in New York City are being influenced by neo-Nazis or Hitler whitewashing is frankly preposterous.  Even occult processing, methinks, requires a certain level of sensitivity and intelligence that many diverse New Yorkers are fundamentally lacking.  

As it relates to broader instances of "anti-semitic attacks" against Jews, these are almost entirely fabricated by the ADL and SPLC, as you are well aware.  Any time a person posts a flier with the innocuous phrase "its OK to be white" the ADL chalks that up as an "anti-semitic attack." 

 I think it is radically counter-productive (not to mention untruthful) to lend credence to the idea that Jews in America are a threatened or persecuted group.  

They are the most powerful, privileged and secure ethnic group in America.  Of course it is always unfortunate and legitimately deplorable when an innocent person - Jew or Gentile - suffers retribution for the actions of another just because they belong to the same group, however to the extent that Jewish individuals are persecuted in America, it is almost entirely because of the perceived collective behavior of Jews as a group, not because of the influence of "neo-Nazism".  So if you are legitimately concerned about the safety of Jews in America, you should go back to putting the blame where it belongs: on Jewish behavior, not on long-dead and moldering ideologies like Nazism. The only bona fide "neo-nazis" in America are hollywood actors and federal assets.  

____________

Dear Mr. E.P.G.

Your timeline for synagogue attacks is captive only to the most recent events of the past few months. 

It seems you have forgotten the attack on the Overland Park Jewish Community Center in Kansas. There was also the Poway, California synagogue shooting, the Pittsburgh synagogue mass murder, as well as the attack on the synagogue in Halle, Germany. These tragedies are not exactly ancient history.

“Not to mention untruthful” allusions, accusing this writer of generalizations, such as saying that "Jews in America are a threatened or persecuted group” — an inexactitude I have never stated. You may traffic in sweeping enormities about “Jews in America.” I do not have the luxury of ill-defined categorizations.

Why not deal with the realpolitik at hand? Because of a few, very high profile atrocities against Judaic people, the perception of the American people is that Judaic people are under siege. It is the perception that is at issue, assuming you are interested in analyses that advance our cause in the face of what has been almost relentless defeat. 

You wrote:

“...you should go back to putting the blame where it belongs: on Jewish behavior”

How the rabbis savor your expression, in all its imprecise, approximate grandeur: “Jewish behavior.” Not Zionist behavior, or Talmudic behavior, but Jewish behavior. Here is your indictment of the whole people, including all those endeavoring to escape Zionism and the Talmud. Thus you confirm an oracle of the rabbis, who impart to Judaic youth the following doctrine: 

"Halacha b'yaduah, ‘Esav sonei es Yaakov.” (“It is a universal law, ‘Goyim [“Esau”] will hate the Jew [“Jacob”] — [no matter what he does]. Hence, according to this rabbinic augury, there is no escape from being a Jew. However benign the Jew tries to become, in the eyes of the goyim, his behavior will always be subject to group libel. This is the teaching of the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism to Judaic youth: you will be hated no matter what you do, so stay loyal to us. 

Hitler served as fulfiller of the rabbinic prophecy. He acted that role with virtuosity. You are doing the same. I have been revealing the blowback from this for almost 20 years, while beseeching our people not to succumb to the Hitlerian stupidity that empowers it. Yet the same hateful, self-sabotaging generalization about Judaics continues to be used by people who imagine they are defying the rabbis, when they are actually being out-witted by them, by obtusely acting parts in their Talmudic theater.

Most people don’t seem capable any longer of engaging in deep study and sustained thought. Social media and cell phones have reduced our cognition to sound bites, videos, slogans, tropes, and memes—compact segments of truncated mentation that enervate our spirits and degrade our powers of reason by offering the illusion of thought and an appearance of fact, while confining us to traversing a perpetual circle of paralysis and self-defeat.

Nazism, you say, is a dead, moldering ideology? Really? Is the movement to rehabilitate the image and reputation of its leader also dead and moldering? To take but one glaring example, can you be unaware of the escalating campaign online by significant websites, web personalities and columnists backed by more than one deep-pockets’ donor, to paint Hitler as the “savior of western Europe” due to his attack on Soviet Russia? That’s only the introductory line in their Hitlerian catechesis. From that absurdity, they proceed to escort the would-be initiate to the revelation that poor, pitiful Adolf was a victim who was not responsible for the apocalypse that befell Germany on his watch, during his murderous dictatorship. 

I wrote a book about the disaster for the German people that was Hitler’s invasion of the USSR, so I need not recite the details in e-mail. You can read it; or not.

If, as you allege, there are few, if any, followers of Hitler outside of Tinseltown and “Federal assets,” who has written and published for more than a decade a glossy magazine promoted by a nationally known populist newspaper that features, on a regular basis, panegyrics to Hitler and his NSDAP?

Who has penned the numerous negative diatribes on Amazon for Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People? 

Who has sparked a whispering campaign since the book came out, alleging that this writer is a “Jew” who is working for the Zionists, and no longer worthy of support? 

Who has boycotted our Truth Mission, canceled subscriptions to our newsletter and stopped assistance since the book was written? 

Who are the editors online who eagerly published our work back then, i.e. prior to the distribution of Enemy of the German People, and are giving us the silent treatment now? Is this a coincidence?

This writer’s life has been a battle from the beginning. There’s nothing unique in that. Many people have a similar experience. When threatened, I work harder. When told to sit down, I stand up. I will not be silenced. The ADL has learned that fact. Now it is time for Hitler’s contemporary promoters to learn it too: by the grace of God, we will issue, in a year or less, a much expanded edition of Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People.

In February 2020 the accelerating revival of the Hitler template permits no debate and brooks no dissent—no more than Hitler did 87 years ago in February 1933 from the KDP or the Center Party. If the revival continues to grow, it will spell the continuing negation and defeat of the life-and-death struggle for our rights and a future for our children. Why? Because in the fullness of time, Hitlerism is a self-exploding Kabbalistic mechanism. The people who will mock this esoteric verity are the same goyim who fulfill the rabbinic prophecy of Halacha b'yaduah, ‘Esav sonei es Yaakov.’

Michael Hoffman 

Copyright©2020

____________

Did Stalin Want War With Germany in 1941?

Announcing Revisionist History Newsletter issue no. 82

 (An editorial follows this announcement)

Did Stalin Want War With Germany in 1941?
Hitler's Struggle against the Moloch of the Soviet Union: Options and Consequences

Michael Hoffman’s controversial new study of Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union

Topics include: The Communist-Nazi Alliance, 1939-1941; The Role of Exterminationism in Leninism-Stalinism; NKVD Operations During Barbarossa, 1941-1942; The Commissar Order; Critique of Viktor Suvarov’s Stalin Attack Thesis; Adolf Hitler: British Agent?; Hitler, the German High Command and the Attempt to Conquer Moscow; Hitler’s Götterdammerung Fatalism; The German Defeat in Russia; and more.

Buy this issue as a single copy • or: Subscribe and begin your subscription with this issue no. 82

The following editorial was mailed to our subscribers with this issue:

Preserving Our Independence 

By Michael Hoffman

With our current issue no. 82, “Did Stalin Want War With Germany?,” we again trespass in a forbidden border-region ruled off-limits by true believers who call themselves revisionists. 

Though it is seldom applied to people on our side, the culture of victimhood is rife in our ranks. When we published Revisionist History newsletter no. 74, “Right Wing Myths with an Endless Shelf Life”, Belloc-Catholics were appalled that we had “victimized” them and their paragon, Hilaire Belloc. 

When in issue number 80 we vindicated Gregor Strasser from the charge that he had conspired in the violent overthrow of Adolf Hitler, and showed that Hitler was guilty of having this eminent German assassinated, Hitler’s fans howled. We had victimized their demigod. 

In both cases mature people who pride themselves on their ability to reason, joined the infantilized culture of victimhood which undermines the traditional virtues of comity and amity among scholars, marked by good-faith disagreement. 

When our research turned up the fact that Mr. Belloc was an atrocious historian, and that Hitler had snuffed out one of the most virtuous German National Socialists of his generation, the victimhood culture sprang into action, as it does on liberal college campuses and among the politically correct; how ironic that it manifests even in our ranks.

None of those who felt victimized have offered any surfeit of evidence to overturn our research. Reactions ranged from “How dare you!,” to citing Leon Degrelle’s sadly absurd disinformation, Hitler Democrat, wherein the author libels his fellow Catholic Gregor Strasser, according to the dictates of the oft-recycled mendacity concerning Strasser’s murder. This is revisionist? 

A substantial minority of our readers (in some cases, they are now former readers) crave, indeed seem to demand, disinformation when their own myths would otherwise be threatened by alternative data. They are deeply offended when we don’t play along. How does this attitude differ from the self-inflicted deception so prevalent in the rabbinic world? 

Our editorial mission is to cultivate strong individuals of character who are motivated by truth-seeking as the highest aspiration of their lives, not a herd who process reality through a lens of Hitlerism, or Catholics who can’t spot their own transformation into a rabbinic simulacra. Those who come to us seeking vindication of their most revered historical and religious illusions, will be bitterly disappointed.

In place of mutual dogmatic denunciation and ideological rancor we recommend the standard of disagreement in good faith, with mutual good will toward those who dissent from our own cherished beliefs (we all have them, whether we are aware of it or not). 

This good-faith disagreement should not be a tall order for revisionists, but it seems that some people pose as freethinking revisionists when they are actually Hitlerian or papalolatrous enthusiasts exploiting revisionism to advance their cultism. 

We have no patience for such dissembling when it raises its head among Zionists, why then should we avoid exposing it in our own camp? 

When challenged by facts, an authentic revisionist dutifully revises his or her views in the face of the new information. If he or she believes the challenge to be less than persuasive, the revisionist nevertheless graciously acknowledges the obligation of fellow revisionists to issue challenges to sacred cows. The genuine revisionist supports further research and exploration of taboo topics without limits on what can or cannot be expressed. 

There are other publications which cater to the heavy baggage of the true-believer. Those who feel victimized by our dissenting truth mission are welcome to embrace those publications and writers more comforting to their delicate belief systems. We seek overcomers willing to face the future armed with facts that can withstand the assault of the enemy, not clichés and stereotypes useful mainly for preaching to the choir, with little potential for persuading those who are not already in the fold. 

Throughout the history of rabbinic Talmudism, Judaic heretics who revealed anomalies in the rabbinic dogma were beaten, banished or killed. In the recent history of this newsletter, as we revealed anomalies in Right wing dogma, we have escaped beatings and death, but not boycotts, calumniating whispering campaigns and “exile” in the form of subscription cancellations and withdrawals of support. 

It’s remarkable that so many alleged opponents of Judaism exhibit unmistakable rabbinic attitudes of hostility toward advancements in learning. What should be our response? Preserve our financial bottom line by tailoring our work to suit this mentality, or risk everything to advance research independent of any agenda? 

At this juncture it is appropriate to acknowledge and thank our base of steadfast subscribers who are committed to sharing and sustaining our voyage of discovery. It is due to their dedication and support that we have been able to continue to publish this newsletter, which was founded as an organ for the rejection of processed thinking, and an entrée to a universe of audacious exploration that may yet yield a winning ideological strategy and political formula.

With our current issue no. 82, “Did Stalin Want War With Germany?,” sub-titled, “Hitler’s Struggle Against the Moloch of the Soviet Union: Options and Consequences,” we again trespass in a forbidden border-region ruled off-limits by true believers who call themselves revisionists. 

Since last autumn, when we announced our forthcoming study of Operation Barbarossa (the code name for Hitler’s invasion of Russia), readers have written letters and sent us books and articles, mostly in an effort to persuade us that the 1941 invasion was prudent, and absolutely necessary to the survival of NS Germany. Patently, readers care about what we think and what we publish, and that in itself is something. We in turn have read or at least perused everything that was sent, in addition to the research material which we gathered. Our conclusions will be found in issue 82. 

Whether we have pleased or disappointed, delighted or enraged, is no concern of ours. Our hard core supporters value our independence; that’s why they subscribe and renew their subscriptions year after year — because learning pays dividends and truth matters — or at least the pursuit of it, when that pursuit refuses to tailor itself to an agenda.

We are weary of defeat, deception and delusion. To break free is the purpose of our writing. Such freedom is not easily won. It comes at great cost, like all that is precious and exquisite in this life, foreshadowing eternity.

Copyright©2016

___________________