--- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:38 AM
Subject: Hoffman: The Revisionism of the Future: Human Rights, not Reich


Hoffman: The Revisionism of the Future: Human Rights, not Reich

Nov. 19, 2003

Dr. Faurisson's Nov. 18 statement, "The Revisionist ADL Affair" is correct in some details but errs in at least one: the accusation that because David Irving blundered in refusing the services of Germar Rudolf, that blunder renders Irving "a man who was too afraid of the Jews."

This is a serious charge and it is not for reasons of a defense of Mr. Irving that I bring it up, since David has formidable polemical skills and can take care of himself. Rather, I am concerned about a linkage between certain tactics and strategy and "fear of the Jews." To be cunning or reserved or wily is not ipso facto proof of "fear of the Jews." In a heroic fashion Mr. Irving went to court every day in London without bodyguards, completely exposed and alone and fought tooth-and-nail against Deborah Lipstadt. Seated behind Lipstadt was the Israeli Attorney General, Elyakim Rubinstein. Another staunch supporter lent Lipstadt assistance from Hollywood, mogul Steven Spielberg. Simply because Irving, in his world-historic defiance of the Zionist establishment in his Lipstadt libel action (which also left a remarkably edifying court transcript that will be studied for decades), made an error with regard to Rudolf's offer of assistance, should not cause him to be branded as someone who is in "fear of the Jews." Yes, he had a regrettably naive faith, common to the English middle and upper classes, in the British court system and the judge, but this a peculiar trait of the English people, rather than a personal failing.

I do not accept the analogy between Ernst Zundel and Mr. Mahler. Zundel's research and defense team was diverse, composed of persons of Jewish background (the elderly Mr. Berg and Ditlieb Felderer); the defense lawyer was a libertarian and many other anti-Nazis like Bradley Smith were actively involved. Zundel's defense was based on the right of free speech and press and not the rehabilitation of "The Reich." Where he did raise World War Two issues it was in defense of the human rights of the German people. I am very concerned about Mr. Mahler's approach because it fails to capitalize on the German Left's new interest in the fate of the eastern and ethnic Germans after the war. Germany today is an Israeli satrapy. Canada in 1985 was a liberal utopia in comparison. To advance revisionism in the Israeli-German police state requires a coalition based on free speech, truth in history and defense of the German people. Any suggestion that the "Reich" is also being resurrected or even defended will translate into the destruction and defeat of Mr. Mahler's cause.

Robert speaks of contemporary revisionism as "shy, bloodless and without real inspiration." The reason for that predicament in the United States at least, is due to the fact that World War Two revisionism continues to dwell in a ghetto comprised of people who are, it is sad to say, strongly sympathetic to a neo-Nazi agenda. Even those who are not of this political class continue to spout ancient, 19th century Dreyfus case terminology about "fear of the Jews."

The enemy is not "the Jews," any more than it is "the Germans" or "the Arabs." The enemy is an ideology --Zionism, Holocaustianity, Judaism --not a race or ethnicity. There is an entire class of Aryans, i.e. the Freemasons and the American Protestant fundamentalists, who are more rabidly Zionist than many Israelis. I was fired from my job as a reporter for the establishment media by Aryans. My chief defenders were two Judaics (Chomsky and Alfred Lilienthal). Perhaps I should go about speaking of those who are "too afraid of the Aryans" to properly organize and revitalize revisionism?

From my study of orthodox Judaism, I know that the rabbis love it when we fail to make these distinctions between Judaic people and ideology. The Kabbalah and Talmud teach that the goyim always hate "the Jews" all the time, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly. By means of this legend, the rabbis enforce obedience and solidarity in their ranks. The more we speak categorically of "the Jews," the less likely it is that we will win the valuable allies and gain the vital counter-intelligence we need from their camp. We will also continue to drive fair-minded Judaic persons back into Zionist and rabbinic ranks, because they will reason that no matter how much they try to be decent, they will still be lumped into the category of those fearsome "Jews."

Revisionism needs a revision, thinking outside the box, coupled with mutual respect for those with whom we disagree. I happen to regard Faurisson, Butz, Rudolf and Irving as admirable men. I do not see that because Faurisson fires his cannon on the quarter deck and Irving from the main -- and I don't like either man's aim -- that this makes them any less my comrades in the battle. We are all soldiers in a fight for Truth. To hate one another because we exercise the sovereign right to choose when and how we shall fight the battle, smacks of an attempt to impose generalship over the rest of us. For good or ill, revisionism will not suffer its would-be kings and generals. Zundel had the wit to tell me, in the basement of Zundelhaus on the snowy evening of January 6, 1985, the night before he would commence his epic court battle, "Mike, there are no fuhrers here." It was on the basis of that disarming statement that I joined ranks with former SS soldier Hans von der Heide, former Allied soldier Doug Collins, Jewish information-archaeologist Ditlieb Felderer, Catholic traditionalist Doug Christie, atheist Robert Faurisson and so many others from diverse backgrounds, politics and races, to fight for Zundel's right to ask "Did Six Million Really Die?"

In my book about the trial, I did not conceal Ernst's personal Hitlerian convictions. I tried to show that as a holocaust survivor himself (having survived the firebombing of Pforzheim), Zundel's trauma was not going to result in the embrace of a politically correct philosophy. But he kept his politics distinct from the libertarian cause of freedom of speech, and this was the key to his early success. It was only later, when he groomed Ewald Althans for leadership, that I began to see the possibility of his decline. It is not "fear of the Jews" that motivates me to remind revisionists that the German government has been found to have bankrolled even the polite neo-Nazi movement in Germany, for reasons that are too patent to require elucidation.

I write this not out of any desire to pander to Leftist bias or Judaic egomania. The book I co-wrote with Moshe Lieberman, "The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians" is proving influential and enjoys brisk sales at Amazon.com, but I continue to be boycotted within the Leftist, anti-Zionist circles of Alexander Cockburn et al. because of my World War Two revisionism. This boycott is very much a product of their fear of being stigmatized, and I realize that there is a certain faction that will label me a "little Hitler" probably until the day I die, in spite of my actual beliefs and opinions. None of that fazes me. Left and Right are equally distortions in my eyes. Revisionism will one day unite both of these flawed, dying parties into a new movement, where fidelity to truth is the sole raison d'etre. But I continue to insist that revisionism should not just be stepping on rabbinic toes and violating Zionist taboos. It should also be an affront to Aryan myths and Nazi egomania. It is to put us on the road to that revisionism of the future that I offer these observations.

Michael A. Hoffman II
Nov. 19, 2003

Top of Page | Home Page

-free 2003 Adelaide Institute