The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/b/

Archive/File: people/b/ baron.0695

From Fri Jun  2 19:23:08 PDT 1995
Article: 63867 of alt.conspiracy
From: James Daugherty 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.british,alt.illuminati,
Subject: Re: LaRouche into Holocaust Denial?
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 09:54:47 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 51
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: Al Baron 
cc: New Paradigms Discussion 
In-Reply-To: <>
Xref: alt.conspiracy:63867 alt.politics.british:11698 alt.illuminati:5319

I agree that there should be no need to invent lies, but how do you so 
casually reject the LaRouche idea that a covert British Imperialism may 

Anglophobia has a long and glorious history!  LaRouche did not invent 
it!  The overt British Empire of bygone days certainly fueled a lot 
justified theorizing...

On Sat, 27 May 1995, Al Baron wrote:

> In article  you write:
> > 
> > What is your source for this statement?  Yes, I agree Willis Carto is 
> > strongly committed to holocaust denial and other fascist values and that 
> > LaRouche has had contact with Carto....but that does not make LaRouche an 
> > advocate of holocaust denial.
> > 
> > LaRouche, contrary to Carto, has always been a severe critic of Nazism, 
> > though connecting to British Establishment circles committed to racism and 
> > eugenics.
> > 
> LaRouche is not a Holocaust Revisionist and he is certainly no fascist, in
> fact he is a long-standing ANTI-fascist with impeccable credentials. He is 
> also crazy. The claim that LaRouche is a Holocaust Revisionist appears to
> have originated with Patterns of Prejudice, a wailing and gnashing of teeth
> "Jewish" academic [sic] journal.
> LaRouche believes that the Queen of England, Henry Kissinger and half the
> banks in Hong Kong are involved in a sinister conspiracy to flood America
> with cocaine in order to recolonise it by the secret British government.
> Why anyone should feel it necessary to invent lies about someone who is
> so obviously out of his tree never ceases to amaze me.
> -- 
> Al Baron

James Daugherty, volunteer Postmaster for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum.  Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources. 
**E-Mail Update/Discussion/Archive**|*******World Wide Web/Gopher/FTP*******
 e-mail:    |         
message: info prj                   |      
         get prj gopher/keytogopher |           

From Sat Jun  3 18:59:19 PDT 1995
Article: 63867 of alt.conspiracy
From: James Daugherty 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.british,alt.illuminati,
Subject: Re: LaRouche into Holocaust Denial?
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 09:54:47 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 51
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: Al Baron 
cc: New Paradigms Discussion 
In-Reply-To: <>
Xref: alt.conspiracy:63867 alt.politics.british:11698 alt.illuminati:5319

I agree that there should be no need to invent lies, but how do you so 
casually reject the LaRouche idea that a covert British Imperialism may 

Anglophobia has a long and glorious history!  LaRouche did not invent 
it!  The overt British Empire of bygone days certainly fueled a lot 
justified theorizing...

On Sat, 27 May 1995, Al Baron wrote:

> In article  you write:
> > 
> > What is your source for this statement?  Yes, I agree Willis Carto is 
> > strongly committed to holocaust denial and other fascist values and that 
> > LaRouche has had contact with Carto....but that does not make LaRouche an 
> > advocate of holocaust denial.
> > 
> > LaRouche, contrary to Carto, has always been a severe critic of Nazism, 
> > though connecting to British Establishment circles committed to racism and 
> > eugenics.
> > 
> LaRouche is not a Holocaust Revisionist and he is certainly no fascist, in
> fact he is a long-standing ANTI-fascist with impeccable credentials. He is 
> also crazy. The claim that LaRouche is a Holocaust Revisionist appears to
> have originated with Patterns of Prejudice, a wailing and gnashing of teeth
> "Jewish" academic [sic] journal.
> LaRouche believes that the Queen of England, Henry Kissinger and half the
> banks in Hong Kong are involved in a sinister conspiracy to flood America
> with cocaine in order to recolonise it by the secret British government.
> Why anyone should feel it necessary to invent lies about someone who is
> so obviously out of his tree never ceases to amaze me.
> -- 
> Al Baron

James Daugherty, volunteer Postmaster for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum.  Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources. 
**E-Mail Update/Discussion/Archive**|*******World Wide Web/Gopher/FTP*******
 e-mail:    |         
message: info prj                   |      
         get prj gopher/keytogopher |           

From Sun Jun  4 13:58:53 PDT 1995
Article: 21772 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: test message
Date: 4 Jun 1995 13:21:45 +0100
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

This is a test message. Demon appear to have restored my personal 
mail box. Can somebody send me some E-mail ie to A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK?



Alexander Baron

From Wed Jun 14 14:11:30 PDT 1995
Article: 22133 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: I haven't disappeared.
Date: 13 Jun 1995 21:05:33 +0100
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

I have a great deal of work to do over the next few weeks and can't spend
2 hours a day replying to mail, however much I'd like to, but I haven't gone 
away. I'll comment on everything in time.

By the way, here's something for ya' all to chew on:

Martin Gilbert 1978 Auschwitz - "4 million people were murdered between
1941 and 1944, including Jews, gypsies and Soviet prisoners-of-war."

Martin Gilbert 1993 POLAND "3,000,000 Jews" murdered between 1 September
1939 and 8 May 1945. 

I suppose you can always get around this by claiming that Gilbert is a
Revisionist, or more accurately, not a proper historian.

Alexander Baron

From Wed Jun 14 22:35:05 PDT 1995
Article: 65850 of alt.conspiracy
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Protocols of Zion
Date: 13 Jun 1995 19:51:58 +0100
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29



The $Jewish Chronicle$ for May 12, 1995 reported that David Icke, 
former  goalkeeper, TV presenter, Green Party spokesman and  one-
time  Son of God, had revived the $Protocols of Zion$,  which  is 
said  by Jewish leaders and the $Jewish Chronicle$ to be a  $for-
gery$.  Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?  However,  some 
extremely  sophisticated and otherwise intelligent men and  women 
have believed in the validity of the $Protocols$, from the  great 
industrial  genius  Henry Ford and Hitler (who was  certainly  no 
dummy,  whatever his politics), to our current day crop  of  mys-
tics.  Is the $Protocols$ a forgery? The answer is  a  resounding 
NO!  And  the reason it is not will be found in footnote  120  on 
page 37 of the first new analysis of this curious document  since 
Norman Cohn's 1967 bestseller $Warrant For Genocide$.

A4 text and brings together for the first time ever in print  the 
various  speculations,  hypotheses and  theories  concerning  the 
$Protocols$. It also contains an extensive bibliography - includ-
ing  precursors  and updates. For anyone interested  in  learning 
more  about  this difficult subject this is the  ideal  place  to 

only from ITMA, 93c Venner Road, Sydenham, London SE26 5HU.

THE  PROTOCOLS...An  Annotated Bibliography$ is L2.99  post  free 
>from  the same address.

Compiler  Alexander  Baron is also the author  of  three  related 
studies:  $Not  The Protocols Of Zion!$ (L2.99 post  free)  which 
analyses  in considerable depth three  $Protocols$-type  updates; 
$Global Deception 1993$ (L3.99 post free) a documented expose  of 
American  anti-Semitic  propagandist Eustace  Mullins;  and  $The 
World  Zionist Conspiracy Exposed By A Rabbi$ (L2.99  post  free) 
written  in collaboration with Rabbi Goldstein, which  lifts  the 
lid  off political Zionism. Baron's book $Holocaust  Denial:  New 
Nazi  Lie or New Inquisition?$ is still available from  the  same 
publisher at L7.99 post free.

US orders add 1 pound surface mail, 2 pounds airmail; UK cheques only.
Cash 2$ = 1 pound at sender's risk.

Alexander Baron

From Mon Jun 19 07:31:36 PDT 1995
Article: 22321 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: 4,000,000 again and more strange documents
Date: 16 Jun 1995 21:00:11 +0100
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

AUSCHWITZ MURDERER SENTENCED Hoess's "Production Plan", published 
under Imperial and Foreign, published in the Jewish Chronicle 
April 11, 1947, page 9. This reports that Hoess was responsible 
for murdering 4,000,000 people. He was said to have admitted one 
and a half to two million murders. The gas chambers were said to 
have operated round the clock from 1941 until October 1943 when 
Himmler ordered him to stop.

HOESS HANGED, published in the Jewish Chronicle April 18, 1947, 
page 1. Reports he was hanged April 15. On the same page 3 Jews 
were said to have been hanged in Palestine.

Jewish Chronicle June 13, 1947, page 1 reports the discovery of 
Nazi documents show that Hitler planned to exterminate 330,000 
Jews in Britain and 865,000 in France. What happened to this 
mysterious document? If it ever existed.

Alexander Baron

From Sat Jun 24 10:24:39 PDT 1995
Article: 22586 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: starvation
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 20:00:13 GMT
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

They're developing this starvation angle because their other methods are 
running out of gas.

Alexander Baron

From Mon Jun 26 10:30:43 PDT 1995
Article: 22686 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Hoffman and the Talmud
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 22:48:42 GMT
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 516
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

The  cartoons are deficient because I can't scan them in,  as  is 
Hoffman's  leaflet. However, this is available in hard copy  like 
all the rest of our publications. E-Mail me for details

A Case Study In Talmudic Calumny And Twisted Logic


  The late, great A.K. Chesterton wrote once that the  "CRITICISM 
of the Jews, as distinct from the criticism of any other race, is 
an  activity which creates such a highly-charged emotional  atmo-
sphere  that it should be undertaken only by critics who have  an 
interest  in  distinguishing  between truth  and  falsehood.  Mr. 
Eustace Mullins, unfortunately, seems to lack this most desirable 
qualification."  (1)  Like Chesterton, the current writer  is  no 
Jewish  apologist,  (2) and like Chesterton I have the  scars  to 
prove  it,  having been both smeared from pillar to  post  as  an 
anti-Semite  by the slime of Organised Jewry, libelled by a  dis-
gusting  "Jewish" newspaper and an even more disgusting  "Jewish" 
race-hate magazine, and battered with mallets on my own  doorstep 
by  $goy$ thugs who had obviously been hired to attack me by  the 
sweepings  of  the  ghetto. Also, like Chesterton, I  am  not  so 
stupid  as  to  fail to distinguish between "the  Jews"  and  the 
political  gangsters  who hide behind the name Jew; nor am  I  so 
stupid as to enthusiastically endorse every anti-Semitic  calumny 
which  comes  through my letter box on the grounds  that  if  one 
throws  enough  dirt at the Chosen Race, some of it  will  stick. 
These are in fact the tactics adopted by the proponents of  poli-
tical Zionism for the past half century and more, and  personally 
I  like to think that I am better than they are, even if only  by 
virtue of the fact that I would find it physically impossible  to 
stoop so low.
  Unfortunately, some people who take on the power of the Zionist 
octopus  become infected, sooner or later, with the  poison  they 
profess to be combating. One of these people, whom I will charit-
ably  concede  has  been infected later rather  than  sooner,  is 
Michael  A. Hoffman II. With a surname like Hoffman, some  people 
might reckon that the man was himself one of the Chosen, and,  in 
view of his anti-Semitic proselytising, is perhaps eaten up  with 
self-hatred.  I  am informed though that Mr Hoffman  is  in  fact 
half-German and half-Italian as well as all-American. His  ethnic 
origins  aside,  while some of the research he publishes  is  un-
doubtedly  excellent, both his powers of reasoning and his  sense 
of humour leave much to be desired. Permit me to explain.
  In 1985, Mr Hoffman covered the show trial in Toronto,  Canada, 
of  earnest  Ernst Zundel. As a result of that he  wrote  a  book 
which  was published that same year by that much maligned  beacon 
of  light in the Zionist-perpetuated darkness, the Institute  for 
Historical  Review. This book, $The Great Holocaust  Trial$,  is, 
admittedly, as much polemical as it is factual, and it is written 
in  places  in a whimsical style which is  perhaps  not  entirely 
fitting  in  a serious work of historical  revisionism,  and  one 
covering  legal  proceedings at that. Although some  might  argue 
that anyone who has seen the spectacle of Raul Hilberg backtrack-
ing on the Holocaust in the witness box, $and$ seen a damned liar 
like Auschwitz survivor Rudolph Vrba exposed for the fraud he is, 
is entitled to inject a little humour into his narrative.
  That  notwithstanding, since the publication of Hoffman's  book 
the world has witnessed another Zundel trial, at which the prose-
cution  didn't dare put $survivors$ in the witness box  a  second 
time,  and  in which, indeed, the Jewish survivor  and  Holocaust 
Revisionist  (the late) J.G. Burg appeared for the  defence!  The 
world  has also witnessed the spectacle of the four million  Jews 
allegedly  exterminated  at Auschwitz rounded down quietly  to  a 
million  and  a half. (3) And the other two and  a  half  million 
being relocated even more quietly elsewhere!
  In  other words, the forces of darkness are on the run, and  it 
is  only  their  stranglehold over our  news  and  entertainments 
media,  the never-ending wailing and gnashing of teeth about  the 
evils of "anti-Semitism", and the odd swastika daubed on a  syna-
gogue  wall (courtesy of the JDL), that keeps the broader  public 
>from  waking up to the prosaic truth that they've been conned.
  One would have thought then that the hatemongering, the  absurd 
conspiracy  theories and the pseudo-intellectual abuse  could  be 
left  to those wonderful people who gave you Sabra  and  Shatila. 
After  all, they're doing a better job than the  Revisionists,  a 
better job than Dr Goebbels, some might say. Unfortunately,  Mike 
Hoffman  is  not  content with churning  out  factually  accurate 
reports on the distortions of history by the Hollywood pooh bahs, 
the ADL and their $goy$ fellow travellers in the Socialist Inter-
national, he has to not only demonise the benign if boring  reli-
gion  of Orthodox Judaism, but shift the whole blame for  Zionist 
mendacity onto the $Torah$. 
  If Hoffman were a gullible old woman like the now twice convic-
ted  "anti-Semite" Lady Birdwood, that would be excusable. If  he 
were  a former Tsarist agent and con man a la Boris Brasol,  ped-
dling  the $Protocols Of Zion$ and other nonsense to an  American 
Flivver  King  with more money than sense, that would  be  under-
standable  (though  deplorable). But Mike Hoffman is  neither  of 
these  things, rather he is a serious researcher with  some  pre-
tence  to academia. Certainly he appears to know something  about 
the  $Torah$, as evinced by the angry letter he sent me in  reply 
to  my  missive  which pointed out the error of  his  ways.  Mike 
Hoffman's rantings and ravings are therefore totally inexcusable.
  What  though are his ravings? Having wittered on for nine  hun-
dred words, I haven't even indicated to you dear reader what they 
are.  Okay, let's waste no further time. Turn to pages  12-5  and 
you will see for yourself $the$ prime example. These pages repro-
duce  in  full a leaflet entitled $The Talmud  Judaism's  Holiest 
Book  Documented  and Exposed$. (4) Incidentally, I  haven't  ob-
tained permission from Hoffman to reproduce this leaflet so I  am 
in breach of copyright. Sue me, arsehole.
  According to Mr Hoffman, the $Talmud$ is the root of all  evil. 
Don't take my word for it, you have it there in black and  white. 
Unfortunately  for  Hoffman though, this leaflet is  not  a  mere 
distortion, with words and phrases torn out of context, he has in 
places  resorted to outright fraud, fabricating the texts of  the 
Jews' holiest (though admittedly extremely turgid) book. How do I 
know? Because in 1992, I did what Hoffman has obviously done  but 
doesn't  expect  his dumb $goy$ readers to do, I pried  into  the 
$Talmud$ with a little assistance from an Orthodox Rabbi, (5) who 
also  told me a few home truths about those wonderful people  who 
gave you Sabra and Shatila. (6) Okay, let's waste no further time 
in  polite  introductions, and get straight on with the  task  at 
hand, exposing Hoffman's major calumny.

$Mike Hoffman's "The Talmud Judaism's Holiest Book$
$Documented and Exposed" Documented And Exposed!$

Page H1: Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik died April 8, 1993, yet  Hoff-
man's leaflet speaks of him as though he is still living. Clearly 
this  is not a mistake on his part because the $New  York  Times$ 
report  he quotes from on page H2 is obviously the Rabbi's  obit-
uary. According to the obituary published in the London  $Times$, 
April  21, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, who lived to the  ripe  old 
age of 90, was both the son of a rabbi and the father of one.  He 
is indeed estimated to have ordained over 2,000 rabbis over  more 
than  four  decades. It is not clear to me whether  or  not  this 
represents  an  entire generation, as Hoffman claims, but  it  is 
certainly impressive, and he was clearly a man of enormous influ-
ence.  He was an outstanding Talmudic and secular  scholar.  How-
ever, the claim that he was the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox 
Judaism  does  not ring quite true, whether or not  this  opinion 
belongs  to  Hoffman, the $New York Times$  correspondent  or  to 
anyone else. 
  According  to  my  source, (7) Rabbi  Joseph  Soloveitchik  was 
something  of a reformist. Obviously he was also something  of  a 
Zionist, because he once advised Israel to give up the West  Bank 
because "...he thought its retention was not worth putting  lives 
at risk..." (8) Incidentally, $The New Standard Jewish Encyclope-
dia$  1992  refers  to him as Joseph Ber  Soloveichik  [note  the 
spelling] rather than Joseph D. Soloveitchik as given by Hoffman. 
The  then  still extant Rabbi was referred to therein  as  a  "US 
rabbinic  scholar.  Head  of the R.  Isaac  Elchanan  Theological 
Seminary at Yeshiva University..." (9)
  Back  to  Mike Hoffman. On pages H2 and H3,  he  claims  "Every 
selection  we  cite is documented directly from the text  of  the 
authoritative  Soncino Talmud. (10) We have published herein  the 
authenticated sayings of the Jewish Talmud." Then he adds  "$Look 
them up for yourself$." You'll be sorry you said that, Mike. 
  Let  me state here that I don't intend to refute  every  single 
calumny reproduced (or fabricated) in this leaflet, but I  tackle 
enough for the reader to make up his own mind about the  veracity 
and motives of our erstwhile Revisionist turned latter day Strei-
  Okay, here we go: page H3. Hoffman begins here in earnest  with 
the claim that "The translators of the Talmud sometimes translate 
the  word  $goyim$ (Gentiles) under any number of terms  such  as 
heathen, Cuthean, Egyptian, idolater etc. But these are  actually 
references to Gentiles (all non-Jews)." To add an air of  authen-
ticity  to this nonsense, Hoffman remarks "See for example  foot-
note 5 on p. 361 and footnote 5 on p. 388 of the Soncino  edition 
Talmud: 'Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the  origi-
nal $goy$...'"
  Let's  start  with that word $goyim$. Although it  is  used  to 
designate  all non-Jews, and may also be used pejoratively,  (11) 
it  doesn't  actually  mean Gentiles at  all.  And  it  certainly 
doesn't  mean heathens or cattle as Hoffman's  fellow  travellers 
often  make out. The literal translation of the word  $goyim$  is 
$nations$.  In  biblical  usage, the word $goy$ can  be  used  to 
designate  Israel; it also came to mean "the pagan world",  while 
in Poland it came to mean "ignorant peasant". (12)
  Likewise the word $shiksah$ (meaning a $goy$ bitch) is actually 
derived  from  the  Hebrew word  $sheketz$  meaning  abomination, 
supposedly  a  humorous exaggeration. (13) (But  don't  say  that 
until  you've met my wife). On the subject of Gentiles of  either 
sex,  the $UJE$ points out that Indian Moslems and  Mormons  also 
refer to outsiders as Gentiles. (14)
  Nor  does  the  word "heathen" mean  simply  any  non-Jew.  The 
$Universal Jewish Encyclopedia$ points out that the term  heathen 
is  actually of Christian origin and refers to pagans  who  prac-
tised  such things as child sacrifice, sexual licence  and  cruel 
games.  (15)  There was a very strong taboo amongst  the  ancient 
Israelites  against  falling into idolatry, though  why  they  or 
anyone else should believe that worshipping one God is so  super-
ior to worshipping several, or idols, remains to be seen.
  Clearly  the  words Cuthean and Egyptian mean  precisely  that: 
Cuthean and Egyptian; idolaters (idol worshippers, worshippers of 
stars and planets, (16) etc) mean exactly that, ie they're damned 
  Finally,  something that should warm the cockles  of  Hoffman's 
heart (if he has one). The anti-Zionist Jew Lenni Brenner is  one 
of  the  most outspoken critics of this cancerous  ideology,  al-
though  for  very different reasons from Hoffman. In one  of  his 
studies  of  Zionism he unearths such niceties as: "The  fact  is 
undeniable that the Jews collectively are unhealthy and neurotic. 
Those  professional Jews who, wounded to the  quick,  indignantly 
deny this truth are the greatest enemies of their race..." 

  And "parasites, people fundamentally useless."
  And "not a nation, not a people, not human." 

  Just  the sort of comment Hoffman would doubtless  agree  with. 
Except that all these quotes are attributed by Brenner to Zionist 
Jews! (17) Again, this shows both how important it is not to tear 
words out of context and how easy it is to distort even the  most 
innocuous of banter.
  On  page H3, Hoffman tells us that "If a Jew is tempted  to  do 
evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil 
there." The text Hoffman cites for this, $Mo'ed Katan$ 17a,  page 
107,  actually  says:  "...R. Il'ai says, If one  sees  that  his 
[evil] $yezer$ is gaining sway over him, let him go away where he 
is not known; put on sordid clothes, don a sordid wrap and do the 
sordid  deed that his heart desires rather than profane the  name 
of Heaven openly."
  My understanding of this - from an interview with a Rabbi -  is 
that the $evil$ referred to is a bit of nookie. The proper inter-
pretation  of  this passage is that good  Jews  don't  fornicate. 
However, if you really can't help yourself and you feel that  you 
must  avail yourself of the services of a harlot, don't  shit  on 
your  own doorstep. Take yourself away to somewhere you  are  not 
known and have your end away there. (18)
  Also  on page H3, Hoffman tells us that the reference in  $Baba 
Mezia$  114a-114b "Only Jews are human ('Only ye  are  designated 
$men$') is a literal interpretation. This is a well worn  distor-
tion. It is sometimes rendered "Jews are human beings; the  other 
peoples of the world are not human beings but beasts." 
  In fact, as long ago as 1941, the $Universal Jewish  Encyclope-
dia$  had the measure of this nonsense, but let us see  what  the 
$Talmud$  actually says: "R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The graves  of 
Gentiles do not defile, for it is written, $And ye my flock,  the 
flock of my pastures$, are men; 6 only ye are designated '$men$'. 
  [The  6 and 7 in the above text refer to footnotes; footnote  7 
says  of this "Only, of course, from the point of view of  ritual 
defilement." For the record, I have generally omitted such  notes 
in this text for clarity.]
  And,  according  to Hoffman: $Sanhedrin$ 58b. (p. 398).  "If  a 
heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting 
a Jew is the same as hitting God."
  He's  talking  about Gentiles again; the $Talmud$  talks  about 
heathens,  hence: "R. Hanina said: If a heathen smites a Jew,  he 
is  worthy  of death..." is the actual quote.  In  reality,  this 
refers to Moses slaying an Egyptian who had struck an Israelite. 
  Next,  Hoffman  tells us that $Baba Kamma$ 37b,  page  211,  is 
rendered thus: "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a  Canaa-
nite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores  an 
ox  of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full." On page  H4, 
he  supplements this with an outright calumny, $Baba Kamma$  37b, 
page 213: "Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God 
has  'exposed  their  money to Israel.'"  Naughty,  naughty.  The 
actual passage contains no reference to Gentiles at all. What  it 
does say is this: "...He rose up and declared them to be  outside 
the  protection  of the civil law of Israel  [with  reference  to 
damage  done  to cattle by cattle]." There is a note  here,  "The 
exemption  from  the protection of the civil law of  Israel  thus 
referred  only to the Canaanites and their like who had  wilfully 
rejected the elementary and basic principles of civilised  human-
  And  "As Canaanites did not recognise the laws of  social  jus-
tice,  they did not impose any liability for damage done by  cat-
tle.  They could consequently not claim to be protected by a  law 
they  neither recognised nor respected..." [$Baba  Mezia$  14a-b, 
pages 213 & 211 respectively.]
  This was actually part of an ongoing dispute between the Israe-
lites  and  the Canaanites. See, no reference to Gentiles  or  to 
money.  Score  seven points out of a possible  five  hundred  and 
write out one hundred times "I will tell the truth in future  and 
will  leave  both lying and racial hatred to  the  proponents  of 
political Zionism."
  The  $Universal Jewish Encyclopedia$ has an entry for  $CANAAN$ 
(Volume 2, page 651). This says of the Canaanites that they  were 
the enemies of the Israelites and were gradually exterminated  or 
absorbed  by  the Israelite tribes and were - in any  case  -  of 
Semitic  stock.  So as Mike Hoffman is one of  those  people  who 
likes to make much of the term "Semites", any which way you  look 
at  it, this was not a pronouncement against the  wicked  $goyim$ 
but  against one of their own ilk. (Though he can take some  com-
fort  from  the  admission that the Chosen  Race  also  practised 
extermination, which does make their incessant whining and  wail-
ing about it today more than a little hypocritical).
  On  page H4, Hoffman tells us that, according to  $Baba  Mezia$ 
24a,  page 151: "If a Jew find an object lost by a Gentile  ('he-
athen') it does not have to be returned." More garbage. This is a 
total  distortion; there is no mention of Gentiles. This  passage 
is  concerned with what one should do when one finds  money.  For 
example,  in  a place where crowds are frequent, should  one  an-
nounce  this?  One can imagine the practical problem  here.  "Hey 
guys,  I've just found a wallet; there's no ID in it but it  does 
contain a hundred shekels. Will the owner take one step forward?" 
And Isaac gets trampled to death. I remember something like  this 
happening to myself; a few years ago I found a ten pound note  in 
the  street.  (19) If I'd found a thousand pounds or  a  valuable 
necklace  then I should by rights have handed it in, (20)  but  a 
tenner is finders keepers. It is quite likely that the person who 
dropped it didn't realise, and it is extremely unlikely that  the 
loss, if noticed, was reported to the police station. (21)
  Page H6: Citing tractate $Menahoth$ 43b-44a, page 264,  Hoffman 
says:  "A  Jewish man is obligated to say  the  following  prayer 
every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman  or 
a  slave." (The quotes are mine; as with most of his  distortions 
it  is  not clear whether or not Hoffman is  [allegedly]  quoting 
verbatim).  Exactly what is this quote supposed to prove?  It  is 
better  to be a man than a woman? It is better to be a  free  man 
than a slave? Considering the $male chauvinism$ of all tribes  in 
this era, the first hardly reflects detrimentally on the Jews, or 
indeed on anyone. And surely it is better not to be born a  slave 
whatever one's race or sex. And of course, slavery was  universal 
in those days, and indeed is still practised in certain countries 
  The  following  are  actually the verbatim  passages:  "It  was 
taught:  R. Meir used to say, A man is bound to say  one  hundred 
blessings  daily, as it is written, $And now, Israel,  what  doth 
the Lord thy God require of thee?$" (pages 263-4).
  And  page 264: "It was taught: R. Judah used to say, A  man  is 
bound  to say the following three blessings daily: '[Blessed  art 
thou...] who hast not made me a heathen; '...who hast not made me 
a  woman';  and '...who hast not made me a  brutish  man..."  One 
authority  said he should substitute '...who hast not made  me  a 
slave'."  We  are told also that "A slave  is  more  contemptible 
[than  a woman]". Clearly, this refers to the status of  a  slave 
and the status of a woman.
  Page H4: $Abodah Zarah$ 22a-22b, pages 113-4. "Gentiles  prefer 
sex with cows." Naughty, naughty. The word Gentile doesn't appear 
anywhere here. What the $Talmud$ does say in $Abodah Zarah$  22b, 
  There  is a footnote here on the ill-repute of Greek and  Roman 
inns. But no mention of Welsh farmers, sheep or Wellington boots. 
Nor of Essex girls. 
  Hoffman,  page H4: $Abodah Zarah$ 36b, page 176 is cited  thus: 
"Gentile girls are in a state of $niddah$ (filth) from birth." 
  Of  course, if all Jews, blacks and other  non-whites  believed 
that of whites, there would be none of that awful  miscegenation, 
something which clearly bothers Mr Hoffman, and which he  appears 
>from   his other writings to hold the Jews solely responsible  for 
the promotion of. (22) So why is he complaining? 
  There  is actually a tractate called $Niddah$; it runs to  500+ 
pages  with a glossary. The $Universal Jewish Encyclopedia$  also 
has an entry for $NIDDAH$ (Volume 8, page 217). Here it is trans-
lated  literally as "menstruous woman". The $UJE$  comments  that 
"Biblical  law  provided that a woman in menstruation  should  be 
regarded as ritually unclean for a period of seven days..."
  In other words there is filth and there is filth. $Niddah$ is a 
state  of  spiritual uncleanness, not in the same  sense  as  for 
example a necrophiliac or a cannibal is spiritually unclean,  but 
unclean  in the sense of "Keep your filthy hands off  that  young 
girl's  snatch, you lecherous old Yid" type unclean. It  actually 
says here that "[The Schools of Hillel and Shammai] decreed  that 
their daughters should be considered as in the state of  $niddah$ 
>from  their cradle..." And a footnote says "They would then defile 
by touch". [This is from $Abodah Zarah$, page 176.]
  A  word of explanation is necessary for those  unfamiliar  with 
Talmudic  logic. The $Talmud$ is like absolutely no  other  book, 
and  it leaves absolutely nothing to chance. Anyone who has  ever 
issued  a  libel writ will realise just how  precisely  each  and 
every  point must be pleaded on peril of being struck out by  the 
court as showing no cause of action. Likewise, the authors of the 
$Talmud$ wanted to make sure that the pious Jew knew exactly what 
to do and what not to do in exactly every instance. The bit about 
"defiling by touch" concerns such matters as the age of  consent. 
Let  us draw a contemporary parallel. In 1993, two young boys  in 
Liverpool,  England, were convicted of murdering a two  year  old 
boy,  Jamie  Bulger.  (23) At the time this  terrible  crime  was 
committed, they were both ten years old. But what if they'd  been 
eight  years old, or six? It is certainly not impossible  that  a 
very young child could wilfully injure or even kill a baby. Could 
a six year old be tried for murder? (24)
  As  things  stand, a boy of fourteen can be charged  with  rape 
because the law presumes that a boy of thirteen or younger cannot 
commit rape. Obviously this is an arbitrary cut-off point because 
not  every boy becomes capable of getting a hard-on on his  four-
teenth  birthday. So with the $defilement$ of very  young  girls. 
For example $Sanhedrin$, 55b, (page 371), reports that "...Peder-
asty  with  a child below three years is not treated  as  with  a 
child above that." Such interminable (and mind-numbingly  boring) 
discussions  are all part of this debate, and there is no  infer-
ence  or  suggestion  that pederasty is ever  acceptable  with  a 
child,  or indeed under any circumstances at all, the ravings  of 
Hoffman and his fellow travellers aside.
  In  some Islamic countries to this day - I am led to believe  - 
if a woman is raped, she becomes defiled. Curiously, the  $shame$ 
is  hers and not her rapist's. She is then - get this -  supposed 
to marry her rapist! (25) But what if she is below a certain age? 
Hopefully they'll chop the bastard's balls off, but does the girl 
become  defiled? If she is very young when she is abused, is  she 
still treated in law as though she were a virgin? 
  Such instances are of course exceedingly rare in all  cultures, 
but  like  I  said, the $Talmud$  leaves  absolutely  nothing  to 
chance. And such passages are often twisted by anti-Semites -  or 
in  Hoffman's  case, the mentally deranged - so as to  appear  to 
claim that $Torah$-true Jews are closet paedophiles. Hoffman gets 
in  on the act on page H5 when he appears to quote  from  $Sanhe-
drin$  54b, page 371, thus: "A Jew may have sex with a  child  as 
long  as the child is less than nine years old" And with  $Kethu-
both$  11b, page 58: "When a grown-up man has intercourse with  a 
little girl it is nothing." Again, these are well known calumnies 
which  have been going the rounds since before he was  born,  but 
the man does not lack originality, he has invented some  entirely 
new ones of his own. 
  More  garbage, the $Sanhedrin$ 54b quote refers to the  age  of 
consent:  "if one committed sodomy with a child of a lesser  age, 
no guilt is incurred." [Ie less than 9 years old.]
  For the record, when I took Rabbi Goldstein to meet Lady  Bird-
wood, she was mildly insulted that he would not shake hands  with 
her.  (26)  "We don't shake hands with ladies" he  politely  told 
another  of  my elderly lady friends. He told me  sometime  later 
that  he  wouldn't touch any woman physically  except  his  wife, 
sister,  daughter,  etc. Obviously for younger girls  (and  boys) 
this  is  not practical, so there must be some sort  of  cut  off 
point  at which a child has no sexuality in Jewish law as in  the 
law  of every civilised land, which, at a push, includes  Israel. 
This  is  what the $Talmud's$ passages on children  and  sex  are 
concerned with, not in justifying or promoting paedophilia.
  We  come  now to Hoffmanesque calumnies for which  the  current 
writer  provides not just documentary but photographic proof.  On 
pages 16-9, the reader will find reproduced photocopies of actual 
pages from the Soncino $Talmud$. We'll deal first with  Hoffman's 
claim  on  pages H6 and H7 concerning stolen wine,  something  he 
obviously knows a lot about; he has certainly stolen the whine of 
those wonderful people who gave you Sabra and Shatila, (or is  at 
best doing his damnedest to imitate them). 
  Hoffman's implication is that this passage permits the drinking 
of  stolen wine, ie that the rabbi is encouraging theft. The  key 
to this is the word $permit$; here it means, clearly, permissible 
for a Jew. Look also at the footnotes (pages 16-7 in this  pamph-
let, 336 of $Abodah Zarah$), always vitally important when  read-
ing  anything from the $Talmud$, it states clearly at the  bottom 
of page 336 that some rabbis oppose Rabbi Eliezer. This is hardly 
surprising  because  the  $Talmud$ is  actually  one  continuous, 
boring discourse on what is permitted, what is not, what Rabbi  A 
said,  Rabbi B's comment on it, Rabbi C's appraisal of that,  and 
so  on.  The  very last thing the rabbi here, or  any  rabbi,  is 
interested  in,  is drinking stolen wine, rather  on  the  conse-
quences for all concerned and the ramifications in this world and 
the next.
  For example, on page H6, Hoffman claims that the minor tractate 
$Hagigah$ informs us that "no rabbi can ever go to hell". (27)  I 
was once told by an Orthodox Rabbi that he would go to Hell if he 
ate a bacon sandwich. We will return to Hell shortly, but in  the 
meantime, let's return to our scrutiny of Hoffmanesque calumny re 
the $Talmud$ proper.
  On  page H5, Hoffman fabricates the following quote:  "A  woman 
who  had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry  a  Jewish 
priest.  A  woman who has sex with a demon is  also  eligible  to 
marry a Jewish priest.
  The  astute  reader will notice that this forged  quote  begins 
with quotation marks but ends without them. Doubtless so that  if 
some  dumb $goy$ were to happen upon it, Mr Hoffman  could  claim 
that he wasn't really quoting verbatim - he sure as Hell wasn't - 
and  that the first quote marks were a mere slip of the pen.  (Or 
whatever   wordprocessor   he's  using,   WordImperfect   version 
6,000,000 perhaps?) Anyway, enough of my witless wit; compare the 
word  according  to Mike Hoffman with the word  according  to  Mr 
Soncino, (page 18 in this pamphlet). With a disrespect for  truth 
that would honour Gerry Gable himself, Hoffman has fabricated the 
reference to the demon. Or perhaps it's elsewhere, I've no  doubt 
there are as many demons in the $Talmud$ as in Michael  Hoffman's 
head, but it sure ain't on page 397 of $Yebamoth$. The  reference 
to  "no human being" clearly refers to "A beast",  (footnote  5). 
Note  too Hoffman's persistent use of the word Jewish. They  wer-
en't Jews, they were Israelites, remember Mike? Tch, tch, tch. Is 
he  trying to tell us something, one wonders?  Incidentally,  the 
quote  lower  down the page $Thou shalt not bring the hire  of  a 
harlot,  or  the price of a dog$, has, to my  certain  knowledge, 
been  perverted  by Hoffman's fellow travellers on at  least  one 
occasion. Robert Singerman's $ANTISEMITIC PROPAGANDA: An  Annota-
ted  Bibliography  and Research Guide$, lists  a  publication  by 
Thomas E. O'Brien of the so-called New Christian Crusade  Church. 
Here it becomes "The temple can accept money given by a man to  a 
harlot to associate with his dog." (Sotah 26b).
  On  page H6, Hoffman quotes from $Pesahim$ 111a, page 571.  "It 
is  forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass  between  two 
men,  nor  may  others walk between dogs, women  or  palm  trees. 
Special  dangers  are involved if the women are  menstruating  or 
sitting at a crossroads."
  This is not a verbatim quote - as the reader will see from  the 
actual  text on page 19, but for once it has not been  distorted. 
However, it hardly qualifies as $Sick and Insane Teachings$,  the 
sub-heading on page H5. What it does qualify as is nonsense,  old 
wives' tales. 
  However,  Hoffman  is back to his old habits further  down  the 
page  with a quote from page 409 of $Shabbath$. The actual  quote 
is:  "The Israelites are holy, and do not cohabit by day!  -  But 
Raba  said:  If the house is in darkness, it is  permitted.  Raba 
also  said - others state, R. Papa: A scholar may cause  darkness 
with his garment, and it is [then] permitted." Is this really  so 
terrible?  "Isaac,  can't we do it with the lights on  just  this 
  "Have  you  no shame, woman? Now get down on  your  knees.  And 
  On page H4, $Abodah Zarah$, 67b, page 325, Hoffman brings forth 
the following quote: "The vessels of Gentiles, do they not impart 
a  worsened flavor [to the food cooked in them]?"  Actually,  the 
answer  is no. What the $Talmud$ really says is: "$Ye  shall  not 
eat  of  anything that dieth of itself$ [nebelah];  $thou  mayest 
give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates$ - whatever is 
fit  for use by a stranger is called $nebelah$, and  whatever  is 
unfit for use by a stranger is not called $nebelah$."  Practising 
Jews  have very strict dietary requirements, not only  must  they 
forgo the pleasure of Greasy Joe's special: double egg and bacon, 
but they must not consume certain fish, mix meat and milk, and G-
d  knows what else. There is no implication here that thou  shalt 
not dine with those filthy $goyim$.

Alexander Baron

From Mon Jun 26 10:30:55 PDT 1995
Article: 22687 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Hoffman and the Talmud
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 22:49:21 GMT
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 513
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

  A good $Christian$ like Mike Hoffman is obviously aghast at the 
blasphemies he claims to have found in the $Talmud$. Thus we  are 
told  on page H4 that Jesus - "Yeshu" - was executed  because  he 
practised  sorcery. Let me get this straight, the guy  walked  on 
the water, he turned water into wine, he raised the dead, he  fed 
5,000 people with the contents of a picnic hamper, and he  didn't 
practice sorcery? Then who the fuck was he, David Copperfield? On 
page  H5, $Gittin$ (28) tells us, we are told, that the great  JC 
is  being boiled in hot excrement. Heck, that's what  happens  to 
all sinners. Haven't you read your $Bible$, boy? If you sin,  you 
will go to HELL. Ain't that what those good 'ol boys in the  Deep 
South tells de white folks? 
  Incidentally, on page 261, $Gittin$ reveals that "Whoever mocks 
at  the  words  of  the  Sages  is  punished  with  boiling   hot 
excrement."  And  didn't Jesus mock at the words  of  the  Sages? 
However, it must be pointed out that different rabbis had differ-
ent  opinions  of Jesus, the same as they did on  any  number  of 
people,  and subjects. One thing's for certain  though,  whatever 
Yahweh  did  to Jesus ain't nothing to what Allah's gonna  do  to 
Salman  Rushdie.  And talking of blasphemy,  real  and  imagined, 
whatever  rants and raves may appear in the $Talmud$,  surely  no 
rabbinic scholar ever wrote anything half as blasphemous of  "Our 
Lord"  as  the obscene piece of shite that was published  in  the 
homosexual rag $Gay News$ and which led, in 1976, to Mary  White-
house  initiating  a private prosecution against  the  paper  for 
blasphemous  libel.  (29) From what I've  heard  though,  Hoffman 
hates  queers almost as much as he hates Jews, and believes  that 
if  the Holocaust had been directed against homos it  would  have 
been equally justified. Well, even Hoffman has his good points.
  However,  returning to the Jews and JC, a quote from an  extant 
rabbi  is perhaps in order, so here is something from Yours  Tru-
ly's $A "Goy" Pries Into The "Talmud"$. 
  Me: "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled  in 
hot semen. Christians are boiled in s--t." (Attributed to $Gittin 
  Rabbi  Cohen:  The last phrase of that I  haven't  come  across 
anywhere,  but  the  first phrase is taken out  of  context  from 
Balaam. Balaam caused the Israelites to sin with the daughters of 
Midian,  (30)  and for that reason his punishment in  Hell  bears 
some relation to the kind of sin he caused others to do.
  Me:  The contents of this first bit of filth, there is  such  a 
passage in $Gittin$?
  Rabbi  Cohen:  That's right, in relation to  Onkelos  [a  Roman 
pagan]  who wanted to [and did] convert to Judaism, and  he  con-
jured  up these ghosts: Titus, Jesus and Balaam to consult  them. 
There's  a bit about Balaam being punished in the  Underworld  by 
being  boiled  in hot semen. Titus had  actually  desecrated  the 
temple in the Holy of Holies and had relations with a whore on  a 
scroll  of  the $Torah$ in the Holy of Holies, just  to  sort  of 
really  rub  it in as it were. According to our  tradition,  when 
Titus  was coming to his end and he knew he was going to  be  pu-
nished, he left instructions in his will that he should be crema-
ted  and that his body and the ashes should be scattered in  dif-
ferent seas. He thought in that way that God (31) would never  be 
able to punish him because he'd never be able to get all the bits 
together  again  in order to conjure up his soul to  punish  him. 
  There's  nothing in that passage which is derogatory of  Jesus. 
Having  been  in the position that he tried to  cause  people  to 
deviate  from the traditions of the sages of Israel, he was  con-
sulted by Onkelos, and he said, (words to the effect) that anyone 
who  tries to cause them harm is really, in effect,  harming  the 
pupil of his own eye, in other words, himself. His words were, if 
not complimentary, then the most positive of all those consulted. 
The $Talmud$ actually says in his praise that even though he went 
against the sages he was far more positive than the others  were. 
  End of quote. Yes, I'm sure, Rabbi, but whatever Onkelos  said, 
whatever  the  $Talmud$ says, whatever Rabbi Cohen says,  are  we 
really supposed to take these fairy stories from the beginning of 
recorded  history seriously? And are we supposed to connect  them 
with  the  political gangsters of the ADL, the  peddlars  of  the 
Holocaust, and Machiavellian slimeballs like Gerry  sweepings-of-
the-ghetto  Gable?  Apparently  we are,  if  Hoffman's  poisonous 
screeds are to be given any credence at all. 
  Another  note  here. The $Universal Jewish  Encyclopedia$  says 
that $Toledoth Yeshu$ - a tract hostile to Jesus - was written in 
Mediaeval times, but is the work of a single Jew which has  never 
had any currency among the great mass of Jews, and that,  "...the 
Talmudic  statements about him are not about the real Jesus,  but 
about an imagined originator of a hateful persecution." (34)
  The same passage continues: "It was only in modern times,  when 
Jews could examine the pages of the New Testament without fear of 
persecution and dispassionately, that a new attitude toward Jesus 
on the part of the Jews was revealed. 
"Jacob  Emden, in the 18th cent., had already stated his  convic-
tion  that  Jesus  had conferred a blessing upon  the  world,  by 
replacing heathenism by ethical teaching..." (35)
  Jesus  was, in proper parlance, a Revisionist (though not a  la 
Hoffman,  needless  to say). The claim that  Jesus,  the  Prophet 
Muhammad  (peace  be  upon him) or any  other  religious  leader, 
prophet  or theologian has conferred any sort of blessing on  the 
world  either before or since is highly debatable, but  certainly 
the $Torah$-true Jews have given the world less cause for concern 
than  their  ugly - and for the most part totally  irreligious  - 
cousins in the Zionist and "anti-fascist" movements, who are  the 
people Hoffman should really be directing his anger against.
  Before  we return to $Baba Kamma$, a few words about Hell a  la 
$Talmud$. When most of us - us $Aryan goyim$ that is (36) - think 
about  Hell,  it conjures up an image of boiling in oil  for  all 
eternity,  fire,  brimstone and damnation, etc. The  addition  of 
excrement and semen to this, whether boiling hot or not, does not 
exactly  make  it a more attractive place.  However,  the  Jewish 
concept  of Hell is very different. According to Rabbi  Goldstein 
it  is where one undergoes a cleansing process. The Jewish  ency-
clopaedias  expand on this somewhat. The $Encyclopaedia  Judaica$ 
has no entry for $Hell$; but the $Universal Jewish  Encyclopedia$ 
tells  us  that the $Talmud$ has eight synonyms for  it.  One  of 
these is Gehinnom. (37) According to one authority "...those  who 
suffered  in  this world through poverty,  unhappy  marriage,  or 
severe illness are exempt from Gehinnom." While according to  the 
Maimonides  school, "Gehinnom is merely a figure 'to express  our 
idea  of the existence of a future retribution, and must  not  be 
taken  literally'". So going to Hell in the Jewish sense  is  not 
really  such  a  terrible punishment; to the  current  writer  it 
sounds  more akin to the Eastern mystical concept  of  reincarna-
tion.  There is a lot more one could write about the Jewish  con-
cept  of  Hell, but as a lifelong atheist I must  say  it  really 
doesn't interest me. Back to Hoffman's ravings and...
  $Baba Kamma$ 113a, page 664: "Jews may use lies ('subterfuges') 
to circumvent a Gentile." While in $Sanhedrin$ 57a, page 389,  "A 
Jew  need  not pay a Gentile ('Cuthean') the wages owed  him  for 
work."  Evidently nobody told Marks & Spencer, which  does  raise 
one  pertinent question. If the Jews control the economy as  many 
of  Mr  Hoffman's fellow travellers believe, who is  working  for 

  Leaving  this  aside, this is in any case a  total  distortion; 
this  passage  actually refers to the conduct of  legal  disputes 
between  Israelites  and heathens, and does not  advocate  lying. 
There are though, cases when lying is justified, and it would  be 
a foolish man - or a dishonest one - who says he would never tell 
a  lie under any circumstances. Imagine the  following  scenario. 
Hoffman  opens  his front door to a caller, and standing  on  the 
step  is a $Sturmer$-like Jew wearing a skullcap and  holding  an 
Uzi.  "Where's that filthy anti-Semite, Hoffman?" he  says,  "the 
JDL wants to have a few words with him."
  "Heck, fella, you just missed him. Can I take a message?"
  Such  a  reply is more than a little dishonest, but  would  the 
gospel according to Mike Hoffman have any qualms about using such 
a "subterfuge" to deceive the Chosen Race? Would it, fuck!
  On  page  H6 again, $Gittin$ gets further  mentions  under  the 
$Sick  and  Insane  Teachings$  sub-heading.  Thus:  "The  Rabbis 
taught:  On  coming  from a privy a man should  not  have  sexual 
intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a  $mil$, 
(38) because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if 
he  does,  his children will be epileptic." And if he  pulls  his 
plonker while he's using the privy, he'll go blind. Again, are we 
really  expected to take such old wives' tales from two  thousand 
and  more years ago as evidence of the sick and insane  teachings 
of  the Jewish religion? These words were written at a time  when 
the world was believed to be flat, when disease was caused not by 
germs but by demons, and when all the tribes of the ancient world 
held  all  manner of weird beliefs about the nature of  the  uni-
verse, life, and each other. Grow up, Mike.
  However,  one  teaching the current writer did  find  sick  and 
insane a la Hoffman is the quote he reproduces from $Gittin$ 69b, 
page  329, on page H6, namely, "To heal the disease  of  pleurisy 
("catarrh")  a Jew should take the excrement of a white  dog  and 
knead  it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he  should 
not eat the dog's excrement as it loosens the limbs."
  Leaving  aside the fact that pleurisy is not catarrh -  not  on 
this  side  of the Pond, at any rate - this  quote  is  accurate. 
Having  said that, however, I was aware that this conflicts  with 
the  usually  impeccably  high standards of hygiene  set  by  the 
rabbinate. Is this some sort of anomaly in everybody's  favourite 
kosher  cuisine?  No.  According to the Rabbi again,  this  is  a 
traditional  cure for the said disease. Notwithstanding the  fact 
that if you did ingest the turds of a white dog, or any dog,  the 
last  thing you would be concerned about is inflammation  of  the 
lungs,  I can't imagine anyone being cured of anything by such  a 
foul  practice.  Except breathing, perhaps.  However,  the  Rabbi 
assured me that this was a genuine $cure$, (39) although he  also 
assured  me  that if he were stricken with a  lung  infection  he 
would  visit his pharmacist and purchase a bottle of  Dr  Cohen's 
delicious kosher linctus. 
  So  where is all this calumny and nonsense leading us?  I  know 
exactly where it is leading Mike Hoffman: to Hebron. Here's  how. 
Pages  H7  and H8 dig up the infamous $Tob  shebe  goyyim  harog$ 
which, he tells us, translates as "Even the best of the  Gentiles 
should all be killed". The last time I saw this quote in print it 
was  dished out by a slightly more philo-Semitic author:  William 
Grimstad.  On  page 14 of his at times highly  amusing  $The  Six 
Million  Reconsidered$, Grimstad renders it thus: "Even the  best 
of  the Gentiles should be killed". Note the word $all$  is  mis-
sing, but then as both a long-serving Nazi and a paid and  accre-
dited agent of Saudi Arabia, Grimstad is somewhat more charitable 
towards the Chosen Race than Michael A. Hoffman II. (40) 
  According  to the latter, this pronouncement shows  the  inbred 
contempt  of the Jewish religion for the rest of  humanity,  even 
though "This original Talmud passage has been concealed in trans-
lation." The plain truth though is that such pronouncements  were 
made  long ago against various tribes the Israelites were at  war 
with,  or living side by side with acrimoniously, and  have  long 
since been rescinded, or if they haven't been rescinded  $offici-
ally$,  they  have been written out of the $Talmud$, out  of  the 
$Torah$, and out of everything Judaism stands for by their having 
lapsed. Even then, such pronouncements were not necessarily  half 
as  terrible then as they sound today. (41) Consider the  follow-
ing: "We slaughtered the Yids!" This sounds truly terrible  with-
out the following qualification: Manchester United 4 -  Tottenham 
Hotspur  0. Leaving that aside, Hoffman moves straight from  $Tob 
shebe goyyim harog$ to "One million Arabs are not worth a  Jewish 
  Hoffman's reasoning is that Barukh Goldstein (42) "an  orthodox 
Jew from Brooklyn" was acting out the alleged genocidal edicts of 
the  $Talmud$ when he massacred twenty-nine Moslems at prayer  at 
the Ibrahimi Mosque. (43) Tempting as this is to the uninitiated, 
to  the anti-Semitic or to the deranged, (44) there is a  hole  a 
mile  wide in his reasoning, and Yours Truly is about to drive  a 
bus through it.
  As  well  as being a pathological  anti-Semite,  and  demented, 
Hoffman  is  a  prize arsehole, and not because  of  anything  he 
writes or says on the Jewish Question, but simply because he pays 
more attention to what people say than to what they do. In short, 
although he realises, obviously, that the world is full of damned 
liars and hypocrites, and that the Jews have more than their fair 
share  of both, he takes at face value the asinine drivel of  the 
$Talmud$  and other Jewish scriptures while  completely  ignoring 
the reaction of contemporary Jewry.
  Obviously, Jews everywhere condemned the Hebron massacre  (with 
the  exception of Goldstein's fellow Kahanists, which appears  to 
have  included  the  rabbi at his funeral). (45)  If  the  Jewish 
Establishments  throughout  the world hadn't  condemned  such  an 
outrage they could justly have expected a worldwide media pogrom. 
The  Zionists though condemned it only because they  knew  damned 
well  that  the eyes of the world were upon them, and  they  con-
demned it in a whisper. What though did the Jews, the "real Jews" 
do? In London, the men in the black hats and caftans organised  a 
demonstration  in Baker Street to protest against both  the  mas-
sacre  "and the idea behind it" in the words of Rabbi  Goldstein, 
proclaiming, among other things, that the master race  philosophy 
of Zionism "annuls the status of the rabbis who preach it". 
  Have the Zionists ever done anything like this? Have they fuck. 
In the aftermath of Sabra and Shatila they were whining,  wailing 
and  branding people anti-Semitic left, right and  centre.  Never 
mind  the fact that hundreds, perhaps even more than a  thousand, 
people had been murdered in cold blood, many, many of them women, 
children  and old people. They were only filthy Arab  dogs;  what 
was  most  important  was that "the Jewish  community"  might  be 
$scapegoated$  on  account  of  this  $unfortunate$  if  terrible 
$incident$. Who knows, Sabra and Shatila might have led  somebody 
to daub a swastika on a synagogue in Monsey or Golders Green, and 
that would have been the ultimate evil. Why, if they'd done  that 
they'd be shovelling the Jews into $gas chambers$ next, just like 
the Nazis did in Auschwitz. Or was it Dachau?
  Believe it or not, in the wake of Sabra and Shatila, the Israe-
li government actually had the front to issue a communique  which 
claimed that "On the New Year, a blood libel was levelled at  the 
Jewish  State  and its Government, against  the  Israeli  Defence 
Forces." (46) It also refused to cooperate with the inquiry  into 
the massacres and advised Israelis not to. Perhaps the nadir came 
when  Organised Jewry in Britain reported none other  than  loony 
"anti-$racist$",  anti-Nazi Ken Livingstone to the  Attorney-Gen-
eral  for  publishing  a cartoon attacking the  Zionists  as  the 
murdering scum and enemies of humanity they are. (47) Such  Zion-
ist  dirty  tricks have been well documented by authors  on  both 
sides of the Atlantic and need no elaboration here.
  The  point I am making is that it is the filthy cabal known  as 
political Zionism which has been in the forefront of the destruc-
tion of freedom of speech, and virtually all our other  freedoms, 
on  the  spurious pretext of saving the world from  the  mythical 
Nazi  conspiracy. They have almost singlehandedly destroyed  free 
speech  in Britain, on race issues at least, but when  the  chips 
are down, they don't give a flying fuck about anything or  anyone 
besides themselves and their precious Israel. "Israel uber alles" 
might well be their battle cry. The real Jews on the other  hand, 
the  $Torah$-true  Jews, who keep a low profile on  most  issues, 
came  forward, stood up and said: "This is wrong!" thus  refuting 
Hoffman's  calumny on the $Talmud$ that Gentiles are outside  the 
protection of the law. It was the real Jews, those strange men in 
even stranger garb who live under 613 Biblical commandments,  who 
don't  eat pork and who wash their hands in a ritual way, it  was 
they  who  denounced the outrage of Hebron,  who  denounce  other 
Zionist outrages. And who denounce the $Chosen Race$ (in  reality 
Master  Race)  philosophy  and cancerous  ideology  of  political 
Zionism.  It was the real Jews who stood up and said this is  not 
done in our name; the blood of a $goy$ is not worth less than the 
blood of a Jew. And what the fuck does Hoffman do? He blames them 
for Hebron! 

$Hoffman's Heresy: The Jewish Question, The Fallacy Of$
$Equivocation, And How The Zionists Exploit It$

  If  I  say to a foreigner who is learning English that  I  like 
listening to loud music, he may well understand me. If I tell him 
he  is wearing a loud shirt, he may well find difficulty in  com-
prehending my words. A loud shirt is of course not the same thing 
as loud music, or rather the word loud has been used here in  two 
entirely different contexts. One cannot compare the $loudness$ of 
a  shirt  with  that of a rock band because  they  are  different 
qualitatively.  In  addition  to all  the  fabricated  documents, 
$Protocols Of Zion$ etc., and other nonsense which clouds the so-
called Jewish Question, the wilful confusion of the word Jew  has 
been  used  by anti-Semites, and ruthlessly  exploited  by  those 
(including  Jews themselves) who claim to be defending the  Jews, 
or  $opposing  anti-Semitism$  as  Gerry  sweepings-of-the-ghetto 
Gable calls it.
  To take one prosaic example, some Holocaust Revisionists - many 
of  them  - claim that the Holocaust is a fraud effected  by  the 
forces  of political Zionism for material gain and to batter  the 
wicked  $Aryan goyim$ over the head forevermore. So-called  anti-
fascists  and their fellow travellers claim that the "Nazis"  are 
thus  accusing "the Jews" of fabricating the  Holocaust.  Leaving 
aside  the well-documented fact that Nazi ideology and  Holocaust 
Revisionism  are  totally disparate, nobody  except  the  crazies 
accuses  the Jews per se of inventing the Holocaust. And the  few 
people  who do, accuse them of every sin in the world  since  the 
snake tempted Eve. 
  In  short,  while  some crazies really do believe  there  is  a 
massive Jewish world conspiracy, $Protocols Of Zion$ and all, the 
vast  majority of people don't. On the other hand, certain  indi-
viduals  and  organisations tar all Jews with the same  brush  in 
order  to blame them for their own misdeeds. Thus,  Gerry  Gable, 
whose  hatred  for Western Man and  his  democratic  institutions 
drips  off the pages of his grotesque race-hate magazine,  is  in 
the forefront of attacking as Nazis those people who portray  the 
Jews  as  manipulators of the media and poisoners of  the  racial 
soul.  The  fact that he is himself a manipulator of  the  media, 
poisoner  of the racial soul and much else besides, probably  has 
more  than  a little to do with it. Yet  this  obscene,  $Aryan$-
hating  crypto-Jew, who looks as though he's leapt off the  pages 
of $Der Sturmer$, has probably never seen the inside of a synago-
gue  in his life, except perhaps when he had his  prick  clipped. 
  Hoffman echoes the same mistake constantly through the pages of 
his  anti-Jewish  hate-sheet $Revisionist Researcher$,  and  this 
really  is a shame because the magazine does contain some  excel-
lent material. Volume 4, Number 7 contains an excellent debunking 
of  Steven Spielberg's anti-German poison $Schindler's List$  (or 
$Swindler's  Mist$ as Hoffman calls it). An in-depth analysis  by 
historian  Alan Critchley demolishes Spielberg's  pseudo-documen-
tary, exposing it as a dramatisation of a novel dressed up as  an 
historical  document. Unfortunately, Hoffman - and  author  Crit-
chley  -  fall into the trap of blaming the $Talmud$  for  Thomas 
Keneally's (49) and Steven Spielberg's sins. Thus we are told  on 
page 3 in reference to a passage from the $Talmud$ concerning the 
saving of lives that "The actual Talmud verse states:  'Whosoever 
preserves  a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him  as 
though  he had preserved a complete world'...The  genuine  Talmud 
verse $only praises the saving of Jewish lives$. Non-Jews are not 
regarded  as human..." This is garbage. How about  the  following 
quote  from $Gittin$ 61a, pages 286-7: "Our Rabbis  have  taught: 
'We  support the poor of the heathen along with the poor  of  Is-
rael,  and visit the sick of the heathen along with the  sick  of 
Israel,  and bury the dead of the heathen along with the dead  of 
Israel,  in  the interests of peace'." Nothing wrong  with  that, 
surely? (50)
  Leaving  that aside though, Hoffman misses the point  entirely, 
yet  again.  In  his excellent study $ISRAEL and  the  NEW  WORLD 
ORDER$,  Andrew  Hurley discusses the role of Zionist  rabbis  in 
perverting  Talmudic texts to give aid and comfort to the  Master 
Race  philosophy of political Zionism. And to justify murder  and 
even genocide. (51) 
  Spielberg is a Jew in name only. Like the rest of the Hollywood 
cabal  he  is  "of Jewish origin". He doesn't  wear  a  skullcap, 
doesn't  keep  kosher; for all his insane  ravings  at  Judaism's 
holiest book, Hoffman probably knows more about the $Torah$  than 
Spielberg  does. Spielberg $is$ spewing out Zionist poison,  lies 
and  hatred,  but what Hoffman doesn't or won't realise  is  that 
Spielberg is himself a victim of Zionist indoctrination. (52)
  Yes, I know the Jews control - or did control - Hollywood,  but 
who  are  these "Jews"? Not the men in black  hats  and  caftans, 
that's  for  sure; they don't even watch TV!  (53)  Hoffman  even 
directs his insane ravings at Tony Greenstein, the Brighton-based 
"anti-fascist"  Jew  who  was sent a copy of his  $Tales  of  the 
Holohoax$  "comic" through the post. (54) Yet Greenstein  is  not 
only an "anti-fascist" he is a passionate anti-Zionist who has no 
qualms  about  calling  a spade a spade  and  denouncing  Zionist 
atrocities, ideology and hatemongering. 
  Even  more  incredibly,  Hoffman  believes  his  $Sturmer$-like 
"comic"  is  satire. In the one and only letter I  have  received 
>from  him to date, (dated 12 September anno Domini 1994!)  Hoffman 
says  "Satire  is a far more powerful  weapon  against  religious 
hysteria than 'rational, dispassionate' debate. (55) By means  of 
lampoon  we  hold  a mirror up to the  distortions  of  religious 
belief and through humor disarm them." What the fuck has  Zionism 
to do with religion? Nothing. 
  Having  made that last statement, I had better justify  it,  to 
Hoffman if to no one else. In $Revisionist Researcher$ Volume  4, 
Number 7 (the $Swindler's Mist$ issue), he publishes a cartoon of 
"An  Israeli settler after seeing too many  $Holocaust$  movies". 
(See page 20). He also quotes from the $New York Times$ of  Febr-
uary 26, 1994; Michael Lerner, who is presumably also one of  the 
Chosen,  claims  here that: "...Jews raised on a steady  diet  of 
Holocaust  stories and anti-Arab racism, are determined  to  show 
that  Jews can be powerful--even if that power can  be  exercised 
only  against an unarmed and essentially defenseless  Palestinian 
  Hoffman comments here that "This is public acknowledgement,  in 
the  pages  of the leading American $newspaper of  record$,  that 
$Holocaust$  movies, books and museum exhibits fit  the  judicial 
definition of hate propaganda: the instigation of mass murder."
  There  remains the fact that Barukh Goldstein was  a  religious 
Jew as well as a Zionist, and a Zionist rabbi did state at  Gold-
stein's  funeral that "One million Arabs are not worth  a  Jewish 
fingernail."  Superficially, this gives spurious credence to  the 
claims  of Hoffman and his ilk that Judaism lies at the  root  of 
the Jewish $problem$ rather than Zionism. However, the true facts 
are very different. 
  When  Zionism came into being, it was condemned by  all  Jewish 
religious leaders, and a great many $secular$ Jews as well.  (56) 
Notwithstanding  the fact that all ideologies have little  or  no 
popular  support when they are founded, Zionism was  an  ideology 
which was opposed vigorously. To take just one example, the first 
World  Zionist Congress was held at Basle in Switzerland  because 
the German rabbis chased it out of Munich. (57) During the  1940s 
the American Council for Judaism fought the heresy, but eventual-
ly succumbed under pressure from the Zionist movement. (58)
  Clearly,  from  its  founding by the  assimilated  Jew  Theodor 
Herzl,  (59) to the establishment of the State of Israel  in  May 
1948, and down to the present day, the Zionist movement has  been 
secular. Zionism is a political ideology rather than a  religious 
dogma.  It is the Jewish religion which has been  perverted  (and 
polluted)  by  Zionism, and not vice versa. Here I will  draw  an 
analogy with the so-called Christian Identity Movement. (60) 
  The Christian Identity Movement is largely a front for Southern 
white  supremacists  and  White Separatists.  There  are  various 
manifestations  of  it, but many, most or all  of  the  Christian 
Identity "churches" preach a mystical anti-Semitism, dragging  in 
not only the $Protocols Of Zion$ but the Order of the  Illuminati 
as well. Jews are seen as the spawn of the Devil, and the  Negro, 
indeed  all non-whites, are referred to as "mud people". In  some 
literature  the Negro especially is portrayed as "not  of  Adamic 
stock" and therefore a beast, ie not human. 
  Whatever  the bizarre theology of Christian Identity,  most  of 
this  movement's  adherents have no interest  whatsoever  in  any 
aspect  of  Christianity, God, or anything  else  save  preaching 
hatred of other races. In short, they are con-men who hide behind 
the  cross. By the same token, Zionists, hard core Zionists,  are 
political  (and,  in the case of the Barukh  Goldsteins  of  this 
world), religious, gangsters who hide behind the label Jew.  This 
does not mean that they are insincere anymore than the  adherents 
of  Christian  Identity are insincere;  certainly  they  (Zionist 
fundamentalists)  believe  that  the Jew  is  always  persecuted, 
always  the underdog, and by virtue of this, if not of  his  race 
and  the $Holocaust$, that the Jew is entitled to ride  roughshod 
over the rest of mankind, as indeed Zionist leaders have done for 
the past half century.
  Hoffman is no adherent of Christian Identity, but the fact that 
he would tar the likes of Rabbi Goldstein with the same brush  as 
the  deranged  mass murderer Barukh Goldstein, indeed,  the  fact 
that he sees $the Jew$ only as a Jew, proves that the man is  not 
only  bigoted and evil but obviously demented as well. In  short, 
like the ADLers and their fellow travellers who accept the  Holo-
caust and the twin "uniquenesses" of $Aryan$ evil/Jewish  suffer-
ing as an article of faith, Hoffman is totally obsessed with  the 
Jewish evil, and no amount of logical argument, reason or  ratio-
nal debate will ever convince him otherwise. 
  On  page  20 is reproduced both a letter from  Hoffman  to  the 
editor of the American magazine the $Skeptic$ (61) and one of his 
stickers advertising his ravings. For a correspondent to write to 
a  hostile editor branding him a fucking idiot is one thing,  but 
as his letter to the current writer demonstrates clearly, Hoffman 
interprets his own, particularly virulent strand of anti-Semitism 
and dementia as satire. It will be a wonder if anyone else  does. 
In spite of the quality of his research, Hoffman should be  avoi-
ded like the plague by all Revisionists and objective seekers  of 
the truth. He is poison to our movement. If I were of a conspira-
torial mentality I would suggest that, rather than being the real 
McCoy,  Hoffman  was  an ADL stooge, or a puppet in  the  pay  of 
another  arm of the Zionist octopus, like the  anti-black,  anti-
Semitic, pseudo-Nazi, Searchlight stooge Ray Hill, who was  anti-
cipated by Sir Oswald Mosley nearly half a century before he came 
out as a "mole". (62) 
  Sadly, this is not the case. Hoffman is the real McCoy, he is a 
genuine  Revisionist as well as a genuine anti-Semite,  and  he's 
doing  a  great job for the Zionist hate machine for  the  simple 
reason  that  his hatred is recognised by all, and just  in  case 
there is any mistake about it, it can be and is broadcast to  the 
world. By Shermer publishing his letter and sticker for  example. 
This  is the public image of Revisionism, or the way the  enemies 
of  all races but one like to portray it in public. And they  are 
aided  and abetted in this enterprise by a  complacent,  cowardly 
and at times spineless media. A media which, just as Hoffman tars 
all  Jews with the same brush, insists also on tarring all  Revi-
sionists  with the same brush. A media which fails  to  recognise 
Jewish  hatred, or even finds it impossible to believe  that  any 
Jew  could be capable of the same kind of racial hatred of  which 
the  leaders of Organised Jewry are forever accusing the rest  of 
  More  than that, much more than that, while the media fails  to 
recognise  any Jewish evil or wrongdoing, Organised Jewry  conti-
nues  to exploit the fallacy of equivocation. Thus in their  eyes 
and  in the eyes of the public, not only is every  Revisionist  a 
Hoffman,  but  every Jew is a Dreyfus, an Anne Frank, (63)  or  a 
poor,  persecuted innocent. The Jew is always powerless,  at  the 
mercy  of anti-Semites who have nothing better to do than  pogrom 
and murder the Chosen Race. Therefore the Jew - read the ADL, the 
Searchlight Organisation and a host of other crypto-Jewish  race-
hate organisations worldwide - can continue to present themselves 
as the saviours of Western democracy and indeed of Western civil-
isation,  a civilisation they are in fact doing their  utmost  to 
destroy.  Therein lies the real folly of anti-Semitism,  and  the 
real heresy of Michael A. Hoffman II.

Above: a cartoon from the launch issue JAN/FEB 1995 of the  anti-
censorship magazine $Scapegoat$. It isn't only the $Talmud$  that 
contains  unpleasant tracts. Ask Aleister Crowley! Above that:  a 
"cartoon"  and text from the sick mind of Michael  Hoffman,  who, 
whether he realises it or not, is doing a great job for the  ADL, 
(reproduced  from  a  1994 issue of  the  American  magazine  the 
$Skeptic$, Volume 3, Number 1). Also included is Hoffman's letter 
to the editor. Above these: another of Hoffman's "cartoons".


Alexander Baron

From Mon Jun 26 10:31:02 PDT 1995
Article: 22688 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Hoffman and the Talmud
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 95 22:49:58 GMT
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 276
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

$Notes And References$

(1)  In $CANDOUR: The British Views-Letter$, Vol. XXI,  No.  503, 
September,   1970,  page  180  under  the  title  $THIS  MAN   IS 
DANGEROUS$.  This  was a review of $Mullins' New History  of  the 
Jews$, and an expose of his hatemongering.
(2)  For  the benefit of the totally  uninitiated,  Arthur  Keith 
Chesterton, who died in 1973, was the founder of both the  Natio-
nal  Front and the League of Empire Loyalists. A  former  Fascist 
and  editor  of the BUF's $Blackshirt$, he fought in  both  World 
Wars. In 1948 he published a book on anti-Semitism in  collabora-
tion with the Orthodox Jewish writer Joseph Leftwich.
(3) Like the revelations at the first Zundel trial, this piece of 
"respectable"  Holocaust Revisionism  was revealed to  the  world 
with no fanfare, in 1991, see for example the $Daily Mail$, March 
3, 1993, page 10. 
(4) Because this leaflet folds in three places it doesn't read as 
photocopied here. Follow the handwritten "H" numbers at the top.
(5)  $A "Goy" Pries Into The "Talmud": The Six  Million  Reconsi-
dered  By The Light Of Four Small Candles by Alexander  Baron  in 
collaboration  with Rabbi Cohen comprising an investigation  into 
Talmudic  forgeries and an examination of the true nature of  the 
Torah$,  published by InSoText Manuscripts, London, (1992).  This 
is a 59 page (poorly typeset, photocopied) A4 pamphlet.
(6) Yes, I am in love with that wonderful phrase!
(7)  Rabbi Yosef Goldstein, PR man for the Neturei Karta in  Bri-
tain. Of whom much more anon.
(8)  $RABBI JOSEPH SOLOVEITCHIK$, London $Times$ obituary,  April 
21, 1993, page 17.
(9)  $The  New  Standard  Jewish  Encyclopedia$,  Editor-in-Chief 
Geoffrey  Wigoder, published by Facts On File, New York,  (1992), 
page 878.
(10)  The  Soncino $Talmud$ may be authoritative, but  a  curious 
anomaly  is  that the word God is spelt thus throughout.  To  the 
Orthodox, that name is too holy to be spelt in full, hence it  is 
usually rendered G-d. Even then one must be careful, for example, 
one  must  not write the holy name on a piece of paper  and  then 
throw it away.
(11) Consider the word bitch. This means literally a female  dog. 
On the other hand, if used to refer to a woman - your wife,  say, 
it may take on a pejorative meaning, but even then not necessari-
ly.  Consider the following: "I can't understand why I ever  mar-
ried  a hard-hearted bitch like you, Rebecca." But also  "Rachel, 
you're like a bitch in heat tonight." Or "That Salome is one hell 
of a sexy bitch." Obviously so much depends on the context of the 
word (or epithet) used.
(12)  See  the  entry for  $GENTILES$ in  the  $Universal  Jewish 
Encyclopedia$, Volume 5, page 533-4.
(13)   (Ibid).  Possibly  along  the  lines  of  the   well-known 
mother-in-law  jokes,  of the comedian the late Les  Dawson,  for 
(14) Ibid.
(15) See entry under $HEATHENS$, Volume 5, page 269.
(16) Also referred to by the acronym $akkum$.
(17)  $ZIONISM  IN THE AGE OF THE DICTATORS: A  reappraisal$,  by 
Lenni Brenner, published by Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent,  (1983), 
page 23.
(18)  $A "Goy" Pries Into The "Talmud"...$, Baron and Cohen,  (op 
cit),  page  31. Needless to say, the Rabbi didn't put  it  quite 
like that.
(19)  I've actually lost count of the number of times I've  found 
money  in the street. I remember this incident very  well  though 
because  I found it on the footbridge over Penge East station  on 
the thirteenth of the month, a Friday if I remember correctly.  A 
short time later I was talking with a workmate about superstition 
and  one  of us joked that this proved that thirteen  was  indeed 
unlucky. For the person who'd dropped the note! 
(20)  And of course I would have handed the money in if  I  could 
have identified the owner, honest.
(21)  Assuming he (or she) did, it would, paradoxically,  cost  a 
lot more money to return it to its owner than a mere ten  pounds. 
I was once told by a British Library staff member that it cost L7 
merely to issue a receipt in that organisation!
(22) In 1979, Maurice Ludmer, the founder and editor of  $Search-
light$  who died in 1981, published a pamphlet called $Women  And 
The  National Front$ in which he made the none too  subtle  point 
that  there are six million reasons white women should  not  have 
white babies. This pamphlet was actually published under the name 
of a shiksah (and $shabbos goy$) named Veronica (or V'ron)  Ware. 
Ware took over as editor on Ludmer's death, and later went on  to 
write  a  book about the evils of being both a woman  and  white. 
Notwithstanding  the well-documented obsession of a certain  type 
of  racial Jew for pushing miscegenation, this is not entirely  a 
Jewish  pastime, and is in any case something which the  $Talmud$ 
frowns on.
(23) This case made headlines all around the world; Robert Thomp-
son and Jon Venables became the two youngest convicted  murderers 
in Britain this century.
(24)  In  April 1947, a nine year old boy was  charged  with  the 
murder of four year old Glyndwr Owen Charles Parfitt; the alleged 
murder took place in Nant-y-Bar, Cymmer, Glamorgan. I came across 
this  case entirely by accident, but although it was reported  in 
the national press at this stage, I could find no reference to  a 
trial.  When cautioned by the police, the boy is alleged to  have 
said:  "I won't do it again." He was committed for trial  at  the 
end  of  April; it seems most unlikely that he was  convicted  of 
murder,  though  he may have been convicted of a  lesser  charge, 
acquitted,  or even found unfit to plead. A letter of enquiry  to 
the court authority concerned went unanswered.
(25)  I saw a TV documentary on this recently. The details  elude 
me but there was mention of a woman - in either Egypt or  Bangla-
desh  -  who had been raped and was then expected  to  marry  her 
(26)  Especially when, as she told me later, the Jews  -  meaning 
the Rabbi as well - are flooding the media with "all that  porno-
graphy" !!!
(27)  $Hagigah$ is not a book; I could find no reference  in  the 
$Talmud$  index to 27a, page 171, as cited by  Hoffman.  However, 
the $Universal Jewish Encyclopedia$ (Volume 5, page 164)  reports 
that it covers designation of sacrifices at the festivals.
(28) $Gittin$ means divorce, but covers other things besides.
(29) This was a poem about a necrophiliac Roman soldier apparent-
ly  describing  performing sexual acts on the body  of  the  dead 
(30)  The Midianites were an ancient people who inhabited  Midian 
in  Northwestern Arabia. Sadly, I never get invited to  sin  with 
anyone's daughter.
(31) Sorry Rabbi, I meant G-d.
(32) Obviously this idiot didn't realise that God, being  omnipo-
tent, can do anything he likes. You's goin' t'Hell, boy,  whether 
you likes it or not.
(33) $A "Goy" Pries Into The "Talmud"...$, Baron and Cohen,  page 
29, (op cit).
(34)  $Universal Jewish Encyclopedia$, Volume 6, pages 86-7.  And 
frankly, my dear, I couldn't give a damn.
(35)  The entry for $JESUS OF NAZARETH$ in the $UJE$,  Volume  6, 
actually  runs  from  pages 83-7. Pages 86-7  cover  $The  Jewish 
Attitude Toward Jesus$. 
(36)  I'm  not entirely sure that $Aryan$  includes  the  current 
writer,  although  $goy$ certainly does,  whatever  those  wicked 
people down at Uckfield may have told you.
(37)  The  entry for $GEHINNOM$ can be found in Volume  4,  pages 
(38)  Hoffman  uses the word mile instead of  $mil$,  whatever  a 
$mil$ may be.
(39)  He  said too that a traditional -  though  not  necessarily 
Jewish - $cure$ for jaundice is to place a pigeon on the  suffer-
er's  stomach.  I doubt very much a stomach covered  with  pigeon 
guano  will  cure jaundice anymore than a dose of dog  shit  will 
cure  pleurisy, but I'd have far fewer reservations about  trying 
it out.
(40) Grimstad is a one-time managing editor of the American  Nazi 
newspaper $White Power$. He registered as a Saudi agent in  1978. 
See $Saudi 'agent' repudiated$, by Clifford Chanin, published  in 
the $Jewish Chronicle$, June 2, 1978, page 5.
(41)   According   to   Volume  3  of   the   $Universal   Jewish 
Encyclopedia$, in particular the entry for $CANARDS$, "Tob  shebe 
goyyim  harog"  is  actually a command to kill the  best  of  the 
Gentiles "in time of war". Note the difference!
(42)  Hoffman  renders the name Baruch, but  transliterations  of 
Hebrew words vary widely.
(43)  Originally it was claimed that up to fifty people had  been 
killed. Hoffman's leaflet reports forty dead.
(44) Ie Hoffman.
(45) Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, he of "One million Arabs are not  worth 
a Jewish fingernail" fame.
(46) The $Times$, September 21 1982, page 6.
(47) This cartoon, which was extremely mild and more  anti-Ameri-
can  than anti-Zionist, was published in the short lived  unoffi-
cial Labour Party newspaper $Labour Herald$ on January 7, 1983.
(48) The "Jewish events magazine" $New Moon$, May 1992, page  19, 
revealed that Gable has never been a member of a synagogue.
(49)  The film is based on Keneally's book which was called  ori-
ginally $Schindler's Ark$.
(50)  The  35 volumes of the Soncino $Talmud$ take up  over  five 
feet  of  shelf space. As the $Talmud$ covers  every  conceivable 
aspect  of  human  behaviour, and as the $Torah$ -  the  body  of 
Jewish law - is being constantly updated, it would be  inconceiv-
able  for it not to contain a certain number of  unpleasant  pas-
sages,  but as the cartoon at the bottom of page 20  illustrates, 
this is hardly unique to Judaism.
(51)  $ISRAEL  and  the NEW WORLD ORDER$, by  Andrew  J.  Hurley, 
published  by  Fithian Press/Foundation for a  New  World  Order, 
Santa  Barbara,  (1991). See in particular  pages  193-200.  Some 
Zionist rabbis liken the Arabs to Amalek, whom the Israelites are 
ordered to destroy utterly.
(52)  The  same cannot of course be said for the likes  of  Gerry 
Gable, who is a conscious manipulator of the media and the  gull-
ible $goyim$ of the misnamed anti-fascist movement, and therefore 
an evil little bastard in his own right.
(53)  To the real Jews, TV is an abomination, and the  cinema  is 
cut from the same cloth. As long ago as December 1955,  Hoffman's 
fellow  traveller Arnold Leese reported in his  anti-Jewish  hate 
sheet  $Gothic Ripples$ (22nd December, 1955, issue 134, page  3) 
that  "A  poster  signed by 150 rabbis in  Britain,  America  and 
Canada has appeared on synagogue notice-boards condemning Televi-
sion  as 'a parade of depravity.' They did not say that it was  a 
$Jewish$ parade of depravity for Gentiles."
  Leese  too missed the point: the $Jews$ who control the  media, 
who  spew out anti-German and anti-$Aryan$ hate  propaganda,  are 
not  the  same Jews who devote their lives to the  study  of  the 
$Torah$; the former are not in fact Jews at all in any meaningful 
(54)   This   was  reported  with  much  glee   in   $Revisionist 
Researcher$, Volume 4, Number 8.
(55) My suggestion.
(56)  For  an  example of condemnation by a  $secular$  Jew,  the 
reader is referred to Lucien Wolf's article $The Zionist  Peril$, 
which  was  published in the October 1904 issue  of  $The  Jewish 
Quarterly Review$.
(57)  $Jews  Against Zionism: The American Council  for  Judaism, 
1942-1948$,  by Thomas A. Kolsky, published by Temple  University 
Press, Philadelphia, (1990), page 17. Incidentally, it was at the 
1897 Congress that Herzl "the Prince of the Exile" is supposed to 
have read the $Protocols$. I've no doubt Hoffman believes in  the 
$Protocols$;  it  is obvious from his comments on $The  Jew,  the 
Gypsy and El Islam$ in his letter of September 12, 1994, that  he 
believes Jews practice ritual murder.
(58)  See  Kolsky,  $Jews Against Zionism$, (ibid).  This  is  an 
excellent monograph on the American Council for Judaism.
(59)  Zionism did exist before Herzl, but the Chovevei  Zion  and 
others were not Zionists in the proper sense of the word.
(60) I have used the same analogy in more or less the same  words 
in the study I wrote in collaboration with Rabbi Goldstein,  $THE 
WORLD ZIONIST CONSPIRACY Exposed By A Rabbi$, published by Anglo-
Hebrew Publishing, London, (January 1995). 
(61) Needless to say, skepticism goes out of the window  whenever 
the  Holocaust  is debated. Except when it comes  to  taking  pot 
shots at the Revisionists, of course.
(62)  Although he had been suspected for some time,  particularly 
by  the then leader of the British Movement, Michael  McLaughlin, 
Hill's  treachery was not revealed to the world until March  1984 
when  he  "came out" in an article in the $News  Of  The  World$. 
Hill's mythical exploits in the Nazi underworld were subsequently 
made  into a lie-ridden pseudo-documentary and an even more  lie-
ridden book, both called $The Other Face Of Terror$. The  current 
writer's painstakingly researched and irrefutably documented 1994 
biography of Hill exposes the film, the book and the man  himself 
as worthless trash.
  In October 1936, nearly half a century before Hill "came  out", 
Sir  Oswald  Mosley wrote in the $Blackshirt$: "Some do  this  in 
perfect  good faith and honesty, and thus unconsciously help  the 
enemies  of their cause. Others, no doubt, as the struggle  deve-
lops, will actually be employed, often unknowingly, by those very 
clever  people,  the big Jews, to make wild and  foolish  attacks 
upon  Jews  in  general, in order  to  discredit  anti-Semitism."  
While  in our own time, Louis R. Beam, wrote in the Spring  1991, 
issue  of $The Seditionist$ that: "The Zionist Occupational  Gov-
ernment of America requires willing morons to serve them. ZOG  is 
looking  for  a few bad men. Are you bad enough?  Then  see  your 
local  nigger hater and sign up. Or if nigger hating is not  your 
forte, your local loud mouth, foul speaking Jew hater. Applicants 
must  be  willing to commit senseless acts  of  vandalism,  while 
occasionally  harming  innocents who have no idea  why  they  are 
being  brutalized. Must be accustomed to engaging in  meaningless 
pursuits,  which have no chance of success. No education or  pre-
vious  experience at anything required. Prefer non-thinkers.  For 
more information dial 1-800-FBI-ADL." 
(63) For the record, having studied this subject in  considerable 
depth,  I am convinced of the authenticity of $The Diary Of  Anne 
Frank$,  which,  although it has certainly been edited,  is  just 
about  the  only genuine document ever to have come  out  of  the 

Published by Anglo-Hebrew Publishing

Distributed by InSoText Manuscripts,
93c Venner Road,
London SE26 5HU.

ISBN 1 898318 62 X

Copyright Alexander Baron, 1995.

Alexander Baron

From Wed Jun 28 15:35:47 PDT 1995
Article: 22826 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Kushner's Chutzpah
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 00:12:31 GMT
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 671
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29




A Critique Of Kushner's Chutzpah


The unstated premise of any academic work on the subject of anti-
Semitism is that the Jew is never and nowhere to blame; there are 
rare exceptions, (1) but for the most part one can trawl  through 
the vast catalogue of Jewish/anti-Jewish studies without  finding 
so  much  as  a hint that God's Chosen are not  quite  the  poor, 
persecuted, powerless people they would have us believe they are.
  The reality of course is that, as any fool knows, but only  the 
brave  or the stupid will admit, the Jewish/Zionist Lobby (2)  is 
incredibly  powerful, often gets its own way on many matters,  is 
totally ruthless, and will and does smear as anti-Semitic  anyone 
who refuses to bow down and kiss the arse of Imperial Zion.
  The  real  power of Organised Jewry is devolved,  not  as  many 
anti-Semites and fellow travellers believe, from Jewish financial 
hegemony or from direct Jewish control of the press, but from the 
fear  and spinelessness induced in the $goyim$ by  the  incessant 
whining  and  wailing  of a handful  of  powerful  Jewish/Zionist 
organisations and their (mostly Gentile) fellow travellers in the 
Socialist International. In Britain, these organisations include, 
but  are not limited to, the Board of Deputies of "British"  Jews 
defence  committee,  the  Institute of Jewish  Affairs,  and  the 
Searchlight Organisation. One person who is intimately acquainted 
with all three is Dr Anthony Kushner, formerly Parkes Fellow  and 
now  Marcus Sieff Lecturer in Jewish/non-Jewish Relations in  the 
Department of History, University of Southampton.
  Kushner is the author of $The persistence of prejudice: Antise-
mitism in British society during the Second World War$, which was 
published  by Manchester University Press in 1989. The  theme  of 
this  book, and indeed of most of the good doctor's  whining  and 
wailing, is "How could anybody ever hate us lovely Jews?"  Anyone 
who reads his latest offering and who has so much as a gramme  of 
critical  faculty, will surely know the answer to that  question, 
because if all "Jews" were like Dr Anthony  wailing-and-gnashing-
of-teeth  Kushner,  anti-Semitism would be less a  social  stigma 
than a painful duty.
  So  what is Kushner's latest offering? $The Holocaust  and  the 
Liberal   Imagination$  is  subtitled  $A  Social  and   Cultural 
History$.  Published by the mainstream academic publishing  house 
of  Basil  Blackwell, it reared its ugly head in late  1994.  Re-
viewed by Marion Halcombe in the prestigious Libertarian  journal 
$Free Life$, it drew scathing comments from this normally  toler-
ant  magazine. According to the reviewer, WE ARE ALL GUILTY.  (3) 
As  might be expected, Kushner's chutzpah was attacked here  pri-
marily  from a civil liberties angle, no comment was made on  the 
inherent  dishonesty of the book, nor the fact that, in  defiance 
of all standards of scholarship it accepts uncritically the  most 
outrageous  and unsustainable assertions of  Holocaust  survivors 
and  dismisses  as  mere anti-Semitic propaganda  even  the  most 
meticulously documented Revisionist critiques. Sadly though  this 
is nothing new. Without further ado then, let us take the bull by 
the horns.

Kushner's Chutzpah: A Critique

We can ignore the social and cultural aspects of this book, which 
in  spite of its title are the least important of its  offerings. 
On page 267, using the inveterate pejorative of Jewish academics, 
Kushner  takes  a swipe at so-called Holocaust denial  (ever  the 
small  d), and reveals, amazingly, that it began in 1943  with  a 
certain  Alexander  Ratcliffe. Who was Alexander  Ratcliffe?  The 
good doctor doesn't tell us, but for the reader's information  he 
was  a  Scottish Protestant, editor of a  newspaper  called  $The 
Vanguard$,  and an anti-Catholic bigot as well as an  anti-Jewish 
one. Apparently, as early as 1943, Ratcliffe published a pamphlet 
which  claimed  that "there is not a single case on record  of  a 
single Jew having been massacred or unlawfully put to death under 
the Hitler regime". 
  This  statement hardly constitutes Holocaust Revisionism,  not-
withstanding  the fact that one can play all manner  of  semantic 
games  with  such a pronouncement. (4) And whatever  its  factual 
content, such a statement hardly constitutes incitement or  sedi-
tion;  it doesn't actually attack Jews at all, although it  might 
imply  that  some of them were being economical with  the  truth. 
Perish  the thought! All the same, Kushner laments the fact  that 
"Herbert  Morrison, the Home Secretary, refused to accept that  a 
libel  law  [sic] was needed to protect the Jews". (5)  Yes,  the 
good doctor really does think that a special law should have been 
passed "to $protect$ us lovely Jews". 
  What  then  would he have made about the  statement  which  was 
reported in the $Jewish Chronicle$ ten years prior to Ratcliffe's 
claim? An editorial on page 5 of the April 14, 1933 issue  repor-
ted  that $"Truth Must Out"$, and made the remarkable claim  that 
"...certain  Jewish organisations abroad  circulated  exaggerated 
atrocity  stories." Yes, the $Jewish Chronicle$  accused  certain 
Jewish  organisations of circulating anti-German atrocity  propa-
ganda.  $If$  the $Jewish Chronicle$ could make such a  claim  in 
peace  time, then surely there could be some truth in  the  claim 
made by Ratcliffe that atrocity propaganda was being used against 
the enemy in war-time. After all, haven't we all heard many times 
that the first casualty of war is truth?
  Whatever the ravings of this one anti-Catholic and  anti-Jewish 
bigot,  Dr  Kushner  is less concerned about  the  challenges  to 
atrocity  stories  in  war-time (6) than  with  the  contemporary 
assault  on the assertions put forward by his  co-racialists  who 
survived the Nazi death camps.
  On the very same page he whines: "For survivors, whose need  to 
give testimony has often been an essential part of their post-war 
life,  Holocaust  denial has been  particularly  disturbing.  Yet 
attempts  in Britain to ban such material in the late  1980s  and 
early  1990s have been rejected on the same grounds  outlined  by 
Morrison. The liberal British state has refused to protect one of 
its most vulnerable minorities - even though it now has the  most 
powerful  anti-racist legislation in Europe.  Individual  liberty 
has  been put on a higher plane than the sensitivities  of  those 
who  have  suffered  some of the worst abuses  of  the  twentieth 
century. Apart from the hurt caused to survivors and others,  the 
general  influence  of Holocaust denial is difficult  to  assess. 
There  can  be little doubt that its purveyors are  motivated  by 
  There  is a lot here, so let's take it a little at a  time.  To 
begin with, no survivor [sic] needs or has needed to give testim-
ony,  certainly not outside of the context of legal  proceedings. 
Two  such  survivors named here are Kitty Hart and  Elie  Wiesel. 
Kitty Hart nee Felix is a survivor who is undoubtedly well  known 
in  certain circles, but is hardly a recognised  spokeswoman  for 
Jewry. She is now a British citizen. Elie Wiesel is of course  an 
internationally recognised figure, and a Nobel Laureate.  Incred-
ibly. Let's deal with these two survivors one at a time.
  Mrs  Hart gets a mention in Kushner's book on page 262. She  is 
said  to have made a TV documentary called $Return to  Auschwitz$ 
in  1979, a documentary Kushner describes as "important and  har-
rowing".  I  haven't seen this documentary, but I have  read  the 
book of the same name; I have also read Mrs Hart's earlier  auto-
biography  and  have analysed both these  texts  in  considerable 
detail  elsewhere. (7) $And$ I saw Mrs Hart when she appeared  on 
TV in another programme, $Another Journey By Train$. (8)
  Again,  Kushner is wrong, Kitty Hart didn't $need$  to  publish 
either  of  her books, and she certainly didn't  need  to  invent 
stories  about the SS man who threw a baby into an oven, nor  any 
of  the other nonsense that appears in either book. Although  Mrs 
Hart did undoubtedly suffer during World War II, she was not  the 
only person who suffered, just as her race was not the only  race 
that  suffered,  and there were very many people,  most  of  them 
white Gentiles, who suffered more. For example, Mrs Hart  reports 
that  in  Auschwitz,  prisoners organised concerts;  a  group  of 
Hungarians were even said to have staged a ballet! Obviously such 
entertainments were heavily improvised, but there must have  been 
not  a  few soldiers serving at the front - in all armies  -  who 
would have envied Kitty Hart and her co-racialists in  Auschwitz, 
and who would have readily changed places with her.
  Nobel  "Peace" Prize winner Elie Wiesel didn't $need$ to  write 
about the Holocaust either; he certainly didn't need to write his 
book $Night$, in which he claimed that he saw babies thrown alive 
into a burning pit, and in which he reported other nonsense.
  Kushner's  claim  that survivors such as Kitty  Hart  and  Elie 
Wiesel  have found Holocaust Revisionism particularly  disturbing 
is  unquestionably  true, and the reason for this is not  far  to 
seek:  as  evinced here, many of these very same  survivors  have 
been exposed as bare-faced liars by the most basic textual analy-
sis. (9)
  Next  we come to Kushner's claim that "attempts in  Britain  to 
ban  such  material in the late 1980s and early 1990s  have  been 
rejected on the same grounds outlined by Morrison." 
  And that "The liberal British state has refused to protect  one 
of  its most vulnerable minorities - even though it now  has  the 
most powerful anti-racist legislation in Europe."
  In  other  words, the $liberal$ British state  has  refused  to 
suppress a) open debate on this subject and b) to throw into gaol 
anyone  who  has the temerity to brand the likes  of  Kitty  Hart 
shameless liars, as indeed they are. 
  "The  liberal British state has refused to protect one  of  its 
most  vulnerable  minorities - even though it now  has  the  most 
powerful anti-racist legislation in Europe."
  This  is  complete  eyewash. The $liberal$  British  state  has 
refused,  to  its  credit, to protect the $lies$  of  people  who 
Kushner $claims$ are "one of its most vulnerable minorities".  In 
the same breath he admits that Britain "now has the most powerful 
anti-racist  legislation in Europe." And who was responsible  for 
foisting  this  Draconian piece of legislation on  Britain?  That 
very  same  $vulnerable$ minority! In October 1993,  the  forever 
wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth $Jewish Chronicle$ boasted that the 
Jewish  peer Lord Lester was "one of the architects of  Britain's 
Race Relations Act". In the same article, Lester was said to have 
clashed  with  Home Secretary Michael Howard over the  $need$  to 
instigate  an  even stronger and more repressive race  act.  (10) 
This same $vulnerable$ minority was outraged when Michael  Howard 
put  his commitment to freedom of speech and liberal values on  a 
higher plane than bowing to and appeasing his hate-mongering  co-
racialists. (11)
  Exactly how much protection - apart from protecting their  lies 
-  does this $vulnerable$ minority need? The answer is of  course 
that  it needs no more protection than the rest of us. There  are 
no  pogroms in this country, and there are very  few  anti-Jewish 
incidents  which are anti-Jewish in any meaningful sense  of  the 
word.  True,  there have been occasional desecrations  of  Jewish 
cemeteries,  but  this happens to Christian cemeteries  as  well. 
There  are no murders and there is no organised violence  against 
Jews  $as  Jews$; the same cannot be said of Asians  and  blacks, 
although  even this very real problem has been greatly  exaggera-
ted. The only violent acts worthy of mention to have been  direc-
ted  against Jews in Britain in recent years were the  1994  bom-
bings  of the Israeli Embassy and Balfour House in North  London. 
And these were not anti-Jewish acts, they were acts of  terrorism 
directed against the entity of political Zionism, (12) in exactly 
the  same  way that IRA terrorism on the mainland  is  not  anti-
British. (13)
  What "anti-Semitism" exists in Britain amounts to people  send-
ing  ritual murder leaflets through the post, people who like  to 
hear  Jews scream, because nobody screams either so loudly or  so 
frequently with so little justification as these overgrown child-
ren  - like Kushner - who interpret any dissent on any  issue  or 
any disagreement with them as rabid anti-Semitism.
  There  are  other people who might reasonably be  called  anti-
Semites,  some  of  them in a very mild way, and  these  are  the 
people  who are sick to death of the whining, wailing and  menda-
city of Kushner and his cabal, and who extrapolate from Organised 
Jewry to Jews in general.
  Back  to Kushner's book: "Individual liberty has been put on  a 
higher  plane than the sensitivities of those who  have  suffered 
some of the worst abuses of the twentieth century." 
  This  is  an obvious reference to Kitty Hart, Elie  Wiesel  and 
other survivors. Whilst it is unquestionably true that many  Jews 
suffered  persecution in Nazi Germany, and whilst it  is  equally 
true  that  many suffered in World War Two, and  that  many  were 
murdered, not only by the Germans, it must be added, it is  like-
wise a documented fact that the peoples of virtually every nation 
suffered  some form of hardship in that senseless bloodbath.  The 
Japanese  people suffered terribly: Hiroshima, Nagasaki  and  the 
firebombing of Tokyo to name but three. The Chinese suffered; the 
peoples  of Eastern Europe suffered; the people of  Britain,  the 
United States and many other nations gave freely of their  blood. 
The major sufferers though were white Gentiles. (14) Furthermore, 
not  all Jews suffered, and indeed, many Jews suffered less  than 
many Germans, Britons, French people, and so on. We have  already 
seen  that Kitty Hart, who was interned at Auschwitz as  a  young 
(and obviously extremely impressionable) girl, suffered, this  is 
not  denied.  However, the most significant damage  done  to  the 
likes  of  Mrs Hart is clearly psychological, because  fifty  and 
more  years  on,  she and her kind are still  obsessed  with  the 
uniqueness  of their suffering - real and imagined - and  believe 
it  to be so much more serious, and terrible, for Jews to  suffer 
than for anybody else.
  Kushner  again:  "Apart from the hurt caused to  survivors  and 
others, the general influence of Holocaust denial is difficult to 
assess. There can be little doubt that its purveyors are  motiva-
ted by antisemitism..."
  There  can be a great deal of doubt, indeed most of  its  $pur-
veyors$  are  most  definitely not  motivated  by  anti-Semitism. 
Whilst  it  is  undoubtedly true that  Holocaust  Revisionism  is 
peddled by anti-Semites, and white nationalists, (15) and  whilst 
it  is equally true that some Holocaust Revisionists often  speak 
in  less  than  glowing terms about "us lovely  Jews",  the  most 
cursory  inspection of the credentials of Holocaust  Revisionists 
reveals a wide cross section. Including Jews! Indeed, one of  the 
earliest $purveyors$ of Holocaust Revisionism was the late  Josef 
Ginsburg,  who gave evidence for Ernst Zundel at his  1985  trial 
and  denounced the gas chambers as a tissue of lies. A much  more 
recent Jewish convert is the extremely youthful David Cole. 
  Another very early Holocaust Revisionist was the former $Times$ 
correspondent  Douglas  Reed, whose  anti-Nazi  credentials  were 
impeccable. On page 224, Kushner refers to Reed's work as  "para-
noid  rantings about Jewish conspiracies" which  were  apparently 
published by the respectable publishing house of Jonathan Cape. 
  Whilst  it is true that Reed did possess some strange  and  un-
doubtedly  erroneous ideas about the Jewish Question, it is  most 
definitely not true that his views on the Holocaust were paranoid 
  In  his  1951  book $FAR AND WIDE$, Reed poured  scorn  on  the 
claims  of  six million dead and said that: "In my  judgment  the 
figure  of  six millions was a grotesque  exaggeration  which  an 
unintimidated press would never have published, save to  expose." 
(16) Four decades and more on, the exaggeration is still  grotes-
que, and the intimidation increases daily.
  So  much for the antecedents of Holocaust  Revisionists;  their 
motivations  are just as varied. On the other hand,  the  motiva-
tions  of Kushner and his ilk are all too transparent, in  short, 
the  good doctor is not, first and foremost, an historian, but  a 
professional Jewish propagandist who peddles the twin theories of 
$Aryan$ evil and Jewish suffering in much the same way an earlier 
generation of cranks peddled the Jewish world conspiracy and  the 
$Protocols Of Zion$.

Lipstadt Joins The Fray

Kushner's tacit suggestion that the sensitivities of damned liars 
(and unquestionably propagandists such as himself) should be  put 
on  a  $higher plane$ than individual liberty is typical  of  the 
inveterate liars and mischief makers of Organised Jewry.  Indeed, 
he  goes  much further. In the $Jewish Chronicle$ for  April  14, 
1995   he   reviews,  glowingly,  the  polemical   $Denying   The 
Holocaust$,  by  his fellow academic,  whiner  and  co-racialist, 
Deborah Lipstadt. Unlike Kushner's book, Lipstadt's is  concerned 
with  the Holocaust as a central issue. It is also an  incredibly 
venal  and dishonest book, for while it makes a number  of  valid 
criticisms  about the techniques of certain  Revisionists  lumped 
together  with $ad hominem$ attacks on their  (supposed)  ideolo-
gies, it studiously avoids the real issues. For example, although 
Professor  Butz's  book  is covered in some depth,  there  is  no 
mention either of the early Jewish Revisionist the aforementioned 
Josef  Ginsburg,  or  of the exhaustive study  by  retired  judge 
Wilhelm Staglich. (17)
  Naturally Kushner applauds Lipstadt's book; he also attacks the 
$Journal  of Historical Review$ as "pseudo-academic" and  a  pur-
veyor  of "$hard-core pornography$". No, this doesn't  mean  that 
the  $JHR$ has gone down market, this is, it would appear, a  new 
term for Holocaust Revisionism. Kushner praises Lipstadt for  her 
dedication to what is surely "sickening work". 
  He praises Lipstadt too for "generally avoid[ing] the pointless 
exercise  of re-proving [sic] the Holocaust and  instead  concen-
trat[ing] on the deniers themselves." An open admission that  her 
book  is far more polemical than scholarly. Curiously, he  claims 
that Lipstadt's book is less incisive than its "more  sophistica-
ted predecessor". Incredibly, this is a reference to a book by  a 
Yorkshire-based  Jewish "academic", Gill Seidel;  $The  Holocaust 
Denial:  Antisemitism, Racism & the New Right$ was  published  in 
1986  by Beyond the Pale. (18) Its $sophistication$ includes  the 
absurd  claim that Holocaust Revisionism is the latest update  of 
the $Protocols Of Zion$ (19) and the only marginally less  absurd 
claim  that the anti-Zionist Jew Lenni Brenner is a  rabid  anti-
Semite! (20)
  Kushner accepts Lipstadt's self-penned axiom that it is crucial 
to  avoid debating with the Revisionists. (21) So, if they  can't 
be  debated,  what then? "...she is perhaps  too  negative  about 
legal means used to silence them [which] have been used  success-
fully on the Continent". And so, Kushner is revealed in his  true 
colours: we can't debate them, therefore they must be silenced by 
$legal$  means. (22) He also identifies, inadvertently, the  real 
vulnerable  minority  which needs protecting  from  quasi-fascist 
tyranny, calumny and organised liars: the Revisionists. 

Tony Kushner: A Suitable Case For Treatment

Returning  to his book, Kushner says on page 26 that:  "Survivors 
such as Elie Wiesel and Saul Friedlander have put great stress on 
the dangers inherent in making the Holocaust 'accessible' to  the 
general public in an age of mass media. Wiesel in particular  has 
criticized  fictionalized,  televised and film  versions  of  the 
Holocaust  where viewers 'get a little history, a heavy  dose  of 
sentimentality and suspense, a little eroticism, a few daring sex 
scenes,  a  dash of theological rumination about the  silence  of 
  Hmm,  Elie  Wiesel  should be one of the very  last  people  to 
criticise  fictionalised  representations of  the  Holocaust.  In 
vindication  of this, let us quote a brief passage from his  book 
$Night,$ (which we have already alluded to). 
  "Not far from us, flames were leaping up from a ditch, gigantic 
flames.  They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the  pit 
and delivered its load - little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it - 
saw  it with my own eyes...those children in the flames.  (Is  it 
surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep had fled from 
my eyes.)" (23) 
  And  what do the so-called deniers (small d) have to say  about 
this?  Well,  one of the leading  DENIERS,  Professor  Faurisson, 
says: "Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to 
choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to 
defend  the  fire lie instead of the boiling water,  gassing,  or 
electrocution  lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony  in 
Yiddish,  the fire lie was still alive in certain  circles.  This 
lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer 
a  single  historian who believes that Jews were  burned  alive." 
  There can be no doubt whatsoever that Kushner has read Wiesel's 
testimony, and that he realises what utter garbage this  particu-
lar  passage is, and that he realises too what utter garbage  and 
how utterly worthless most such survivor testimony is, yet it  is 
Faurisson  he denounces rather than Wiesel and other  fantasists. 
He  also authenticates, or at best does not condone, lies  which, 
rather than written by the obviously disturbed Elie Wiesel,  were 
penned  by  Communist propagandists for  purposes  which,  unlike 
Wiesel's, have not even the pretence of nobility.
  On  page  134,  Kushner chirps up: "In  January  1942,  limited 
coverage  was given in the democracies to a note from the  Soviet 
Union on German atrocities." He is referring here to $The Molotov 
Notes  On  German Atrocities$, which were published in  London  - 
incredibly - by HMSO! (25) It may have been that these notes were 
published  as  a sop to Stalin, at any rate,  whatever  their  PR 
value they are utterly worthless as evidence of war-time  atroci-
ties, as the press clearly realised at the time, and as Kushner's 
comment reveals. (26)
  On  a similar subject, on page 242, Kushner cites, with  appro-
val,  Lord Russell of Liverpool's $The Scourge of the  Swastika$. 
Anyone who would take this nonsense seriously deserves to be lied 
to; obviously Kushner doesn't take it seriously, although just as 
obviously  he  wants his readers to. (27)  What  about  Kushner's 
claim  that Holocaust Denial has been particularly disturbing  to 
survivors?  Surely  the quid pro quo of this is  that  officially 
sanctioned  lies  about the Holocaust related by  survivors,  and 
sensationalists such as Lord Russell of Liverpool, are  extremely 
disturbing  to the much libelled Germans? The claim  for  example 
that prisoners in Buchenwald were crushed with rocks and  drowned 
in  manure. (28) The claim by Kitty Hart (and many  others)  that 
soap  was  made  from the bodies of gassed [sic]  Jews.  (29)  No 
suggestion  is  ever made by Kushner and his ilk that  such  lies 
should  even be denounced, must less that the people  who  spread 
them  should  be dragged into court, as has happened  to  sincere 
Revisionists on many occasions.
  On  page  138, Kushner claims that much of  the  Holocaust  was 
rejected at the time in both Britain and the United States as war 
propaganda. As indeed it deserved to be. Kushner's fellow whiner, 
Wiener Library Director David Cesarani, claimed in November  1993 
that "The Foreign Office knew in August, 1942 about the Holocaust 
as  a  result of evidence supplied by the Jewish  underground  in 
Poland." (30) Undoubtedly the Foreign Office did $know$ about the 
Holocaust, but it also knew, and still knows, and the  government 
knew, and still knows, what damned liars you people are.
  Another  concern  of  Kushner's  is  $educating$  the  gullible 
$goyim$ about the $true$ nature of the Holocaust, (and  poisoning 
the  minds  of  the next generation of  schoolchildren).  Of  all 
races.  "Some problems remained. A crude universalistic  tendency 
was present in the unsophisticated lumping together of Auschwitz, 
Hiroshima and Dresden as 'casualties of war'." (31)
  This is yet another example of special pleading: our  suffering 
is much greater than yours, our suffering is more important,  our 
suffering  is unique, we need special laws to make sure that  our 
suffering is always considered special, and that both our suffer-
ing and ourselves are above criticism. 
  It  would be nice to dismiss this as the opinion of a lone  and 
obviously  disturbed Jewish academic, unfortunately, this is  not 
the  case.  Rather, this is the considered opinion  of  Organised 
Jewry on both sides of the Atlantic, indeed throughout the entire 
world, and it has been so for many, many years. In the  aftermath 
of  Hiroshima,  the $Jewish Chronicle$ editorialised  thus:  "The 
Japanese civilians who fell victims to the atom bomb were  bitter 
enemies,  and pitiless. The Jewish men, women, and  children  who 
perished,  had not taken up arms; their offences were only  their 
birth and their utter helplessness." (32) That was the case then, 
and it remains the case still.
  On  page 263, Kushner laments that no courses are available  on 
the Holocaust at British Polytechnics, and on page 265 he  speaks 
favourably  of  both $Searchlight$ magazine  and  the  Wiesenthal 
Center,  and  their "war crimes" campaigns. This  is  surely  the 
pits,  and if any excuses could be made for Kushner this far,  by 
citing  these  two entities, particularly the former,  he  proves 
himself to be totally beyond the pale.
  In  April 1994, the current writer published a pamphlet on  the 
Searchlight Educational Trust [sic]; this was one of a series  of 
pamphlets, part of an ongoing expose of the many tentacles of the 
Searchlight  octopus. In that pamphlet I wrote that  Kushner  was 
one of a number of respectable front people who had been  recrui-
ted  by this organisation's evil controllers to lend it a  veneer 
of respectability that it clearly doesn't deserve. I was still of 
that  opinion  sometime later. In July 1994 I received  a  letter 
>from   Dr David Cesarani telling me that I would not be  permitted 
to use the Wiener Library anymore. He had seen my exposes of  the 
Searchlight  Organisation, and took umbrage at them, because,  he 
told me, I was using the Wiener Library to engage in personal and 
political vendettas.
  David Cesarani wasn't the only one, the $Jewish Chronicle$  has 
for  some  time been running a hate campaign against me.  I  have 
documented  all this elsewhere, so will not repeat  myself  here, 
(33)  but basically this too concerned my exposes of the  Search-
light Organisation and its head honcho and Machiavellian schemer, 
Gerry  Gable.  In March 1994 I published an open  letter  to  the 
$Jewish Chronicle$ which proved that Gerry Gable and his  friends 
at  $Searchlight$ lie to them as freely as they lie to the  gull-
ible  $goyim$ of the so-called anti-fascist left. One might  then 
have  expected the paper to put as much distance  between  itself 
and Gable as possible. Not one bit. In March 1995, when  $Search-
light$  celebrated  [sic] its twentieth  anniversary,  the  paper 
published  a full page spread on Gable and an in-depth  interview 
with him repeating the same lies. 
  Likewise,  to  the best of my knowledge, Dr  Kushner  is  still 
closely  associated with the Searchlight Educational  Trust,  and 
the Board of Deputies of "British" Jews is still staunchly behind 
both  Gable and his evil pseudo-anti-fascist  organisation.  Many 
people  on  the far right interpret this  "clannishness"  amongst 
Organised  Jewry as part of an intricate, all-pervasive  conspir-
acy.  This  belief is understandable, but flawed.  It  is  flawed 
because Occam's Razor gives us a far more plausible  explanation. 
Strangely,  it  was only the release from gaol  of  former  world 
heavyweight champion (and convicted rapist) Mike Tyson that  made 
me realise the prosaic but ugly truth.

The Great "Conspiracy" Exposed And Explained

The  rise and fall of Mike Tyson is too well known to need  docu-
menting  in any detail here, but briefly what happened  is  this. 
Iron  Mike,  former  child delinquent, rose to  be  the  youngest 
heavyweight champion of all time, potentially the greatest heavy-
weight  or even the greatest fighter of all time, then  went  off 
the  rails.  In the space of a few years he went through  a  dis-
astrous  marriage, lost his title to a thirty-five to one  under-
dog, got involved in a street brawl, and finally ended up charged 
with, and convicted of, rape.
  Tyson's victim was beauty contestant Desiree Washington. In the 
early hours of July 19, 1991, Tyson raped Miss Washington in  his 
hotel  room in the American city of Indianapolis. Because of  the 
circumstances  of the rape, Tyson's legal team did their best  to 
destroy the victim's character. What sort of woman would go to  a 
man's  hotel room at that time of the morning? Especially  a  man 
with a reputation like Tyson's? And so on. It was all innuendo of 
course,  but  had Desiree Washington been any sort of  good  time 
girl, a well-known slut, free with her sexual favours, or even $a 
bit of a raver$, the defence would surely have succeeded. Desiree 
Washington was none of these things, she was as respectable as  a 
young  woman could be. True, she showed extremely poor  judgment, 
she  was blinded by Tyson's fame, by his aura, and she  obviously 
like him. And she was just as obviously raped in that hotel room. 
  In  March 1992, Tyson was sentenced to six years in  gaol,  and 
would be out in three with full remission. As a long time  boxing 
fan, and indeed a Tyson fan, seeing him reduced to this gave  the 
current writer not the slightest satisfaction. Indeed, the trash-
ing of Mike Tyson was, I felt, a tragedy not only for boxing, but 
for  a generation of young black kids to whom Tyson was the  per-
fect  role  model. He had that rare quality  of  being  pro-black 
without  being anti-white, he obviously so desperately wanted  to 
do the right thing, and he was well on his way to fulfilling  all 
that  had been promised of him, and more. All that has fallen  by 
the wayside now. (35)
  After  Tyson's conviction there was much talk that he  had  re-
ceived  a raw deal; the case was the subject of political  gerry-
mandering  by campaigners who tried to make it both a race  issue 
and  a sex issue. (36) And that would, or should, have  been  the 
end  of it. But for the entire three years of Tyson's  incarcera-
tion,  the boxing world hardly stopped talking about Tyson,  from 
the  day he was sent down until the day he was released. And  his 
release  was  heralded not just by the boxing world, but  by  the 
world in general; the world's press and broadcast media literally 
queued  up outside the prison gate awaiting his release.  He  was 
treated more like the Prodigal Son than a convicted rapist out on 
parole.  On his release, the British boxing trade  paper  $Boxing 
News$ published a full page colour poster of him announcing  that 
he was "OUT OF GAOL AND IN A HURRY" to reclaim the crown that was 
rightly his.
  Was  it  then that the only people who  believed  that  Desiree 
Washington  had been raped in that hotel room were  her  friends, 
family  and the twelve men and women of the jury, and  perhaps  a 
few  noisy,  militant,  man-hating feminists? Did  not  only  the 
boxing  press  but  the world media believe that  Iron  Mike  had 
received a raw deal, that he had been sent down on a bum rap? No, 
the  prosaic truth is that probably the only person in the  world 
who sincerely believes that Mike Tyson didn't rape Desiree  Wash-
ington  is  Mike Tyson himself. Surely even his  closest  friends 
know  the  truth: his adoptive mother, his trainers,  his  entire 
team. The simple fact is that the world $knows$ Mike Tyson  raped 
Desiree Washington, AND IT DOESN'T CARE. (37)
  If  all the above appears to have taken us a long way from  the 
Holocaust,  I  hope that the message is now  clear.  After  David 
Cesarani told me that I could not use the Wiener Library anymore, 
I wrote to him and tried to reason with him. The short,  hysteri-
cal  reply I received is not worth printing here. Cesarani is  an 
intellectual prostitute, ditto Kushner, ditto Lipstadt, ditto all 
the other Jewish - and non-Jewish - academics who $research$ this 
supposedly so difficult subject. Like the world at large who know 
the  truth about Mike Tyson, they know the truth about the  Holo-
caust, and they don't care.
  In retrospect I am astounded at how naive I was about Cesarani; 
I  should have realised that he, that all these so-called  acade-
mics,  are  far, far worse than the Gerry Gables of  this  world. 
Because the academics know the truth, and they don't care.  James 
Randi, that great debunker of psychic charlatans, has written "It 
is  a common aspect of all religious groups that they  simply  do 
not wish to know the truth, but they are fond of saying that they 
seek  the truth; in some cases, they do seek truth, but on  their 
terms  and with their definitions". (38) The Kushners,  Cesaranis 
and Lipstadts of this world don't even want to know the truth  on 
their  own terms, rather they are preaching their  own  religion, 
their  own  dogma. Facts which don't fit into their  paradigm  of 
Jewish  persecution, Jewish innocence, Jewish  scapegoat,  Jewish 
victim,  Jewish  martyr, and $Aryan$ evil, are consigned  to  the 
memory hole. 
  In other fields of human knowledge, academia fights  ignorance, 
only in this one area, $researching$ the Holocaust, does academia 
form  a willing partnership with the forces of darkness in  order 
to  suppress  both dissent and the truth. (39) To take  just  one 
example,  the media is constantly awash with stories relating  to 
the  professed psychic powers of spirit mediums, astrologers  and 
the  like,  yet few and far between are the  academics  who  will 
endorse such nonsense publicly. 
  On the subject of the Holocaust though, academics $do$  endorse 
the nonsense, they don't simply fail to speak out against it, but 
give  it aid and comfort. As always, the proof of the pudding  is 
in the eating: no honest person could spend more than half a  day 
in  a Holocaust archive researching this supposedly so  difficult 
subject without realising that we have been lied to on a colossal 
scale,  and that the myriad lies of Holocaust survivors,  Jewish, 
Zionist,  Communist  $and$ Allied  propagandists,  are  blatantly 
transparent,  full  as they are of contradictions,  internal  and 
other  inconsistencies, outright fraud and wild  fantasies  which 
deny  the  most basic textual analysis,  common  sense,  rational 
belief, or even the laws of physics. 
  The academics of the Holocaust, like Kushner, are well aware of 
this, and they have never once had the good grace to admit either 
that  they were wrong or that the Revisionists were, in  any  re-
spect,  right. The Holocaust academics, the Tony Kushners,  David 
Cesaranis  and Deborah Lipstadts of this world, are,  of  course, 
the  real  problem. They are part of an unholy  cabal  which  has 
insinuated itself into the fabric of our society, throughout  the 
media, pressure groups, political parties, and, most of all, into 
our institutions of higher learning, where, like some foul virus, 
its  minions inject their poison into the minds  of,  especially, 
the  young.  Anyone who dissents from their  vacuous  hypotheses, 
anyone  who refuses to kiss their arses, can and will be  smeared 
as  an  anti-Semite,  a fascist, a Nazi, a bigot  or  a  lunatic, 
denied funding, access to the media, access to academia, ignored, 
shouted down, hounded in their private and public lives,  subjec-
ted to violence by more extremist groups, or even, as in the case 
of  Ernst Zundel and others, dragged into court on  the  spurious 
pretext of defaming the dead. And all the time this goes on,  the 
Kushners,  Cesaranis and Lipstadts of this world look  the  other 
way,  that's if they don't join in the baiting and call for  even 
more repressive $anti-hate$ legislation to give further  spurious 
authority to their already officially sanctioned lies.
  These  people, of whom Kushner is unquestionably the most  foul 
example, will do and say anything that furthers their agenda, the 
destruction  of what little freedom remains, what little  dissent 
there  is,  on  any aspect of the Holocaust, or  on  any  subject 
remotely connected with it.


Marion  Halcombe's review of Kushner's book in $Free  Life$  hits 
the  nail bang on the head, but then comes to entirely the  wrong 
conclusion:  "There are people who will call Dr Kushner  a  hate-
crazed fanatic, whose sole end is the destruction of what  little 
freedom we retain. Having read his book, I must confess to a less 
flattering  belief about him: Dr Kushner is not evil - just  stu-
  The reviewer does Kushner a great injustice, he is not a stupid 
man, not only by virtue of his holding such a prominent  academic 
post,  but by virtue of the fact that he knows full well what  he 
is  doing:  consciously paving the road to Hell with  bad  inten-
  This  is a Hell Kushner and his kind - Jew and Gentile  -  have 
sought  to impose on the rest of us since the end of  the  Second 
World  War, if not considerably earlier. As long ago as  1926,  a 
correspondent  for  a British political journal wrote:  "In  $The 
Patriot$  of  5  July, 1923, and 23 October, 1924,  it  was  made 
perfectly  clear that there is a $Jewish Question$ of  world-wide 
importance,  and  that there had been accumulated around  it  for 
several  generations a barricade of journalistic, political,  and 
commercial  influence,  which  has succeeded  in  destroying  our 
freedom  of  speech on this one subject, by  branding  as  $anti-
Semitic$ anyone who dares look over the barricade." (40)
  At that time, the barricade concerned matters that were largely 
of  a mystical and frivolous nature, including such obvious  non-
sense  as the $Protocols Of Zion$, although this absurd  document 
was taken seriously at the time (41) by even influential  newspa-
pers,  politicians, and, perhaps most incredibly of all,  by  the 
intelligence services! (42)
 That  being  said, the remedy for the $Protocols$ was  free  and 
open  debate,  and indeed that (together with  much  other  anti-
Jewish  nonsense) was subsequently exposed and consigned  to  the 
dustbin  of history where it belongs. But Kushner and  his  cabal 
are not the slightest bit interested in open debate on any aspect 
of  the Holocaust, except, again, as James Randi points  out,  on 
their own terms. Such a debate is of course no debate at all, and 
the  Hell which these monsters are designing for the rest  of  us 
draws  ever closer with each day that people allow themselves  to 
be  cowed  into submission on this one subject by fear  of  being 
branded  anti-Semitic if they, like the current writer,  dare  to 
look over the barricade, and see that the Emperor has nothing on.

Alexander Baron

From Wed Jun 28 15:35:52 PDT 1995
Article: 22827 of alt.revisionism
From: Alexander Baron 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Kushner's Chutzpah
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 00:13:52 GMT
Organization: InfoText Manuscripts
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29

Notes And References

(1)  One  very rare exception is the recently  published  $Jewish 
History,  Jewish Religion$, by Israeli author and Belsen  "survi-
vor" Israel Shahak; unfortunately, Shahak appears to have bats in 
the  belfry; if published by a far right magazine, his  calumnies 
on  the $Talmud$ would have quite likely led to the editor  being 
dragged  into  court under the notorious (and  totally  misnamed) 
$Race  Relations Act$. Incredibly, this book is published by  the 
left wing (and Jewish-controlled) Pluto Press.
(2)  I  prefer  the term Organised Jewry, which is  in  no  sense 
pejorative,  the assertions of David Cesarani et al to  the  con-
(3)  $The  Holocaust and the Liberal Imagination:  A  Social  and 
Cultural History$, by Marion Halcombe, published in $Free  Life$, 
April 1995, issue 22, pages 27-8.
(4) For example, Ratcliffe says nothing of any Jews who may  have 
been $lawfully$ put to death under Hitler; it is well known  that 
Hitler's idea of what was lawful was a shade different from  most 
(5)  Kushner, $The Holocaust and the Liberal  Imagination$,  page 
267, (op cit).
(6)  I am not concerned here with the truth or otherwise of  Rat-
cliffe's  claim; the simple fact is that atrocity stories of  the 
most lurid sort circulate freely in war-time: sometimes they have 
a factual basis, sometimes they do not, while sometimes, as  with 
the  current  horror  in Rwanda, the  simple,  unjaundiced  facts 
beggar belief.
(7)  See in particular pages 130-4 of my book $HOLOCAUST  DENIAL: 
NEW  NAZI LIE or NEW INQUISITION? A Defence Of Free  Inquiry  And 
The  Necessity Of Rewriting History$, published  by  Anglo-Hebrew 
Publishing, London, (January 1995).
(8) This was screened by Channel 4 in October 1993; it was  quite 
clearly staged as a propaganda stunt.
(9)  For  other examples the reader is referred  to  the  current 
writer's   book   $HOLOCAUST  DENIAL:  NEW  NAZI   LIE   or   NEW 
INQUISITION?$,  (op  cit); Wilhelm  Staeglich's  excellent  study 
$AUSCHWITZ:  A  JUDGE  LOOKS AT THE EVIDENCE$,  covers  the  same 
subject  and  much else besides. Other Revisionist  authors  have 
also taken to task - and more often torn to shreds - the nonsense 
of  the I-was-there brigade; even establishment  historians  have 
warned  that  survivor  testimony must be  treated  with  extreme 
caution,  although they are of course far more  diplomatic  about 
(10)  $Howard clashes with leading Jewish peer over  racism$,  by 
Bernard Josephs, published in the $Jewish Chronicle$ October  15, 
1993, page 40. This is a rule rather than an exception; Organised 
Jewry is forever wailing and whining that the race laws should be 
(11) Michael Howard is far from the $Jewish Chronicle's$  favour-
ite Minister, and its controllers obviously believe that Howard's 
first  commitment should be to them rather than to  Britain,  the 
government  and his party. Few and far between are the  Libertar-
ians  who will find a good word to say about Michael Howard,  but 
if  nothing else he is an honest man. He admitted publicly  after 
the Birmingham 6 fiasco that he had changed his mind about  capi-
tal  punishment, and he has done far more than any  Gentile  Home 
Secretary to keep these monsters off our backs.
(12)  Incredibly,  there was no loss of life in either  of  these 
incidents, which clearly had a Middle East connection. One  might 
add  to  these the 1982 attempted assassination  of  the  Israeli 
Ambassador  in  London, but again, this was an act  of  political 
terrorism, not anti-Semitism.
(13)  Which hardly justifies either, of course. It is no  comfort 
at  all to the family of an IRA terror victim to know that  their 
loved  one was not murdered out of hatred for the British  people 
but out of hatred for British "Imperialism".
(14)  The nation which suffered the single greatest loss of  life 
was the Soviet Union, which is generally estimated to have lost a 
staggering  twenty  million people. The  Russians  also  suffered 
under communism, of course, both before and after the War.
(15)  Who,  for some strange reason, seem always  to  be  branded 
anti-Semitic.  Except for such "nationalists" as the  IRA.  Inci-
dentally, the current writer was informed in a personal  communi-
cation  from an establishment historian that  nationalists'  ped-
dling  of anti-Holocaust literature does little to enhance  their 
public image and that they would do better to drop it!
(16) $FAR AND WIDE$, by Douglas Reed, published by Jonathan Cape, 
London, (1951), page 309. See also pages 308-12.
(17) $Auschwitz: A Judge Looks At The Evidence$, (op cit).
(18) Which, according to the cover of Seidel's book, is "a  radi-
cal Jewish publishing collective". 
(19)  The index to Seidel's book includes no less than 13  refer-
ences  to  the $Protocols$! Inadequate and dishonest as  is  Lip-
stadt's  polemic,  it is immeasurably superior to this  piece  of 
(20) Brenner is in fact a staunch $anti-"racist"$ who has commit-
ted the cardinal - and unforgivable - sin in the eyes of  Zionist 
Jews  and  their fellow travellers of judging Jews  by  the  same 
standards  as Gentiles; in particular he denounces  the  Zionists 
for their collaborating with the Nazis - a proven and  thoroughly 
documented fact, Seidel and co's assertions to the contrary - and 
for condemning Zionist-sponsored terrorism.
(21)  Lipstadt has often made the point that there is nothing  to 
debate. Many Revisionists would agree with her!
(22) Revisionists have also been silenced by many means which are 
neither legal in any sense of the word, nor moral, a policy which 
Organised Jewry has openly encouraged.
(23)  $Night$,  by  Elie Wiesel, Translated from  the  French  by 
Stella Rodway, paperback edition published by Penguin,  Harmonds-
worth, Middlesex, (1981), page 43.
(24)  From  a leaflet $A Prominent False Witness:  ELIE  WIESEL$, 
published by the Institute for Historical Review, (undated).
(25)  The full credits are: $THE MOLOTOV NOTES ON GERMAN  ATROCI-
MATIC RELATIONS$, Issued on behalf of the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. 
in London. Published by His Majesty's Stationery Office:  London, 
(1942). Later, a third $Molotov Note$ was issued.
(26) I have covered these notes briefly in $Holocaust Denial...$, 
pages  144-5. Although they are clearly atrocity propaganda,  one 
cannot  state  with certainty that they contain not a  gramme  of 
truth  - atrocities happen in all wars - the point is  that  they 
are totally impossible to assess.
(27) This piece of sensationalist, literary trash was republished 
as  late  as 1979; I have analysed it in  $Holocaust  Denial...$, 
pages 136-7.
CRIMES$,  by  Lord  Russell of Liverpool,  [first]  published  by 
Cassel, London, (1954), page 160.
(29)  $I am alive$, by Kitty Hart, published by  Abelard-Schuman, 
London, (1961), page 105.
(30) $Secret papers show Hitler thought divided Britain would  be 
easy   prey$,   by  Richard  Norton-Taylor,  published   in   the 
$Guardian$,  November 26, 1993, page 8. [Compiled  from  CD-ROM.] 
The quote is not verbatim but the words are attributed to Cesara-
ni.  In  the  same article it is claimed that  in  November  1941 
Hitler  was confident of world domination. If this is true,  then 
perhaps he really was mad.
(31) Kushner, $The Holocaust...$, page 263, (op cit).
(32) $Jewish Chronicle$ August 17, 1945, page 10, under the  sub-
(33) See in particular $THE CHURCHILL PAPERS: Revising The  Revi-
sionists,  Unmasking Irving$, by Alexander Baron and  Mark  Taha, 
published by Anglo-Hebrew Publishing, London, (October, 1994). 
(34)  The most serious charge that can be  substantiated  against 
Washington is that she was incredibly stupid, but although I have 
never  been the victim of any sort of sexual assault, I  have  on 
more than one occasion been the victim of silver-tongued con-men, 
so  I can empathise. The simple fact is that we can all of us  be 
conned, and however much publicity the recently discovered pheno-
menon of "date rape" may generate, no woman $expects$ her date to 
rape  her,  the same way that nobody who parts with  his  or  her 
hard-earned money voluntarily expects to be conned.
(35)  Although many people have been blamed or  partially  blamed 
for  Tyson's fall, including his former wife and her mother,  his 
former  manager, and boxing promoter Don King, the  fact  remains 
that  Tyson was entirely and solely responsible for the  rape  of 
Desiree Washington, and he must likewise take the lion's share of 
the  blame for everything else that has happened to him since  he 
came of age.
(36) The fact that both the perpetrator and the victim were black 
did not prevent the more hardened and cynical of so-called "anti-
$racists$"  from  attempting to exploit the case  for  their  own 
ends. Shortly after Tyson's conviction I heard one black  $femin-
ist$  on the radio declaiming the $racist$ media  for  portraying 
Tyson as the stereotype black beast. A much more valid  complaint 
was  that levelled by a young black woman in a documentary  about 
the  fall of Tyson, that the attitudes adopted by  certain  black 
men  - including one Louis Farrakhan! - made her feel  that  she, 
and other black women, were expendable. This is undoubtedly true, 
but  the way certain black men view black women is hardly a  race 
(37) There have been occasional dissenting articles in the  Brit-
ish press - and doubtless elsewhere - but they have been few  and 
far between.
(38)  $THE  FAITH HEALERS$, by James Randi, published  by  Prome-
theus, Buffalo, New York, (1987), page 280.
(39)  This  is not quite true, there are  others,  including  the 
revelations of Antony Sutton re the transfer of technology to the 
Soviet  Union, and the true nature of the financial  system,  but 
nothing provokes quite the furore as any debate on the Holocaust, 
or indeed any dissenting views on any aspect of it.
(40) $The British Lion$, Early JULY 1926, page 7.
(41) And still is in some quarters! 
(42)  The  White Russian anti-communist emigre  Boris  Brasol  is 
thought to have introduced American intelligence officers to  the 
$Protocols$; it remains to be seen how seriously they were taken.

Published by Anglo-Hebrew Publishing,

Distributed by InSoText Manuscripts
93c Venner Road,
London SE26 5HU.

ISBN 1 898318 82 4

Alexander Baron

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.