Archive/File: people/h/hoffman.michael mh2.0595

From hoffman2nd@delphi.com Tue May  9 06:12:25 PDT 1995
Article: 21196 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news2.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Zundel's House Burned by Arsonists
Date: Mon, 8 May 95 07:24:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <5Sz9aDr.hoffman2nd@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1a.delphi.com

ZUNDEL HOUSE BURNED
 
At approximately 5:30 a.m. on Sunday, May 7, the Toronto home and headquarters
of Ernst Zundel, the German-Canadian revisionist publisher, was attacked by
arsonist(s).
 
The large Victorian home suffered extensive damage to the upper story. It was
occupied at the time of the attack, though not by Mr. Zundel who was in western
Canada.
 
A surveillance camera captured the perpetator(s) dousing the front of the
building with an inflammatory substance, presumably gasoline. A videotape of the
attack has been turned over to Toronto police.
 
The building was insured but not the contents. Some of Mr. Zundel*s priceless
files pertaining to his two historic trials for publishing the book _Did Six
Million Really Die?_ were lost in the fire.
 
Arson of an occupied building constitutes attempted murder.
 
The Zundel house, located in a bohemian neighborhood, has for years been the
target of leftist groups. Recently their threats escalated.
 
For further information telephone 416-922-9850.
 
Contributions may be sent to Ernst Zundel, Samisdat Publishing Co., 206 Carlton
Street, Toronto, M5A 2L1 Canada.
 
*********************************************
 
 


From hoffman2nd@delphi.com Tue May  9 06:12:43 PDT 1995
Article: 21211 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news2.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Hard Questions for Revisionists by M. Hoffman
Date: Sun, 7 May 95 11:24:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 273
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1a.delphi.com

 HARD QUESTIONS FOR REVISIONISTS
 
Copyright (c) 1995 by Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.
 
This article is excerpted from vol. 4, no. 12, _Revisionist Researcher_. POBox
236 Dresden, N.Y. 14441. Send U.S. $6 for the complete issue.
**************************************************************
Your editor has been preaching revisionist avoidance of the Newspeak word,
>Holocaust< which was forced on the official historical discourse of the West by
Elie Wiesel beginning in the 1970s. But my warning has largely gone unheeded.
 
In my view revisionism is not gaining ground, except in so far as groups like
the Simon Wiesenthal Center use draconian censorship methods to suppress
revisionist publications and broadcast videos, such as was done against Ernst
Zndel in upstate New York in January. In that way they earn World War Two
revisionism interest and sympathy it could probably not earn of itself.
 
But I can only compare Ernst*s treatment with my own case of ten years before.
In 1985, no matter how much pressure was exerted, the local officials of the
Ithaca cable TV access channel refused to remove my TV program from the airwaves
and the local press supported the decision. In 1995 the local newspapers
advocated the out-and-out harassment of Zndel and his supporters and officials
of the local cable access channel are dragging their feet illegally and giving
Ernst as much trouble as they possibly can.
 
The movies, museums and constant media bombardment have done the job of
inculcating the politically correct World War Two beliefs. People have become
even more close-minded since I helped to pioneer revisionist public access in
1985.
 
The question we need to ask ourselves of course, is why? The answer lies in our
own foibles and pretensions. It is one many will not want to hear.
 
First, as humanity decays in the presence of plutonium and other End Time
symptoms and symbols, so too does the ability to think and ponder.
 
For years revisionists have behaved as though a single _Leuchter Report_, a
single appearance on Phil Donahue, a single conversion of a Jewish researcher to
the revisionist position, would serve as the straw that broke the back of the
propagandists.
 
But the din of modern society is so loud, the background noise so great, the
distractions and allurements so numerous and sophisticated that these hopes have
proved vain. Revisionism*s continuing expectation of mass recruitment in
competition with the organs of Establishment mass communications, is unduly
optimistic about the ability of the masses to absorb dissident information.
 
When revisionists do get a platform we speak in the language Elie Wiesel
manufactured for us. When I hear revisionists say, >>The Holocaust never
happened,<< or the >>Holocaust is a lie,<< I am hearing eccentrics so insulated
>from  the opinions and reactions of the people they are trying to persuade that
they strike me as being as kooky as any cultist.
 
Using Wiesels >Holocaust< Newspeak carries a load of baggage which eventually
needs to be deconstructed before one can even begin to open another person*s
mind, so why use it in the first place?Why saddle revisionism with such a
crippling handicap?
 
Revisionists are oblivious to the fact that the clever Wiesel hit on his
neologism because of its ambiguity. The phrase is so amorphous as to be capable
of meaning practically anything, and therein rests its deadly power to confuse.
 
When revisionists tell the public the >>Holocaust<< didnt happen the public
immediately assumes you mean that there were no piles of Jewish cadavers, no
ranting and raving speeches by Hitler, no deaths of innocents in concentration
camps.
 
This is the public*s overwhelming opinion of the revisionist position today and
it could have been avoided had revisionists spotted Wiesels linguistic  trap
and scrupulously hewed to referring solely to specific doubts about specific
things, like execution gas chambers and the Six Million casualty figure. But
they haven*t and the typical revisionist continues to sound like he just got off
the space shuttle from Mars to the ears of the public.
 
Last October in Niagara Falls, New York in front of a predominantly German
audience, David Irving had the courage to tell them what they did not want to
hear and they had the graciousness to listen courteously and ponder it.
 
What Mr. Irving revealed was based on heretofore confidential testimony he
obtained in Switzerland from Walter Frentz, one of the top cameramen of the
Third Reich and a photographer to Hitler, Himmler and Leni Riefenstahl. Frentz
told Irving about being called to the Eastern Front by the Nazi hierarchy to
witness a horrible mass execution. Frentz informed the English historian that
this SS execution went on for days and involved the mass shootings of Jewish
women and children.
 
The question arises, if Hitler committed mass murder of Jewish people by gunfire
rather than gas chambers, are those murders any less heinous? Some revisionists
spend a great deal of time trying to prove that the Nazis did not seek to
exterminate the Jews. The jury is still out on the issue and certainly there is
no Hitler order implementing such an action and no evidence of extermination in
the first few years of the war.
 
However, we now have David Irving*s confirmation of portions of Goebbel*s
diaries which make reference to extermination. We have Hitler*s public speeches
about the _ausrotten_ of the Jewish people which is variously translated as
either meaning >>root out<< or exterminate.
 
Revisionists nitpick these phrases and terms to death and that is appropriate
since it is a function of the historian, so long as they are consistent in this
regard.
 
However, if we accuse Israelis of seeking the genocide of the Palestinians
because this or that rabbi says that a million Arabs are not worth a Jewish
fingernail and because massacres of Palestinians have undoubtedly been carried
out by the Israeli military, revisionists had better be consistent. We ought to
apply the same standard of genocide to our judgment of Nazi Germany as we do to
our judgment against Israelis.
 
As I have discovered on the Internet, a certain portion of World War Two
revisionists are adherents of the National Socialist philosophy or, in the
contemporary parlance, >>neo-Nazis.<< They admit that they see World War Two
revisionism as a means for exonerating their Nazi heroes.
 
There is nothing dishonest in this. Plenty of them truly believe that the Nazis
were nature*s noblemen.
 
They have a right to that opinion which I will safeguard out of my desire to
ensure rights of free speech for all.
 
But this writer wants no part of that opinion and frankly it astonishes me to
think that there are those who are interested in reviving the most destructive
system of modern totalitarianism, after the Soviet model, which history has yet
seen; a system which undeniably slaughtered women and children.
 
We need to develop a Christian revisionism which emphasizes the crimes against
Christians by all sides in World War Two and the negative consequences for the
future of Christianity which the whitewash of communist crimes has created.
 
Christian revisionists reject militarism and the demonization of women and
children be they Jewish, German, Arab or Japanese. We should teach the public
about the baleful effects psychological warfare and atrocity propaganda have on
God-given powers of reason and our ability to stay separate from the worldly
systems of statecraft and mass persuasion that seek to ensnare us.
 
The misuse of legitimate anti-Nazi sentiment may be found in the hidden agenda
of the promoters of relentless >>Holocaust<< propaganda. They seek to replace
Calvary with Auschwitz as the central ontological event of history.
 
In this manner the resolve of Christians to uphold Christ*s condemnation of the
Pharisees and to militantly seek the conversion of the Jewish people to faith in
Christ Jesus is weakened.
 
In condemning the anti-Christ communists and Zionists we need to also condemn
the pagan Nazis who practiced mass murder of women and children by gunfire, if
not gas chambers and what, in the end, is the difference?
 
Meanwhile we acknowledge the unscriptural persecution of Christians who speak
truths about contemporary Pharisaic power systems and beliefs. While we
recognize that there is an allegorical sense of the Biblical term Pharisee which
applies to anyone drunk on pride, ostentatious >holiness,< deceit and dead
legalism, we also affirm that the Pharisees were a historically factual
religious class which Christ called the children of hell (Matthew 23:15).
 The heirs of those Pharisees are around today and again seeking to make mankind
>>twice the child of hell<< that they themselves are.
 
Because we tell this truth, false witness is borne against us and calumnies
leveled. We are called >Nazis< and other scurrilous terms and charges.
 
There is no warrant in either the Bible or historic, orthodox Christianity for
the persecution of those who uphold Christ*s Gospel in all things, including on
the subject of the Pharisees, which consumed a great deal of Our Lords time and
energy. It was he who gave extensive warning and condemnation of the Pharisees.
If any of us were to quote his words about the Pharisees today, in modern
English, without giving our source, we would be condemned out of hand as
>>anti-Semitic<< by 95% of what passes for Christian leaders and Christian
people.
 
Yet, these views against the Pharisees were also expressed by traditional
Catholics, Lutherans, Puritans, etc. for 1900 years. The idea of ostracizing a
Christian for being anti-Pharisee would have been unthinkable to them.
 
The operative principle is,  _interfice errorem, non errantem_ (kill the sin,
not the sinner). Hate for people or races has no part in the life of the
Christian. Christ readily accepted the conversion of the repentant Pharisee
Nicodemus.
 
We are seeing the corrosive and corrupting power of the undue and unbalanced
world media attention on the greatly exaggerated Six Million story, to the
detriment of accounts of Christian suffering at the hands of communism and in
many cases at the hands of Jewish communists.
 
Worldly Christians are products of thinking and religious formation molded by
the world*s media and the world*s schools. Because of the non-stop hyperbole
centered almost exclusively on the contretemps of Jewish people in World War
Two, Bible doctrines have been de facto modified and played-down.
 
A new religion is arising in its place based on the notion of Jewish salvation
by race and Christian negation based on the supercession of Calvary by
Auschwitz.
 
However, as even many orthodox rabbis have conceded, the suffering of adult
>>Jews<< (more accurately, Khazars) during World War Two was due to their sinful
breaking of Covenant Law. This was no cosmic crucifixion of the innocent. It was
not Calvary.
 
There was only one Calvary. History, which is often unkind and politically
incorrect, informs us that the Jewish Sanhedrin, Caiphas and the Jewish mob
brought about the murder of Christ.
 
>>For ye brethren became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in
Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even
as they have of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets
and have persecuted us and they please not God and are contrary to all men.<<
(IThessalonians 2:14-15).
 
Those are the facts of the documentary record. Nothing that is done against the
Jewish people cancels out or lessens what was done to the Son of God at Calvary.
The two are in no way comparable and any such comparison is blasphemous.
 
The self-described Christians who cooperate with the cult of Auschwitz as it is
presented by the New World Order system are simply reanimating Judas. They are
betraying Christ in return for respectability in the eyes of the world and the
world*s media and commerce.
 
All the false witness against authentic revisionist Christians by those deluded
by the Six Million cult will accrue negatively before the Judgment Seat of God
against those who betrayed their brethren.
 
Christ said Christians would be led before princes and rulers for his name*s
sake. He said persecution was proof we were on his side.
 
Christian revisionists categorically reject, as an anti-Christ doctrine from
hell, the notion that, after Auschwitz, our attitude toward the modern day
Pharisees must be different from that of the original Gospel attitude toward the
Pharisees.
 
The Bible is true yesterday, today and tomorrow. Authentic Christians never
favored or took part in the Nazi*s physical persecution of Jewish people because
Christ never did.
 
To suggest that Christ or the Bible bear responsibility for Auschwitz is like
saying they bear responsibility for all the fratricidal, meaningless nationalist
wars of history which are done in the name of God but in defiance of his law and
Gospel.
 
True Christians are no more responsible for Auschwitz or the >Six Million< than
they are for militarism, national chauvinism or racism, all of which are
condemned by Scripture.
(Scripture allows for the separation of the races so long as it is done without
hubris; cf. Rev. Dr. Peter S. Ruckmans pamphlet, Discrimination, available from
Bible Baptist Bookstore, P.O.Box 7135, Pensacola, Florida 32514)).
 
Those who call themselves Christians and spread libel and malicious gossip about
Christian revisionists, who throw us out of their congregations, deny us
business and job opportunities and otherwise serve as the enforcement arm of the
Sanhedrin in doing the dirty work of the anti-Christ scoundrels against those
who uphold Christ*s words in all things, are nothing more than the companions of
Judas Iscariot and will have their portion in the lake of fire with him.
 
As a Christian revisionist I refuse to bow to the golden calf of this era.
 
The heirs of those who hated Christ hate us today. The servant is not greater
than the Master.
 
In Rev. 1:5 is given a key characteristic of Jesus that is critically important
for his followers to maintain in these days: faithful witness.
 
We are called to be faithful to the whole Gospel no matter how embarrassingly
politically incorrect it is, no matter how much such faith enrages the powerful,
temporarily ascendant conservatives, liberals, Zionists, feminists, socialists,
shopping mall habitues, stadium sports nuts and Federal equality police.
 
They howled >>Crucify him, crucify him!<< 1,995 years ago and they howl the same
thing at us today.
Their attacks are the sign of our election.
*******************************************
Copyright (c) 1995. All Rights Reserved. hoffman2nd@delphi.com
John 18:37
 
***********************************************************
 
 


From jaklein@news.amherst.edu Tue May  9 06:12:46 PDT 1995
Article: 21212 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.umass.edu!news.amherst.edu!jaklein
From: jaklein@news.amherst.edu (Josh Klein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hard Questions for Revisionists by M. Hoffman
Date: 7 May 1995 16:25:48 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA, USA
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <3oisac$r44@amhux3.amherst.edu>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: abby.amherst.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

hoffman2nd@delphi.com wrote:

>The misuse of legitimate anti-Nazi sentiment may be found in the hidden agenda
>of the promoters of relentless >>Holocaust<< propaganda. They seek to replace
>Calvary with Auschwitz as the central ontological event of history.

>In this manner the resolve of Christians to uphold Christ*s condemnation of the
>Pharisees and to militantly seek the conversion of the Jewish people to faith in
>Christ Jesus is weakened.

Would hoffman mindtelling us what he means by the need "to militantly seek
the conversion of the Jewish people?"  What sort of militant measures
would be justified?  Conversion by the sword, or harassment, or what?



> We are seeing the corrosive and corrupting power of the undue and unbalanced
> world media attention on the greatly exaggerated Six Million story, to the
> detriment of accounts of Christian suffering at the hands of communism and in
> many cases at the hands of Jewish communists.

The rest of the world, however, is still waiting for Hoffman to explain what
he means by the "Jewish" communists.  In particular, we are wondering
how Hoffman connects the athiest communists to the Pharisees (presumably
religious Jews) whom he earlier condemns.  If Hoffman cannot make that
connection clear, then it would, perhaps, be better in keeping with
his professed disavowal of race-hatred for Hoffman to talk about the
crimes perpetrated by athiest Communists.


> However, as even many orthodox rabbis have conceded, the suffering of adult
> >>Jews<< (more accurately, Khazars) during World War Two was due to their sinful
> breaking of Covenant Law. This was no cosmic crucifixion of the innocent. It was
> not Calvary.

Ah, yes.  They deserved it, right?  (I wonder how, exactly, Anne Frank had
managed to break the covenant at such a young age.)

> There was only one Calvary. History, which is often unkind and politically
> incorrect, informs us that the Jewish Sanhedrin, Caiphas and the Jewish mob
> brought about the murder of Christ.

History actually introduces a lot of doubt on this matter.  The Sanhedrin
was notoriously reluctant to pronounce the death sentence.  Furthermore, 
the death sentence could only be pronounced with the entire court 
present -- which, I seem to recall, could not have happened on the
supposed date of Christ's trial.


> To suggest that Christ or the Bible bear responsibility for Auschwitz is like
> saying they bear responsibility for all the fratricidal, meaningless nationalist
> wars of history which are done in the name of God but in defiance of his law and
> Gospel.

But to say that certain Christian techings bear some responsibility for the
Holocaust is simply to make a reasonable inference.  After all, the
Holocaust was hardly the first instance of Christian persecution of
Jews, and was definitely assisted by the animus implanted by years
of anti-semetic church doctrine.

> Those who call themselves Christians and spread libel and malicious gossip about
> Christian revisionists, who throw us out of their congregations, deny us
> business and job opportunities and otherwise serve as the enforcement arm of the
> Sanhedrin in doing the dirty work of the anti-Christ scoundrels against those
> who uphold Christ*s words in all things, are nothing more than the companions of
> Judas Iscariot and will have their portion in the lake of fire with him.

Hoffman earlier claimed that it was blasphemous to equate the murder or
persecution of mortal Jews with the killing of Christ.  But is he here
wquating the persecution (not even the murder) of mortal Christians
with that of Christ (God) himself?  By calling those who deny work
to certain "true followers of Christ," the equivalents of Judas and
the Sandhedrin (those responsible for the arrest and killing of Christ,
according to Hoffman), Hoffman seems to have committed a blasphemy.
What do your minor sufferings matter compared to what Christ went
through for your sake?  Blasphemy!  The ultimate hubris is the
proposition of equivalence between yourself and your God!

--
Josh Klein
Amherst College


From dave@.csoft.com Tue May  9 06:12:52 PDT 1995
Article: 21217 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!demon!btnet!uunet!in1.uu.net!mr.net!dave
From: dave@.csoft.com (Dave Weigel)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hard Questions for Revisionists by M. Hoffman
Date: 7 May 1995 22:10:17 GMT
Organization: Control Software, Inc.
Lines: 58
Sender: dave@jaguar.mn.csoft.com
Message-ID: <3ojgg9$sif@cedar.mr.net>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: jaguar.mn.csoft.com

This is the first time I've actually seen someone give actual references for
a biblical justification for a universal condemnation of Jews, past or present.
I'm not impressed by the references.

In article ,   wrote:
>Meanwhile we acknowledge the unscriptural persecution of Christians who speak
>truths about contemporary Pharisaic power systems and beliefs. While we
>recognize that there is an allegorical sense of the Biblical term Pharisee which
>applies to anyone drunk on pride, ostentatious >holiness,< deceit and dead
>legalism, we also affirm that the Pharisees were a historically factual
>religious class which Christ called the children of hell (Matthew 23:15).

Here's what my Bible (New American) says for Matthew 23:13-15:

"'Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you frauds!  You shut the doors of the
kingdom of God in men's faces, neither entering yourselves nor admitting those
who are trying to enter.  Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you frauds!  You
travel over sea and land to make a single convert, but once he is converted
you make a devil of him twice as wicked as yourselves.'"

There's no implication here that Christ believed that the Pharisees were
literally "children of hell", but that they were hypocrites more interested
in themselves than in serving God.  More importantly, there's no suggestion
here that all Jews are evil, but only the Pharisees of Christ's time.

>>>For ye brethren became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in
>Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even
>as they have of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets
>and have persecuted us and they please not God and are contrary to all men.<<
>(IThessalonians 2:14-15).

Here's what mine says for 2:14-15.  Note the change in punctuation:

"Brothers, you have been made like the churches of God in Judea which are in
Christ Jesus.  You suffered the same treatment from your fellow countrymen
as they did from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and
persecuted us.  Displeasing to God and hostile to all mankind, they try to keep
us from preaching salvation to the Gentiles.  All this time they have been
'filling up their quota of sins', but the wrath has descended upon them at
last."

Note that the onus is not on Jews in general, but on the Thessalonians'
countrymen, who were acting like the Jews who condemned Jesus to death.
Indeed, there's nothing in first Thessalonians that suggests that this
conclusion...

>Those are the facts of the documentary record. Nothing that is done against the
>Jewish people cancels out or lessens what was done to the Son of God at Calvary.
>The two are in no way comparable and any such comparison is blasphemous.

... represents the beliefs of Paul, for Paul did not condemn Jews for all
eternity, as this conclusion states, but only those Jewish Pharisees involved
in the death of Jesus long ago.

-- 
David Weigel           | (612) 831-2500		dave@mn.csoft.com
Control Software, Inc. | My opinions!  All mine!  Mine!  Mine!  Mine!
"It was a symbolic test of wills, both literally and figuratively." - Dierdorf


From hoffman2nd@delphi.com Tue May  9 06:12:58 PDT 1995
Article: 21218 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news2.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Common Ground? By Michael Hoffman
Date: Sun, 7 May 95 19:16:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 216
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1a.delphi.com

Can Revisionists and Orthodox Researchers Find Common Ground?
 
By Michael Hoffman
 
Adversarial debate often depends more on making one*s opponent look bad and
scoring >>points<< than in a genuine exchange of information and a sincere
desire to learn.
 
Is there a way for those who post to alt.revisionism to eschew polemical
incentives and attempt to maintain a pure search for the truth devoid of
partisan one-upmanship?
 
Is it possible for persons of good will to have an exchange whereby each would
be willing to abandon their own positions if it were conclusively proved that
those positions are untenable and invalid?
 
In the case of Josh Klein of Amherst I was heartened to see that he had
unilaterally already begun the process of a respectful exchange. Icannot say
whether or not he reached the stage where he would be willing to concede large
chunks of his own beliefs were untenable or invalid. Such a concession is not
ipso facto a requirement of a common ground exchange, but an end result that may
only be effected after weeks or months.
 
In the interests of establishing the groundwork for such an exchange, I believe
we can start by praising and encouraging the good we see in our fellow
researchers here in alt.revisionism and encouraging them when we see them do
something beneficial.
 
For example a couple of months ago, I saw the Ken McVay interview that was
broadcast on national Canadian television. I do not know what else Mr. McVay may
have said to the reporter, Ian MacDonald, that Imight have objected to, but the
portion of the interview that was actually broadcast was outstanding.
 
In that segment, McVay put into practice exactly what he represented about his
views here on Internet. He gave a resounding, unequivocal and I might add
eloquent rebuke to any kind of censorship of revisionists, on or off the
Internet. No doubt he gave the censors of Canada pause. It would be wrong for me
not to admit that Mr. McVay did a terrific job for the cause of freedom of
speech, whatever his other views or proclivities.
 
I would also like to say kudos to the now departed-from-Internet, Wayne McGuire.
Wayne was a true believer in homicidal gassings BUT he had a sense of fairness
and a grasp of scholarship that led him to condemn the even greater crimes of
the Soviet communists. He also had the courage to point up the undeniable Jewish
role in Soviet communism.
 
Unfortunately Mr. McGuire*s treatment at the hands of other believers in
execution gas chambers left much to be desired. He was castigated with the most
insulting and libelous invective because he did not CONFORM to the WHOLE DOGMA
of orthodox history, dissenting on the issue of Soviet communism and who
fomented it. His treatment is a harbinger of what is in store for revisionists
who could conceivably begin to believe some aspects of the lethal gassing story,
but maintained their human faculties of independence and critical dissent and
thereby failed to kowtow to the whole canned, packaged, politically correct
interpretation of 20th century history.
 
In other words, if World War Revisionism did not exist, the machinery of
character assasination and censorship would still be operant vis a vis anyone
who doubted any aspect of the official line of the official history. This
Stalinism is very repellant and does not offer much incentive for folks to find
a common ground. McGuire was treated very shabbily and denounced by folks who
refused to fairly consider his many well-researched and valid points. This is a
reflection on those folks, on the hysterical element within Zionism and Leftism
and official orthodox history who demand total conformity.
 
I urge those of good will in alt.revisionism to forego from this so as to
encourage change and development in others.
 
Then there are posters like Mike Stein. Mike has a lot of energy and he has
become much more industrious than when I first met him here last Fall. But for
him to develop, if he does not mind me saying so, as both a human being and a
researcher with any credibility outside his own circle; if he is to do more than
merely preach to the choir, it is my sincere concern for him that he rid himself
of what I would have to style as either a deceitful methodology or more
charitably, one that is so convoluted that it incorporates deceit without Mike
even knowing that he is practicing it.
 
I would like to throw out, as the first question submitted to whomever wishes to
form the >>Common Ground/Mutual Good Will<< coffee club here on alt.revisionism,
the following:
 
Affirmative:That the actions of the censors and repressors of revisionist
speakers and writers, especially in Germany, are creating an aura of interest
and curiosity that these speakers and writers would normally not have; that
neo-Nazism is effectively being revived again in Germany by the putative means
of its defeat: censorship and suppression.
**********
I am convinced that the German people remain war-weary and horrified by Nazism
but that the essentially boring and ridiculous theses of the neo-Nazis are being
exponentially rendered glamorous and intersting by the resentment people are
feeling about the Gestapo methods that are being used to suppress them;
especially when these methods are used against World War Two revisionists, some
of whom are not neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi symapthizers.
******************************
The ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center are also advocating that >>Holocaust<<
revisionism in the U.S. also be censored and suppressed. This only gives
>>Holocaust<< revisionism an aura of infallibility because many people
inevitably ask, >>If it is bankrupt, why the need to suppress it? There must be
something to it.<<
 
World War Two revisionism is in transition at this moment. David Irving*s
landmark article in the JHR (>>Revelations from Goebbels Diary<<, Journal of
Historical Review, vol 15, #1) is a major revision of revisionism. It
demonsrtates his honesty and the academic integrity of the IHR in printing his
piece. In his article Irving cites a >>mas extermination<< of Jewish persons
outside Riga, Latvia (p. 15).
 
Irving quotes Goebbels as saying, >>...the more Jews who are liquidated the more
consolidated the situation in Europe will be after the war. Let there be no
phony sentimentalism about it. The Jews are Europe*s misfortune.<< (p. 15).
 
Irving comments, >>...there is no doubt in my mind that on the Eastern front
large numbers of Jews were massacred, by criminals with guns--SS men,
Ukrainians, Lithuanians, whatever...<< (p. 15).
 
It is important to note that Irving does not say these massacres took place by
means of poison gas, but rather by gunfire. The distinction is important but it
does not obviate the fact that however they were murdered, by gas or gunfire,
this was still a massacre and a war crime.
 
The most startling revelation in the Irving article comes from Irving*s having
finally conclusively authenticated a Goebbels diary entry of March 27, 1942
wherein Goebbels writes:
 
>>Beginning with Lublin, the Jews are now being deported eastward from the
General Government (occupied Poland). The procedure is pretty barbaric and one
that beggars description, and there*s not much left of the Jews. Broadly
speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be
liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work.<< (pp. 16-17).
 
What could this >>barbaric method<< that >>beggars description<< be? The
orthodox will have  a ready answer, but revisionists will be far more cautious;
not I hope for partisan reasons, but because the revisionist method, in my view,
is more prudent. Revisionism has now caused many orthodox academics to all but
abandon the old and discredited orthodoxy that the Auschwitz state museum is an
authentic representation of war-time Auschwitz. It is now admitted, thanks to
the original cautious research of revisionists, that much of the exhibition
there is >>reconstructed<< (i.e. faked).
 
I do not believe in execution gassings at Auschwitz. But I do not have a stake
in  upholding that doubt beyond a reasonable extent. I accept a lot more about
the criminality and massacres perpetrated by the Nazis than I ever did when I
first began my revisionist peregrination many years ago. This is THANKS TO
REVISIONISTS like Irving and independents like Charles Provan and Wayne McGuire.
 
 If I had access only to older revisionist World War Two writings in their
infancy and then no further access to revisionist developments due to a
successful ADL and Wiesenthal Center censorship campaign, I would not be as
convinced of the horror and evil of Nazism as I am today.
 
In regard to researcher Charles Provan, when his work is published we shall see
a major, blockbuster revision of the revisionists; I surmise that Mr. Irving has
been more than a little influenced by the scholarly industry of Provan.
 
With the new matetrial Provan has dug up it is really discouraging that Dr.
Faurisson is claiming that there is no need for further debate about the
homicidal gas chambers. Provan*s scholarship has shown that diesel gas chambers
were scienticially and technically possible as engines of mass destruction. He
has shown that up until the Nazis started to lose the war, they openly called
for the genocide of the Jewish people and then modified their rhetoric as their
military defeat began to look inevitable.
 
(The question remains whether these statements were rhetorical devices or
intentional policy decrees. We should not be hasty here! We should resist easy
answers. Even Goebbels in his darkest statement preserved 40% of the Jewish
people for work; so the concept of >>extermination<< as the extirpation of all
Jewish people would appear still to be a myth in practice).
 
I continue to believe that where the exterminationists have centered their
tale--Auschwitz--the lie of execution gas chambers has indeed been perpetrated,
thought I am always open to the revision of that view because that is what
revision-ism denotes. Revisionism is no creed for dogmatists, least of all for
neo-Nazis who espouse a doctrine of totalitarianism and  Machiavellian ethics
and who are in many (though certainly not all) cases using revisionism to
rehabilitate the worst mass murderers after the Soviets and Mao, that this
century has seen (with Roosevelt and Churchill right behind in the roster of
mass murderers).
 
However, the key to World War Two, as Irving, McGuire, Provan and all honest
historians will admit, is context. Was the Nazi rhetoric calling for the
_ausrotten_ of the Jewish people based on their sincere belief that world Jewry,
in turn, sought the extermination of the Germans should Germany be defeated in
World War Two?
 
Also, in spite of rampant and vociferous Establishment denials to the contrary,
the Jewish nature of communism and Lenin and then Stalin*s pro-Jewish policies
(up until 1950), were notorious in Europe from the 1920s onward. How much of the
animosity toward Jewish people had been generated by a desire for retribution
over what Jewish communists had done to the Christian people of Russia?
 
All such retaliation is wrong of course. As Camus wrote, we must be >>neither
victims nor executioners.<< However, given the fact that orthodox, politically
correct historians, legislators and pundits uphold vengeance and retaliation as
Western policy in justfiying the attempted extermination of Japanese and German
civilians at Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (cf. Markusen and
Kopf, _The Holocaust and Strategic Bombing_) as well as Israeli state terrorism
against Palestinian villages identified as harboring Palestianian terrorists,
the Allied powers are hardly in a position to condemn Nazi policies in this
regard.
 
I hope the proceeding will serve as a catalyst for dialogue rather than debate.
I expect to be condemned by dogmatists in both camps but my appeal is not to
them but to those who still have eyes to see and ears to hear.
 
If persons of good will--Jewish, Christian, German, Arab, Israeli, American,
Russian et. al-- will come together with mutual respect and research this issue
together rather than at cross purposes, much truth and light will be produced.
 
To all engaged in such an undertaking I wish Godspeed and blessings.
 
Michael Hoffman
hoffman2nd@delphi.com
 
John 18:37
**********************************
 


From hoffman2nd@delphi.com Tue May  9 06:13:01 PDT 1995
Article: 21219 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.umass.edu!news2.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Jewish Revisionist David Cole's Latest Writing
Date: Sun, 7 May 95 19:17:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 54
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1a.delphi.com

Jewish revisionist David Cole has written a sixteen page essay in response to
recent statements by Henri Roques and Robert Faurisson.
 
Cole has been increasingly critical of some revisionists which some revisionists
have regarded as an indication that Mr. Cole is an >>agent<< or some sort of
traitor to revisionism.
 
It is unfortunate that some revisionists regard searching scrutiny of their
theses in the manner in which we have scrutinized exterminationist theses to be
some sort of subversive or disloyal act.
 
Our loyalty has to be to the truth.
 
Mr. Cole was kind enough to share his manuscript with me. After reading it, and
knowing what I do of his past work, I continue to believe that Mr. Cole is
fundamentally honest and remains a significant asset to historical revisionism.
Revisionism will only get stronger as a result of his questioning.
 
Some of his material is extremely critical and judgemental and while Mr. Cole is
honest he is not always fair. I do not mean to imply that he is deliberately
unfair but rather that his writing style is somewhat emotional, self-righteous
and denunciatory. Mistakes by his critics within revisionism are almost always
automatically ascribed by him to motives of fraud and trickery rather than
simply to human imperfection and incompetence.
 
Mr. Cole also makes mistakes in fact but I would describe these mistakes as
emanating not from deceit but rather from his own human imperfection. In some
cases in his essay Mr. Cole attacks the reputation of some people and makes
personal attacks on them without saying why he is doing so. This is most
unfortunate. He should substantiate his charges or not make personal attacks.
 
However, with that caveat in mind, let it be said that Mr. Cole*s essay is an
undoubted challenge to revisionism that should not go unanswered. Portions of it
represent some highly original thinking about Auschwitz and it is for this
serious criticism for which I am grateful to Mr. Cole.
 
I urge every revisionist and interested researcher to obtain his 16 page essay
and respond to it. Send a large size SASE envelope to David Cole, 505 South
Beverly Drive, #316, Beverly Hills, California 90212.
 
Mr. Cole in no way endorses my views or opinions. He has simply made his essay
available to me and I am publishing notice of it herein. According to Cole, only
Bradley Smith and this writer have shown any interest in giving Mr. Coles side
of the developing debate which originated in Bradley*s newsletter although which
has been simmering for several months and longer between Mr. Cole and Dr.
Faurisson. Since the matter is more than a case of personalities and egos but of
historical issues, it is important, as in all things, that we hear both sides.
 
Michael Hoffman
hoffman2nd@delphi.com
John 18:37
 
*************************************
 


From hoffman2nd@delphi.com Tue May  9 16:19:00 PDT 1995
Article: 21218 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news2.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Common Ground? By Michael Hoffman
Date: Sun, 7 May 95 19:16:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 216
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1a.delphi.com

Can Revisionists and Orthodox Researchers Find Common Ground?
 
By Michael Hoffman
 
Adversarial debate often depends more on making one*s opponent look bad and
scoring >>points<< than in a genuine exchange of information and a sincere
desire to learn.
 
Is there a way for those who post to alt.revisionism to eschew polemical
incentives and attempt to maintain a pure search for the truth devoid of
partisan one-upmanship?
 
Is it possible for persons of good will to have an exchange whereby each would
be willing to abandon their own positions if it were conclusively proved that
those positions are untenable and invalid?
 
In the case of Josh Klein of Amherst I was heartened to see that he had
unilaterally already begun the process of a respectful exchange. Icannot say
whether or not he reached the stage where he would be willing to concede large
chunks of his own beliefs were untenable or invalid. Such a concession is not
ipso facto a requirement of a common ground exchange, but an end result that may
only be effected after weeks or months.
 
In the interests of establishing the groundwork for such an exchange, I believe
we can start by praising and encouraging the good we see in our fellow
researchers here in alt.revisionism and encouraging them when we see them do
something beneficial.
 
For example a couple of months ago, I saw the Ken McVay interview that was
broadcast on national Canadian television. I do not know what else Mr. McVay may
have said to the reporter, Ian MacDonald, that Imight have objected to, but the
portion of the interview that was actually broadcast was outstanding.
 
In that segment, McVay put into practice exactly what he represented about his
views here on Internet. He gave a resounding, unequivocal and I might add
eloquent rebuke to any kind of censorship of revisionists, on or off the
Internet. No doubt he gave the censors of Canada pause. It would be wrong for me
not to admit that Mr. McVay did a terrific job for the cause of freedom of
speech, whatever his other views or proclivities.
 
I would also like to say kudos to the now departed-from-Internet, Wayne McGuire.
Wayne was a true believer in homicidal gassings BUT he had a sense of fairness
and a grasp of scholarship that led him to condemn the even greater crimes of
the Soviet communists. He also had the courage to point up the undeniable Jewish
role in Soviet communism.
 
Unfortunately Mr. McGuire*s treatment at the hands of other believers in
execution gas chambers left much to be desired. He was castigated with the most
insulting and libelous invective because he did not CONFORM to the WHOLE DOGMA
of orthodox history, dissenting on the issue of Soviet communism and who
fomented it. His treatment is a harbinger of what is in store for revisionists
who could conceivably begin to believe some aspects of the lethal gassing story,
but maintained their human faculties of independence and critical dissent and
thereby failed to kowtow to the whole canned, packaged, politically correct
interpretation of 20th century history.
 
In other words, if World War Revisionism did not exist, the machinery of
character assasination and censorship would still be operant vis a vis anyone
who doubted any aspect of the official line of the official history. This
Stalinism is very repellant and does not offer much incentive for folks to find
a common ground. McGuire was treated very shabbily and denounced by folks who
refused to fairly consider his many well-researched and valid points. This is a
reflection on those folks, on the hysterical element within Zionism and Leftism
and official orthodox history who demand total conformity.
 
I urge those of good will in alt.revisionism to forego from this so as to
encourage change and development in others.
 
Then there are posters like Mike Stein. Mike has a lot of energy and he has
become much more industrious than when I first met him here last Fall. But for
him to develop, if he does not mind me saying so, as both a human being and a
researcher with any credibility outside his own circle; if he is to do more than
merely preach to the choir, it is my sincere concern for him that he rid himself
of what I would have to style as either a deceitful methodology or more
charitably, one that is so convoluted that it incorporates deceit without Mike
even knowing that he is practicing it.
 
I would like to throw out, as the first question submitted to whomever wishes to
form the >>Common Ground/Mutual Good Will<< coffee club here on alt.revisionism,
the following:
 
Affirmative:That the actions of the censors and repressors of revisionist
speakers and writers, especially in Germany, are creating an aura of interest
and curiosity that these speakers and writers would normally not have; that
neo-Nazism is effectively being revived again in Germany by the putative means
of its defeat: censorship and suppression.
**********
I am convinced that the German people remain war-weary and horrified by Nazism
but that the essentially boring and ridiculous theses of the neo-Nazis are being
exponentially rendered glamorous and intersting by the resentment people are
feeling about the Gestapo methods that are being used to suppress them;
especially when these methods are used against World War Two revisionists, some
of whom are not neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi symapthizers.
******************************
The ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center are also advocating that >>Holocaust<<
revisionism in the U.S. also be censored and suppressed. This only gives
>>Holocaust<< revisionism an aura of infallibility because many people
inevitably ask, >>If it is bankrupt, why the need to suppress it? There must be
something to it.<<
 
World War Two revisionism is in transition at this moment. David Irving*s
landmark article in the JHR (>>Revelations from Goebbels Diary<<, Journal of
Historical Review, vol 15, #1) is a major revision of revisionism. It
demonsrtates his honesty and the academic integrity of the IHR in printing his
piece. In his article Irving cites a >>mas extermination<< of Jewish persons
outside Riga, Latvia (p. 15).
 
Irving quotes Goebbels as saying, >>...the more Jews who are liquidated the more
consolidated the situation in Europe will be after the war. Let there be no
phony sentimentalism about it. The Jews are Europe*s misfortune.<< (p. 15).
 
Irving comments, >>...there is no doubt in my mind that on the Eastern front
large numbers of Jews were massacred, by criminals with guns--SS men,
Ukrainians, Lithuanians, whatever...<< (p. 15).
 
It is important to note that Irving does not say these massacres took place by
means of poison gas, but rather by gunfire. The distinction is important but it
does not obviate the fact that however they were murdered, by gas or gunfire,
this was still a massacre and a war crime.
 
The most startling revelation in the Irving article comes from Irving*s having
finally conclusively authenticated a Goebbels diary entry of March 27, 1942
wherein Goebbels writes:
 
>>Beginning with Lublin, the Jews are now being deported eastward from the
General Government (occupied Poland). The procedure is pretty barbaric and one
that beggars description, and there*s not much left of the Jews. Broadly
speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be
liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work.<< (pp. 16-17).
 
What could this >>barbaric method<< that >>beggars description<< be? The
orthodox will have  a ready answer, but revisionists will be far more cautious;
not I hope for partisan reasons, but because the revisionist method, in my view,
is more prudent. Revisionism has now caused many orthodox academics to all but
abandon the old and discredited orthodoxy that the Auschwitz state museum is an
authentic representation of war-time Auschwitz. It is now admitted, thanks to
the original cautious research of revisionists, that much of the exhibition
there is >>reconstructed<< (i.e. faked).
 
I do not believe in execution gassings at Auschwitz. But I do not have a stake
in  upholding that doubt beyond a reasonable extent. I accept a lot more about
the criminality and massacres perpetrated by the Nazis than I ever did when I
first began my revisionist peregrination many years ago. This is THANKS TO
REVISIONISTS like Irving and independents like Charles Provan and Wayne McGuire.
 
 If I had access only to older revisionist World War Two writings in their
infancy and then no further access to revisionist developments due to a
successful ADL and Wiesenthal Center censorship campaign, I would not be as
convinced of the horror and evil of Nazism as I am today.
 
In regard to researcher Charles Provan, when his work is published we shall see
a major, blockbuster revision of the revisionists; I surmise that Mr. Irving has
been more than a little influenced by the scholarly industry of Provan.
 
With the new matetrial Provan has dug up it is really discouraging that Dr.
Faurisson is claiming that there is no need for further debate about the
homicidal gas chambers. Provan*s scholarship has shown that diesel gas chambers
were scienticially and technically possible as engines of mass destruction. He
has shown that up until the Nazis started to lose the war, they openly called
for the genocide of the Jewish people and then modified their rhetoric as their
military defeat began to look inevitable.
 
(The question remains whether these statements were rhetorical devices or
intentional policy decrees. We should not be hasty here! We should resist easy
answers. Even Goebbels in his darkest statement preserved 40% of the Jewish
people for work; so the concept of >>extermination<< as the extirpation of all
Jewish people would appear still to be a myth in practice).
 
I continue to believe that where the exterminationists have centered their
tale--Auschwitz--the lie of execution gas chambers has indeed been perpetrated,
thought I am always open to the revision of that view because that is what
revision-ism denotes. Revisionism is no creed for dogmatists, least of all for
neo-Nazis who espouse a doctrine of totalitarianism and  Machiavellian ethics
and who are in many (though certainly not all) cases using revisionism to
rehabilitate the worst mass murderers after the Soviets and Mao, that this
century has seen (with Roosevelt and Churchill right behind in the roster of
mass murderers).
 
However, the key to World War Two, as Irving, McGuire, Provan and all honest
historians will admit, is context. Was the Nazi rhetoric calling for the
_ausrotten_ of the Jewish people based on their sincere belief that world Jewry,
in turn, sought the extermination of the Germans should Germany be defeated in
World War Two?
 
Also, in spite of rampant and vociferous Establishment denials to the contrary,
the Jewish nature of communism and Lenin and then Stalin*s pro-Jewish policies
(up until 1950), were notorious in Europe from the 1920s onward. How much of the
animosity toward Jewish people had been generated by a desire for retribution
over what Jewish communists had done to the Christian people of Russia?
 
All such retaliation is wrong of course. As Camus wrote, we must be >>neither
victims nor executioners.<< However, given the fact that orthodox, politically
correct historians, legislators and pundits uphold vengeance and retaliation as
Western policy in justfiying the attempted extermination of Japanese and German
civilians at Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (cf. Markusen and
Kopf, _The Holocaust and Strategic Bombing_) as well as Israeli state terrorism
against Palestinian villages identified as harboring Palestianian terrorists,
the Allied powers are hardly in a position to condemn Nazi policies in this
regard.
 
I hope the proceeding will serve as a catalyst for dialogue rather than debate.
I expect to be condemned by dogmatists in both camps but my appeal is not to
them but to those who still have eyes to see and ears to hear.
 
If persons of good will--Jewish, Christian, German, Arab, Israeli, American,
Russian et. al-- will come together with mutual respect and research this issue
together rather than at cross purposes, much truth and light will be produced.
 
To all engaged in such an undertaking I wish Godspeed and blessings.
 
Michael Hoffman
hoffman2nd@delphi.com
 
John 18:37
**********************************
 


From hoffman2nd@delphi.com Tue May  9 16:19:04 PDT 1995
Article: 21219 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.umass.edu!news2.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: hoffman2nd@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Jewish Revisionist David Cole's Latest Writing
Date: Sun, 7 May 95 19:17:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 54
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1a.delphi.com

Jewish revisionist David Cole has written a sixteen page essay in response to
recent statements by Henri Roques and Robert Faurisson.
 
Cole has been increasingly critical of some revisionists which some revisionists
have regarded as an indication that Mr. Cole is an >>agent<< or some sort of
traitor to revisionism.
 
It is unfortunate that some revisionists regard searching scrutiny of their
theses in the manner in which we have scrutinized exterminationist theses to be
some sort of subversive or disloyal act.
 
Our loyalty has to be to the truth.
 
Mr. Cole was kind enough to share his manuscript with me. After reading it, and
knowing what I do of his past work, I continue to believe that Mr. Cole is
fundamentally honest and remains a significant asset to historical revisionism.
Revisionism will only get stronger as a result of his questioning.
 
Some of his material is extremely critical and judgemental and while Mr. Cole is
honest he is not always fair. I do not mean to imply that he is deliberately
unfair but rather that his writing style is somewhat emotional, self-righteous
and denunciatory. Mistakes by his critics within revisionism are almost always
automatically ascribed by him to motives of fraud and trickery rather than
simply to human imperfection and incompetence.
 
Mr. Cole also makes mistakes in fact but I would describe these mistakes as
emanating not from deceit but rather from his own human imperfection. In some
cases in his essay Mr. Cole attacks the reputation of some people and makes
personal attacks on them without saying why he is doing so. This is most
unfortunate. He should substantiate his charges or not make personal attacks.
 
However, with that caveat in mind, let it be said that Mr. Cole*s essay is an
undoubted challenge to revisionism that should not go unanswered. Portions of it
represent some highly original thinking about Auschwitz and it is for this
serious criticism for which I am grateful to Mr. Cole.
 
I urge every revisionist and interested researcher to obtain his 16 page essay
and respond to it. Send a large size SASE envelope to David Cole, 505 South
Beverly Drive, #316, Beverly Hills, California 90212.
 
Mr. Cole in no way endorses my views or opinions. He has simply made his essay
available to me and I am publishing notice of it herein. According to Cole, only
Bradley Smith and this writer have shown any interest in giving Mr. Coles side
of the developing debate which originated in Bradley*s newsletter although which
has been simmering for several months and longer between Mr. Cole and Dr.
Faurisson. Since the matter is more than a case of personalities and egos but of
historical issues, it is important, as in all things, that we hear both sides.
 
Michael Hoffman
hoffman2nd@delphi.com
John 18:37
 
*************************************
 


From sschwartz@infinet.com Tue May  9 16:19:18 PDT 1995
Article: 21234 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!malgudi.oar.net!infinet!p01.infinet.com!user
From: sschwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Hard Questions for Revisionists by M. Hoffman
Date: Tue, 09 May 1995 07:52:58 -0400
Organization: Cat's Lair
Lines: 50
Message-ID: 
References:  <3omkq9$ikt@student.anu.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p01.infinet.com

In article <3omkq9$ikt@student.anu.edu.au>, Alex
 wrote:

> What's worse than a religious fundamentalist?
> An anti-semitic religious fundamentalist.
> 
> What's worse than an anti-semitic religious fundamentalist?
> An anti-semitic religious fundamentalist who claims that he is not one.
> 
> Look, first of all Christ was a jew himself.  Secondly, he was killed by
> the jews because, like it is with all people, many among couldn't stand
> hearing the truth. If Christ would be born today, he would be killed
> again, probably by people as narrow-minded as you.
> 
Interesting post. I agree with much that you've said, with the exception
of your assertion that Christ was killed by the Jews.
 
This is something that allows many people to feel that can hate the Jews.
"They killed Christ." I can't tell you how many people I knew as a kid who
were chased home by children from the local Catholic school who creamed
"Christ-killer!" at them.
 
I know, you believe the New Testament. It says the Jews did it, when in
fact, if there was a Jesus Christ, and if he was crucified, it was by the
Romans. Why does the New Testament say the Jews did it?
 
Because the New Testament was written for a Roman (and in some cases
Greek) audience. The message was "tailored to fit" the audience that would
read it.
 
Examples:
 
I believe the New Testament says that the Sanhedrin sentenced Jesus, yes?
Here's a few facts:
 
1. The Sanhedrin NEVER sentenced people to death by crucifixion. Death by
stoning was their sentence. Crucifixion was used solely at that time by
the Romans.
 
2. The Sanhedrin, contrary to what the NT says, CANNOT meet a) outside the
Temple, b) at night, c) on a holiday such as Passover. Yet the NT says the
Sanhedrin broke *all* of these laws.
 
I will attempt, if you're interested, to find citations for the above,
since I know someone will ask for them.
 
I was going to apologise for going off-topic, but this, too, is
revisionism, isn't it?
 
Sara


From kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca Tue May  9 17:01:57 PDT 1995
Article: 21238 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!not-for-mail
From: kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Kenneth McVay)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Common Ground? By Michael Hoffman
Date: 9 May 1995 17:00:22 -0700
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <3oovmm$366@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.60.231.126

In article ,   wrote:

>Adversarial debate often depends more on making one*s opponent look bad and
>scoring >>points<< than in a genuine exchange of information and a sincere
>desire to learn.

As evidenced by Mr. Hoffman's personal attacks on me, which
contained no facts.

>Is there a way for those who post to alt.revisionism to eschew polemical
>incentives and attempt to maintain a pure search for the truth devoid of
>partisan one-upmanship?

Well might Mr. Hoffman ask this question - the same Mr. Hoffman who
once asserted that I was a "cop," "the man," a "spy" and other
equally unsubstantiated charges, and that I "recieved a salary" from
a "Pharisee church."

Mr. Hoffman is either a liar and a hypocrit, or just a liar,
depending upon how you read him. He has yet to demonstrate even a
remote interest in a "pure search for truth devoid of partisan
one-upmanship."

>Is it possible for persons of good will to have an exchange whereby each would
>be willing to abandon their own positions if it were conclusively proved that
>those positions are untenable and invalid?

Certainly. Since the allegations made about me by Mr. Hoffman are
demonstrably false, can we now assume that he retracts them, and
abandons them?

>For example a couple of months ago, I saw the Ken McVay interview that was
>broadcast on national Canadian television. I do not know what else Mr. McVay may
>have said to the reporter, Ian MacDonald, that Imight have objected to, but the
>portion of the interview that was actually broadcast was outstanding.

His name is Neil MacDonald.

>In that segment, McVay put into practice exactly what he represented about his
>views here on Internet. He gave a resounding, unequivocal and I might add
>eloquent rebuke to any kind of censorship of revisionists, on or off the
>Internet. No doubt he gave the censors of Canada pause. It would be wrong for me
>not to admit that Mr. McVay did a terrific job for the cause of freedom of
>speech, whatever his other views or proclivities.

Thank you, Mr. Hoffman. Now retract your earlier polemics, and we
might actually have a beginning for discussions.

-- 
      The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
                     Vancouver Island, British Columbia
                      anonymous ftp: ftp.almanac.bc.ca
                        kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca


From kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca Tue May  9 17:10:16 PDT 1995
Article: 21239 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!not-for-mail
From: kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Kenneth McVay)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish Revisionist David Cole's Latest Writing
Date: 9 May 1995 17:06:15 -0700
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <3op01n$37i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.60.231.126

In article ,   wrote:

[snip]

>Our loyalty has to be to the truth.

[snip]

>Mr. Cole also makes mistakes in fact but I would describe these mistakes as
>emanating not from deceit but rather from his own human imperfection. In some
>cases in his essay Mr. Cole attacks the reputation of some people and makes
>personal attacks on them without saying why he is doing so. This is most
>unfortunate. He should substantiate his charges or not make personal attacks.

May I assume, Mr. Hoffman, that you will now either substantiate the
charges you have made against me, or retract them, and make no
further personal attacks?



-- 
      The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
                     Vancouver Island, British Columbia
                      anonymous ftp: ftp.almanac.bc.ca
                        kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca


From kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca Tue May  9 23:19:23 PDT 1995
Article: 21246 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!oneb!kmcvay
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Subject: Hard Questions for Mr. Hoffman
References:  <3omkq9$ikt@student.anu.edu.au> 
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Message-ID: <1995May09.235546.3648@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
Date: Tue, 09 May 95 23:55:46 GMT
Lines: 28

In article  sschwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) writes:

>I believe the New Testament says that the Sanhedrin sentenced Jesus, yes?
>Here's a few facts:
 
>1. The Sanhedrin NEVER sentenced people to death by crucifixion. Death by
>stoning was their sentence. Crucifixion was used solely at that time by
>the Romans.
 
>2. The Sanhedrin, contrary to what the NT says, CANNOT meet a) outside the
>Temple, b) at night, c) on a holiday such as Passover. Yet the NT says the
>Sanhedrin broke *all* of these laws.
 
>I will attempt, if you're interested, to find citations for the above,
>since I know someone will ask for them.
 
>I was going to apologise for going off-topic, but this, too, is
>revisionism, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

Those interested in the topic might find the book "Christian
Antisemitism: A History of Hate," by William Nichols, of great
value. (New York: Jason Aronson Inc., 1993)

-- 
          The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
          ftp: ftp.almanac.bc.ca kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca

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