Baron 2, Baron Al

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: [email protected] |
message: info prj |
get prj gopher/keytogopher |
From [email protected] 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
X-Sender: [email protected]
To: Al Baron
cc: New Paradigms Discussion
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Xref: alt.conspiracy:63867 alt.politics.british:11698

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: [email protected] |
message: info prj |
get prj gopher/keytogopher |

From [email protected] 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
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected]?



Alexander Baron

From [email protected] 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
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
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
INQUISITION?$, (op cit); Wilhelm Staeglich’s excellent study
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

From [email protected] 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
X-Sender: [email protected]
To: Al Baron
cc: New Paradigms Discussion
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Xref: alt.conspiracy:63867 alt.politics.british:11698