HARD QUESTIONS FOR REVISIONISTS
Copyright (c) 1995 by Michael Hoffman. All Rights Reserved.
This article is excerpted from vol. 4, no. 12, _Revisionist Researcher_. POBox
236 Dresden, N.Y. 14441. Send U.S. $6 for the complete issue.
Your editor has been preaching revisionist avoidance of the Newspeak word,
>Holocaust< which was forced on the official historical discourse of the West by
Elie Wiesel beginning in the 1970s. But my warning has largely gone unheeded.
In my view revisionism is not gaining ground, except in so far as groups like
the Simon Wiesenthal Center use draconian censorship methods to suppress
revisionist publications and broadcast videos, such as was done against Ernst
Zndel in upstate New York in January. In that way they earn World War Two
revisionism interest and sympathy it could probably not earn of itself.
But I can only compare Ernst*s treatment with my own case of ten years before.
In 1985, no matter how much pressure was exerted, the local officials of the
Ithaca cable TV access channel refused to remove my TV program from the airwaves
and the local press supported the decision. In 1995 the local newspapers
advocated the out-and-out harassment of Zndel and his supporters and officials
of the local cable access channel are dragging their feet illegally and giving
Ernst as much trouble as they possibly can.
The movies, museums and constant media bombardment have done the job of
inculcating the politically correct World War Two beliefs. People have become
even more close-minded since I helped to pioneer revisionist public access in
The question we need to ask ourselves of course, is why? The answer lies in our
own foibles and pretensions. It is one many will not want to hear.
First, as humanity decays in the presence of plutonium and other End Time
symptoms and symbols, so too does the ability to think and ponder.
For years revisionists have behaved as though a single _Leuchter Report_, a
single appearance on Phil Donahue, a single conversion of a Jewish researcher to
the revisionist position, would serve as the straw that broke the back of the
But the din of modern society is so loud, the background noise so great, the
distractions and allurements so numerous and sophisticated that these hopes have
proved vain. Revisionism*s continuing expectation of mass recruitment in
competition with the organs of Establishment mass communications, is unduly
optimistic about the ability of the masses to absorb dissident information.
When revisionists do get a platform we speak in the language Elie Wiesel
manufactured for us. When I hear revisionists say, >>The Holocaust never
happened,<< or the >>Holocaust is a lie,<< I am hearing eccentrics so insulated
>from the opinions and reactions of the people they are trying to persuade that
they strike me as being as kooky as any cultist.
Using Wiesels >Holocaust< Newspeak carries a load of baggage which eventually
needs to be deconstructed before one can even begin to open another person*s
mind, so why use it in the first place?Why saddle revisionism with such a
Revisionists are oblivious to the fact that the clever Wiesel hit on his
neologism because of its ambiguity. The phrase is so amorphous as to be capable
of meaning practically anything, and therein rests its deadly power to confuse.
When revisionists tell the public the >>Holocaust<< didnt happen the public
immediately assumes you mean that there were no piles of Jewish cadavers, no
ranting and raving speeches by Hitler, no deaths of innocents in concentration
This is the public*s overwhelming opinion of the revisionist position today and
it could have been avoided had revisionists spotted Wiesels linguistic trap
and scrupulously hewed to referring solely to specific doubts about specific
things, like execution gas chambers and the Six Million casualty figure. But
they haven*t and the typical revisionist continues to sound like he just got off
the space shuttle from Mars to the ears of the public.
Last October in Niagara Falls, New York in front of a predominantly German
audience, David Irving had the courage to tell them what they did not want to
hear and they had the graciousness to listen courteously and ponder it.
What Mr. Irving revealed was based on heretofore confidential testimony he
obtained in Switzerland from Walter Frentz, one of the top cameramen of the
Third Reich and a photographer to Hitler, Himmler and Leni Riefenstahl. Frentz
told Irving about being called to the Eastern Front by the Nazi hierarchy to
witness a horrible mass execution. Frentz informed the English historian that
this SS execution went on for days and involved the mass shootings of Jewish
women and children.
The question arises, if Hitler committed mass murder of Jewish people by gunfire
rather than gas chambers, are those murders any less heinous? Some revisionists
spend a great deal of time trying to prove that the Nazis did not seek to
exterminate the Jews. The jury is still out on the issue and certainly there is
no Hitler order implementing such an action and no evidence of extermination in
the first few years of the war.
However, we now have David Irving*s confirmation of portions of Goebbel*s
diaries which make reference to extermination. We have Hitler*s public speeches
about the _ausrotten_ of the Jewish people which is variously translated as
either meaning >>root out<< or exterminate.
Revisionists nitpick these phrases and terms to death and that is appropriate
since it is a function of the historian, so long as they are consistent in this
However, if we accuse Israelis of seeking the genocide of the Palestinians
because this or that rabbi says that a million Arabs are not worth a Jewish
fingernail and because massacres of Palestinians have undoubtedly been carried
out by the Israeli military, revisionists had better be consistent. We ought to
apply the same standard of genocide to our judgment of Nazi Germany as we do to
our judgment against Israelis.
As I have discovered on the Internet, a certain portion of World War Two
revisionists are adherents of the National Socialist philosophy or, in the
contemporary parlance, >>neo-Nazis.<< They admit that they see World War Two
revisionism as a means for exonerating their Nazi heroes.
There is nothing dishonest in this. Plenty of them truly believe that the Nazis
were nature*s noblemen.
They have a right to that opinion which I will safeguard out of my desire to
ensure rights of free speech for all.
But this writer wants no part of that opinion and frankly it astonishes me to
think that there are those who are interested in reviving the most destructive
system of modern totalitarianism, after the Soviet model, which history has yet
seen; a system which undeniably slaughtered women and children.
We need to develop a Christian revisionism which emphasizes the crimes against
Christians by all sides in World War Two and the negative consequences for the
future of Christianity which the whitewash of communist crimes has created.
Christian revisionists reject militarism and the demonization of women and
children be they Jewish, German, Arab or Japanese. We should teach the public
about the baleful effects psychological warfare and atrocity propaganda have on
God-given powers of reason and our ability to stay separate from the worldly
systems of statecraft and mass persuasion that seek to ensnare us.
The misuse of legitimate anti-Nazi sentiment may be found in the hidden agenda
of the promoters of relentless >>Holocaust<< propaganda. They seek to replace
Calvary with Auschwitz as the central ontological event of history.
In this manner the resolve of Christians to uphold Christ*s condemnation of the
Pharisees and to militantly seek the conversion of the Jewish people to faith in
Christ Jesus is weakened.
In condemning the anti-Christ communists and Zionists we need to also condemn
the pagan Nazis who practiced mass murder of women and children by gunfire, if
not gas chambers and what, in the end, is the difference?
Meanwhile we acknowledge the unscriptural persecution of Christians who speak
truths about contemporary Pharisaic power systems and beliefs. While we
recognize that there is an allegorical sense of the Biblical term Pharisee which
applies to anyone drunk on pride, ostentatious >holiness,< deceit and dead
legalism, we also affirm that the Pharisees were a historically factual
religious class which Christ called the children of hell (Matthew 23:15).
The heirs of those Pharisees are around today and again seeking to make mankind
>>twice the child of hell<< that they themselves are.
Because we tell this truth, false witness is borne against us and calumnies
leveled. We are called >Nazis< and other scurrilous terms and charges.
There is no warrant in either the Bible or historic, orthodox Christianity for
the persecution of those who uphold Christ*s Gospel in all things, including on
the subject of the Pharisees, which consumed a great deal of Our Lords time and
energy. It was he who gave extensive warning and condemnation of the Pharisees.
If any of us were to quote his words about the Pharisees today, in modern
English, without giving our source, we would be condemned out of hand as
>>anti-Semitic<< by 95% of what passes for Christian leaders and Christian
Yet, these views against the Pharisees were also expressed by traditional
Catholics, Lutherans, Puritans, etc. for 1900 years. The idea of ostracizing a
Christian for being anti-Pharisee would have been unthinkable to them.
The operative principle is, _interfice errorem, non errantem_ (kill the sin,
not the sinner). Hate for people or races has no part in the life of the
Christian. Christ readily accepted the conversion of the repentant Pharisee
We are seeing the corrosive and corrupting power of the undue and unbalanced
world media attention on the greatly exaggerated Six Million story, to the
detriment of accounts of Christian suffering at the hands of communism and in
many cases at the hands of Jewish communists.
Worldly Christians are products of thinking and religious formation molded by
the world*s media and the world*s schools. Because of the non-stop hyperbole
centered almost exclusively on the contretemps of Jewish people in World War
Two, Bible doctrines have been de facto modified and played-down.
A new religion is arising in its place based on the notion of Jewish salvation
by race and Christian negation based on the supercession of Calvary by
However, as even many orthodox rabbis have conceded, the suffering of adult
>>Jews<< (more accurately, Khazars) during World War Two was due to their sinful
breaking of Covenant Law. This was no cosmic crucifixion of the innocent. It was
There was only one Calvary. History, which is often unkind and politically
incorrect, informs us that the Jewish Sanhedrin, Caiphas and the Jewish mob
brought about the murder of Christ.
>>For ye brethren became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in
Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even
as they have of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets
and have persecuted us and they please not God and are contrary to all men.<<
Those are the facts of the documentary record. Nothing that is done against the
Jewish people cancels out or lessens what was done to the Son of God at Calvary.
The two are in no way comparable and any such comparison is blasphemous.
The self-described Christians who cooperate with the cult of Auschwitz as it is
presented by the New World Order system are simply reanimating Judas. They are
betraying Christ in return for respectability in the eyes of the world and the
world*s media and commerce.
All the false witness against authentic revisionist Christians by those deluded
by the Six Million cult will accrue negatively before the Judgment Seat of God
against those who betrayed their brethren.
Christ said Christians would be led before princes and rulers for his name*s
sake. He said persecution was proof we were on his side.
Christian revisionists categorically reject, as an anti-Christ doctrine from
hell, the notion that, after Auschwitz, our attitude toward the modern day
Pharisees must be different from that of the original Gospel attitude toward the
The Bible is true yesterday, today and tomorrow. Authentic Christians never
favored or took part in the Nazi*s physical persecution of Jewish people because
Christ never did.
To suggest that Christ or the Bible bear responsibility for Auschwitz is like
saying they bear responsibility for all the fratricidal, meaningless nationalist
wars of history which are done in the name of God but in defiance of his law and
True Christians are no more responsible for Auschwitz or the >Six Million< than
they are for militarism, national chauvinism or racism, all of which are
condemned by Scripture.
(Scripture allows for the separation of the races so long as it is done without
hubris; cf. Rev. Dr. Peter S. Ruckmans pamphlet, Discrimination, available from
Bible Baptist Bookstore, P.O.Box 7135, Pensacola, Florida 32514)).
Those who call themselves Christians and spread libel and malicious gossip about
Christian revisionists, who throw us out of their congregations, deny us
business and job opportunities and otherwise serve as the enforcement arm of the
Sanhedrin in doing the dirty work of the anti-Christ scoundrels against those
who uphold Christ*s words in all things, are nothing more than the companions of
Judas Iscariot and will have their portion in the lake of fire with him.
As a Christian revisionist I refuse to bow to the golden calf of this era.
The heirs of those who hated Christ hate us today. The servant is not greater
than the Master.
In Rev. 1:5 is given a key characteristic of Jesus that is critically important
for his followers to maintain in these days: faithful witness.
We are called to be faithful to the whole Gospel no matter how embarrassingly
politically incorrect it is, no matter how much such faith enrages the powerful,
temporarily ascendant conservatives, liberals, Zionists, feminists, socialists,
shopping mall habitues, stadium sports nuts and Federal equality police.
They howled >>Crucify him, crucify him!<< 1,995 years ago and they howl the same
thing at us today.
Their attacks are the sign of our election.
Copyright (c) 1995. All Rights Reserved. [email protected]
From [email protected] Tue May 9 06:12:43 PDT 1995
Article: 21211 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected]
Subject: Hard Questions for Revisionists by M. Hoffman
Date: Sun, 7 May 95 11:24:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([email protected] email, 800-695-4005 voice)