RevisionistHistory.org

Human Rights, Not Reich

An Exchange between Robert Faurisson, Horst Mahler and Michael A. Hoffman II

Contents

Faurisson: The Revisionist ADL Affair, Nov. 18, 2003

Hoffman: Human Rights, not Reich, Nov. 19, 2003

Faurisson to Hoffman, Nov. 20, 2003

Mahler to Hoffman, Nov. 20, 2003

Hoffman to Faurisson, Nov. 20, 2003

Faurisson to Hoffman, Nov. 25, 2003

Faurisson to Hoffman, Nov. 26, 2003

Letter from a German-American to Hoffman

Faurisson to Hoffman, Nov. 27, 2003

The Revisionist ADL Affair

by Robert Faurisson 18 November 2003

People might not grasp to whom that letter was addressed and whom, at the end of it, Butz was quoting on historical "exactitude". For instance, Walter Mueller did not see that it was a quote and took it to be Butz's own remark. In fact, Butz was answering me and he was approvingly quoting the end of my own October 20 letter to Mahler.

This is to show that the quote was that of someone who, unlike Butz, was IN FAVOR OF A PUBLIC SUPPORT of that "League" (Verein) for the defence of the revisionists. It does not imply that I agree with Mahler's political statements, of which, in fact, I am not really aware. My closing statement about historical "exactitude" concerned exactly that and nothing else.

In 1979, at our first revisionist conference, held at Northrup University in Los Angeles, Butz advised me against public collaboration with Zündel. His reasons were the same as today with regard to Mahler. Nevertheless, I decided to collaborate openly with Zündel, whatever his political views might be. What I had in mind was only the big battle for what I call historical "exactitude" about WW 2. Today, I really cannot regret my decision since, without our active and continuous collaboration, especially for the 1985 and 1988 "Holocaust Trials", never, ever would the revisionist arguments have been shown "coram populo et historia" (in front of the public and for history) to be outstanding and powerful. We vanquished and even humiliated Raul Hilberg, who was the best possible "expert" for our opponents, and we brought down their best possible "witness", Rudolf Vrba; we also got the Leuchter Report to be known all over the world.

Believe me, among the thirty or forty "direct collaborators" of Zündel, only perhaps half a dozen shared his political views which, by the way, are often profound because the man himself is profound.

Remember that, in more than fifty years of the battle between "Holocaustorians" and revisionists, this was the first and last opportunity for a real confrontation of the two opposing theses. It was a public confrontation that the "Holocaustorians" had up till then constantly refused. It was a confrontation that, in future, historians will be able to study by examining court transcripts of statements made under oath by either side.

On the contrary, the lamentable Irving trial in London shows how wrong it can be to distance yourself from certain people only because you think they might compromise you. Irving refused the collaboration of such a remarkable expert as Germar Rudolf. It was the major blunder of a man who was too afraid of the Jews.

Ponder this: "The Zündel trial was a didactic failure... the law should avoid trials of Holocaust deniers because a proceeding of this nature runs the risk of obfuscating historical truth and instead furthering deniers' lies" (Hilary Earl, Wilfrid Laurier University, in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, September 2003, p. 193-196, a review of Lawrence Douglas' book, The Memory of Judgment). This was written a long time after the Zündel trial (or trials) and shortly after the Irving trial.

I have no idea what will come of that League initiative. I do not care if it is called "Nazi". I am used to being called "worse than a Nazi", with the Nazis considered as having killed living people whereas I am considered a coward killing those already dead.

Simply put, when I have a decision to make in such matters, I ignore the Jews and their usual theatrics.

As for Butz, he thinks that this legal initiative is "very clever" and should be supported financially but without a formal association as a member or founder of that league, and I guess he considers Mahler as a nuisance for the revisionist cause. Butz is prudent. We need prudent people. As for myself, I prefer an open, public, direct and perhaps even offensive stand. It is not a question of being for Mahler. It's a question of giving some of my money and some of my time to what seems to be a "very clever" initiative in favor of a revisionism which, generally speaking, I find nowadays shy, bloodless and without real inspiration.

Best wishes. Robert Faurisson

The Revisionism of the Future: Human Rights, not Reich

by Michael A. Hoffman II Nov. 19, 2003

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

This is a serious charge and it is not for reasons of a defense of Mr. Irving that I bring it up, since David has formidable polemical skills and can take care of himself. Rather, I am concerned about a linkage between certain tactics and strategy and "fear of the Jews." To be cunning or reserved or wily is not ipso facto proof of "fear of the Jews." In a heroic fashion Mr. Irving went to court every day in London without bodyguards, completely exposed and alone and fought tooth-and-nail against Deborah Lipstadt. Seated behind Lipstadt in the courtroom was the Israeli Ambassador, Dror Zeigerman.

Other staunch supporters who lent lent either research or financial assistance to Lipstadt included Israeli Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein and Hollywood mogul Steven Spielberg. Simply because Irving, in his world-historic defiance of the Zionist establishment in his Lipstadt libel action (which also left a remarkably edifying court transcript that will be studied for decades), made an error with regard to Rudolph's offer of assistance, should not cause him to be branded as someone who is in "fear of the Jews." Yes, he had a regrettably naive faith, common to the English middle and upper classes, in the British court system and the judge, but this a peculiar trait of the English people, rather than a personal failing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Michael Hoffman about Horst Mahler's initiative (the founding of a Revisionist ADL)

from Robert Faurisson 20 November 2003

Dear Michael,

I have read your message on "The Revisionism of the Future: Human Rights, not Reich". I am surprised you did not see that, when I say "the Jews", it is just as when one says "the Germans", "the Christians", the "Inuits". When one states: "The Americans are constantly at war", it does not mean that an American citizen called Michael Hoffman is currently bombing and killing people. When I say: "I am afraid of the Americans and of the Jews", the words "Americans" and "Jews" are obviously GENERIC terms.

What would you think upon hearing someone state: "From 1914 to 1918, French and Germans were at war" only to hear someone else come back with: "You are wrong, not all the French and not all the Germans were at war; we even know that at times some French soldiers and some German soldiers, disgusted with the war, decided in the trenches to stop killing each other and even struck up a casual friendship"? And what would you think, Michael, of someone putting on simpering airs and adding to the conversation: "From 1914 to 1918, millions of French and millions of Germans were having a jolly time, peacefully enjoying the usual pleasures of life without trying to kill anyone"? It might sound clever to make such an exact statement but, put back in its context, it would a wrong correction of the above statement according to which French and Germans were at war.

I am afraid of the Jews. David Irving also is afraid of the Jews. "Metus Judaeorum" is to be found in a great many times, places and individuals. I have never criticised people for being afraid of bringing on the famous wrath of the Jews ("Ira Judaeorum"). I have never criticised David Irving, "the reluctant revisionist" as I call him, for not taking such or such revisionist stand since, in his own words, it would be like putting his head on the Jewish block (this he told me in London in 1991 when he invited Leuchter and myself to speak in Chelsea). What I do criticise are people who, in my opinion, go too far in their fear of the Jews. For example, although I have been physically assaulted ten times by Jews, although they have dragged me into court so often, although they have destroyed the life of my wife and of my three children, although my family and I have had to give them so much money by order of the courts, although they got the French Parliament to pass in 1990 a special law in order to protect their cherished Gigantic Lie, although they are having my dearest friend Ernst Zundel held in prison in abominable conditions, although they behave like whining persecutors and treat the Palestinians in the way you see they do with their "Jewish Army" in a "Jewish State" (please, note "Jewish"), I would never, albeit in the face of so terrible a power, bow my head and declare:

"The Germans seem to be of a different personality [from the English and other civilised peoples] and I'm afraid I have to agree to a certain extent with that author, Daniel Goldhagen, who wrote a book suggesting that the German mentality is somewhat different" (in Australia, "Ron Casey [Radio 2 GB] talks with David Irving", 8 November 1998, as reported in Adelaide Institute Online, December 1996, p. 17).

And never, in order to placate those who call me a Nazi, would I use in court or elsewhere what D. Irving calls his trump card and which is nothing but a fake: the "Bruns Report" as he dubs it.

You find D. Irving to be courageous. Yes indeed, compared with some revisionists, he shows some courage, but watch him, it is the kind of courage which comes and goes and even, sometimes, as soon as he shows some intrepidness, he hastens to pull back all the more. This I found to be the case in different circumstances in Washington, in Munich and in London. I am pleased when he shows some courage, I feel pity for him when he pulls back and I smile when he presents himself as a hero.

I, for one, am afraid of the Jewish power but, when I have an important decision to make for revisionism's sake, I ignore the Jews and their usual theatrics. Which should be considered as normal and certainly not heroic.

I feel sorry for you, Michael. While reading some of your writings I have often thought: "Jews should make Kamerad Hoffman Chief Rabbi honoris causa" but, see, they instead call you a Nazi! Like Faurisson and so many others!

Now re Horst Mahler: by "Reich" he means "German Reich" or "German Nation" and not "Third Reich". Anyway, must I repeat that I do not care about his real or supposed political ideas but rather about his idea of what I call a "Revisionist ADL"?

May I expect you to defend the human rights of those persecuted for their ideas?

Best wishes. Robert

PS: "Apollonian" (see Walter Muellerís last message) is mistaken. My quote about the Zundel trialís (or trials) of 1985 and 1988 having been "a didactic failure" does not come from a revisionist but from a Holocaustorian. In other words, those trials may in fact be considered by us revisionists as a victory.

Horst Mahler's Reply to Hoffman

From: Horst Mahler To: Adelaide Institute November 20, 2003 6:52 PM. Subject: Hoffman: The Revisionism of the Future: Human Rights, not Reich

Michael Hoffman is completely unaware of the contradiction in his position. He votes for human rights, especially for free speech. But if there is somebody making use of these rights, Hoffman alarms the community not to cooperate with this guy because the latter's views could damage "the revisionists cause". That's exactly the pattern of behaviour our enemies try to impose on us.

My criteria are not what people might think but only the truth. And the truth is: The German Reich exists. It is oppressed by our enemy. The Holohoax is warfare against the Reich and the German people as such. So we have to fight back in order to survive. In this war every single Jew stands in the frontline of the enemy in order to uphold the Auschwitz lie. Only a handful of Jews has changed the lines - but that doesn't stop the war of Jewry against the Reich. Truth will win. Populism will fail - as it always did. And now let's go to work.

Horst Mahler

Hoffman to Faurisson, Nov. 20, 2003

Dear Robert

Thank you for your rejoinder this date, to my letter of Nov. 19, "The Revisionism of the Future: Human Rights, not Reich." Your rejoinder contains a helpful and welcome clarification of what you meant in your note of Nov. 18 about fear of Judaic people.

I will not address at this time your defense of your use of the term "the Jews." As with my campaign against adoption by revisionists of the Orwellian "holocaust" neologism, my points with regard to the phrase, "the Jews," are mostly centered on concerns of epistemology and psychology, and to further advance and defend these somewhat rarified issues is beyond the scope of this letter. Hence, in response to your rejoinder, I will address the following: On Nov 20, 2003, Faurisson wrote: "I feel sorry for you, Michael. While reading some of your writings I have often thought: 'Jews should make Kamerad Hoffman Chief Rabbi honoris causa..."

I am wondering which writings of mine have earned for me the ignominious title in your eyes of "honorary Chief Rabbi," when all my life I have fought rabbis and written an entire book exposing them ("Judaism's Strange Gods")? If you have "often thought" this terrible thing about me, why did you greet me so warmly and effusively at the 2002 IHR conference and praise my newsletter there before others? Why did you wait until now to make this scurrilous charge?

In the eyes of Christopher Hitchens in the "New Yorker," and Elinor Langer in her book, "One Hundred Little Hitlers," I am the chief neo-Nazi, and to you I am the chief rabbi. There was a certain Breton who once wrote, "The total contempt of all humanity is extremely pleasant to me."

While being insulted as the "chief rabbi," and simultaneously attacked by the actual rabbis, who maintain a half-dozen websites devoted to attempting to refute my book, Judaism's Strange Gods one must ask, where is the "exactitude" in that?

On Nov 20, 2003, Faurisson wrote: "May I expect you to defend the human rights of those persecuted for their ideas?" To put this question to me is disingenuous, since I have never failed to defend the human rights of anyone, including you, Ernst Zundel, Ditlieb Felderer and dozens of others. I spent much of the month of September, 1989 publicizing the assault on you and protesting to the French police, French government and Le Monde newspaper. Perhaps you have forgotten? For the record: I am for human rights, but not for any attempt to resurrect the Third Reich under the guise of human rights ("Rights, not Reich").

I believe you are in error when you assert: "Now re Horst Mahler: by 'Reich' he means 'German Reich' or 'German Nation' and not 'Third Reich". Even if you are correct and Mr. Mahler is in no way alluding to the Third Reich, his use of the word Reich is a public relations disaster. You harken to the victories of Ernst Zundel while proclaiming your indifference to public relations concerns: "Anyway, must I repeat that I do not care about his real or supposed political ideas...I have no idea what will come of that League initiative. I do not care if it is called "Nazi". Perhaps it is natural for a professor of literature to think in this naive way, but Zundel was far more canny and public relations were foremost in his mind. From his "cool blue hard hat" to his offer to go to synagogues to meet and debate, he undercut the stereotypes, rather than compounding them merely for the sake of a swaggering defiance.

Like Chomsky, I will defend the rights of anyone persecuted for their ideas, and this includes the human rights of Horst Mahler, in so far as he does not advocate the abridgment of the human rights of others. Moreover, I am one of those who are persecuted for their ideas, in case you have not noticed.... So, to insinuate that Michael Hoffman is someone who is sitting in his ivory tower, preserved from the clamor and violence of persecution, where he leisurely decides whether he will lend aid to the persecuted or not, is a strange image. I can think of some revisionists who are among my persecutors, if calumny may be considered persecution.

I will not join Mr. Mahler's organization, not just because of his invocation of "the Reich," but also due to his statements about "Jews," which he e-mailed me today: "In this war every single Jew stands in the frontline of the enemy in order to uphold the Auschwitz lie."

This disgusting statement by Mahler is on the level of Streicher and Goebbels. It is so infra dig, it sounds more like something the Wiesenthal Center would falsely attribute to a revisionist spokesman. These are exactly the words they will put into the mouth of the actor who plays the revisionist in the next television docudrama about us, only thanks to Herr Mahler, the quote won't have to be fabricated! For you to lend your name to an organization that is led by someone who spouts such wild, racist invective, is most unfortunate. It is a catastrophe for the movement of WWII revisionism to adopt racist positions similar to those of our racist enemies. As Nietzsche warned, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster."

And please Robert, do not say any longer that you do not know what Mr. Mahler's views are ("It does not imply that I agree with Mahler's political statements, of which, in fact, I am not really aware").

While a "revisionist anti-defamation league" is a splendid idea, to be effective in Germany it must be led by someone whose human rights credentials are beyond reproach. I continue to insist that neo-Nazism does the work of the Cryptocracy. In 2002 it was revealed that the leaders of the NDP party in Germany were members of the German secret police. Neo-Nazism is very useful to the Establishment. If revisionism is headed in that direction it is headed for shipwreck.

Fraternal wishes, Michael A. Hoffman II

To Michael Hoffman, once again, on the subject of Horst Mahler's founding of a league against the defamation of revisionists

from Robert Faurisson 25 November 2003

I had told you "While reading some of your writings I have often thought: 'The Jews should make Kamerad Hoffman Chief Rabbi honoris causa' ". You reply: "I am wondering which writings of mine have earned for me the ignominious title in your eyes of 'honorary Chief Rabbi', when all my life I have fought rabbis and written an entire book exposing them (Judaism's Strange Gods )."

Your surprise takes me aback. For, like me, your are a Celinian. You have even devoted a work to the author we love. How is it, then, that you did not take in the ironic and Celinian tone of the phrase "Chief Rabbi honoris causa", especially when the choice of the word "Kamerad" laid it out? There are pages in Bagatelles pour un massacre [des Aryens] (1937) or in L'Ecole des cadavres [aryens] (1938) where Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894-1961) already describes, keenly and with a gloomy, cheerful verve, exactly what I reproach in your attitude and what I shall now try to illustrate for you, with no further joking..

I have read the little book that you mention (Judaism's Strange Gods ). As you'll recall, I even ordered copies of it for friends. I do not possess your knowledge of theology. Then again, to put it frankly, the display of religious beliefs leaves me ill at ease. But I appreciate erudition when, as in your case, it is not abstruse. That said, I do not believe that your considerations on the Talmud explain for us much of the behaviour of today's Jews. When reading you, one too often has the impression of attending one of those frenetic and acrimonious debates between liberal or ultra-orthodox rabbis, Zionists or anti-Zionists, à la Levinas or à la Wiesel; it's a plodding through pilpuls and masoras. Most Jews today, in particular the atheist ones, could hardly care less about Jehovah and Moses. Their rallying point is the religion of the alleged "Holocaust" or "Shoah" and their true worship, undying, is the one that they render to Mammon or the Golden Calf. Their Holocaust museums are more alive than their synagogues. In Los Angeles, Marvin Hier with his "Simon Wiesenthal Centre" and the Hollywood moguls with their Holocaustorian fictions are far richer and more influential than the local rabbinate. And the goyim or Gentiles have, in their hundreds of millions, converted to the new religion; through the billions that they contribute - dollars, euros, Swiss francs or other coinage, including petrodollars - they also keep that religion of lies and hatred going strong.

The distinction between Jews and Israelis has, for its part, steadily become obsolete. The dissensions between Jewish activists for and against Sharon resemble family quarrels and, as you will notice, leave the new religion untouched. With certain Jews, pointed criticisms of "Shoah Business" or the "Holocaust Industry" resemble recriminations between shopkeepers claiming they haven't had their fair share of the profits. With Norman Finkelstein this is blatant.

Today that which unites the Jews, whatever else they may assert, is the religion of the Great Swindle and the Great Slander. It is the religion of the alleged genocide of the Jews and the alleged Nazi gas chambers with, after the war, their millions of "miraculous" survivors so many of whom, whilst presenting themselves as true witnesses of the faith, are, in reality, spinning fables and making a fortune at it. When a Jew stops short of "Holocaust" worship, he at least respects the taboo. The examples of Jews who have consistently denounced the horrid lie in its entirety are laughably few. I know these altogether exceptional cases and am amused at seeing that, like you, some revisionists today continue to cite the names of "Jewish revisionists" who, in actual fact, were either not really Jews or not really revisionists.

One day, Noam Chomsky took up the defense of my right to dispute the existence of the alleged Nazi gas chambers. Then, he quickly sought to retract the piece in which he had so compromised himself. Too late. Thereafter he gallantly maintained his position. But, since that time, he has never quit repeating that the "Holocaust" is a historical reality, adding that the revisionists are only crackpots. I, for my part, hold that whoever adopts a similar stance is, deny it though he may, pouring cement into Sharon's "Wall of Shame". In effect, to endorse the "Holocaust" lie amounts, de facto, to financing "the Jewish state" and to justifying the delivery to "the Jewish army" of, for instance, helicopters whose Israeli crews, chewing their kosher chewing gum, may comfortably machine-gun Palestinian civilians.

To uphold the lie of the alleged Shoah is also to crucify Germany, as the Jews and their servants, one more time, are currently preparing to do in the heart of Berlin, into which 2,751 stone slabs (2,751 spikes?) are to be planted in order to remind the Germans, on the vast expanse of yet another museum of the "Holocaust", that they, who have been slaughtered, pillaged, insulted, humiliated, must keep on doing penance and paying out billions for a crime that they in fact did not commit.

Horst Mahler is a son of that Germany. He has stood up to defend his country, his Vaterland. It is his right. You yourself recently wrote that "Germany today is an Israeli satrapy". Horst Mahler's right is thus also his duty. But you describe the man as a Nazi or as being nostalgic for Hitler. What of it? If Hitler had been as the Jews go on about him ad nauseam, without offering evidence to support their mad accusations, I might perhaps understand you. But, in regard to the Jews, Hitler, often in accord with Zionists of that period, had in mind nothing other than a "TERRITORIAL final solution of the Jewish question". (The same perhaps applies to Mahler). If that Zionist idea was criminal, then in what way was Hitler more of a criminal than Churchill, Stalin and, especially, Roosevelt? Do you suggest that the victors of the First and Second World Wars were less criminal in their behaviour than the Germans? For my part, I have already written that "every war is a butchery []; at the end of it, the winner turns out to have been nothing more than a good butcher, and the loser a bad butcher []; the victor should perhaps be entitled to give the vanquished a lesson in butchery but certainly not in Right and Justice."

You defend the victors' right to express their opinions even if you disapprove of them. You should therefore do the same for the vanquished. You are wrong to state: "Like Chomsky, I will defend the rights of anyone persecuted for their [sic] ideas, and this includes the human rights of Horst Mahler, in so far as he [Mahler] does not advocate the abridgment of the human rights of others." That "in so far as" constitutes a disquieting reservation, a dubious stab at evading the issue. I therefore invite you to join this league against the defamation of revisionists, "a splendid idea", as you tell me. Do so, like me, for better or for worse and without any illusions.

The "Holocaust" religion feeds the Jews' and their henchmen's spirit of lucre, of conquest, of crusade. It has become the ferment of American-Israeli imperialism and colonialism: it is leading us to the abyss. Reread Céline who, in 1937-1938, with his "Trifles for a Massacre" and its "School for Corpses", forecast Democracies' 1939-1945 crusade and its array of true abominations.

Fraternal wishes, as you put it.

PS: What do you think of the quotation of David Irving that I included in my last letter, words to the effect that he agrees somewhat with Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, known for contending that there is, amongst the Germans, an inborn propensity to evil?

Faurisson to Hoffman, Nov. 26, 2003

Dear Michael,

I lost the message in which you told me that you would answer my November 25 letter at the end of this week. Sorry for that. I have to warn you about something which disturbs me. When I keep repeating that I do not care much about one's religious, philosophical or political ideas, people often do not believe me. And they go on and on and on explaining me it is dangerous to LOOK as if I were sharing the religious, philosophical or political views of Peter or Paul. Already I had to tell you I do not care much for Horst Mahler's views (views are not personality). Now, mark my word: I will not repeat myself. So, please, spare me anything which would imply that you have not understood that very point. And don't come and say that I am naive at age 74! You do not know what I have in mind and I suppose that, for an American, my general scepticism, for which I am not giving you any explanation, is difficult to understand.

Best wishes. RF

Hoffman to Faurisson, Nov. 26, 2003

Dear Robert

I do not believe your letter of Nov. 25 substantially overturns any of the points I have made in our exchange thus far and to revisit these issues would be redundant. So I will limit myself to those few sections which require some further answer or extenuation.

Just as Holocaustianity is the religion of Judaism for gentiles, Zionism is the religion of Judaism for Judaics who don't necessarily worship in a synagogue. Wherever there is racial megalomania among them, there is the legacy of the Talmud. Remember that Lipstadt called David Irving, "Amalek." The misinformed will imagine this to be a Biblical term, but to say it is not. The God of the Old Testament extinguished the memory of Amalek forever. Only the Talmudist, in contravening the Old Testament, keeps the memory of Amalek alive.

Some revisionists, heavily influenced by Nazism, harbor a mildewed notion of "Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin." But this Nazi title is itself a kind of Judaic expression, because it corroborates the rabbinic dictum that Judaism is based on Moses, when in fact Judaism is the nullification of Moses. The dogma that the rabbis are the religious heirs of Moses is not just a theological error, it is an historical faux-pas. Judaism is a Talmudic religion, not the religion of Moses or the Old Testament. I tried to prove this in my book, Judaism's Strange Gods but how many revisionists have truly studied it? In 1961 you wrote a book, "A-t-on lu Rimbaud ?" ("Has Anyone Read Rimbaud?"). I ask in this vein, "A-t-on lu Hoffman?"

Dr. Fredrick Toben has a copy of Judaism's Strange Gods yet he persists in referring to the anti-Zionist Hasidic rabbis of his acquaintance as "Torah-True Jews." Toben accepted their own mendacious self-description. Those rabbis are "Talmud True," not "Torah True." Either my book has failed or Dr. Toben didn't actually read it with any degree of comprehension.

I do not call Horst Mahler "Nazi." I never use that term for anyone who was not a contemporary of Hitler. Nazism today is politically dead, because Hitler is dead and Nazism was a movement based on the messiahship of one man. There is, however, an ideal of racial ecology with both pre-Christian and medieval European antecedents, which was personified in the 20th century by philosophers such as Gregor Strasser and others. Many of these thinkers were murdered by Hitler so as to make room for the NSDAP fuhrerprinzip. The older philosophy of racial ecology, which carries with it no intrinsic logic of persecution, still lives, while the Hitler movement is dead, except in so far as the secret police of the U.S. and Germany animate it from time to time.

You write: "...you describe the man as a Nazi or as being nostalgic for Hitler. What of it? If Hitler had been as the Jews go on about him ad nauseam, without offering evidence to support their mad accusations, I might perhaps understand you. But, in regard to the Jews, Hitler, often in accord with Zionists of that period, had in mind nothing other than a 'TERRITORIAL final solution of the Jewish question.' (The same perhaps applies to Mahler). If that Zionist idea was criminal, then in what way was Hitler more of a criminal than Churchill, Stalin and, especially, Roosevelt? Do you suggest that the victors of the First and Second World Wars were less criminal in their behaviour than the Germans?"

I wonder if the previous paragraph is addressed to me or someone else? In the many tens of thousands of words I have written in the past twenty-five years, I have never failed to describe Churchill and Roosevelt as heinous war criminals, while I have never described the German people as criminal, only their leadership. The Wehrmacht in World War Two was not a "Nazi" army. Hitler could not completely transform the Wehrmacht in his image in twelve years. The values of the Wehrmacht reflected the historic Lutheran and Catholic values of the majority of its personnel, along with the customary decency of the German people generally, so I do not understand the phrase "German crimes" unless they are placed in the context of your own trenchant description of war, as being itself a crime.

I am appalled that you insinuate, since Hitler did not operate homicidal gas chambers and sought only a territorial solution to the "Jewish question," that it is perfectly permissible for a revisionist spokesman to be "a Nazi" or "nostalgic for Hitler," And Hitler's concentration camps? His political murders? The mass shootings of women and children? The one party state? A revisionism led by a follower of Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin or Hitler would be odious and objectionable. But to have a neo-Nazi as the spokesman for a German human rights movement, in connection with a public relations tactic centered on a "revisionist anti-defamation league," is so demented it is something out of a Hollywood script.

Moreover, the situation in Germany has improved somewhat in that prominent intellectuals such as Gunther Grass have come forward to take up certain aspects of the revisionist case. To build on this momentum and create a politically effective coalition uniting diverse political wings in Germany into one powerful German anti-defamation league, will require a revisionist with impeccable anti-racist, human rights credentials. One misreads both the moderate and cautious character of the Germans and of the zeitgeist of contemporary Germany, if one proposes to foist on a fledgling, "human rights for Germans" campaign, a "Jew-hater," in the name of some bold revisionist offensive. I can't think of anything that would make the Zionists in Germany happier than to have such a character at the helm of a German anti-defamation league. It would be a kind of auto-sabotage. You have asked that in view of your age (74), I refrain from referring to you as naive. But I do not know what else to call such a proposition; naive being perhaps the most charitable.

You write, "Horst Mahler is a son of that Germany. He has stood up to defend his country, his Vaterland. It is his right."

This sentence plays on a certain filial chauvinism that brooks no dissent. As a non-conformist I don't like to be confronted with constructions that offer no alternative. It seems that my patriotism is being called into question: a son of Germany is defending his fatherland! It is his right! All doubts must be suppressed!

There are many men who are sons of the German fatherland and who seek to defend it. But their pedigree doesn't guarantee their infalliblity. I am no respecter of persons. I don't want to substitute for the Chosen People the Master Race. One omniscient fuhrer was sufficient. I hope Germans are never again blindly force-marched to their destruction to the tune of "sons of the vaterland fighting for their rights." As a revisionist, I wish to critically examine who this "son" is and what he represents. Having honed my skeptical faculties on the gas chambers of Auschwitz, I am not going to allow them to atrophy just because someone shouts, "Achtung, here now comes a son of the Vaterland."

I am of the opinion that the German people were the biggest victims of Hitler, Goring, Goebbels, Bormann et al. I do not wish to see Germans victimized all over again by a revisionism hostage to their ghosts.

You solicit my views of David Irving's alleged validation of Goldhagen's libels against the German people. I will not comment on Irving's supposed endorsement without him confirming it, since in a matter so delicate I choose not to rely on the veracity of the Establishment media's account. But I will say in general that anyone who consents to Goldhagen's disgusting characterizations, which amount to a warrant for genocide against the Germans, is beneath contempt.

At the beginning of your letter you referred to my knowledge of theology. I am not a theologian, however. Rather, I am a sleuth who documents the trail of a crime syndicate that calls itself a religion and which is deeply implicated in the holohoax, at the very bowels of its provenance. I have affixed a postscript quoting portions of an e-mail which addresses this issue at greater length. I received it from a German-American colleague who, because of the sensitive government office he holds, must remain anonymous. I conclude on this note: revisionism has diminished considerably in the U.S. in the past five years because instead of fulfilling its promise of a great intellectual adventure that re-visions all dogmas, it is becoming a dogma.

Sincerely, Michael A. Hoffman II

Letter from a German-American to Hoffman

Dear Michael,

Due to his a priori distaste for theology and its attendant distinctions, Robert Faurisson has ignored many important distinctions which are at the heart of the problems in the uncritical approach of Horst Mahler. Germany, along with revisionism as a whole, deserves better. As a man of German ancestry, I am perturbed that Mr. Mahler is being handed the flag to carry for that country by one faction of the revisionist community.

Does Prof. Faurisson not realize that Orthodox Judaism is the official religion of the Israeli state? That the lectures of Rabbi Steinsaltz on the Tanya, which state that gentiles are completely evil products of the demonic kelipot, were recently broadcast over official Israeli radio? If these rabbis have no status or influence, what can we make of the last fact? It would be an inexplicable enigma. Prof. Faurisson fails to see that the Talmud lies at the center of Holocaustianity and even of the core thinking of apostate Khazars who reject the Talmud. For just as "liberal Christians" still retain elements of a core Christian persective, and hence move within a circle which could in a broad sense be called a "Christian community," sociologically speaking, so even a "Reconstructionist Judaic" retains the supremacist mindset of the Talmud coupled with an anti-Christian orientation which has continued to impel the materialistic assault on the foundations of Christendom, whether or not Prof. Faurisson is cognizant of these cultural motivations. Zionism itself would not exist without the impetus of the Talmud, in spite of the fact that a tiny minority of orthodox rabbis reject the Zionist interpretation.

Does Prof. Faurisson see no significance in the fact that the Talmud promotes previous "holocausts"? In reading the Talmud, one encounters an obsession with corpses, blood, sex, perversion, legal minutiae and Machiavellian machinations, money, and pagan superstition. Lifting ones eyes from its pages, one cannot help be thunderstruck by the fact that our current culture which has replaced Christendom reflects exactly these same themes at every turn. Irrelevant? Coincidence?

The distinction between Judaic and Jew is one that the professor should dwell upon. Ignoring critical distinctions has been the hallmark of the layers of deception upon which the "holocaust" fraud and the Israeli swindle have been erected. If theology has sharpened the appreciation of distinctions, perhaps the professor should not spurn it a priori. I sense in Prof. Faurisson a lapse, a willingness to sink below his normal standards to a level of comfortable elbow-rubbing with a group gaining temporary dominance in revisionism, rather than link himself with the lone wolf Michael Hoffman who keeps sustaining inquiry past the endurance levels of the average revisionist. All who persist in inquiry will become enemies to the majority, for "broad is the way that leads to perdition," and it is paved with consoling and non-demanding lies. I hope that your exchange with Robert Faurisson recalls him to his own standards. He may well find himself more in agreement with you at the end of the day than he had thought.

Sincerely, Name and address withheld

Faurisson to Hoffman, Nov. 27, 2003

Dear Michael,

Never ever send me anonymous letters. I do not appreciate cowards. And I especially hate cowards who patronize (without understanding one word of what I said).

As for the David Irving matter, you are dodging. I hate dodging. Don't come and say: "I choose not to rely on the veracity of the Establishment media's account." There is no question here of any "Establishment media's account". I gave you the reference; it was a verbatim printed in Adelaide Institute Online. Go and read it. See also the immediate context: the words after and before, with David Irving so typically trying to escape from an "Establishment" interviewer who suddenly reveals him that his own wife is German and that he did not noticed in her such a penchant to evil. Michael, ask Irving yourself! I, for one, do not need to ask him!

How dare you say that for you I am naive, "naive being perhaps the most charitable [proposition]"? Keep your Christian charity for yourself would be my suggestion.

When someone like Mahler has "a splendid idea" but perhaps happens to be a Neo-Nazi, a German dreamer, "un mage pour le Brandebourg" (Cline about Hitler), and when he has the courage to give his name and to immediately have the German police at home, my reactions are: 1) How strange! A courageous man! A man! It is so rare! A courageous German, which is even more rare! And he maintains what he said instead of recanting like so many! He does not go into exile? Fantastic! 2) What a pity and even perhaps what a nuisance if this courageous man is a Neo-Nazi, a German dreamer, "un mage pour le Brandebourg"! 3) Let's take "the splendid idea" and let the Jews to bark.

In my opinion, Churchill, Stalin and, especially Roosevelt committed many more crimes than Hitler. And their crimes are still continuing. When I am asked: "Aren't you upset to be put on Hitler's side?" my answer is: "I am not on Hitler's side and, if this was the case, I would be more upset to be put in the side of Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt side because Hitler killed for the last time in 1945 and he had no successors whereas the Big Three or their successors have been killing, as yet, for 57 years more than Hitler.

Give me a break with the alleged importance of the stuff about the Talmud being this or that. It is interesting stuff. I never denied that. I only said that I was not MUCH interested in it and I gave you my reasons. You did not discuss those.

Best wishes. RF

Help Enhance Our Teaching, Writing and Research

Send your donation to:

Independent History & Research Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

Or donate online by VISA or Mastercard

Thank you!