Jewish Confessions on Communist Crimes

By Ingrid Rimland/Michael Hoffman

 

October 4, 1999

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Just this morning I read some amazing concessions by Barbara Amiel, wife of Canadian media mogul, Conrad Black, in a Maclean's Magazine | September 27, 1999 article ("Jews and Sunshine") wherein she admits to her tribe's massive involvement in crimes of the past, most of them flowing out of the Bolshevik movement.

I will quote just a few of these admissions:

* "Jews feature in wildly disproportionate numbers among communists and revolutionaries."

* "Jews were not only seen as Christ killers but as the assassins of democracy. Indeed, we were at the leading edge of communist totalitarianism, one of the most murderous movements of the 20th century."

* "...in some very curious ways, Hungarian Jews, like Jews throughout time, have been disproportionately represented at the edge of some of the finest and nastiest trends of humanity."

* "In my lifetime, with the obvious exception of Nazism, it's hard to think of any political or artistic movement in which Jews have not been statistically overrepresented--from the the 1960s Weathermen to more positive areas of public policy and the arts. It was difficult to be a member of the Black Panthers, but Jewish support of them gave us Radical Chic. There is no greater influence on popular culture than Hollywood, and Hollywood is almost synonymous with Jewish overrepresentation."

* "lf gentiles tend to keep their heads down and make money, Jews seem to have the instincts of moths to a flame--a fatal attraction to the limelight of the leading edge. And in the past 100 years, those notions have included as much bad as good. Which may be why we are so often disliked."

This is a brand new tune. This is Revisionism by default. Something so huge, so monstrous is unraveling before our very eyes that one is reminded of Ernst Zündel's prediction: "This planet will shudder" when the full story of Jewish involvement in what has made this century awash with blood will be entirely revealed.

And people still are ignorant enough to say: "Just leave the Holocaust alone! It happened half a century ago!"?

What has changed lately is that voices like Barbara Amiel and Roger Cohen, mentioned in the Hoffman article below, are not fringe Jewish voices. They publish in the most prestigious Western print media - and what adheres to them is apprehension, even fear.

Small wonder!

In his September 13, 1999 Hoffman Wire, Zundel biographer and former Associated Press journalist, Michael Hoffman II, put the finger right on the pulse of what is happening:

<start>

The NY Times in its September 12, 1999 edition published a Jewish revisionist article, by their long-time European reporter, Roger Cohen. In "The Germans Want Their History Back," Cohen writes:

"Buchenwald, like Dachau and other concentration camps on German soil, was never an annihilation camp for the Jews."

This was admitted by the Establishment as far back as the 1960s, when Martin Brozsat conceded these facts. Simon Wiesenthal made a similar admission in "Books and Bookmen" in 1975.

In the ever-evolving World War Two exterminationist script there are two fields of activity for the propagandists, one academic, the other cultural. Cohen is here interpreting the academic for the cultural sphere, because the state of popular perception is very different from what is conceived as the latest information in the academic realm.

Daniel Goldhagen's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" and Spielberg's film "Schindler's List" are riddled with historical errors which render them fantasies. In the former case, Goldhagen won wide popular acclaim from journalists and literature critics but was shot down and virtually disgraced by scholars.

Spielberg makes no pretense to scholarship and was handled more gingerly. He deals with the Six Million as a funeral home of the mind, and as revisionist pioneer Ditlieb Felderer told me, "You don't ask questions at a funeral." The aura of awe and grief and propriety are too strong.

But increasingly there is a need to reconcile the academic with the cultural and this is one objective of Cohen's article. There is anxiety in New York about the gap between cultural myths accepted by the public and academic research challenging the consensus and taken seriously by a growing number of historians.

Most of this anxiety centers on Auschwitz, where hangs the central tale of the "Holocaust". The public's notions about Auschwitz are being gradually revised by the Establishment as they are slowly conditioned for the day when the claim of mass homicidal gassings there will be quietly dropped.

The Establishment is very much tuned into the work of revisionists like Felderer, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolph and David Irving, especially after Irving came close to entering the Auschwitz camp grounds with a BBC film crew in tow (they were banned at the last minute).

After stating the truth about Buchenwald and Dachau, Cohen asks a question which is really a kind of Talmudic query: "Does the distinction matter? All the Nazi camps were barbarous, and a Jew shot or worked to death in Buchenwald was just as dead as one gassed at Birkenau. Moreover, the enormity of the Holocaust is such that its dominant place in the history of Nazism is right and inevitable."

Here is the main argument of the exterminationists reduced to a paragraph: Do distinctions matter? To the racist German-hater they do not. To the Jewish mentality, Germans bear the Mark of Cain for eternity because their nation's government once dared to persecute "God's Holy People." Questions concerning the implementation and extent of the persecution are irrelevant to the core conviction. Even if it is admitted that Auschwitz/Birkenau was only an interment and labor camp, not an "extermination" facility, this would change nothing in most Jewish eyes: Jewish people still perished there, were "just as dead" as someone who had been gassed.

But revisionists and the demands of the scientific method itself, insist that distinctions do matter. It is the particulars of a thing which distinguish it from a simulacra. Moreover, in a murder trial, at least under Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, the degree and details of a crime determine culpability and punishment. But under Talmudic halacha:

"According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins...When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty of a sin...not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all...when it comes to a Gentile...one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice." --Dr. Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," chapter 5.

In a world circumscribed by this level of institutionalized racist contempt for the Gentile generally, Germans who have become a kind of collective Haman in a modern Purim legend, are not going to be exculpated by virtue of any revision of the documentary record, which to the Jewish mentality, is mere ephemera.

Cohen's task is to uphold the continuing demonization of the Germans by putting the latest hypnotic Jewish spin on developments in revisionism. Even though the public is told that revisionism is completely corrupt and demonic, the Establishment privately attaches great importance to it, since they are painfully aware that they do not control every single professor and journalist and never know when some prominent renegade may blow the lid off. Their response is to strategically preempt such potential spontaneity with a kind of damage control.

This is what the NY Times' is doing in the article under examination. They are conditioning the goyim for further revisionist revelations which, in this Internet age, cannot remain bottled forever. Like a Babylonian high priest, Cohen knows that in mass psychology it is not the facts themselves that matter but the public perception of them and these are amenable to the proper spin.

Let's take the next quote from Cohen:

"Expecting gas chambers at Buchenwald is in many ways to be as misinformed as expecting only tributes to anti-fascist fighters."

Cohen doesn't say who is responsible for this "misinformed" impression in the first place. Actually, it's the Allies, beginning with the holy Nuremburg trials, and the Jewish power structure itself. But responsibility is never honestly apportioned.

When Israeli Prof. Yehuda Bauer admitted that the Germans never made soap from Jewish cadavers, as the Allies and Jewish "eyewitnesses" had claimed for years, Bauer put the blame on the Germans, claiming that they had deliberately started the rumor during the war to terrorize concentration camp inmates.

Bauer perhaps forgot that atrocity stories and rumors typically die with the cessation of conflict, and it is only in the unprecedented spirit of vengeance and chauvinism which has reigned in Jewish circles since 1945 that kept the despicable soap libel going long after it should have been laid to rest.

Furthermore, if one substitutes the word Auschwitz for Buchenwald in Cohen's preceding statement, we see how the ground is being prepared for a new spin on an old story. The New York Establishment is not yet ready to directly deal in a mass medium with the grave problems recent scholarship has unearthed concerning the Auschwitz "gas chambers," which were constructed after the war by the Communists, and misrepresented all these years to the public as Nazi instruments of extermination. But they are softening up the target audience with the sense that the "Holocaust" script is not fixed after all, in fact, for a dogma that supposedly "must not be denied," it is remarkably fluid and evolutionary.

Cohen quotes Fritz Stern, the historian: "The concentration camps were publicly established in 1933, and they were for all political enemies of Hitler. The gas chambers came later and were a universe apart."

The camps in the Old Reich of Germany, were not just for 'Jews." In fact there were far more leftist, Protestant, Catholic, homosexual and ordinary criminal elements in Bergen-Belsen, Dachau and Buchenwald than Jewish ones. Since most of the infamous photos of emaciated inmates and piles of naked corpses are from these camps, those photos are in general not of Jewish victims at all, but of Gentiles. Cohen in a very circuitous way, typical of Talmudic thinking, is conceding this.

He then cites the "functionalist"-school German historian, Hans Mommsen, who states, "To conflate the concentration camps and the annihilation camps, as Americans tend to do is unhelpful."

Once again, who is responsible for this conflation? Who are these "Americans"? Mommsen and Cohen don't say. In fact the prime movers behind making "concentration camps" falsely synonymous with annihilation, are Jewish movie moguls in Hollywood and Jewish publishing moguls in New York.

Cohen even steers his readers into John Sack ("An Eye for an Eye") and James Bacque ("Crimes and Mercies") territory, without mentioning these historians by name. Cohen says, "The long-suppressed fact that Buchenwald was used from 1945 to 1952 as a Soviet internment camp (commemorated in a small museum at the site) is also controversial..."

Here is the most fertile revisionism of all (with far greater mass appeal than endless arguments over gas chamber lore, pro and contra), the hidden history of Allied war crimes and holocausts and of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin's permafrost gulags where millions of goyim marched to their graves, and whose mass murder has thus far registered with the Western public about as much as leaves stirring in an autumn wind.

Yet the phantoms of the gulag as well as those Soviet, American, French and British annihilation camps, are a ticking time bomb for the Establishment. The troubling aspect for Official History is that Sack and Bacque have given life to these unsung victims - and simply cranking up the machinery of the ADL inquisition and imposing a cloak of silence and suppression, is no longer sufficient. Cooler and more cunning Jewish heads are assessing the degree of damage control necessary to maintain the core of their mythos.

They don't want the public to access Sack and Bacque directly. (Bacque's book was published in Canada and Britain but not in America; Sack's tome was refused a book review by fifty of the top media organs in America).

The System recognizes the need to spin a Jewish version of revisionist revelations, couching them in the dimensions of the magical Jewish universe which effectively exists outside of the scientific method of inquiry and the history that is predicated upon it.

Cohen's NY Times' article reveals a growing nervousness expressed in terms of an Establishment-approved, Jewish ersatz revisionism. As direct access to the real thing gains cachet on the Internet, we can savor the delicious spectacle of the Cohens of our time sweating their losing proposition, as they try to maintain credibility for the sacred, racist "Holocaust" cult, in a world that has made a mania out of anti-racism and irreverence toward everything that claims for itself the mantle of the sacred.

--Michael A. Hoffman II

Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and the director of The Campaign for Radical Truth in History (www.hoffman-info.com)

Copyright ©1999 The Hoffman Wire

 

 

YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *