Guilt by association: Zionist smear-media specialty

The Anatomy of Smears

Goldberg smears Mearsheimer through guilt-by-association with Gilad Atzmon
How Jesse Jackson was smeared through guilt-by-association with Louis Farrakhan

Researched and compiled by Michael Hoffman 
www.revisionisthistory.org • Sept. 23, 2011

For the past two months, in between writing issue 58 of Revisionist History newsletter, I have been at work on a book that people have repeatedly asked me for since my 1100 page volume, Judaism Discovered, was published in 2008: a condensed summation of its research and thesis for the general reader, priced to sell in an affordable paperback. I did something like that in 2000 with a thin paperback entitled Judaism's Strange Gods that served as a groundwork for Judaism Discovered.

The new condensed book will take the form of a revived edition of Judaism's Strange Gods, though it will differ substantially from the 2000 edition, benefiting from my research into Judaism Discovered and subsequent material I have gathered since 2008. Judaism's Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded is now finished except for the index, which I am completing over this weekend. We will have details on a pre-publication sale offer in the near future.

In the midst of these publishing projects, it has been a while since I offered you a column. I thought I would give you a double-bonus and cram two columns into one.

The first is a hysterical libel of Gilad Atzmon, a Judaic who has written a new book (The Wandering Who?) that presses all the buttons on the aging propaganda machine that generates Jeffrey Goldberg's frenzied boilerplate ("self-hater, twisted and toxic hater, antisemitism, neo-Nazi, Holocaust denial, grotesque medieval calumnies, conspiracy theories"). This is the Talmudic pilpul that passes for journalism and substitutes for a reasoned argument in Goldberg's mental shetl. He plays to the choir but, admittedly, his choir is large. He's a columnist for The Atlantic magazine and is interviewed by NPR in spite of the fact that Mr. Goldberg helped to lie America into the Iraq war, an apparent venial sin which hasn't dented his media cred. (I did an analysis of Goldberg's relationship with NPR; a video of my brief talk is on YouTube).

We also offer part one of a transcript of a speech by Louis Farrakhan. There is a connection: Mr. Farrakhan talks of how Jesse Jackson was smeared because of his relationship with Farrakhan, and Mr. Goldberg, in his Atlantic column, uses Mr. Atzmon (through no fault of the latter) in a guilt-by-assocation smear of Prof. John Mearsheimer, one of the most reputable and courageous critics of Israeli racism and state terror in American academia. It is Goldberg's task to libel and stigmatize Mearsheimer. Mr. Goldberg exploits Gilad Atzmon in order to achieve this, in the same way Farrakhan's relationship with Jesse Jackson was used to damage the reputation of Mr. Jackson.

Pilpulistic tactics are tiresome -- but dependable as clockwork -- and often highly effective in ostracizing and silencing peace makers and thinkers who are independent of the propaganda requirements of Zionism and Holocaustianity.

Jeffrey Goldberg himself endorses apologists for Israeli killers, denies the holocaust against the Palestinians and helped fake America into the Iraq war, but let's not confuse people with the facts. Goldberg's tantrum is worth studying as counterintelligence, a way to gauge the hallaf of one of yiddishkeit's leading inquisitors.

The following information is brought to you by the donors who support this service. Without their donations this service cannot continue. Consider joining other truth seekers by sending a donation today.

Best wishes in this Great Battle,
Michael Hoffman
Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

Smear #1

John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist
By JEFFREY GOLDBERG

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz saxophonist who lives in London and who has a side gig disseminating the wildest sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He is an ex-Israeli and a self-proclaimed "self-hater" who traffics in Holocaust denial and all sorts of grotesque, medieval anti-Jewish calumnies. Here is a small sample of Atzmon's lunatic thoughts:

"I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place. Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbors? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents' plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity......The Holocaust  became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value." (End quote from Atzmon).

...Rather unbelievably (or believably, depending on where you sit)...The R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and co-author of "The Israel Lobby," John J. Mearsheimer...has written an endorsement of Atzmon's new book, "The Wandering Who?"...Mearsheimer is endorsing the writing of a man who espouses neo-Nazi views. In other words, he's not even bothering to make believe anymore -- he's moved from a self-described critic of Israel to a corrosive critic of Jewry itself. The blogger Adam Holland, like yours truly, didn't quite believe that Mearsheimer would endorse such a crude anti-Semite...

READ MORE OF GOLDBERG'S SCURRILOUS ATTACK ON ATZMON AND MEARSHEIMER HERE.

Smear #2

Minister Louis Farrakhan speaks of his relationship with Jesse Jackson and the Jews
Excerpted from NOI Research Group Weekly Report--Volume 2, Issue 37 (September, 2011)

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has been personally attacked for two decades by Caucasian Jews who have attempted to label him an “anti-Semite.” The charge is absurd and the accusers have been shown to be the biggest profiteers in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and other crimes against Black humanity. But in this lecture by Min. Farrakhan at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on March 9, 1994, the Minister explained in detail the real issues behind the controversy between Blacks and Jews. Here is the first of a three-part transcript of that historic lecture.

[....] So I would like to address in my closing some solutions, and the Black–Jewish dialogue, if you will, and Farrakhan’s being embroiled in the middle of this kind of controversy. And you can take it or leave it. I have never been anti-Semitic; I’m not now. I have never been anti-Jewish, and I’m not now. But if I recognize something, and what I recognize is not in the best interest of Jews or Blacks, I have to speak against it. And those who fear paint me in all kinds of positions. But I’m here now to defend myself. I never started any conflict with Jewish people. Never! Never. I stum- bled into it. (Laughter.) ’Cause I did.

SUPPORT FOR JESSE JACKSON

I fell in love with Jesse Jackson, my brother, and Jesse told me he wanted to run to be president. He asked me for my help. I said, “Brother, I don’t know anything about politics.” He said, “Would you help me?” I said, “I’ll think about it and I’ll let you know.” We thought about it, we in the Nation of Islam, we talked about it, and we agreed that we would help Reverend Jackson. When Jesse Jackson gave up his position at PUSH to consider running for the nomination of his party for president, he made the announcement, everybody stood and applauded. Farrakhan sat and the tears rolled down my eyes because I knew that the Reverend Jackson was embarking on a course that could lead to his untimely death. Some people rejoice to see a man make that kind of move. Other people who understand what that move entails are deeply sensitive to the danger. I was deeply sensitive to the danger. I had never seen a dossier on anybody by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) until Jesse Jackson’s assistant, Reverend Barrow, showed me an ADL dossier on Reverend Jackson. And in their dossier, Reverend Jackson was an “anti- Semite.” I want you to listen to me. That dossier was put in the hands of media so that when Jesse would speak, they would raise questions out of that dossier to keep Jesse embroiled in a conflict with members of the Jewish community.

That raised money, but it also would be put in a context that would cut Jesse from support from the common Gentiles of this nation. In February of 1984, ten years ago, Reverend Jackson informed me that there were over 100 real threats on his life. He was told that by the FBI. He was frankly worried, and so was I. So at my convention — the convention of the Nation of Islam — I was introducing Reverend Jackson that year, and in my introduction if you read my words, if you’re a fair-minded person, you could never say that I was anti-Semitic. I appealed to the Jewish community and I said to them that whenever the interests of Jews and Blacks converged, Blacks and Jews always worked together. But when we come of age—meaning we mature, in our self-interest — we have to follow our self-interest, even if our self-interest causes us to be at variance with the interest of the Jewish community.

“RUIN JESSE”

I said, Reverend Jackson is our enlightened self-interest. I said, and the way you handle him can rupture Black–Jewish relations because 90 percent of the Black electorate was lining up behind Reverend Jackson, and members of the Jewish Defense League had interrupted Jesse Jackson’s announcement of his candidacy in Washington, D.C. I was present; I saw it. Then a full-page ad was taken out in the New York Times saying, “Ruin, Jesse, Ruin!”

Because the chant among Black people was, “Run, Jesse, Run!”  And this group called Jews Against Jesse took out an ad saying, “Ruin, Jesse, Ruin!”

Wait a minute. In a political campaign if you don’t like your candidate or the op-ponent, you defeat his program—you attack him intelligently. You put an ad in the paper —“Ruin”? What does the word “ruin” mean? Hmm?

When something is ruined — that garment that you have on that you paid whatever you paid for it — if it is ruined, do you put it on again? To ruin Jesse was the aim of those who put that ad in the New York Times. No responsible Jewish organization condemned that ad. (Applause.) I want you to listen. Now I want you to hear Farrakhan. Since you heard so much about me, now hear me, and give me the same ear that you gave my detractors.

"IF ANY HARM COMES TO HIM, HE'LL BE THE LAST BLACK MAN THAT YOU'LL KILL."

When I spoke, Brother Yusuf Muhammad put my words on this campus in a flyer. Those were my exact words. If you’re sane and intelligent, there’s not one anti-Semitic statement or anti-Jewish statement there. I called on the Jews to sit down and talk with Reverend Jackson. “If you disagree with him,” I said, “we can stand to lose an election, but we cannot stand to lose Reverend Jackson.” I said, “If any harm comes to him, he’ll be the last Black man that you’ll kill.”

Wait, wait, wait, I didn’t finish, no, no— ’cause that’s an implied threat. I said, “We don’t carry weapons. We’re not allowed to carry as much as a pen knife,” I said, “But Almighty God has caused this son of ex-slaves to rise up to such a position, and God Himself will retaliate.”

This is a paraphrase of my actual words, which, they’re out here for you to read. The next day in New York the head of B’nai B’rith was on the radio, calling me “the new black Hitler.”

Let’s stop right there.

Now, I grew up in Roxbury. I went to the Sherwin School, and Boston Public Latin. Didn’t make it there. I graduated from Boston English. I went to Huntington Prep School. Go and search my record. I hardly ever had a fight in my whole life. I’ve never been arrested. All my friends, if you talk to them, they have nothing evil to say about me. I’ve never been a violence-prone individual; not then, not now. All human beings, however, are capable, if pushed to that extreme. I have never said privately to my children, or publicly, Jews should be exterminated. My sons and daughters have grown up in my house. They have never heard me speak of Jews or Italians or Hispanic people using slang terms like “spic” or “kike” or “wop.” I don’t talk like that because I know what it feels like to be called a “nigger” all my life. (Applause.)

 But anybody that knows me from my childhood knows I was a young man of principle and if you wanted a fight outta me, then the fight would never be on no stupid thing, it would always be over a violation of a principle. That’s my history.

"POPE PIUS XII LOOKED THE OTHER WAY" (AS 'JEWS' WERE PUT IN OVENS)

And to call me Hitler. Every young Jew in this audience, whose parents or grandparents went through the Holocaust. What does it mean to them when you say I am a Hitler? Every young Jew would hate that man and want him dead because nobody wants to see a Hitler come up again. What makes me a new black Hitler? We never put Jews in ovens. Not one Black person in this audience has put a Jew in an oven. Gentiles did. Pope Pius XII looked the other way. Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked the other way. (Applause.) You know it. Black people were your liberators from Auschwitz! The first ones in the death camps were Black people. (Applause.)

Now Farrakhan is upset. And shouldn’t I be? If somebody called you a Hitler, wouldn’t you be upset? But why did you call me Hitler? Because of my skill as an orator. Unmatched— no vanity, no vanity, no vanity, no ego. God has given me that gift. I move people. I move people not because I move people. I move people because I am an instrument that communicates to the nth degree to human beings and their pain. I don’t need notes. I speak from the soul, and my speech is like music. Even though it may be uncomfortable some of the passages are so beautiful, because I’m not a hater. I’m passionate over the suffering of my people in particular, but human beings in general.

"HITLER WAS A GENIUS"

So I was inflamed, and I...said, “So here come the Jews now, calling me Hitler.” I said, “Well, that’s a good name.” I said Hitler was no good for me but he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat in World War I. Hitler, with his magnificent oratory, made a people with his philosophy and ideology of Aryan supremacy. He made a people in Germany, and it took the whole western world united to defeat [him]. A nation of only 17 million people had the whole world shake with their genius. Hitler was a genius. The West had deciphered his codes and they let whole towns be bombed so that Hitler would not know that they knew. They knew his commands through his generals. As his generals got it, they got it. And even with that, it took the combined might of all of Europe and America to defeat that man.

I said he was a great man, but he was wickedly great. And I am not wrong. That’s your English language. In the Oxford Dictionary, there are four pages on the word great. Only one of them, one line, says great in a way that it means something laudatory. All the rest is talking about magnitude, significance, impact. The man was great, but he was wicked. I can’t approve of another man putting human beings in ovens—men, women, children. I’m a father. I’m a grandfather. I love my children, and when I look at Jewish children and Palestinian children growing the way they’re growing, to kill each other down the road — I’m hoping that some way we can break that chain. And I know that the only thing that will break it is truth and justice.

But because Zionists saw a threat in Reverend Jackson’s appeal, since Reverend Jackson had embraced Arafat, several years before Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Jackson was hated for embracing Arafat, and since it was feared that Reverend Jackson, if given a platform, could disturb the delicate balance between the Blacks who were all pro-Israel to turn Black people maybe to a pro-Palestinian stance, then to that degree it was in the Zionists’ self-interest to destroy the candidacy of Reverend Jackson by any means necessary. And so, they, when I said Hitler was great, headline came up in the New York Post: “Jackson Pal Hails Hitler.”

Now Farrakhan is the whipping boy. They’re beating the hell out of me to get to Jesse. After a while Jesse can’t take it anymore. He repudiates Farrakhan, leaving me out there now by myself. It’s all right though. It’s all right. I didn’t come in the world with no twin. (Applause.) I don’t need an army behind me to stand up for what I believe. I was made that way and as long as God is with me, then I’m never alone. So now I’m out there. I refused to divide the Black people who were behind Jesse, who loved Farrakhan. I refused to speak evil against my brother because he had repudiated me. This is history. And when I learned that the (U.S.) Senate had condemned me and repudiated me, a vote of 95 to nothin.’ A white Senate. No Black people in it. “Representative” government had repudiated me, for allegedly calling Judaism a gutter religion, which I never did.

I am a man that is not afraid to tell you that I said that, ’cause anything that I say,I back it up. And if I can’t back it up with truth, I’ll apologize to you, for so stating or being in error. I think that’s the proper thing to do. But I never said that. And you know what’s worse? It’s ten years now. And every time they write about Farrakhan, [it’s]: “the man that called Hitler great and Judaism a gutter religion.” That’s the way they put me before you.

Well, since [they believe] Black folk are natural liars and cowards, then my saying, “I didn’t say that; here’s what I said and here’s what I meant”— oh, that don’t mean anything to you. So you never took what I said to have any weight at all, because what you say is the truth, and whatever a Black man says in defense of himself he’s only trying to get out from what his own mouth has spoken. You don’t know me, but you’re getting acquainted with me. I think you know now, you’ll have to kill me to get me to back down from truth, and I’m telling you today at Amherst, Don’t even think about it! (Applause.)

"THE MEDIA CAN'T BREAK ME"

For 10 years, I’ve been in this struggle. For 10 years, I have tried to sit down and dialogue with the Anti- Defamation League. For 10 years, I’ve asked them, “Let’s sit down and talk.” That’s the civilized thing to do. When people have a genuine disagreement, sit down and talk about it. They re- fuse. Rabbis come to my door, sit at my table, we have dinner, we talk candidly and frankly, we embrace each other. But the Rabbis have no power with these organizations that are politically inspired Zionist organizations. They don’t have any power. So even though we come to some agreement, the ADL has never agreed to sit down with me. Fine. I ain’t beggin’ you to sit down. I think it’s intelligent, because you don’t want it to go too far. You don’t want it to get that far, if you got sense. You thought that when the media attacked me, Farrakhan was going to dry up and blow away? Not this one. You can blow away them others, but not this one. Because the media didn’t make me, I’m not a creature of the media. So since the media didn’t create me, the media can’t break me. I guess you’ve learned that by now. The more you attack me, the bigger God makes me grow. (Applause)

And you haven’t learned your lesson yet, but I thank you, media — you really are wonderful. No, I’m serious — I’m not being facetious — they’re really wonderful. No, you really are; I respect you to the highest. Whatever you say to me is all right. You can cuss me out, line by line, word by word, and that’s what you do. But my teacher taught me, “Son, every knock is a boost.” So here we are now. Police all around — SWAT team, bomb squad, mounted police; Farrakhan gotta bring 100 security people. For what? For what? Because one Black man stood up to speak truth as he understood it and wouldn’t back down. And some of those in positions of power in the Jewish community feel that Black folks should back down, feel that we should bend and bow and scrape and scratch. You still bugged out over that Hamitic thing. Ham don’t have no relationship to me. (Applause.)

I am not one of the sons of Noah. I was before Noah. I was before Abraham. I was before Adam. Now, don’t give me no Johnny-come-lately as my father, because I know the history now. And if you scratch me—not scratch me—I mean push me, I’ll be glad to tell you not only where I’m from, but where you’re from too. (Applause.) [To be continued]

LOUIS FARRAKHAN will speak October 9, 2011 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the Philadelphia Convention Center. Tickets are $20. All races and religions are invited. Doors open at 12 p.m. Program starts at 2 pm. (www.noi.org) There will also be a presentation from 1 - 3 p.m. in Room 108 of the Convention Center by the Historical Research Group of the Nation of Islam, authors of the books The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 1 (on the slave trade) and volume 2 (on Judaic influence in the American South after the War Between the States).

***

Michael Hoffman is the founder of The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism. On the Contrary is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA. 

 

***

Read More

ADL discovers Nazi nation in the Middle East and it’s not “Israel”

Paranoia and libel abound in the following article from the "Jerusalem Post." Here is their definition of murderous anti-semitism: "...lethal anti-Semitism — a second Holocaust targeting the Jewish state."

This is the language of hysteria calculated to provoke the assassination of the Iranian head of state and a US or Israeli air force bombing holocaust against Iran, in the name of preventing the alleged imminent Iranian threat of a holocaust against "Israel."

This is madhouse logic. It reduces complex geo-politics, revisionist homicidal gas chamber skepticism and legitimate outrage at the bloody racism of the Israeli government, to the lowest common propaganda denominator, "Jihad and Jew hate." How about an alarm over “Judaism and Arab hate,” which has engendered the mass murder of tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian Arabs?

The execution gas chambers of Auschwitz are supernatural relics of the religion of Holocaustianity. They cannot withstand doubting-Thomas scientific investigation (see http://tinyurl.com/6xshlyf); therefore, any informed skepticism concerning these sacred totems must be criminalized, and debased into jargon intended for consumption by the dumbed-down American masses: Muslim Iran, which overthrew the Fascist Shah, becomes a Nazi nation, and jihad against the slaughter of the Palestinians constitutes "Jew hate."

The Zionists are the most nostalgic segment of all those who are stuck in the past. They are forever endeavoring to renamimate World War II and append the Allied narrative about the "Good War" to Middle East geopolitics in the 21st century. This reflects the abysmal poverty of their argument. They have nothing more to say in defense of rabbinic racism and Israeli apartheid than to chant schoolyard singsong equating the Iranians with the Nazis. Self-reflection is not an Israeli strong suit. Their megalomania prevents them from seeing the contours of the Third Reich in their own Talmudic backyard.

Jeffrey Goldberg is quoted toward the end of the "Jerusalem Post" article. He's the zero-credibility "Israel expert" who helped engineer the US invasion of Iraq by promoting the preposterous hoax that Saddam Hussein was implicated in the 9/11 terror attacks. Last autumn he sunk so low as to libel the recently deceased Roman Catholic scholar and writer Joseph Sobran as a "Nazi."

The ADL and the Jerusalem Post are peddling hallucination, but I'll bet you dollars-to-doughnuts that their delusions will be parroted throughout Right wing talk radio and the pulpits of Judeo-Churchianity.

--Michael Hoffman

(Hoffman's latest book is "Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not," forthcoming in July, if funds allow. A chapter from the book appears in the no. 55 issue of "Revisionist History Newsletter").

ADL LAUDS GERMAN SCHOLAR FOR STUDY ON ANTI-SEMITISM

By Benjamin Weinthal | Jerusalem Post | Feb. 14, 2011 

The Hamburg researcher shows link between anti-Semitism of Nazis and today’s Iranian regime

BERLIN – Dr. Matthias Küntzel, a Hamburg-based author and political scientist who is currently a research associate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was honored last week by the New York-based Anti-Defamation League for his work exposing the interplay between Nazi ideology and modern Iranian anti-Semitism.

“In his writing on the anti- Semitism of the Iranian regime, which he terms the ‘stepchild of German National Socialism,’ Dr. Küntzel lays bare the genocidal intent of those who are striving for nuclear weapons,” Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director, said while presenting the ADL Paul Ehrlich-Gunther K. Schwerin Human Rights Award to Küntzel at the ADL executive committee meeting in Palm Beach, Florida.

“He makes clear that the link between the anti-Semitism of the Nazis and of the Iranian regime is not just an analogy,” Foxman said.

“Matthias Küntzel has a long and distinguished record in speaking out against anti-Semitism and warning his readers in his native Germany and elsewhere about the dangers posed by this age-old virus that has no known cure. His work has been sorely underappreciated in this country. With this recognition, we hope to acknowledge his ongoing efforts and also let the American public know of the implications of this disturbing trend,” Foxman said.

Küntzel, speaking at the ceremony in Florida, said, “Today’s events in Tunisia and Egypt mark a watershed in the development of the Middle East. And it is precisely at such a time – a time of new beginnings – that it becomes more important than ever to publicly raise the issues of the roots and potential consequences of anti-Semitism in the Middle East.”

“Islamist movements – especially the Muslim Brotherhood – are a headline issue right now. I do of course strongly support the people’s fight in Tunisia and Egypt for freedom of opinion and freedom of assembly. But I am at the same time concerned about the tendency of Western governments and media to downplay the Muslim Brotherhood’s anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. While anti-Semitism from the far Right occasions justified outrage in the USA and elsewhere, the very same anti-Semitism is again and again downplayed and minimized when expressed by Muslims,” he said.

Küntzel continued, “Many are inclined to excuse these diatribes as a side effect of the Middle East conflict, and blame Israel for the anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Others – such as the London-based Prof. Gilbert Achcar [at the School of Oriental and African Studies] – even try to excuse the denial of the Holocaust.

To quote Prof. Achcar: “‘Are all forms of Holocaust denial the same? Should such denial when it comes from oppressors, not be distinguished from denial in the mouths of the oppressed, as the racism of ruling whites is distinguished from that of subjugated blacks?’”

Küntzel is an external research associate at the Vidal Sassoon Centre for The Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University.

He teaches political science at a technical college in Hamburg and co-founded the German chapter of Scholars For Peace in the Middle East.

He has focused his recent academic work, including "Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11," on contemporary genocidal anti-Semitism in Iran, and Europe’s, particularly Germany’s, response to threats from the Islamic Republic to obliterate Israel.

Küntzel argues that Iran is the first country since Nazi Germany to make lethal anti-Semitism — a second Holocaust targeting the Jewish state – a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

Küntzel, an impassioned essayist and author of groundbreaking books on modern anti-Semitism, has over the years sharply criticized the Merkel administration and the Bundestag for failing to take a tough posture against genocidal Iranian anti- Semitism and Germany’s 4 billion euro annual trade relationship with the Islamic Republic.

“Germany wants a special relationship with both Israel and Iran. And that’s impossible. Germany can’t have it both ways,” he told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Writing in The New York Times Book Review on "Jihad and Jew Hatred," Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine and Israel expert, said, “The German scholar Matthias Küntzel... takes anti-Semitism, and in particular its most potent current strain, Muslim anti-Semitism, very seriously indeed. His bracing, even startling, book, "Jihad and Jew-Hatred" (translated by Colin Meade), reminds us that it is perilous to ignore idiotic ideas if these idiotic ideas are broadly, and fervently, believed.”

According to Goldberg, “Küntzel makes a bold and consequential argument: The dissemination of European models of anti-Semitism among Muslims was not haphazard, but an actual project of the Nazi Party, meant to turn Muslims against Jews and Zionism... Küntzel is right to state that we are witnessing a terrible explosion of anti-Jewish hatred in the Middle East, and he is right to be shocked.”

***

Read More

Michael Hoffman exposes National Public Radio’s propaganda system

National Public Radio's pro-Israeli bias in downplaying a Nov. 29, 2010 terror bombing against Iranians and presenting Israeli agent Jeffrey Goldberg as an objective observer of Iranian and Arab affairs, is exposed by former Associated Press reporter Michael Hoffman.

Hoffman analyzes statements by Robert Siegel, Peter Kenyon and Mr. Goldberg, as heard on the "All Things Considered" broadcast of Nov. 29. Here is documentary confirmation of NPR's disinformation, betrayal of the public trust and complicity in the Zionist propaganda system.

***

Read More

Joseph Sobran libeled as a Nazi by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg

Neocon Liar Jeffrey “Dr. Goebbels" Goldberg Dishonors the Memory of Joseph Sobran

by Michael Hoffman | www. RevisionistHistory.org | Oct. 13, 2010

Jeffrey Goldberg is the Israeli agent who is currently national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine. He helped engineer America’s invasion of Iraq based on the propagation of Goldberg’s well-publicized lie, published in the March, 2002 issue of The New Yorker and broadcast on NPR’s "All Things Considered” in February, 2003, that Saddam Hussein was an ally of the alleged 9/11 terror group, Al Qaeda. Now Goldberg is lying again. In a column published Oct. 12 on the website of The Atlantic magazine, Goldberg indicts the eminent Catholic historian and philosopher Joseph Sobran as a “Nazi.” This craven and despicable defamation had to wait until Sobran was dead and could no longer sue for libel.

It seems that Goldberg, his pal Greenberg, and a network of apologists for Israeli war crimes, had their ox gored when the New York Times published an obituary for Mr. Sobran which did not stigmatize him with the obligatory “Holocaust denier” Newspeak, preferring to describe him with the more moderate term, “Holocaust skeptic.”

This minor deviation from the approved script unleashed the hounds of Holocaust halachic correctness, in this case on the Times and on the memory of the deceased. Exploiting the Newspeak mechanisms of the imposed word “Holocaust,” the following fallacy has been advanced by Mr. Goldberg: "Imagine an obituary of a public figure who had denied that World War I had taken place. Or that fifty percent of the Civil War battles we know to have occurred did not, in fact, occur, and that there had been no slavery in the antebellum South.”

Sorry, Mr. Goldberg, but Mr. Sobran never “denied" World War II, or any battle therein; or that the persecution and murder of Judaics had actually occurred. He questioned the extent of the latter; a useful and worthy scientific inquiry which inquisitors like you can’t handle. This writer was present at Sobran’s speech in Irvine, California on June 22, 2002, when he asked, "Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage..."

It was Zionism’s de facto propaganda machine which, in the late 1960s, began referring to Adolf Hitler’s crackdown on Judaics as a “Holocaust,” and in this context the neologism was imposed as the standard against which all skeptics are now forever measured and judged.

But this measurement is on a scale devised by bigoted Orwellian thought police like Deborah Lipstadt. It is not a reflection of precision historiography, but of hysteria and megalomania. If Sobran flunks  Zionism’s rigged test of what makes a man a non-Nazi, it is only because the whole argument is as stage-managed as Goldberg’s own denial of the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians and Lebanese.

I have yet to see a  New York Times obituary for a prominent Israeli apologist in which the deceased was described either as a “denier” of or a “skeptic” toward the fact of Israeli mass murder in Deir Yassin in 1948, Beirut in August of 1982 or Gaza in December of 2008 and January of 2009. Denying Israeli slaughter doesn’t have a special name or category and does not register as an offense against morals in the establishment media of the West.

Goldberg and his network exhibit the familiar totalitarian, Talmudic mentality: they desire to micro-manage every detail of how we perceive Joseph Sobran and how his memory is presented. If the portrayal is not sufficiently debased, they will proceed to dishonor the dead man themselves, in the name of that irresistible shibboleth, fighting Nazism. Their own Nazi-Zionism cannot be an issue, of course; any more than Jeffrey “Dr. Goebbels” Goldberg has been held accountable for his Big Lie about Saddam and Al Qaeda, which helped frog-march America into war with Iraq. He is still a well paid, high profile journalist on the national scene.

Goldberg can lie us into a calamitous war and still lecture us on the supposed venality of Sobran, who lost his position as senior editor of National Review magazine because he would not lie.

Jeff, you’re not fit to shine Joe’s shoes, much less weigh him in the balance of your twisted, dictatorial version of history, to which all must conform or forfeit their reputation.

Hoffman edits Revisionist History newsletter. He writes from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

The Death of a ‘Holocaust Skeptic’

By Jeffrey Goldberg | The Atlantic | Oct. 12, 2010

The death of Joseph Sobran,  far-right columnist more-or-less associated with The National Review, even though the late William F. Buckley found his anti-Semitism semi-intolerable, was marked by an obituary in the Times by William Grimes, who wrote the following strange sentences about his subject:

Mr. Sobran's isolationist views on American foreign policy and Israel became increasingly extreme. He took a skeptical line on the Holocaust and said the Sept. 11 terror attacks were a result of American foreign policy in the Middle East, which he believed that a Jewish lobby directed. Not surprisingly, he spent much of his time defending himself against charges of anti-Semitism.

"Nobody has ever accused me of the slightest personal indecency to a Jew," he said in a speech delivered at a 2002 conference of the Institute for Historical Review. "My chief offense, it appears, has been to insist that the state of Israel has been a costly and treacherous 'ally' to the United States. As of last Sept. 11, I should think that is undeniable. But I have yet to receive a single apology for having been correct." 

Friend-of-Goldblog David Greenberg, the historian, wrote to the public editor of the Times, asking, just exactly, what it means to take "a skeptical line" on the Holocaust? And why would the Times mention the "Institute for Historical Review" without mentioning that it is the country's premier Holocaust denial outfit? Here is the response he received, complete with his name misspelled:

Mr. Greenburg:

Thank you for writing us.

I reached out to Bill McDonald, editor of the obituary pages, reached out to William Grimes, the writer on the piece.  His response is provided below:

**
"I cannot see how describing someone as taking a skeptical line on the Holocaust can be interpreted as anything other than indefensible. He was not a Holocaust denier, precisely, but what he called a Holocaust agnostic. At any rate, both of the reader's suppositions are correct. First,  he did wonder if Hitler had pursued  a policy of genocide. Supposition two also applies, he did not deny that many Jews died, but suspected that the number was exaggerated. Space--the guy had about 300 words' worth of survivors--did not really permit me to go into the details, but the Sobran quote surely gives the flavor."
**

I hope this helps clarify things for you.  It seems that The Times would have liked the opportunity to say more about this, but unfortunately space constraints made it difficult for them to include the whole thing in detail.

Once again, I appreciate you writing and bringing this to our attention.  It is greatly appreciated.

Best,
Joseph Burgess
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

A fairly fatuous reply. Imagine an obituary of a public figure who had denied that World War I had taken place. Or that fifty percent of the Civil War battles we know to have occurred did not, in fact, occur, and that there had been no slavery in the antebellum South. Would the Times describe this person as a  "Civil War skeptic"? Or would it have described him as delusional?

A much better response to this obituary came from Jeet Heer:

The fact is, Sobran did more than "take a skeptical line of the Holocaust." Sobran, to be blunt, became a Nazi fellow-traveler. Most readers of the Times won't know what the Institute for Historical Review is. The name is certainly benign enough. It is in fact an organization devoted to Holocaust denial and other forms of Nazi apologetics. (At a recent talk Mark Weber, director of the Institute, argued that had England made peace with Nazi Germany the result would have been "an Axis-dominated Pax Europa ... [which] would have been prosperous, socially progressive, politically stable, and technologically advanced, with an extensive, continent-wide transportation and communications network, conscientious environmental policies, and a comprehensive healthcare system. At the same time, the continent would have remained ethnically and culturally European. Large scall immigration of non-Europeans would have been unthinkable.")

Leaving aside the issue of Holocaust denial, anyone who takes the time to read Sobran's writing will immediately notice that he shared many of the ideas of the European far right from the early 20th century, in particular the belief that Jews are an alien, nearly monolithic and subversive force whose main goal is to destroy Western Civilization. I usually avoid emotive language but there really was a Nazi thread in Sobran's thinking (combined of course with many other arguably related threads like his defense of the Confederacy, his anti-feminism, and his belief in all sorts of conspiracy theories).

***

Read More