Tuesday, November 25, 2003

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



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. 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 defence 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?
November 25, 2003