Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Shimon Peres and a forgotten massacre

Shimon Peres and the Massacre of Palestinians at Tel al-Zaatar 

By Michael Hoffman

This is one of those footnotes to history that often get “lot in the shuffle” because we are referring to the history of holocausts (plural). The holocaust against the Palestinians, of which the massacre at Tel al-Zaatar refugee camp in Lebanon in 1976 is a part, is not regarded as worthy of memorialization as it would be if westerners or Zionists had been the victims; nor are the perpetrators hunted, prosecuted or branded war criminals. A case in point is Shimon Peres (1923-2016), now being eulogized in the mainstream media as an Israeli saint.

Tel al-Zaatar was established in northeast Beirut in 1949 on an area of only one square kilometer, after the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians known as the Nakba

In August 1976, while Shimon Peres was Israeli Minister of Defense, Tel al-Zaatar was overrun after a long siege. Thousands of Palestinians were massacred by right-wing Phalange forces using Israeli arms, Israeli armored personnel carriers and tanks, with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) markings. Furthermore, the IDF was operating regularly in southern Lebanon in conjunction with Phalange militia. 

In 1976 Peres made four trips to Lebanon between late May and August, during which time considerable transfers of tanks, vehicles, artillery, and other military equipment had been made by Peres to the Fascist Phalange, who were known to desire the mass murder of Palestinians. 

While in office Ariel Sharon hinted that under Peres, Israeli Army officers had helped to personally facilitate the Tel al-Zaatar atrocity. 

The camp was besieged for 52 consecutive days. Shells and bullets fired by Lebanese militias killed thousands of the refugees. The Palestine Information Center estimates that 4,280 died and thousands were injured in the mass killings, which ended on August 12, 1976. 

Later, bulldozers demolished the whole camp, burying every part of it, in order to blot out the memory of a massacre of the wretched of the earth.  The New York Times, in its fawning obituary for Mr. Peres written by Marilyn Berger, has not a word for the ghosts of Tel al-Zaatar.

Michael Hoffman is the author of The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians, soon to be available as an Amazon Kindle digital book.

More information on the war crimes of Peres is here
_____________


Hoffman on WRLA radio Oct. 1

I’ll be on the radio this Saturday speaking about "They Were White and They Were Slaves,” i.e. the enslavement of white people in Early America (most whites in bondage in the 17th century were not "indentured servants”).

Here are the details:

Michael Hoffman on WRLA 1490 AM
in Lanett, Alabama (between LaGrange, Georgia and Auburn, Alabama)

Saturday, October 1, from 1:00 to 2:30 pm Eastern time

Listeners outside the radio’s range can hear the program online via http://tunein.com/radio/WRLA-1490-s28379/

You can also listen on your cell phone with the WRLA app, which is available from the Apple Store or Google Play

_________________

Friday, September 09, 2016

Read chapters from banned books free of charge!

Read chapters from Michael Hoffman’s revisionist history books free of charge

Thanks to donations from generous benefactors we are gradually converting all of our books to the Amazon “Kindle” digital book format, which allows people throughout the world to read the first chapter of our volumes free of charge. In this way they acquaint themselves with our thesis, discover that it is credible and scholarly — and challenging to the prevailing consensus— and free of the “hate” of which our enemies falsely accuse us. This is a huge educational and promotional tool with tremendous potential for educating millions of people!

The censorship of our books and the ban on advertisements for them has in the past allowed the adversaries of truth to misrepresent our work and intimidate potential readers. With the Kindle we smash that obscurantist censorship at one blow!


With the free book previews at the links below, you can read several pages from our books with just one click – no need for you to sign in to Amazon or install an app. Give it a try:

Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not
_________

They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America
_________

Judaism’s Strange Gods
_________

Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit
_________

We are striving to convert all of our books to the digital Kindle format. With your generous assistance we can do it! 

Books remaining to be converted to digital:

By Michael Hoffman:

Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare

The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic

The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians

The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (not yet published)

By others:

The Talmud Tested (Dr. Alexander McCaul with an introduction by M. Hoffman)

The Traditions of the Jews (Prof. Johann Andreas Eisenmenger with an introduction by M. Hoffman)

History of Money and Usury in America (Daniel Krynicki)

Each conversion costs from a few hundred to several hundred dollars each, depending on the length and layout of the book.

With faith in God and the assistance of our friends and benefactors, we are hopefully striving to win hearts and minds across the globe. We will not abandon the field of combat to the enemies of truth. People are starved for the life-changing, enlightening and empowering facts and information we have to offer.
_________

Thursday, September 08, 2016

A charlatan’s defense of his Hollywood screenplay

David Hare on writing nothing but the truth about a Holocaust denier 

The Guardian newspaper (UK) • Sept. 3, 2016 


By David Hare

In 2000 historian David Irving sued author Deborah Lipstadt for her description of him as a Holocaust denier. As his screen version comes to the cinema, David Hare explains why the trial was a triumph of free speech (Lipstadt's life work is a witch-hunting triumph for the abridgment of speech and the smearing of gas chamber doubters as morally defective cretins unworthy of a decent reputation or a good job. After the trial in 2000, homicidal gas chamber sceptic Ernst Zündel was imprisoned for a total of seven years in Canadian and German jails. Where's the "triumph of free speech" in that? Scientist Germar Rudolf was also imprisoned, and dozens of others Michael Hoffman)

In 2010 I was first approached by the BBC and by Participant Media to adapt Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial for the screen. My first reaction was one of extreme reluctance. I have no taste for Holocaust movies. It seems both offensive and clumsy to add an extra layer of fiction to suffering which demands no gratuitous intervention. It jars. Faced with the immensity of what happened, sober reportage and direct testimony have nearly always been the most powerful approach. In the Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, I had noticed that all the photography, however marginal and inevitably however incomplete, had a shock and impact lacking in the rather contrived and uninteresting art.

It was a considerable relief on reading the book to find that although the Holocaust was its governing subject, there was no need for it to be visually recreated. In 2000 the British historian David Irving, whose writing had frequently offered a sympathetic account of the second world war from the Nazi point of view, had sued Lipstadt in the high court in London, claiming that her description of him as a denier in her previous book Denying the Holocaust had done damage to his reputation. In English courts at the time, the burden of proof in any libel case lay not with the accuser but with the defendant. In the United States it was the litigant’s job to prove the untruth of the alleged libel. But in the United Kingdom it was up to the defendant to prove its truth. It was in that context that London was Irving’s chosen venue. He no doubt thought it would make his legal action easier. All at once, an Atlanta academic was to find herself with the unenviable task of marshalling conclusive scientific proof for the attempted extermination of the European Jews over 50 years earlier. 

There were many interesting features to the case – not least the condescension of some dubious parts of the British academic community to an upstart American – but three aspects appealed to me above all. First, there was a technical script-writing challenge. In conventional American pictures, the role of the individual is wholeheartedly celebrated. In a typical studio film, even one as good as Erin Brockovich, there is always an obvious injustice which is corrected by an inarticulate person suddenly being given the chance to find their voice. The tradition goes back to Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda and beyond. But what was unusual about Lipstadt’s experience was that she was an already articulate and powerfully intelligent woman who was ordered by her own defence team not to give evidence. The decision was made that her testimony would give Irving, conducting his own case, the opportunity to switch the focus of the trial from what it should properly be about – the examination of how his antisemitism infected his honesty – to an attack on something entirely irrelevant: the reliability in the witness box of Lipstadt’s instant capacity to command every scattergun detail of history.

It was quite a professional undertaking to make drama out of such a complete and painful act of self-denial. One thing for sure: we would not be offering a boilerplate Hollywood narrative. At great expense to her own peace of mind, Lipstadt had agreed to be silenced. The fascination of the film would lie with the personal cost of that choice. What were the implications for someone who, having been brought up to believe in the unique power of the individual, discovered instead the far subtler joys of teamwork? 

The book she had written turned out to be her complete defense, and the verdict vindicated that book in almost every detail. But in order to effect that defense she had to trust the judgment of two other people from a country and a bizarre legal system different from her own – her Scottish barrister Richard Rampton and her English solicitor Anthony Julius. Rampton arrived fresh from defending McDonald’s in the McLibel case, the longest trial in English legal history. Julius had handled Princess Diana’s divorce.

Second, it was clear from the start that this film would be a defence of historical truth. It would be arguing that although historians have the right to interpret facts differently, they do not have the right knowingly to misrepresent those facts. But if such integrity was necessary for historians, then it surely had to apply to screenwriters too. If I planned to offer an account of the trial and of Irving’s behaviour, I would enjoy none of the film writer’s usual licence to speculate or invent. From the trial itself there were 32 days of transcript, which took me weeks to read thoroughly. Not only would I refuse to write scenes which offered any hokey psychological explanation for Irving’s character outside the court, I would also be bound to stick rigidly to the exact words used inside it. I could not allow any neo-fascist critic later to claim that I had re-written the testimony. (Really, Mr. Hare, your critics are all neo-fascists? Here we see through the boasting of Mr. Hare about his fairness. He is so twisted in his partisanship that he blackens the reputation of any potential critic with a fascist-baiting smear. He is demonizing his opposition. Is this not an appalling act of misrepresentation?  M. Hoffman)

Nor did I want to. The trial scenes are verbatim. To say that such fidelity represented an almost impossible dramatic difficulty – this trial, like any other, was often extremely boring – would be to understate. At times, I would beat my head, wondering why real-life characters couldn’t put things in ways which more pithily expressed their purposes.

But it was for a third overriding reason that I came to feel that a film of Lipstadt’s fascinating book cried out to be made. In an internet age it is, at first glance, democratic to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That is surely true. It is however a fatal step to then claim that all opinions are equal. Some opinions are backed by fact. Others are not. And those that are not backed by fact are worth considerably less than those that are. 

A few clubby English historians (this a reference, most notably, to Sir John Keegan  M. Hoffman) had always indulged Irving on the grounds that although he was evidently soft on Hitler, he was nevertheless a master of his documents. These admirers were ready to step forward and attack Lipstadt’s character and her success in the courts on the grounds that it was likely to make others historians more cautious, and thereby to inhibit freedom of speech.

But far from being an attack on freedom of speech, Lipstadt’s defense turned out to be its powerful triumph. Freedom of speech may include freedom deliberately to lie. But it also includes the right to be called out on your lying. (Revisionists are not allowed to  "call out the lying about homicidal gas chambers. This is a right exercised without fear of losing one's employment and reputation [and in Canada & Europe one's freedom], only by those who call revisionists and dissidents liars.  M. Hoffman).

During the early days of the Renaissance, Copernicus and Galileo would have scoffed at the idea that there was any such thing as authority. A sceptical approach to life is a fine thing and one which has powered revolutionary change and high ideals. But a sceptical approach to scientific fact is rather less admirable. (It is exactly the science of Auschwitz upon which revisionists like Robert Faurrison, Carlo Mattogno and Rudolf have concentrated, and which Lipstadt decrees must not be debated. She is the religious fanatic in this case. The revisionists are the Galileos. In 2006 Irving was imprisoned for almost a year in Austria for a WWII history lecture. Lipstadt's screenwriter doesn't even bother to mention it.  M. Hoffman). 

It is dangerous. As Lipstadt says in my screenplay, certain things are true. Elvis is dead. The icecaps are melting. And the Holocaust did happen. Millions of Jews went to their deaths in camps and open pits in a brutal genocide which was sanctioned and operated by the leaders of the Third Reich. There are some subjects about which two points of view are not equally valid. We are entering, in politics especially, a post-factual era in which it is apparently permissible for public figures to assert things without evidence, and then to justify their assertions by adding “Well, that’s my opinion” – as though that in itself was some kind of justification. It isn’t. And such charlatans need to learn it isn’t. Contemplating the Lipstadt/Irving trial may help them to that end. (End quote)

Read more:

___________


Mr. Hoffmans speech, Lipstadt, Amalek and Irving given at David Irvings Real History Conference,  Labor Day 2001, will be re-released on DVD and audio-CD later this month.
___________

Saturday, September 03, 2016

Israeli legislator vandalizes the New Testament

Israeli legislator vandalizes the New Testament and calls it “garbage” (see below)


Knesset = Israeli parliament • MK = Member of the Knesset
_______________________________

New Testament sent to MKs mailboxes

MK (Member of the Knesset) Michael Ben-Ari (National Union Party) is shown ripping pages out of the New Testament in protest. 

"This is a provocation by church missionaries and there is no doubt that this book and those who sent it belong in the garbage can of history.” 
 Israeli Member of the Knesset Michael Ben-Ari

By Eric Bender
July 17, 2012

Ma'ariv (Hebrew language Israeli newspaper) 

Outrage in the Knesset: MKs from different factions were shocked today to receive in their mail at the Knesset copies of the New Testament Bible. The Christian holy book was sent to all members of the Israeli legislature with a blessing.

The New Testaments were sent by Viktor Kalish, director of the group, "Holy Scripture in Israel," which specializes in distributing Christian religious texts. 

The shipment caused an uproar in the Israeli Knesset and MK Michael Ben Ari of the National Union Party tore the New Testament apart and threw it in the trash.

MK Tzipi Hotovely of the Likud Party announced that the Chairman of the Knesset will prevent the spread of Christian missionary literature in the Knesset: "it is forbidden to deliver to the Knesset missionary materials," she said.



______________________


Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Asking Prof. Lipstadt to prevent YouTube censorship

Asking Deborah Lipstadt to prevent censorship of YouTube video about her labeling David Irving “Amalek

Copy of  e-mail to Prof. Lipstadt


Deborah Lipstadt 
Emory College Department of Religion 
31 August 2016

In the near future we will be placing on YouTube a video of my speech, “Lipstadt, Amalek and Irving,” analyzing the ominous implications of your use of the term “Amalekite” to describe dissident historian David Irving. 

As you may recall, the video of my speech first appeared online via Googles video service. 

On January 27, 2006 you denounced my speech on your blog as a “revolting video attack." After your denunciation  and two days after Mr. Irving was sentenced to prison in Austria for giving a revisionist lecture  my video was banned by Google. 


We call on you now to inform your powerful acolytes in the top echelon of the corporate media that our video should not be censored. Let’s see you pre-empt censorship, in keeping with your stated principles, rather than sanctimoniously decrying it only after speech critical of you has been tyrannically suppressed. 

Yours for Freedom, 
Michael Hoffman 

________________________________________________________________

Editor’s Note: The  Lipstadt, Amalek and Irving video had passed Google’s review process and was approved for broadcast by Google. 

The finding, on the part of Google almost a month after it had been placed online, of a “violation,” can only be due to behind-the-scenes pressure exerted on Google. 

The video had been broadcast from January 24 to Feb. 22, 2006 with, according to Google, 1708 “page views” in that time period.

Regarding this censorship, an in-depth report and analysis of Prof. Lipstadt's damage control stratagem and dissembling will appear in our hard-copy Revisionist History newsletter no. 86, which will be published later in September.

When “Lipstadt, Amalek and Irving” appears online on YouTube, readers of this blog will be notified. 


This vital work is made possible by donations, and the sale of our publications, and CD and DVD recordings.