The Great Divide
Michael Hoffman — Revisionist Review May 14, 2017
Delusion that is so intense it constitutes hallucination is nothing new. When the movie moguls chose to foist upon the public the definitive character assassination of the dissident English historian David Irving with their “Denial” film, it flopped at the box office, despite an A-list cast and top notch production values. But what “Denial” revealed about the insecurities of the “Holocaust” lobby was priceless: despite the image they project of omniscient certainty that the matter of Auschwitz’s homicidal gas chambers is definitively settled, and all who doubt are “deniers,” the movie-makers themselves have their own doubts!
The “Denial” movie is a gem for revisionists because of its admission that so-called “Holocaust survivors” can’t be called to the witness stand in criminal or civil court where there is an astute cross-examiner present, like David Irving in his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, or defense attorney Doug Christie during the 1985 Zundel trial. What does this say about the quality of their “testimony” when it cannot withstand knowledgeable cross-examination? This stunning admission from the movie “Denial” severely undercuts the Holocaustianity which has been elevated to a hallowed position of unassailable Sacred Dogma, which only a lunatic, neo-Nazi or an “anti-Semite” would contradict.
The Six Million kabbalism is only part of a wider epistemology which embraces Charles Fort’s study of the effect of belief in anomalies on humans. Fortean epistemology is not concerned particularly with “solving” the mystery of UFOs or Bigfoot, for example, but in studying the effect of belief in those anomalies on humans who accept them as true.
Reading Charles Fort (especially the last two of his four books) and Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, led me to start to scrutinize the phenomenon of partisan cheerleading for “our side.” About 20 years ago this writer began to examine Right wing myths that were supposedly incumbent on a revisionist to believe. This is an oxymoron of course, since revisionism is not a belief system or a political framework for Left wing or Right wing triumphalism. It is the enemy of dogma and it subjects everything to a new vision (re-vision) based on the discovery of heretofore unknown facts. Asking a revisionist, “Whose side are you on?” ought to be futile. The true revisionist is on the “side” of a forever-digging historiography.
Partisans may agree with that idea in principle, but when the revisionist practices what he preaches they may howl, withdraw support, attack, calumniate or stalk angrily off. This occurred when we took a look at the boatload of Right wing nonsense floated over the past eighty years concerning the English Stuart King Charles I and the Puritan Army Commander Oliver Cromwell. Charles was put forth as an enemy of usury, Judaism and the occult. The Puritans were portrayed as Jew-worshipping pawns who opened the borders of Britain to the hordes of Antichrist for filthy lucres’ sake. I discovered that none of that cartoon was true and that the beneficiaries of the hoax were the partisans of the Church of Rome. The story had been given legs by Archibald Ramsay in The Nameless War and by Hilaire Belloc, a talented prose stylist who is something of a lay saint to conservative Catholics.
Our research (in the newsletter Revisionist History®), turned up the fact that Charles I and his Romanist wife were up to their necks in usury, Judaism and proto-masonic networks; that it would be his son, King Charles II, who first initiated Judaic immigration into England in earnest and not the Puritans, whose Parliament had in fact rebuffed Cromwell. Belloc’s “histories” of the Stuart monarchs are a palimpsest of fraud (or rank incompetence — he wrote hurriedly for money at this point in his career). Belloc himself was a usurer (he loaned at interest to his own family) and his definition of usury was the same defective one that had been modified by the situation ethics of the popes of the 16th century forward. Were these revisionist revelations welcomed? By some, yes. By many, no. I had let “our side” down, wink, wink. Wasn’t I aware that revisionism was just a device for making certain Protestants and most “Jews” look bad? Exposing the errors of “Saint” Belloc was also unforgivable.
What happened to all the high-minded ideals that we cast in the face of our enemies? “Truth at any cost,” no matter whose toes are stepped on? “Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger,” etc. For some people these are slogans that are employed in the war of ideas, nothing more. They believe we must win at any cost, with Machiavellian tactics behind a revisionist mask.
We discovered this again when we found at some cost, that a substantial portion of “Holocaust revisionism” is a project of rehabilitating the reputation of Adolf Hitler in order to have his movement resurrected. Yes, that sounds like a B-movie Hollywood script and when aimed at all revisionists or perhaps even the majority it is probably grossly unfair. But in our experience it is true of at least a substantial minority, maybe nearly half of WWII revisionists.
When we began to research two areas of Hitler’s curriculum vitae that were not as well studied as other aspects of his life, the findings did not bode well for his cult following. We looked at Corporal Hitler in World War I and its aftermath. Of the fact that he was a courageous soldier possessed of reckless disregard for his own life is not something we contest. But of his claim (and it was hardly his alone) that Germany had lost the war because of a Judaic “stab in the back,” there was almost no evidence. They lost the war mainly because they were burdened with the policies of obstinate and obtuse German generals; scapegoating Judaics in this regard was part of the Cryptocracy’s plan to extrude the mass of patriotic, Talmud-despising German Judaics, who identified with German culture and saw themselves as Germans first. The rabbis wanted these German-Judaics destroyed and Hitler was their avenging angel in this regard. After that issue of our newsletter was published many subscriptions were canceled.
More cancellations would follow when we researched and published the first new biography of Gregor Strasser in years. He was the National Socialist anti-usury leader (and master organizer) who was very inconvenient to have on hand after Hitler came to power and proceeded to buttress the very usurious forces he had campaigned against. Gregor Strasser was framed for a non-existent plot against the fuhrer and murdered (Leon Degrelle seconded Hitler’s lies about Gregor). More subscriptions were canceled after those facts were published. Hallucination trumps history not just among “the Jews” and “the Republican neoncons,” but among some of our own people.
To disenchant people of cherished delusions is a lonely vocation. Human nature being what it is, history teaches that people demand enchantment, a word which has come to be associated with love and beauty, but which has no association with truth, without which there is no authentic love or beauty.
Not to worry about us, however. Some of what “history teaches” has been put in suspended animation by this strange era of ours in which the clock on the wall of destiny is at five-minutes-to-midnight, and ticking. As we lost readers who were possessed by the same epistemology as the rabbis (“My-way-or-the-highway”), we kept or even attracted authentic revisionists and information connoisseurs. Thanks to that diehard readership we’re still here.
Which brings us to my book The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome which has just been published. This volume is a study in the laboratory of human delusion where five or more mutually contradictory beliefs are held by the papists; where monk Martin Luther’s Augustinian Superior General is a leader of the Cryptocracy; where the Kabbalah and Talmud are advanced by pontiffs known to consensus history as Judaism’s toughest adversaries, and where the primordial malignity of Pharaonic Egypt becomes the secret religion of the robber Church of Rome, which usurped the genuine Catholic and Apostolic Church of Dante, Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua.
Revisionist history consists in the never-ending enterprise of digging for facts in a cosmos where the original sin of our own subjectivity is forever leading us astray. The resistance to that allure is the task of the revisionist historian.
At its most fundamental level, the division among people is not between Republicans and Democrats; Judaics and gentiles; Protestants, Muslims and Catholics; or blacks and whites or rich and poor. It is between those who seek the truth at all cost, no matter how damaging and disruptive to their own prized and revered beliefs, and those who prefer the comfort of a lie. That, ladies and gentleman, is the great divide.