archives / news / bookstore
by Michael A. Hoffman II
The following is a response to "Jewish Power, Jewish Peril," an article about Michael Hoffman written by Christopher Hitchens, published in the September, 2002 issue of "Vanity Fair" magazine, pp. 196 and 198
SINCE THE SEPT. 11 ATTACKS, Christopher Hitchens has exhibited a bizarre jingoist malady, in addition to his congenital afflictions, seeming more like Victor Davis Hanson with each passing day. In "Jewish Power, Jewish Peril," (Vanity Fair, September 2002), Hitchens has penned a farrago about the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and fiendish journalists in the Arab and Muslim world who publicize it in their campaign against the Holy People. Vanity Fair illustrates Hitchens' glossolalia with centerpiece photos of two pages from a vintage issue of this writer's revisionist history newsletter, the "One Honest Man vs. the Punks of ZOG" issue from 1989. Here is what I wrote and what Hitchens cannot forget, even thirteen years later:
The tempest over the Ayatollah Khomeni's assassination order against anti-Islamic author Salman Rushdie displays the corruption and depravity of the West's intellectual elite. Gas bags like Christopher Hitchens and Pete Hamill pontificate at the top of their lungs about their absolute fidelity to freedom of the press.
..Hitchens told a meeting of consciences-on-their-sleeves NY intelligentsia that "Where books are burned, men will be burned." Writing in the NY Times, Hitchens declared himself for "the absolute right of free expression and inquiry..." Norman Podhoretz, chief apologist for Zionist zealots who have bombed and censored "holocaust" revisionists, wrote, "It is horrible that Rushdie's life should be in danger."
The worst incident of dissident books deliberately burned by religious fanatics occurred on July 4, 1984 in Torrance, California at the offices of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR). Over $400,000 worth of revisionist history books--many of them questioning the atrocity propaganda of the "Nazi Holocaust"--were torched by professional arsonists using a highly sophisticated accelerant. The FBI barely investigated this incredible assault on free thought and press. The media have not publicized it and the Hitchens's of the world have not breathed one word against it in print.
In the fall of 1984, journalist Bradley Smith and this writer confronted the National Writer's Union in New York City, with a demand that they pass a resolution condemning one of the greatest book-burnings in Western history. Not a single one of the yuppie snobs in attendance, including Hitchens' (then) pal and fellow Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn, uttered a word of protest. Jonathan Kwitny, another professional conscience-of-America, dismissed the burning of the IHR...as a "local matter" of interest to people in Southern California only.
Where are these blowhards when Ernst Zundel's home is bombed because he published the pamphlet "Did Six Million Really Die?" Where are they when he is put through two heresy trials for the sole crime of publishing a book?...Where are they when researcher Ditlieb Felderer is imprisoned for six months in Sweden for publishing satires of Judaism...when Francois Duprat, a "holocaust" revisionist school teacher is killed in a car bombing in France...when the Canadian Northwest Mounted Police enter an Alberta College library and remove two copies of a book questioning Nazi gas chambers?
We know where they are: they are on the side of the Jewish fanatics and mystagogues like Wiesel, Podhoretz and Cotler. They have condoned the burning, bombing and jailing of revisionist authors and their publishers...when Leon Weiseltier of the New Republic cited book-burning in perspective, his reference was to the German past, content to pass over the burning of thousands of books just five years ago in California...Though Hitchens and the others throw a pose as passionately committed avatars of human inquiry and rights, they are in fact callow functionaries in the propaganda apparatus of the Establishment, which can tolerate every heresy but the one that dares to blaspheme against the holy people...
Only rank hypocrites who insult Shelley and Voltaire by citing them in this one-dimensional rights campaign, would proclaim their free press absolutism from the housetops and then slink away into their hipster enclaves when the spectre of "holocaust" revisionist writers censored, attacked, prosecuted and murdered is raised.
Hitchens, Podhoretz, Kwitny, Mailer, Hamill, Sontag, Cockburn and the rest of the poseur elite are not fit to kiss the feet of the Ayatollah Khomeni. At least the leader of Iran is an honest man who makes no secret of his hatreds and fears and does not scruple to project an image at variance with his convictions. Not so Hitchens and Kwitny and Co. They quote the West's great anti-Zionist freedom-fighters (Voltaire loathed Judaism and labeled its adherents as history's most "impertinent liars"), the better to strut their tousle-haired "Romantic-poet-revolutionary" masquerade across the polished stages of college auditoriums and Manhattan symposia.
...And this is why Khomeni was correct to call Rushdie a mercenary. Write a book mocking Islam, make a movie lying about a Christ and you get your mug in the papers, your name in the pantheon...Write a book or make a film--as I have learned--telling the truth about Judaism or mocking its lampshades and bars of soap holohoax hallucinations, and news of the homicide threats against you won't even make it into the local town gazette. You'll lose your job and the only establishment paper your name will appear in will be the blotter at the jail or the morgue.
The preceding is an excerpt from "One Honest Man vs. The Punks of ZOG," by Michael A. Hoffman II, the "pamphlet" Hitchens purports to describe in the September, 2002 edition of Vanity Fair magazine:
"..on my shelf is an American Nazi pamphlet, denouncing the 'Zionist Occupation Government' (or 'ZOG') that covertly rules these United States. This illiterate screed isn't just a joke: it comes from the same swamp as those who murdered the Jewish radio host Alan Berg in Denver in 1984, and ultimately from the same mind-set that produced the atrocity in Oklahoma City. In these hate-clotted pages, I am -- for the first and only time in my life -- listed with both Henry Kissinger and Norman Podhoretz as a member of the Jewish/Zionist conspiracy."
Alas for Hitchens, the factor that causes him to be lumped with other Brahmins of the kosher Overclass like Podhoretz (I never mentioned Kissinger in this connection, Hitchens is lying about that), is the fact that he shares their delusional taxonomy. Anyone who defends the rights of society's authentic outlaws becomes, through the Zionist-in-Wonderland looking glass: a Nazi...an illiterate...a murderer of Jewish radio hosts...hate-clotted...
This is the stuff of Podhoretz and Franklin Graham and Limbaugh and a legion of other Israel-first dregs, about whom the snooty Hitchens imagines himself superior. But in fact, they all share a mindset in one fundamental area. They all spout the same, formulaic phantasmagoria about those who refuse to march to the beat of the Judaic war drum. I wrote an essay decrying the inquisition against revisionist writers and publishers, and Vanity Fair and Hitchens turn it into an "American Nazi" pamphlet. This is the sort of lethal falsification that is so infuritating, and which leads to so vast a credibility gap between what the liberal caste supposedly advocates (intellectual honesty and reason), and what they actually represent: a fanatically occluding partisanship that cannot concede an iota of intelligence or humanity to their opposition.
But Hitchens has smeared and fascist-baited the wrong pigeon this time. I don't fit so neatly into the handy little media stereotype he has fabricated for the benefit of the new breed of imperialist cognoscenti who require an anti-semite-of-the-week to sneer at. I haven't shot at any radio hosts, Jewish or otherwise, but twenty years ago this autumn, Noam Chomsky and Alfred Lilienthal spoke and wrote on behalf of this radio host when I was fired for broadcasting the program "Zionism, Racism and the Beirut Massacre" on a New York radio station.
Then there was the riot which peaceful and saintly Jewish persons staged at the cable channel in New York where my interviews with revisionist historians were televised. One of my books, "The Great Holocaust Trial," is banned by the government of Canada and seized at the border and from the mails. Just recently the noble terrorists at the Jewish "Defense" League placed me on their hit list. Shucks, I can't even be blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing. I have written extensively on the use of neo-Nazis by U.S. intelligence services in staging the Oklahoma bombing for the benefit of the further growth of the Federal Leviathan:
"Is it any wonder that many neo-Nazis, Klansmen and militia are, in all but name, employees, dupes and agents of a Federal government which stage manages their 'extremist movement' as a shadow phenomena absolutely necessary to the establishment of a Soviet America? The government should name a Federal building after Timothy McVeigh and his network of accomplices, in honor of the massive expansion of the police state which their actions helped Big Brother obtain." (Hoffman, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare 2001, p. 193).
In a photo spread on p. 198, the editors of Vanity Fair repeat Hitchens' libel that I am the author of an "American Nazi" pamphlet. In fact I am on record as a committed anti-Nazi. In "The Great Holocaust Trial" I wrote: "To endorse the fight for truth and justice is not tantamount to an endorsement of the criminal Hitler or his totalitarian movement...The Nazi system was suited to an ant-hill comprised of servants, lackeys and toadys automatically obeying 'supreme leaders' whose vision was corrupted by the mindless adulation they commanded" ("The Great Holocaust Trial," pp. 135 & 136).
The marginal, the unpopular and the truly radical can be stigmatized with the Nazi libel without the least concern for fact-checking or verification of any kind. Hitchens and his reckless accomplices on the editorial staff of Vanity Fair are apparently "evidence proof." My libel attorney, however, wonders if they are damage proof as well.
Hitchens distracts his readers with tales of troglodyte Arabs peddling Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion forgeries in backward Middle Eastern media. Hitchens has a convenient memory, though. He "forgot" to mention that the Muslims of Iran have offered sanctuary to persecuted revisionist intellectuals such as Jurgen Graf and Frederick Toben, who are facing imprisonment in Germany and Switzerland due to their having published studies casting doubt on certain official accounts of WWII. Furthermore, Hitchens fails to credit the superb reporting by Al-Jazeera television of Israeli war crimes, which both the United Nations and the journalists of the West investigate and report at their peril.
From Hitchens' vantage, it is preferable to frame the complex issue of Jihad vs. McWorld in terms of the Protocols of Zion, that quaint old Model T of classical "anti-semitism," which helps to cast the contemporary dramatis personae in simplistic and familiar roles, which the herd at Starbucks can recognize and hiss mindlessly on cue. He writes:
"Nativist and Christian though that 1989 pamphlet is, it was written partly in praise of the Ayatollah Khomeini. And the most horrifying recent development on the international scene is the emergence, in the Arab and Muslim world, of the debauched myths and falsifications of medieval Christianity. Saudi Arabian and Egyptian and Palestinian sources, some of them official, have been circulating The Protocols of the Elders of Zion...updated for the modern world via the reactionary secret police of the Russian czars and the publishers of Mein Kampf..Here again we find a version of the same sick joke..."
As in 1989, so in 2002. Hitchens serves up haughty invective against rebels worldwide, whose principled protest against Israeli mass murder and the racist Talmudic ideology that sustains it, is alleged to be "the same sick joke" which polluted the Czar and the pages of Mein Kampf. That this virtual Hitchens cartoon can find acceptance as meaningful analysis in the pages of Vanity Fair, is one more testimony to the depth of delusion gripping America's intelligentsia as they prepare to march on Baghdad with fire and sword.
Here is a challenge for His Eminence: let Hitchens share the stage with this "illiterate" at some western venue of his choosing --Berkeley, Boulder, Portland, Eugene, Missoula-- and we'll debate the issue of "Jewish Power, Jewish Peril." Surely a wordsmith of Hitchens' august stature would make quick work of someone of my diminished capacity. Might Sir Christopher deign to engage in an encounter so unscripted, without benefit of the protections afforded his reputation by his media bully pulpit? Or will he choose to remain a rank hypocrite and a punk of ZOG?
The following rejoinder emanates from Hitchens. We did not receive it from Hitchens directly (aristocrats don't deign to post missives to churls), but second-hand from one of his self-described "fans," identified only as "Peter K." The writing which "Peter" conveyed bears tell-tale marks of the deceit, distortion and libel published by Vanity Fair, so it is safe to conclude that it is from the pen of Sir Christopher. Hoffman's reply follows it.
From Hitchens' factotum, Peter K: August 29, 2002. Dear Mr. Hoffman, Hitchens has responded to your response to his Vanity Fair article and would like it placed somewhere where your readers could view it. If you put it up on your site, I'll put up the link to your response on the fansite I run so that Hitchens fans can see what you have written in response to his VF piece. It only seems fair. Regards, Peter
If you can gazette the following in such a way that Hoffman and his people have to see it and perhaps reprint it: I'll probably regret doing this, but I want Mr Hoffman to know that I did eventually see his diatribe. I also would like him to know that I was pleased to see I had drawn blood.
He may want to reject the idea that he is a deranged bigot and a Nazi sympathiser, but to announce that the United States is run by "Zog", a secret Jewish cabal, is to employ the language of the Aryan Nations. To assert that Timothy McVeigh was a tool of those seeking to build a "Soviet America" is admittedly more like paranoia, because the ruling-class project of replacing a Zionist America with a Communist one (and all in secret) just seems too strenuous for the normal mind. However, if such hypotheses are allowed, may not Mr Hoffman be all unwittingly an agent of America's brownshirts?
There are of course bound to be contradictions in this hideous design. Not many native Nazis are so keen on the Ayatollah; keen enough in fact to call him "an honest man who makes no secret of his hatreds and fears and does not scruple to project an image at variance with his convictions." As long as Hoffman can keep writing like that, he will be confused enough to forget that his own pamphlet did indeed mention Henry Kissinger.
I scorn to say it as if I owe Hoffman an explanation, but he must sometimes wonder what sinister plot lies behind my articles in defense of David Irving's right to publish, let alone my many columns and speeches in support of the Palestinians.
And no wonder he twitches and foams a bit when I cite the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. He has perhaps also forgotten that his original pamphlet contained the following offering to readers: "RARE JUDAICA: The Hole In The Sheet. By Evelyn Kaye. Out of print. Heavily suppressed. Greatest in-house indictment since the Protocols."
A challenge to a no-holds-barred debate, anywhere, anytime? Gosh. I can't refuse that. If his group can meet my usual fee, I'm ready.
by Michael A. Hoffman II
Hitchens has softened his original libel as published in Vanity Fair. I am no longer a Nazi (the author of an "American Nazi" pamphlet); I have instead been promoted to "Nazi sympathizer." A fresh pejorative is also added, "deranged bigot." We dismiss the charge of derangement with one swat: Hitchens wouldn't take time from a busy schedule of rehabilitating neo-con militarism and imperialism to rejoin the lucubrations of the "deranged."
Hitchens tosses the "bigot" insult because it's part of the standard lexicon for degrading dissenters against the Holy People. Hitchens is emboldened to wield it because I am a demon, without any rights or humanity that need concern him or his audience. This is itself bigotry, though of a methodical rather than a "deranged" character.
Now to the momentous evidence that Hitchens marshals to demonstrate that, in spite of my repeated, published denunciations and execration of Hitler and the Nazi party, I am in fact some species of Nazi ("agent, author" or at the very least,"sympathizer"). Here is the jaw-dropping proof: I employ the term "Zionist Occupation Government," or ZOG, which is also employed by Aryan Nations. Voila, guilt by association; ample proof for any Stalinist court and any glossy, patrician New York magazine.
What does the use of "ZOG" unmistakably denote? Why, a "secret Jewish cabal" of course! By the same token, when the French Resistance called the Vichy government, a "Nazi Occupation Government" they were denoting belief in a "secret German cabal," and when the Palestinians refer to an Israeli Occupation, this too is an allusion to the "secret Jewish cabal" and renders the Palestinians "Nazi sympathizers" as well.
There is a Zionist Occupation Government in Washington, D.C. It would not appear to be much of a secret, however and it would not seem Nazi to say so, in view of the fact that even the right wing Israeli journalist Avinoam Bar-Yosef, writing in Ma'ariv (Sept. 2, 1994), in a report headlined, "The Jews Who Run Clinton's Cabinet," argued that Americans of that era were governed by "warm Jews." If Hitchens wants to advance the notion that the Occupation has been lifted under Sharon's Republican Stepin' Fetchit, he should make his case, rather than smearing this writer with the Nazi libel on the flimsy and frankly ridiculous basis of my use of three words.
Hitchens invokes more buzz words ("paranoia...brownshirts") and reduces the case about the patsy Tim McVeigh, which I made at length in a book published last year, to an absurd caricature, suggesting that I claim that the oligarchy seeks to replace a Zionist America with a Soviet one. But even a cursory examination of the history of the founding and early years of the Israeli state will show that "Zionist" and "Soviet" are not necessarily antipodes; a fact which "just seems too strenuous for the normal mind." It might be too strenuous for Hitchens' mind, but the police state which Tweedledee Clinton and his Tweedledum successor, the protector of his pardon records, have been constructing on the ruins of the Constitution, have patent parallels with the Soviet model of state tyranny, and such parallels are not negated because Zionists (defined here not by ethnicity but by ideology), abound in the administrations of both. Hitchens adduces that these parallels, if allowed, make "Hoffman...(an)... unwitting...agent of America's brownshirts..."
In his next paragraph, Hitchens demotes me from "unwitting agent" to the full-strength "Nazi" stigma again, but of a unique sort. I am that rare "native Nazi" who is keen on the Ayatollah (Khomeni). The details and context of my writing in this regard ("One Honest Man vs. the Punks of ZOG"), are reduced to the cheapest fascist-baiting shot Hitchens can summon. Hitchens suppresses the fact that in my essay I refer to Khomeni as an "enemy," a foe who is, however, distinguished by an integrity not found in the hypocritical punks of ZOG who championed Rushdie, the Asian author who blasphemed Mohammed and was placed under a fatwa, while ignoring dissident Canadian and European authors who blasphemed Holocaustianity and earned a de facto Zionist fatwa which, in 1989, was a more tightly suppressed matter than today, when the announcement on her 100th birthday, of a German criminal investigation of Leni Riefenstahl for "holocaust denial" is gleefully trumpeted by the NY Times.
Hitches wrote: "As long as Hoffman can keep writing like that, he will be confused enough to forget that his own pamphlet did indeed mention Henry Kissinger." Yes, I mentioned Kissinger in my newsletter. I mentioned many people in it. But it is a lie to claim, as Hitchens did in Vanity Fair, that I made Hitchens in any way an ally of Kissinger. He compounds the mendacity by pretending I deny mentioning Kissinger. The deliberate generation of this sort of confusion to conceal a prevarication is a lawyer's trick. Hitchens lied and Vanity Fair showcased his lie in a center-spread accompanied by a photo of my newsletter, the better to enhance Hitchens' portrayal of this writer as a "Nazi" and an "illiterate." It was expected that the fashionable brie-and-Chardonnay crowd would laugh and sneer at the expense of the reputation of a backwoods bigot, ensuring subscription renewals and commerce for the magazine's purveyors of perfume and haute couture. It was Hitchens who afforded them this august and ennobling service.
Hitchens states: Hoffman "must sometimes wonder what sinister plot lies behind my articles in defense of David Irving's right to publish, let alone my many columns and speeches in support of the Palestinians."
This is not due to any "sinister plot" but rather to Hitchens' own reckless and incompetent modus operandi. Regarding me with about the same esteem an entomologist has for the dung beetle, Hitchens had Vanity Fair exhume a 1989 essay of mine and present it to the world as fully representative of my views in 2002. Hitchens did not trouble to locate my e-mail address (a Herculean task entailing typing the name Michael A. Hoffman II into a search engine), to query me concerning what I've been thinking and writing since 1989, and how I may have advanced or regressed. If he had accorded me such a courtesy, which is pro forma practice in even sub-collegiate journalism, I might have faxed him a newsletter that I wrote ten years after the publication of "Punks of ZOG," in which I extended Hitchens a qualified kudos for the positive things he had written about David Irving. But Hitchens made no such contact.
Had Hitchens bothered to communicate with the target of his column, he might have offered his readership not another cretin from a sideshow American boondocks, but a living, breathing, fiercely independent iconoclast who defies labels and who might conceivably deserve some credit for having pricked Hitchens' conscience sufficiently over the years since 1989 to inspire him to a limited defense of World War Two revisionist Irving.
But nothing so human or spontaneous transpired. Instead, I am to be made grist for the mill, as a jerk so obstinate and out-of-touch that I have failed to apprehend or acknowledge Hitchens' change of heart toward persecuted revisionist authors. But alas, the heart, or rather the coat of this fellow has turned once again. He imagines himself a defender of the massacred Palestinians even as he has become one of the chief spokesmen for the Israeli-American "war on terror," whose object is to blast and bomb the Palestinian "Amalek" into thralldom or, as federal judgeship candidate Nathan Lewin puts it,"total eradication." That the chief terrorist in the world today is the Great Satan, the U.S. government, as Khomeni pronounced with an exquisite candor, which supplies the Apaches and the D-9 bulldozers which almost weekly rocket and bury Palestinians and their dreams, is a fact lost on that exemplary "supporter of the Palestinians," Christopher Hitchens.
Hitchens's penultimate salvo: "And no wonder he twitches and foams a bit when I cite the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. He has perhaps also forgotten that his original pamphlet contained the following offering to readers: "RARE JUDAICA: The Hole In The Sheet. By Evelyn Kaye. Out of print. Heavily suppressed. Greatest in-house indictment since the Protocols."
We have found great utility in this book by Evelyn Kaye; it's a pity Hitchens doesn't consult it and pen a redressment of the perfectly respectable "foam" about Islam as an "evil religion." He will find that Judaism also fits that bill of indictment, though few would dare say so.
Hitchens and Vanity Fair dusted off the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion from the department of antiquities. They made it the axis of Hitchens' emulation of the defamation leagues and Judaic think-tanks which place those who take a principled stand against Zionism, Judaism or Holocaustianity in a category of hereditary dementia fathered by the Czar, Mein Kampf and Henry Ford. As if resistance to Zionist supremacy and Israeli tyranny has, as an inherent component of its raison d'etre, an antecedent in some swamp of monarchial or fascist or corporate tyranny. Here is the guilt-by-association tar baby again, based on the perverse conceit that no one can sincerely fight for freedom and at the same time be an opponent of the state of Israel. According to this view, I despise Sharon not because he's a terrorist who twenty years ago this month carpet-bombed Beirut's schools, hospitals and apartment houses, but because my daily perusal of the Protocols has made a culprit out of someone who is, as our new King George has opined, "a man of peace." This is the logic of the Likud madhouse, which Hitchens and the editors of Vanity Fair shamelessly aid and abet.
When I point to the hopeless inadequacy of such misrepresentation in contributing to genuine understanding of the motives of the authentic rebels of our time, all Hitchens can offer by way of salient counter-point is one line in an advertisement in my 1989 newsletter suggesting that the Protocols contained "in-house" information. The Protocols were, it seems likely, a forgery, but many such secret police conspiracies (presumably it is permissible to propose a conspiracy when the putative victims are Jewish), are not always seamless in this regard. In some instances, a bit of genuine revelation may be mixed with the fantasy to make the cheat more convincing.
In the concluding lines of his rejoinder, Hitchens' entertains the possibility of accepting my challenge to debate, if Hitchens is sufficiently remunerated. Surely there is an enterprising "patriot" somewhere in Limbaugh-land who would fund the parsimonious Hitchens' encounter with the subversive Hoffman, in the course of which I would endeavor to educate Sir Christopher in matters of realpolitik and history, and prick a conscience that now slumbers at the bottom of the belly of the beast.
Our e-mail is running 3 to 1 contra Hitchens. Here is a representative sample
I love your gutting of small fry Hitchens. Others do too.
Serge Thion, France
(Monsieur Thion is one of the leading French intellectuals and the man who brought Faurisson to the attention of Chomsky).
Hitchens' answer to you was pusillanimous and showed his true interest, like all good Zionists, reduces down to the almighty buck. Even in defense of his own dishonor, he must receive his thirty pieces of silver, first. What a cheap bastard. Your rejoinder was excellent! Showing far superior scholarship, writing abilities and courage. You are a real Warrior for the Light. He's an over-priced pawn of ZOG and his own warped ego.
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
Thank you for a fine piece of writing in your response to Mr. Hitchens of Vanity Fair ilk. Actually it was quite humorous. You have such facility with the English language that good old Christopher should learn another language... Many thanks for your work and your desire to make known that which is hidden in darkness.
Sincerely, Brian B.
Congratulations on out-smarting Hitchens. You have revealed him to be a humorless, gullible buffoon. He was completely taken in by your excellent parody of one of those fatally unbalanced types that color the outer reaches of the web with overcooked theories about Jewish conspiracies. The parody, I might respectfully say, is terrific: the verbal incontinence, the hilariously overwrought prose ("a conscience that slumbers at the bottom of the belly of the beast" was really excellent - I mean, not just in the belly, but right at the bottom!), the poignantly inflated self-evaluation (one of "the authentic rebels of our time"...yes!), the relentless tone of peeved indignation.
And the author photo of "Hoffman" is a masterstroke. Where did you get it from? It is perfect - that cadaverous face, the self-basting hairstyle, the attempt at smirking self-possession betrayed by the traces of terror behind the eyes (I imagine he was bullied at school). All combine to give the impression of the youngest son of a minor aristocratic family in 1930s England, talentless and unloved, seeking to make his faint mark in the world by having "controversial" political views. Which is of course, historically apt.
I look forward to hearing more from your "Mr Hoffman"!
Yours with gratitude
Copyright©1996-2004 by revisionisthistory.org