|
August 6th, 2009 | #21 | ||||||
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Quote:
As far as I know Hoffman doesn't read Hebrew (classical or modern), Aramaic, Yiddish or even fluent German so I am yet to understand how he can quote Yiddish sources, for example, accurately unless he's been paying for translations for a long time (or he has a jude friend with a lot of time on his or her hands). Duke is another one who follows a similar strategy, but it is far more obvious in Duke's case that his 'work' is based on very little actual research and until his university publishes his doctoral dissertation (as far as I know they haven't) nobody is going to be able to tell how intellectually valid it is (despite it apparently getting past muster it doesn't mean that its a good piece of work). Hoffman has at the very least done some intellectual work, however flawed it may be, where-as I can tell Duke hasn't particularly (again its a matter of checking his citations, which I have done some spot checking of). Unfortunately most of the best books regarding jews and particularly Judaism are only availabe in French and German with English language material being quite poor in cogent anti-Semitic literature with some important exceptions (such as Hilaire Belloc). Quote:
I'd personally consider Nesta Webster as a valid secondary source if one wished to argue a conspiracy, because her work contains detailed footnotes to original sources as well as a large quantity of secondary sources as well. However that is quite different from Hoffman, because she usually notes where her sources disagree with her and will spend a little time critiquing them as she feels necessary. Comte Leon de Poncins is another example in so far as he was a 'quote miner' who used the quotes for valid discussion of his subject matter without distorting the meaning of the original author (he was cleared of this in a French court at least once after 1945). Quote:
As a slight demonstration of his character in relation to 'Judaism Discovered': Hoffman has made quite a big thing that Amazon removed his book from their store. Hoffman's claim was this was censorship and that the jews were trying to 'stop him getting the truth out' (etc). However this came up on a thread a few months ago here and I decided to look into it. It turns out that Amazon removed Hoffman's book, because Hoffman put an endorsing quote on the cover from a conservative rabbi called Shaul Praver who then complained saying he had never told Hoffman he was a Talmid Chacham (Torah Scholar) and that the email this claim was derived from actually had meant something else and had never used those words. Hoffman was then asked by Amazon to produce the email Praver sent him. If he could produce it and it said what he claimed it did: they would stock his book with the quote on the fly-leaf. If he could not then they would not stock the book until such time as the fly-leaf was changed to remove the quote, because stocking such a book left Amazon open to a potential law suit from Praver (and it is simple manners not to make up or alter quotes). Hoffman did not produce the email as far as I know and his book was removed until such time as he complied with Amazon's condition of stocking it. I emailed Hoffman for his version of events and he did not deign to reply (I did read his article on it, but it didn't prove very convincing at all rather just a lot of egocentric rubbish). Personally I think that is a pretty equitable treatment of him, but he cried persecution like a 'caust victim. I just don't like the man after corresponding with him for a little while and even offering to help him correct the basic errors of interpretation and sourcing in his work (only to get it thrown in my face as the result of a temper tantrum). Quote:
Quote:
As I said, and he himself admits, his arguments are largely drawn from Johann Andreas Eisenmenger's work 'Entdecktes Judenthum' (Judaism Uncovered) and more specifically from Stehlein's English translation of 1748 (which Hoffman has himself republished a facsmilie version of). Eisenmenger was a scholar and one of the key critics of Judaism when he wrote his two volume treatise (first published in 1700) after having studied with rabbis for one-two decades. Eisenmenger's work is scholarly and intelligent, but it is three hundred years old and necessarily includes gaps in knowledge and interpretation that are evident today but were not in Eisenmenger's time. Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Karl Radl; August 6th, 2009 at 07:02 AM. |
||||||
August 6th, 2009 | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
|
I see nothing wrong with what Igor is doing. Hoffman's work is public and he should expect to be criticized publicly.
|
August 6th, 2009 | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
@ Karl Radl: I've looked over the material you linked to and it appears that Michael Hoffman did indeed include a fictitious G.I. Joe-inspired name in his list of Soviet jews.
I wonder what his game is. Is he laughing at us? Trying to discredit us? Merely trying to make a fast buck? The scary thing is that typing "Dragonsky" into a search engine shows that dozens of sites have replicated Hoffman's list. During the flap over Michael Hoffman's book on Amazon, I reflexively took his side, but now I'm wondering if he was being honest when he claimed that Amazon had "banned" it. It's possible Amazon may have refused to carry the book over a technicality (a legal complaint from a rabbi who did not want his name to appear on the dustjacket or something like that), and that Hoffman decided he could use this to boost sales by claiming the book was "banned" because it poses a major threat to "the Cryptocracy." I doubt Judaism Discovered is more of a threat to the system than, say, Culture of Critique, and Amazon hasn't banned any of MacDonald's books (or any other books critical of jews, for that matter). A few years ago Hoffman wrote a book called Judaism's Strange Gods that covered the same ground as his latest and it wasn't "banned" by Amazon either.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ Last edited by Igor Alexander; August 6th, 2009 at 05:04 PM. |
August 6th, 2009 | #24 | |||||||
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Quote:
Quote:
To me he comes across as somebody who doesn't know nearly as much about his subject matter as he would like people to believe as you can easily see from his lack of discussion of his sources and the specific implications of that concept in his work (little different from most 'intellectuals' who associate with 'WN'). He only operates in the easy to navigate waters of pop theology rather than the deep and very dark waters of the intellectual side of theological critique (anti-Semitic or not). Quote:
Quote:
It is exactly the same reason that people use the 'Prince of the Jews' letter to 'back up' the Protocols, because it seems cogent, but in fact isn't. Although in that case I'd be far more charitable, because it might seem that way unless you had read something of the jewish institutions in the Ottoman Empire in the late 15th century. Quote:
The complaint had to do with the rabbi's name being affixed to a description of Hoffman on the cover that he never gave and Amazon asked Hoffman asked him to produce the email and they would allow it to be stocked (as it would be fair use and accurate). Hoffman, true to previous form, did not provide the email and Amazon stopped stocking that book (not his other books). I think you can still buy it second hand on Amazon, but Amazon don't stock it themselves but rather allow the transaction to occur through their site. Conspiracy theorists tend to have this thing about needing to feel persecuted from time-to-time (in order to keep them feeling nice and important [jews do a similar thing and are also extreme prone to believing in conspiracies where they are 'main players'/'victims']) and this is merely Hoffman's way of suggesting that the conspiracy's 'pawns' are 'out to get him' and to 'stop him speaking the truth'. It is also good free publicity for his book (since people will take up the cause and run with it informing more people about his book and making them believe that if it is 'banned' then it must have something especially cogent to say) and his arguments since there are so few authors of any real note in 'WN' or anti-Semitism currently it is easy for the cowboys and shysters to come in and start proclaiming 'da twoof'. Since 'WNs' tend to be on the look out for solid arguments against the jews, but know very little about jews and are hence unable to distinguish the bad from the good [I am not assigning blame, but rather stating an unfortunate truism]. Quote:
Amazon is a business and will always place the rational economic man motivation over all other considerations although it will pretend it is piously supportive of the current en vogue trends (such as 'stopping global warming', 'anti-discrimination' etc). It should be noted that racialism does not fight the 'system' (the Reds like to pretend to do that and it will never get you anywhere as Lenin rightly pointed out), but rather fights Semites and other racial rubbish that currently hold positions of power and exist within European countries that were originally nations in a slightly wide sense. Quote:
Is Hoffman cashing in on the success of 'Judaism's Strange Gods'? I suspect so. After all if he doesn't sell books he might have to given up his current lifestyle for something more befitting a Traditionalist Catholic with pretensions of being especially pious (i.e. lay monasticism).
__________________
Last edited by Karl Radl; August 6th, 2009 at 06:25 PM. |
|||||||
August 6th, 2009 | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
Sure, there is a logic to the essay; if you believe that there's no such thing as objective reality and that schizophrenics are really misunderstood geniuses rather than mentally ill.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
August 6th, 2009 | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
To paraphrase what Sherlock Holmes said to Dr. Watson, "it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has enough data." Theorizing with insufficient data is precisely what most conspiracy kooks do. They connect the dots, but without having enough of them, and thus end up creating the picture they want rather than uncovering the real picture. They let the right side of their brains (creative) go wild without ever consulting the left side (rational); ideally the two hemispheres should be working together in a complimentary fashion. There are a lot more conspiracy kooks out there than legitimate researchers, and a whole lot of cynical opportunists also. People should be careful. Memorize the most common logical fallacies and stay alert for them whenever you read conspiracy material (the same applies to anything from the MSM, too). You'll find most conspiracy books and videos are rife with such fallacies. What the legitimate conspiracy researcher does should be almost indistinguishable from investigative journalism, crime solving, or scientific investigation. Legitimate conspiracy researchers won't be afraid to debate their theories with honest critics. They'll be open to being proven wrong. Legitimate conspiracy researchers should be embarrassed to be associated with the people who wrote King-Kill 33.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ Last edited by Igor Alexander; August 6th, 2009 at 09:50 PM. |
|
August 6th, 2009 | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
Judaism Uncovered and Judaism Discovered, uh? Hmm...
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ Last edited by Igor Alexander; August 6th, 2009 at 10:18 PM. |
|
August 6th, 2009 | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
Slightly off topic: do you consider the information in Frank L. Britton's Behind Communism to be accurate?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
August 6th, 2009 | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
In a way, I find Hoffman operates much like the secret societies he denounces. In these societies, they deliberately hold back "secrets" from the "Initiate" which the Initiate won't become privy to until he's reached the next grade or rank, and on and on it goes. With Hoffman, his writings (at least in the conspiracy field) never bring any real light to the subjects he talks about, but they hold the promise of doing so -- if you keep buying his books, tapes, and newsletters. Hoffman is like a guru -- only He can read the subliminal "Twilight Language" of "the Cryptocracy" and translate it into terms that us mere mortals can understand (so if you want to know what's going on, you had better keep buying his books and newsletters). Hoffman actually claims in one of his books that the glasses used in the movie They Live to detect the aliens were named after him. Maybe he's right... or maybe he's just a megalomaniac.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
August 6th, 2009 | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
August 6th, 2009 | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Quote:
It also needs to be said that these days, most academics are nothing but propagandists.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
August 8th, 2009 | #32 | |||||||||||||||
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Quote:
Quote:
Basically the lists are too old to be of any real use (and so inaccurate as to be of negative value and there's the whole thing about Stalin's children etc), but if you want to research the argument further then I would suggest reading Erich Haberer's, 2004, 'Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia', 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, which will give you a grounding in this argument from a more modern standpoint. The argument is a potentially good one (as long as it isn’t rabidly overstated and made as part of a general case about jews and the political left), but it needs seriously cleaning up because you only need to show disproportionate jewish involvement rather than complete jewish control to evidence the thesis of the jew as a revolutionary in that context. There is no need to refer to Britton really since you can compose a much sounder argument by using the standard histories and other texts relating to the era to build a modernised argument rather than one dating from the Russian civil war. Quote:
I am notoriously opposed to most intellectuals, but when you have people seriously recommending people like Alex Jones and Jeff Rense as valid ‘sources’ of anything in particular then you have a very serious problem. It is because of this lack of intellectual backup that ‘WNs’ turn to people like Michael Hoffman, because he seems to give standard anti-Judaism arguments some basis in fact. Every powerful political movement starts from a solid intellectual basis and ‘WN’ doesn’t have that. I can name some of the basic works of National Socialism’s philosophy if you’d like to read examples of what NS was and is built on, but I can’t name ‘WNs’, because as far as I can see it has next to nothing. Propaganda also always has to have an arguable factual base since if it does not then it will not succeed. Propaganda also must never go against the grain of public opinion and rather most exploit the grain to its own advantage. ‘WN’ traditionally goes against the grain and that is one of the major reasons why it has had very little success. Quote:
It needs to be understood thought that ‘WN’ has no monopoly on truth in fact as far as I am aware ‘WN’ shoots itself in the foot regarding its factual argument largely because the milieu accepts all kinds of lunacy as ‘fact’ and takes ‘reactionary’ (for lack of a better term) positions (such as Islamists kill jews equals Islamists are good people without factoring any coherent ideological framework that should be there if one claims to even just be a racialist), which then drive potential friends away. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only way, in my opinion, to differentiate between those whose work should be considered as somewhat serious is: 1) Look at their thesis. Is it plausible and does it correctly flow from their stated and unstated logic? 2) Do they discuss and/or answer actual or potential counter-theses? Are these discussed in-depth and reasonably before being disregarded? 3) What kind of sourcing have they used? Have they used lots of different sources on the same subject area or have they have used just a few sources spread out over different subject areas? 4) Do they use multiple sources in more than one different language? 5) When doing a spot check of their sources: do the sources actually specifically argue that point? Is the source’s argument or fact cited accurately? Is the source itself credible and if not does it include a credible source for its assertion? That’s very basically what I would, personally, consider when making a general evaluation of a bit of conspiracy work. It is very basic and somewhat sketchy, but I am trying to be understood rather than explaining in depth in the manner of a paper of method. Quote:
Quote:
What most people, and that includes most ‘WNs’ I have talked to, do is they take certain bits of information and assume them to be bits of data and then try to make new information out of existing information without actually checking back to the source of the data by understanding the knowledge that was used to create the original information. Thus they build in Butz’s clever metaphor: a giant with feet of clay. It isn’t something unique to conspiracy theory, but they tend to just use worse information than most other people and to be more inherently gullible on the point of ideology: ‘lets question everything but our new sources of information’. Quote:
Quote:
Intellectual theses should be tested (for example by thought experiment), but I haven’t come across many journalists who would even want to put their theses to the test let alone the ‘investigative journalism’ books that I have read (for example Jim Marrs’ work: ‘The Rise of the Fourth Reich’, which was just simply awful). Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Karl Radl; August 8th, 2009 at 10:59 AM. |
|||||||||||||||
Tags |
michael hoffman |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|