So first we must establish that the author, John Conway, is an English historian who helped found the Scholars’ Conference on the German Church and the Holocaust, and that he uses the word “Nazi” in the title of his book. There is no doubt he is biased in favor of the Church.

I learned that Hitler’s words came from an interview he granted to German Bishop Berning on April 26, 1933, just after becoming Chancellor and when he was establishing his government’s relations with the Churches. He was definitely seeking support and to allay any fears. After quoting these remarks made by Hitler to Bishop Berning, and 2 days later in a letter to Cardinal Bertram, the author Conway calls them “specious promises.” I myself don’t think Hitler was insincere in these words, but 1933 was not 1941. By 1941, he had already seen how both Church confessions would attack him when they thought their interests were threatened. He was also firmly in control of Germany and accepted as Fuehrer in the minds of Christians. He had no intention of harming the churches and didn’t. But during the war years, among his personal circle of various aides, he allowed himself to speak frankly — one reason may be that speaking aloud was his way of thinking things through — seeing how his ideas sounded (outside of his own head). That’s just my idea. It was something he had always done.

Anyway, if you’re trying to prove that his Catholicism meant a lot to him, I don’t think these quotes do. I said he was a nominal catholic – that’s what you’re calling “holding to their faith.”

I believe you’re wrong on Hoffman. He doesn’t attack Hitler because he wants to be mainstream, but because he doesn’t like Hitler, based on his (Hoffman’s) particular Christian beliefs. He accepts without protest that Hitler disregarded moral and humanist values. His anti-Jewishness is based on the Talmud, not on biology and not on race. Hoffman is a non-racialist even though he may not be an anti-racist. Consider this: he is a “holocaust denier” already, so he can’t be mainstream based on that. His lies appear to be anti-Hitler stuff he reads here and there, and repeats if they fit his own mindset without much regard to the source.

Yes, Hoffman’s a scholar, but there’s a lot of garbage about Hitler out there. He wants to be as mainstream as possible and that’s impossible if one openly professes admiration for Hitler (for now).

You say Hoffman tells lies about Hitler but you don’t suppose he actually made those lies up himself do you?

Many Roman Catholics don’t really regularly attend or anything, but they usually hold to their faith.

The quote comes from a book called ‘The Nazi Persecution of the Churches’ by John S. Conway

Hitler was speaking to Bishop Wilhelm Berning, of Osnabruck at the time. The pertinent bits are on pages 25-26. I just tried the link and it took me to the book so?

“Revisionist Michael Hoffman, a Roman Catholic, also abhors Hitler and tells lies about him, thus keeping religion above race”

Hoffman just repeats the lies that he’s learned which he assumes to be the truth. I think if he knew better he’d do better.
—–Hoffman considers himself a scholar. He doesn’t “repeat lies he’s learned” without checking them. It’s because of his strong religious views that he rejects Hitler and wants to paint him in the worst possible light. In other words, I think he rejects Hitler on religious, moral grounds. -CY

Adolf Hitler, so many seem to conveniently forget was also Roman Catholic.
—-It is well known that Hitler did not practice his Catholicism (receive the sacraments or make Confession) after he left his family home. He was nominally a Catholic. -CY

Here’s a quote from him… Note the last line:

“I am personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won’t allow any other religion to be promoted. That is why I have turned away from Ludendorff and that is why I reject that book by Rosenberg.

It was written by a Protestant. It is not a Party book. It was not written by him as a Party man. The Protestants can be left to argue with him … As a Catholic I never feel comfortable in the Evangelical Church or its structures. That is why I will have great difficulty if I try to regulate affairs of the Protestant churches.

The evangelical people or the Protestants will in any case reject me. But you can be sure: I will protect the rights and freedoms of the churches and not let them be touched, so that you need have no fears about the future of the Church.”
——Where does the above quote come from? When and to whom was it written? I did not find it at your link. Thank you. -CY

“As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic church has adopted for fifteen hundred years, when it has regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into ghettos etc., because it knew what the Jews were like.

I don’t put race above religion, but I do see the danger in the representatives of this race for Church and State, and perhaps I am doing Christianity a great service.”

– The Nazi Persecution of the Churches

http://tinyurl.com/njtorbn

Just one of many of Rod’s double standards and hypocrisy!

“Having only one Jewish grandparent makes me pretty much an outsider, at least for the Orthodox, although guaranteed of an early ride to Bergen-Belsen had I lived ‘there and then.’”

You are right, that’s not so very Jewish and I would revise my remark calling him a Jew, but …. then he has to add that in Nat-Soc Germany he would have been sent to Bergen-Belsen. Not true! That tells me he identifies with his 1/4 jewishness more than with his 3/4 Polishness. And that being Polish is close to being Jewish when it comes to their typical kind of resentments. Maybe the guy really is bad news.

One doesn’t have to be but 1/8 or so in order to receive a share of the income of the Tribe, if you can prove your lineage. Michael Collins Piper likes to talk about his American Indian ancestry (a great grandmother?) and he has blonde hair and blue eyes. The picture of “Peggy” is very blurry.

I have a neighbor a little distance away who is supposedly an Indian, and he sort of looks it in profile and wears his hair long, but his skin is white-looking and he doesn’t stand out as too different.

If you read about Cherokees you learn that they are one of the most White-looking tribes, and on some Cherokee web pages one sees pictures of some who could pass for White to the average American. So what I said was not silly, but you would like for me to look silly. Fact is, I don’t care whether she is part-Indian or not (as I’ve said before), but I care about RM’s lying. Is he unable to speak the truth? Does he speak with forked tongue?

Well on that point, Sabrosky deserves more kindness:

“Having only one Jewish grandparent makes me pretty much an outsider, at least for the Orthodox, although guaranteed of an early ride to Bergen-Belsen had I lived ‘there and then.'”

Clearly I’m not suggesting he’s an Emil Maurice kinda guy in every possible way, but like EM he’s only part Jewish.

I’m more worried by how quiet he’s been the last few years, and how ill-chosen his 9/11 truth appearances were back when he was active (VT, Daryl Bradford Smith, Kevin Barrett, Mark Glenn, Press TV).

If I had a CV like his and contacts like he claims, I’d do a much better job of finding credible media partners and I would keep on shouting my truth ’til they shut me up. Sabrosky did little, did it with arseholes, then vanished from the scene like vapourized Jews in a Robert Jackson dream.

I never paid any attention to Martin, but I will say I think it’s clear Carolyn has caught him out in a lie or two. Cruel internet commentators might suggest she followed that triumph with a claim, that only made her look silly, about detecting some Indian ancestry in the photo of Martin’s perfectly White-appearing wife. Me, I’m saying nowt.

Again, we see that Rodney talks really big about principles and such but he never stands behind them.

Couldn’t be better said.

Again, we see that Rodney talks really big about principles and such but he never stands behind them. Let’s get down to brass tacks shall we? What does Freedompalooza have to do with our movement? Nothing. It is just more grandstanding for Rodney along with the idea of attaching himself with people who he thinks matters (but don’t)

From what I can tell, Freedompalooza is a ragtag collection of conspiracy-type misfits and outcasts who don’t really fit in anywhere. I do not know what they stand for. I guess they stand for “freedom” or whatever.