Poor Hoffman: just can't unnastan' why people can't accept his lies and psycho delusions....

Below-copied by ap first submitted at comments, https://revisionistreview.blogspot.c...issenting.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hoffman Continues To Bleat
(Apollonian, 27 Feb 20)

Hoffman, in all his psychotic Passive-Aggression and self-pity just continues to bleat, complain and cry-out. But Hoffman, don't u insist on Pelagian heresy, idea of "good-evil," hence the perfectly "free" human will which will carry us to heaven, regardless God's grace and mercy?

For if "good" were something actually objective and real, then how would God possibly have any grounds for denying one his rightful place in heaven?

So Hoffman tell us, if there really is "good-evil," then what is the criterion, standard, and premise for it by which we can tell definitively the diff? Like the psychotic u really are, u constantly insist there's "good-evil," but NEVER tell us the criterion--NEVER.

U insist u're treated unfairly, and u say Suvorov (real name, Rezun) is wrong about the pre-emptive attack against USSR, but u refuse to say what are the real facts. So how many divisions did Stalin really have on his western borders?--u won't tell us, and who's fault is that?

Hoffman says Hitler should rather have relied upon mere counter-attacking any Russian invasions, Hitler operating upon what Hoffman calls "interior lines," but Hoffman doesn't tell us what his military and strategic qualifications are--did he graduate in the top half of his class at West Point?--what military training did Hoffman ever have and go through?

Hoffman insists Hitler was such a horrible person, not really Christian, but Hoffman as Pelagian heretic, pretending to non-existent "good-evil," we can only suspect Hoffman's own qualifications to be judge of Christianity. And we KNOW the German people thought rather more highly of unc' Adolf than know-it-all Hoffman, the military genius and paragon of moralism, hubris, and sanctimony.

And of course there's Hoffman's previous work on "Usury in Christendom...," in which we see Hoffman inveighs against "usury," not even capable of accurately defining and describing it, Hoffman knowing nothing about money and banking, not even understanding diff. btwn real money and mere "currency" (see Mises.org for proper economic expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms).

So we see, once again, Hoffman is NOT a "historian" at all, whatever he may say and protest--he's not even really a Christian, in all truth, merely the subjectivistic, hubris-filled moralistic and heretic, spouting "good-evil" delusions, pretending he's competent judge of things he plainly knows little-to-nothing about (military and economic), and he's been so terribly injured and treated by people who resent his hereticalism and self-righteousness, not to mention gross ignorance and presumption. Poor Hoffman.