A Hack-in for the Rest of Us

With the effluent from the discouraging hack-in of David Irving's Web site being downloaded by holoterrorists all over the world, it is refreshing to see that hack-ins occur in our favor, too.

At first blush, the massive (60MB) leak of e-mails and other data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia would seem to have little to do with the perpetuation and enforcement of Holocaust mythology. But regardless of your own position with regard to the "science" of human-originated global warming, the leak from the CRU is a blockbuster exposé of the role of profession-advancing enforcement of "consensus" among scientists and policymakers in subverting the entire academic establishment, "peer review" and all.

As with Holocaust perpetuation, the unholy alliance of government and the academy, fueled by money and the incessant quest for power, is what drives the Global Warming Industry, and sixty Megabytes of data prove this over and over again (you can download it all through the article linked above, just like you can download data said to come from David Irving's Web site).

Holohoaxers invariably cite "reputation," "academic standing," "peer review" and other talismans of orthodoxy when advancing their views of the Holocaust. The mendacity and manipulativeness of orthodox establishments of all kinds is indelibly illustrated in the data exposed by this magnificent event.

The emperor has no clothes.

Wikipedia and the Holocaust

“Born” decades after the end of the Holocaust, Wikipedia knows all about the Holocaust, including quite a bit of stuff that is either impossible or highly speculative, just like a lot of other people that young and older, too. The English-language Wikipedia has over one million articles, and in them, there are over ten thousand pointers to the over 700 categories and sub-categories concerned with “The Holocaust” (yes, I counted them, and yes, this is much less than six million).

In the aggregate, Wikipedia is “crowd wisdom,” in this case of a crowd most of whose members received extensive indoctrination in the mythology of the Holocaust in both their educations and from the popular culture. Vis á vis the world’s English-speaking population, the subgroup of contributors to Wikipedia’s content, of which I am one, contains overrepresentations of two groups: (a) younger, better-educated, computer-literate folks; and (b) members of groups considered to be victims of the Holocaust. Groups from which most Holocaust revisionists come are correspondingly underrepresented.

Wikipedia is justly famous as “the encyclopedia anyone can edit,” and I can attest to this attribute, as I have contributed two or three articles and edited several dozen other ones, including articles concerning the Holocaust. But the notion that “anyone can edit it” is seriously misleading, on two scores. The lesser factor is the ability “wall” that composition and entry of material places before less-experienced and –dedicated computists. Wikipedia has, in effect, an editing “language” which must be to at least some extent mastered to do anything more than cross a tee or dot an eye. I have devoted many hours to its mastery, and remain able only to enter the most-rudimentary embellishments on straight text such as a table or a footnote. It is far more-challenging than making this blog entry.

The other, far more-serious threat to the survival of anything you might enter into Wikipedia is Wikipedia “standards,” which I heartily approve in principle, that are enforced by an army of “Administrators” who constantly patrol new entries and “correct” (usually expunge) those that don’t meet their ideas of the standards. Among the standards are ones concerning “original research” and “verifiability.” Original research means you can’t enter stuff that isn’t published somewhere else, by someone else, including, fortunately, the Web. Verifiability comes to mean something pernicious on controversial points as to which competing points of view are published. It means, all too often, that whichever of the two points of view that is more supported by establishment authorities is favored, and the one(s) opposing it, either suppressed or given short shrift.

A sterling example of this is to be found in the (main) article on “The Holocaust,” as well as in “Holocaust Denial.” One of dozens of related articles, “Criticism of Holocaust Denial” contains, under the heading “Jewish Population,” (the first) three paragraphs whose import runs diametrically counter to the bias of most of the Administrators as I have experienced it. I am the proud author of these paragraphs, assuming they’re still there, which supplant an earlier version that my version both replaces and refers to. A(n un)suitably disposed Administrator may indeed have noted its thrust but left it intact because it is totally (and easily) verifiable—there are responsible Administrators, including some quite devoted to the mythology of the Holocaust. More likely, it hasn’t been discovered yet, at least by an irresponsible Administrator.

I’ve lost Wikipedia battles, too, including right there in the “Criticism” article. There is a heading, “Denial as Anti-Semitism” that I had the effrontery to change to “Anti-Semitism as a Motive for Denial.” I didn’t change anything in the section—just the heading. An Administrator whipped that baby right back where it came from (and as you see it now), noting that “informed opinion” establishes incontrovertibly that denialism is anti-Semitism.

Of course, having ready recourse to the counsel of my own sentiments, I know that statement can be totally untrue.

But Wikipedia doesn’t allow “original research.” Check it out, and contribute your own—that is, somebody else’s—wisdom.

Clemson University -- response to a confused and slanderous letter from History News Network

Editor of the Clemson University Tiger:

Gord McFee of the Holocaust History Project finds it necessary to begin his comments on my “Eisenhower” ad by slandering me personally. I have “duped” the Tiger staff into running the ad. My goal is one of “deception, dishonest [sic] and duplicity.” My wish is that readers will “ask themselves the wrong question [who decides what the right question is—Gord McFee?].” My question is “dishonest” and I am “dishonest” and a “hypocrite” to boot.

Once Mr. McFee has purged himself, for the moment, of his personal animosity, he asks a perfectly reasonable question:

“Why would one expect Eisenhower to have discussed the gas chambers or the Holocaust? [the ad does not mention “Holocaust”]." Here I will suggest why I think he would have.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of Allied forces on the Western front. By 1943 it was getting about that the Germans had weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers) in which they were murdering perhaps millions of civilians with a particularly lethal gas.

Would the Commander in Chief of one army, faced with an enemy army in possession of weapons of mass destruction, have no professional interest in the matter? Does that make sense to you? If it does, I believe you have every right to say so and to say it in print and I will not slander you but will respond in a reasonable manner.

I do not believe it likely that the commander of one army, hearing that the commander of his opposing army has weapons of mass destruction and is using them at that moment to murder millions(?) of civilians, would not express some interest in the matter. Could the “gas” be delivered against his own troops in the field? How would he know if he did not look into the matter? Could the gas be delivered over the great populations centers in Central Europe? Would he have no interest in the possibility of such a scenario?

I believe the question is a reasonable one to ask in a university setting. And I find it interesting, though not surprising, that not one academic has chosen to reply to the question in the pages of the Tiger.

Bradley R. Smith

Would You Buy an Apartment from This Guy?

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind has got a bridge he'd like to sell you--er, no, it's an apartment, actually, hardly a stone's throw from Israel in formerly Jordanian territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 War. Followers of Zionist politics in America recognize the name of Dov Hikind as the guy who led the effort in October to get American Express to abrogate its merchant agreement with David Irving, who soldiers on despite this and other serious harassment with his rounds of private visits with his devotees in cities across the United States.

While you're thinking about taking Dov's real-estate advice, you might wish also to consider his indictment and trial in 1998 for taking bribes for steering state and federal money to Jewish "non-profits" that themselves were embezzling much of the lucre, and were convicted of same at the same time as Assemblyman Hikind was acquitted by a jury of his peers.

The spectacle of an elected official in American government urging (certain of) his countrymen to purchase conquered real estate calls to mind the infamous Transfer Agreement arrived at between the young Nazi government of Germany and German Zionists eager to harness the growth of anti-Semitic policy there in aid of their own agenda of building the Yiruv--the then-embryonic Jewish community in Palestine. Dov's initiative lacks the support, as yet, of the government of his home country, and it more-explicitly supports Zionists' irridentist claims on the Holy Land, but it certainly does hark back to the earlier Nazi-Zionist agreement of the mid-1930s.

Anti-Semitism: New Movie

Every revisionist is accused (sooner, rather than later) of anti-Semitism - it doesn't come with the territory, really, but it comes, with breathtaking speed and vociferousness, just as soon as one expresses interest in the facts of the experience of European Jews in World War II.

Having grown up among, and being friends (and better) with many Jews, I have always been interested in anti-Semitism. Going public with my revisionist interests has produced many grossly incorrect (not to say, shrill and obscene) characterizations of my sympathies - illogically at that. If I'm anti-Semitic, would it interest me to minimize the dimensions and motivations of the holocaust? Quite the contrary - I would take satisfaction in its magnitude, and laud its purposes. Revisionism is, if anything, pro-Semitic, though the inquiry it entails puts a bad taste in one's mouth regarding the many "carpetbaggers" (Jewish and otherwise) taking a free ride on the holocaust train for their own benefit.

I just read a detailed review in Jewish Week of a new film out from Israeli Director Yoav Shamir called "Hashmata" ("Defamation" in English), and I have placed the not-yet-released DVD in my queue at Netflix. It sounds balanced, insightful and, for the severely alienated, an intelligent "view from the other side." Provisionally, I regard it as a view from much closer to our side than many of us might suppose (this is not a group, racial, or even identity matter, after all).

It must be the exceptional revisionist who resists all interest in anti-Semitism despite the yellow swastikas we're forced to wear, though the association between it and revisionism is nothing like the accusations. For those of us who share my interest, I (in advance of having seen it myself) recommend getting this movie.

Fredrick Toben is out of jail and talks about it

Not Much of a Blog . . . Yet

Though it treats perhaps the hottest old topic in American opinion today, this blog doesn't seem to have a lot of activity - at least in items posted - yet. I just got posting privileges, and perhaps I may improve matters over time.

I'm going to start out with bait, from other blogs (if you can't lick 'em, join 'em - or at least exploit 'em)! These are put here to encourage you two or three other visitors to: (a) enter this blog in your Favorites or Bookmarks, and visit back often; and (b) tell others about this blog. Both of today's purloined treasures arise from the sensational hack-in of David Irving's Web sites last weekend. By my count, at least two separate (?) organizations seem to be claiming responsibility for it, but information on the Internet truly is free, so each is claiming to have what in fact anybody can have, putatively from the victim Web sites.

The first one comes, I would say, from "the enemy," someone named Lemons whom Irving denied admission to his session in Phoenix not too long ago, evidently with good reason. In this case and in the other, the string of dozens and dozens of Comments is what's interesting, so don't neglect to view them, and infer what you may from the "balance" of opinion, as it were.

The second one comes from a "neutral," Wired Magazine, but again, the string of comments is from practically anybody but the neutrals. Both the article and the comments here are about one level higher than those for the Phoenix entry.

Check back here soon for more plagiarism. I'll be here, undoubtedly doing something disreputable. Maybe beneficial, too. Or even interesting . . .