Friday, December 18, 2009
Quick action by Irving's team and the local police department resulted in the collaring of one of the two carloads of troublemakers involved, and out of it tumbled one miscreant of very special interest in view of the criminal destruction of Irving's Web sites mere days before this incident: one young cybercriminal named Jeremy Hammond, described in some detail on Irving's Web site, which continues its struggle to get back on its feet.
Hammond completed two years in the federal pen in late 2008 after his conviction of stealing 5,000 credit-card numbers from another Web site. The possible connection to the far more-damaging attack on Irving's sites is tantalizing.
For their Chicago caper, Hammond and four accomplices have been charged with disorderly conduct. Hammond, still on parole from his earlier offense, may be expected to muster an especially spirited defense in order to avoid being sent back into the slammer for violation of the terms of his parole at their trial scheduled for January 6.
Should be interesting, especially if any evidence can be developed linking Hammond to the destruction of Irving's Web sites.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Wiesel's anti-free speech and anti-freedom stand demonstrates his complete failure to understand the true lesson of the Holocaust. Lucy Dawidowicz in her War Against the Jews explained how post World War I anxiety and insecurities produced "an emotional milieu in which irrationality and hysteria became routine and illusions became transformed into delusions." She describes the mass proportions of a "delusional disorder" where otherwise rational people - the Germans - gave into pathological fantasies about the Jews. During the National Socialist period there can be no doubt that many regarded the Jews as a source of evil and disaster.
Dawidowicz explains further, "...the mass psychosis of anti-Semitism deranged a whole people. According to their system of beliefs, elimination of the Jews resembled medieval exorcism of the Devil. The accomplishment of both... would restore grace to the world."
Today power sits around the world not with anti-Semitic National Socialists but largely with those who continue to prop up a long gone "devil" as a method of demonstrating their own morality. Those who question the Holocaust - revisionists, or as their detractors, like Wiesel, prefer "deniers" are today's Jews.
Wiesel and others who support draconian anti-revisionist laws have developed pathological fantasies about those who seek to correct the record of the Holocaust story. Wiesel's delusion allows him to believe that the elimination of Holocaust deniers would indeed exorcise a Devil and restore grace to the world.
Wiesel, like those who passed Holocaust revisionist criminalization laws throughout Europe, has learned nothing from the Holocaust. In Wiesel's case he has gone from victim to victor, from powerless to powerful. In his transformation, he continues to make all the same mistakes as his enemies of years gone by.
Elie Wiesel doesn't even realize that today, it is he who has become the "Nazi." In his new found role he exacts his hatred and pathological fantasies on the powerless. As a spokesman for the Holocaust, Wiesel has proven to be a complete failure.
Monday, December 7, 2009
"What kind of justice is it that proscribes the normally accepted right of the accused to challenge the assumption that a crime had, in fact, occurred? Normally the prosecution is obliged to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime of murder had taken place. This is not the case in the trial of Demjanjuk. The court will, without proof, arbitrarily accept that the crime took place. Being stripped of his most powerful defence, the accused is reduced to pleading mistaken identity or that he had nothing to do with an unproved murder."
The Guardian issued this fearless statement explaining its principled stand:
"We published a letter by John Mortl in the Guardian of 3 December [page 37, and guardian.co.uk] relating to the case of John Demjanjuk, who is accused of assisting in the murder of 27,900 people in Poland. Unfortunately, we misread the letter. The underlying meaning, we now realise, implied Holocaust denial. As soon as we realised our mistake, we removed the letter from the website. It should never have been published and we apologise unreservedly that it was."
The State, the University, the Press. It's a hard row to hoe.
Friday, December 4, 2009
The linked article has nothing to do with the Holocaust - it has to do with 9/11, barely eight years ago. As with the Holocaust and all other affronts to people's sense of decency and safety, this eleemosynary project is displaying "mission creep." Initially for "first responders" killed or injured at the site, we see from this brief article that two additional groups have gotten on board: (a) people who die years later from conditions said somehow to have been contracted from the aftermath of the crisis; and (b) those who sustain injuries not from first responding, but from the cleanup that went on for over a year after the mess was made.
And these projects aren't just slow to die - they spring to life very fast, too. The morning after the recent massacre at Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, I encountered uniformed "soldiers" rattling cans at motorists stopped at traffic lights right here in my home town. I, of course, drove on, confident in the feeling that I had already paid full compensation for the victims at Fort Hood, 9/11, and, 64 years after the last concentration camp was liberated, the Holocaust.
And confident, too, that I would keep paying for all these.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
David Rising does not reflect on how this letter is shown to be what Cortissos claims it to be.
Cortissos says he found the letter in 1959 after his father died. Presumably, it was in the father’s possessions. David Rising doesn’t tell us. How did the father get possession of the letter? AP reporter David Rising only tells us that Cortissos’ mother had “tossed if from the train that was taking her from Holland before it crossed the German border.”
I can see the senior Cortissos now, racing on foot along the railroad track, keeping up with the train, waiting for his wife to toss her farewell letter to him. How far did her husband have to run before he saw the letter? Did he see the letter flutter out a window of the train? In his mad race to keep up with the train, was he able to keep one eye on the train windows, or doors, and one eye on the ground at the same time so he didn't fall on his face?
How did he know from which side of the train his wife would throw her missive to him, or to the world? Was it mere luck that he was running along the side of the train that his wife was occupying? Could she see him out there? Were there other husbands running along with Cortissos, each hoping, waiting, for a missive from their wives or mistresses?
Or was it just this one guy? Cortissos the elder?
AP reporter David Rising is not inclined to express any wonderment about any of this, or whether this letter contributes, or does not contribute, to proving that John Demjanjuk helped murder 29,000 Jews, or that there were gassing chambers at Sobibor
But then that is not the work of AP reporters when they treat with the Holocaust story. Their work is to forward the orthodox story, whatever Holocaust Inc. says it is on any given day, always emphasizing the “unique” monstrosity of the Germans. That’s where the money is for Holocaust Inc., and it’s one way that AP reporters advance their careers.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
In 2010, Nine-Banded Books will publish a newly and finally revised edition of Samuel Crowell's long-developed monograph, The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes. In addition to the text of "Sherlock," the book will include a revised and updated restatement of Crowell's empirical research on German civil defense architecture (largely an expansion of his other major work, Bomb Shelters in Birkenau) as well as a new closing essay appraising a number of revisionist and counter-revisionist texts that have appeared over the last decade.
I mention this first by way of disclosure, but I will say up front that I feel a special obligation about this one. To state it plainly, I think Crowell's book is important. I think it will be read. And I am perhaps naively hopeful that it will be taken seriously by people -- even some few public intellectuals -- who are understandably skeptical of revisionist challenges to the consensus historiography regarding the Holocaust. I don't expect that an encounter with Samuel Crowell will change many minds, but I do think there is a real possibility that some readers will come away with an understanding that, as Crowell puts it, "the revisionist interpretation on the subject of mass gassing [is] possible, and since possible, a particularly unworthy candidate for censorship."
What follows, the second in a three-part series devoted to the Holocaust controversy, is my digressive introduction to Crowell's major theoretical work, The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes. Though I believe that Crowell's other contributions to the literature of revisionism are just as relevant, I have chosen to focus on Sherlock because its central argument is so shockingly novel, and so seldom engaged. I also think the argument will be vindicated, at least in broad form.I've been wrong before. Time will tell.
The third and final installment in this series (part one is here) will be broadly devoted to "Skepticism, Epistemology, and 'Belief in Belief'." In that post, I will respond to a number of points raised in reader commentary and correspondence. I will also revisit the curious case of Irène Némirovsky and Michel Epstein, with a few surprises.
My apologies for the delay.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Rising mentions Nazi “death camp” charges, Nazi “machinery of destruction,” and “the mass killing of Jews.” He doesn’t mention “gas chambers.” I take this to suggest that Mr. David Rising does not much believe the Sobibor gas-chamber-story. A reasonable man, perhaps.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Way back in 2006, a fascinating piece appeared in the Daily Articles of the Ludwig von Mises Institute that extensively adumbrated ClimateGate. It is a spoof e-mail from a "generic" colleague to Richard Lindzen, possibly the doyen of professionally qualified skeptics of the climate science of Global Warming, and it complains to him how his refusal to participate in the Climate-Change Industry is damaging not only his career, but the careers of his colleagues and the climate-change profession in general. In light of recent events, it seems especially percipient.
There's still time to get over to London in time for Censorship's event. But bring lots of warm clothing - it's cold in London this time of year, Global Warming or no.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Interview with Deborah Lipstatic - "Holocaust Denial is Pervasive, Growing, and Doomed"
November 22, 2009, CNN
by Michael K. Smith
New York City -- Speaking from the Bellevue psychiatric ward, where she is undergoing evaluation for advanced schizophrenia, Holocaust Confirmer Deborah Lipstatic today declared, "The situation is critical and victory is at hand," in the war on Holocaust heresy.
Lipstatic, Professor of Victimology at Coca Cola University in Atlanta, insisted that Holocaust denial is not a legitimate field of study and entirely worthless intellectually, which, she said, explains why she devotes herself night and day to refuting its claims.
This year marks nine years since historian David Irving lost his libel suit against Lipstatic, who chronicled her battle against him in her book, “Money Can't Buy Love But It Can Buy The Courts - How I Single-Handedly Defeated David Irving With Swarms of Lawyers and Researchers and an Avalanche of Holocaust Industry Cash" (Orthodox Books, 2000).
Legalienate's editors were generously granted a lengthy interview with her on the recently proclaimed Holocaust Obsession Day, which lasts for 24 weeks instead of what Lipstatic called the "stingy" 24 hours of the standard day. Speaking from the isolated back ward where she currently resides, she explained how to make failure look like victory, why freedom requires adherence to a single view, and how Holocaust denial plays a crucial role in forging Jewish identity, especially among gentiles.
LEGALIENATE: Nine years later, how would you characterize the Irving trial?
LIPSTATIC: It was a resounding victory for the world inside my head. I went head-to-head with the world's leading Holocaust denier and I single-handedly won a judgment stating that historical facts are not to be determined by the courts.
LEGALIENATE: But wasn't that obvious from the beginning?
LIPSTATIC: Not to me it wasn't.
LEGALIENATE: Have you solved the problem of Holocaust denial?
LIPSTATIC: Of course not. But we did provide precise explanations proving that what Deniers say are complete deviations from what we say. We didn't prove what happened, and nobody else better either, but [....]
Monday, November 23, 2009
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.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
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.
Friday, November 20, 2009
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
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
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.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
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 . . .
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Those involved apparently think they are doing a good thing -- fighting "Holocaust denial," "neo-Nazism," "racism," add the slur, you get the idea. The value of free speech and a free press is completely lost on this crowd. They miss the point that their methods are in fact "fascist" or "Stalinist" in nature. The desire to prevent someone from sharing ideas which oppose your own is the type of dogmatic thinking that led to the burning of heretics, the witch trials, and the extremes of National Socialism and Communism.
For these hackers and "anti-Fascists," none of this matters. They are sure that they are right. In being so right, it is fair to stop the speech of those they oppose.
They miss the point that if the only speech we defend is that which we support, then freedom is lost. It is only offensive speech or speech we disagree with that NEEDS the protection of the law.
Many years ago Huey P. Long said, Fascism will come to America,but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism." Today it is clear that Fascism is live and well in the United States -- brought to you by those with little understanding of what they have done.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Bradley R. Smith, Founder
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327
13 November 2009
The Clemson University Tiger published an ad this date asking why Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his book Crusade in Europe published in 1948, did not mention German weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers).
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) has run similar ads asking brief questions about World War II in student newspapers at some 30 colleges during 2009. Reaction to the ads has oftentimes caused some controversy, but nowhere has any academic attempted to answer the “Eisenhower” question.
In September, when this question was asked in the Harvard Crimson, special-interests put so much pressure on the Crimson that its president, and then the entire Crimson staff, apologized. They used a language that shamed them as men and women, and humiliated them as journalists. The Crimson staff actually wrote, under pressure, that such a question as the one I ask about Dwight D. Eisenhower should never again be asked in the pages of any student newspaper in America.
CODOH congratulates the Clemson Tiger in standing with the ideal of intellectual freedom in running this ad. Our ad “denies” nothing. Our ad makes no “accusation” against anyone. Our ad proposes no “conspiracy theory.” Our ad asks a question. Let’s see how many academics, let’s see if one academic, at Clemson University will try to answer the question in the pages of the Tiger.
CODOH is willing to be surprised.
CODOH would hope that special-interest groups would not try to publicly humiliate the editor and staff of the Tiger with the intention to institutionally “censor” this ad as they did the staff of the Harvard Crimson. For student journalists to refuse to break under special-interest attack by influential and highly connected individuals and groups takes a special self confidence, and an especial respect for the ideal of a free exchange of ideas.
It’s what is known as “journalistic integrity.” If that is not what it is known as, we are here to be corrected.
The President of the Harvard Crimson apologies
The Crimson Staff: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Journalism
Monday, November 9, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The deadline is approaching for entries to the 2009 David McCalden Most Macabre Halloween Holocaust Tale Challenge. This is our sixth year of competition, and although we have some great entries, there's still time to get yours in and win a Big Cash Prize. Make certain you get yours in now, and tell all your friends!
As we did last year, we'll be awarding $200 for the first-place entry, and $50 for the second-place entry. Entries are judged on four factors:
- Originality (search our site before entering),
- The macabre nature of the tale,
- Citation of the source(s) where the tale or claim has appeared, and
- The use of the tale in official Holocaust histories. (Receive added points if your submission was used in a court of law.)
The contest deadline is Thursday, October 30, 2009. You may enter as many times as you wish, but there will be only one winning entry per person. Each contest entry is subject to verification. The winners will be announced on Friday, October 31, 2009 (Halloween).
The prize is in honor of skeptic and founder of the Institute for Historical Review, David McCalden. Each submission becomes the property of the Holocaust Historiography Project, and may be published on this website. Please let us know if you want attribution for your submission, or if you wish to remain anonymous.
Send all questions and comments to email@example.com.
Let's make David proud!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
To better understand what CODOH is, I borrow the following with slight alteration from Rodrigo Mendoza:
CODOH is an idea. CODOH is every man who has ever stood up for what he has believed in. CODOH is every man who has taken a stand when he saw injustice-- regardless of the cost. CODOH is an idea and ideas, unlike men cannot be imprisoned.
CODOH is heroes of the past both from history and from fiction. CODOH is William Tyndale shouting at the fiery stake for the Lord to open the King of England's eyes. CODOH is Dietrich Bonhoeffer hanging in Flossenbürg for standing up to a dictatorial regime. CODOH is Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr.. CODOH stood up to the Pope at the Diet of Worms and said, "Here I stand." CODOH is an artist, but it's work has been called "degenerate."
CODOH is Winston Smith. CODOH is Howard Roarke. CODOH is Guy Montag with a hidden library. CODOH will not renounce it's values and accept slavery. CODOH will stand up for the principles that we were taught as children. As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have been taught to stand up when we see injustice. We stand with David against Goliath. We stand with the Jews against the Gestapo. We stand with the Communists against the McCarthyite witch-hunt. We stand with African Americans against the Klan. We stand with the soldiers who have died for propaganda and political lies-- on the fields of Flanders, on the USS Arizona, in Korea and Vietnam and in Iraq.
Today there is no group of people more villainized and defamed than revisionists. The governments of the world stand poised to root them out, to bring an end to their "insidious" ideas. Their jails can hold men, but they cannot hold ideas. Their fires can burn books, but not ideas. Their power comes by force. Our power comes from truth and freedom. We are willing to take the chance that you too might be stirred to action. If the battle is joined, we cannot lose. Of course, this is no battle of might but rather of ideas. CODOH's fight, our fight, is for that great value which if known, will set us all free.
Who is CODOH you ask? CODOH is that value and that idea.
Whenever I hear or read of Abe Foxman's ADL voicing its moral outrage about one thing or another, I am reminded of what George Will once wrote of the icon of the liberal movement in the US, the late Senator Edward Kennedy, during the derailed confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork for the US Supreme Court: "Edward Kennedy [of Chappaquidddick infamy] finds Judge Robert Bork morally unsatisfactory."
In the same vein of irony one might paraphrase George Will thus: Abe Foxman finds CODOH’s Bradley Smith morally unsatisfactory.
As long ago as 1980, the icon of the conservative movement in the US, the late William F. Buckley Jr., opined: "Really, I wonder if anyone in the future can ever again take seriously the Anti-Defamation League."
That was nearly 30 years ago. Since then the ADL has done a lot worse things to vindicate the low regard in which Buckley held the ADL following its decision to honor the hedonistic pornographer Hugh Hefner (see Buckley’s article copied below).
For the "fun" of it, gentle reader, you might google Roy Bullock + ADL. That would be a good place to start. Take it from there.
Say, did I mention that the award the ADL gave Hef was its "First Amendment Freedoms Awards?" The "freedom" the ADL had chosen to celebrate, according to the old Yale alumnus, being that of selling "pictures of parted pudenda in order to make a dollar, a nickel of which he [i.e., ADL honoree Hugh Hefner] donates to institutions devoted to the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie. . ."
ADL defames itself by honoring Hefner | William F. Buckley Jr.
The St. Louis Globe-Democrat | September 19, 1980
It is axiomatic that the village underworlder will seek the approval of the same community he systematically despoils by ostentatious public benefactions. Joe Bananas supporting the local church. Billy Sol Estes hosting a boy scout picnic. Louis B. Mayer contributing to an institution of higher learning.
No one has practiced the art of civic diversion more prodigiously than Hugh Hefner, the founder of "Playboy" magazine and godfather of the sexual revolution. His formula was as straightforward as the advertisements in "Playboy" for sexually stimulating paraphernalia: make a lot of money by pandering to the sexual appetite, elevating it to primacy - then spend
part of that money co-seducing critics or potential critics.
It was years ago that Harvard theologian Harvey Cox wrote an essay on "Playboy," denominating it the single most brazen assault on the female as a person in general circulation. What seemed like moments later, the same scholar found himself writing earnest essays for "Playboy"; and before long he forgot all about his mission to identify "Playboy" for what it essentially is: an organ that seeks to justify the superordination of sex over all other considerations - loyalty to family, any principle of
self-discipline, any respect for privacy, or for chastity or modesty. Sex omnia vincit, Hugh Hefner's magazine told us, issue after issue.
Really, I wonder if anyone in the future can ever again take seriously the Anti-Defamation League. Here is an organization "dedicated to the combating prejudice and discrimination against Jews and other minorities, and to the protection and extension of our democratic system for the benefit of all Americans." "The League" the brochure continues, "works
with the various institutions of our society, public and private, religious and secular, to achieve these ends." And it is celebrating later this month its First Amendment Freedoms Awards by giving a dinner-dance in honor of - Hugh M. Hefner.
About the honoree the ADL says, with an apparently straight face, that he "began with little more than a unique idea for a magazine" (nude women, jokes about copulation, and advice on how to seduce young girls) "and a philosophy of social change." (The "philosophy," quite simply, that the gratification of the male sexual impulse is to be achieved without any
second thought to the possible effect on a) the girl b) her family c) your family d) any code of self-restraint.) "The empire he founded has had a far-reaching impact, not only on the publishing industry, but on the mores of American society as well."
That is correct. Any serious disciple of Hugh Hefner would not hesitate to purr anti-Semitic lovelies into the ears of his bunny, if that was what was required to effect seduction. The Anti-Defamation League has, in the past, surrendered to temptations
alien to its splendidly commendable purpose, namely to focus attention on, and bring obloquy to, acts of racial discrimination. It meddled actively in the presidential campaign of 1964, endeavoring to scare its clientele into believing that Senator Goldwater was an ogre of sorts, backed by fanatics and cravists. Its current director, Mr. Nathan Perlmutter, is a man of high sensibility, gentle, firm, discriminating, a scholarly man long associated with Brandeis University. One notes that he is charging $250 a plate to guests who seek the privilege of joining with him to honor Hugh Hefner.
The tawdriness of the symbolism is driven home. Even as Hugh Hefner sells pictures of parted pudenda in order to make a dollar, a nickel of which he donates to institutions devoted to the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, and of fellow pornographers to hawk their wares, the ADL raises money to combat discrimination by honoring the principal agent of the kind of selflessness that deprives racial toleration of the ultimate sanction. This sanction rests on a profound belief in the sanctity of the individual, yes, even that of the nubile girl. Take away from the struggle for racial toleration the profound spiritual commitment to the idea of a higher law, and the code against anti-Semitism becomes a mere matter of social convenience, the kind of upward mobile patter one is taught in the pages of "Playboy" to imitate, on the order of wearing Dior handkerchiefs or Gucci loafers.
Racial toleration draws its principal strength from the proposition that we are all brothers, created equal by God. The Playboy philosophy measures human worth by bustline and genital energy. The affair will be celebrated, appropriately enough, in Hollywood, at the Century Plaze Hotel. The invitation specifies "black tie." Well, if the guests arrive wearing only
a black tie, that will be more than some of the guests wear at Hef's other parties.
October 21, 2009
In response to the appearance of Holocaust denial advertisements in American college newspapers, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Life unveiled a new resource to help students respond.
A new resource guide, Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements, is available on the League’s Web site and is being widely distributed throughout the United States by ADL and Hillel.
“Holocaust denial ads are not only extremely offensive, but unequivocally false,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor. “This is not a First Amendment issue; newspaper editors routinely choose to accept or reject advertisements. Would editors publish ads claiming the world is flat, or that slavery never existed?”
“Holocaust Denial advertisements are an affront to truth and an insult to the memory of those who were murdered by the Nazis,” said Wayne L. Firestone, Hillel President.
The joint ADL-Hillel guide was developed in response to a series of campus newspaper advertisements placed by Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). In his 2009 campaign, Smith successfully placed advertisements in more than a dozen campus papers, with an ad most recently appearing in the Harvard Crimson.
Fighting Holocaust Denial provides historical background on Holocaust denial and a profile of Smith and the CODOH. The guide provides legal analysis of the First Amendment and newspaper advertising policies, and offers actionable strategies for responding when Holocaust denial ads are published.
ADL and Hillel recommend that editorial staffs develop and implement policies defining acceptable advertising standards, such as those maintained by the newspaper industry, which they can reference when declining hateful ad submissions.
Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements may be accessed here. For more information or to obtain a print copy of the publication, please contact the Anti-Defamation League at firstname.lastname@example.org.
(YWN Desk - NYC)
Friday, October 16, 2009
New York City
From Michael Santamauro
Now it is all 22 of the Kindle books from Theses & Dissertations Press that is part of The Holocaust Handbook Series of 22 titles, have been banned from Amazon. This all happened today, at a slow moving process without Amazon telling me they were doing this, nor will they tell me why they did it. The softcover editions are still available. I hope this is a mistake on the part of Amazon.
When you click on the banned title it says it cannot be sold to registered Kindle users in the United States. Until last week all the millions of Kindles (E-readers) were only registered in the United States. Maybe the new international version of the Kindle is putting a block on Holocaust Revisionist books that is causing this confusion in their system.
This is the first time in Amazon's short history in selling books wirelessly with the Kindle (E-reader), that they have banned books for their content. They sell millions of books a month with their Kindle.
Funny thing is, he was never a Nazi, nor Ivan the Terrible, nor even German. So why now is he standing trial in Munich as accessory to 27,900 Nazi murders? Is this one last blow struck for justice for the Holocaust? Or is it a farce?
By Scott Raab
[John Demjanjuk, who] was stripped of citizenship and shipped to Israel to face his accusers — brought to justice onstage in a concert hall converted into a courtroom for a yearlong trial broadcast on Israeli television and radio, meant to remind the younger Jews never to forget the evil done to them — and heard the survivors, in simultaneous translation, identify him across all the years and miles as the Ukrainian savage so bloodthirsty, so unforgettably depraved — with a whip or a sword or a drill, it was his pleasure to maim Jews only a few moments away from being gassed — that inmates called him Ivan Grozny: Ivan the Terrible.
Demjanjuk didn't hang, of course. After five years alone on death row in Israel's Ayalon prison — where Adolf Eichmann, too, had sat, the desk jockey who saw to it that the trains groaning with doomed Jews ran on time, and who was strung up in 1962; Eichmann and Demjanjuk are the only men Israel has ever tried for the Nazi genocidal crimes — Demjanjuk presented evidence on appeal that another man, one Ivan Marchenko, was Ivan the Terrible, and that Israel was about to hang the wrong Ukrainian.
Funny thing: The Israeli Supreme Court decided to let Ivan Demjanjuk walk.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The new PP Regional General Secretary is César Augusto Asencio
The Partido Popular in Valencia has decided to replace Ricardo Costa as Regional General Secretary with César Augusto Asencio.
El País reveals that Sr. Asencio is a holocaust denier, who described the holocaust as ‘The greatest fraud in History’ in an article published in the publication, ‘Diario Información’. He described the extermination of six million Jews during the Second World War as a ‘legend’.
In the article he said that ‘a detailed study’ had shown ‘propaganda on a worldwide scale’ in the hands of the Jews, supported by countless tricked photos and documents.
He noted that the International Red Cross never mentioned the existence of any gas chambers or mass exterminations in its reports.
The political group, Iniciativa del Poble Valencia, has called for the immediate resignation of César Augusto Asencio, because of his ‘Nazi position’.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Enter our 2009 Contest and Win Cash!
Send in your entries now for the 6th Annual David McCalden Most Macabre Halloween Holocaust Tale Challenge.
Pits of boiling human fat? Human soap? Giant "death by steaming" pressure cookers? Fountains of blood squirting from the earth?
Help us find new Holocaust stories you find macabre and ridiculous.
The deadline is approaching for entries to the 2009 David McCalden Most Macabre Halloween Holocaust Tale Challenge. This is our sixth year of competition, and there seems to be no shortage of entries. Make certain you get yours in now, and tell all your friends!
Monday, October 5, 2009
President Drew Faust
Office of the President
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
05 October 2009
Dear President Faust:
It is apparent that Harvard faculty supports a strategy of refusing to ask questions about WWII German weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers). It is equally apparent, by its silence, that Harvard faculty has found that it is not right to question the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans, and that they will not support Harvard students who might be disposed to a free exchange of ideas on either matter. Does the Office of the President support that taboo? I have heard nothing to suggest that it does not.
On 08 September the Harvard Crimson printed my advertisement asking why General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his Crusade In Europe, chose (chose!) to not mention the WWII German weapons of mass destruction, the “gas chambers.” The ad asked: “Why not?” The ad also asked that a professor, someone, at Harvard University provide, “with proof, the name of one person killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.”
On 09 September Maxwell L. Child, President of the Harvard Crimson, felt it necessary to apologize for having run the advertisement, saying that the text “questioned whether the Holocaust occurred” (it did not) and that it had angered many members of the Harvard community. The Crimson staff then published a letter stating “we believe this item [these questions] should never be found in the pages of a college newspaper.”
No member of the Harvard faculty attempted to answer either of my questions, and there is no evidence that any member of the Harvard faculty supported student journalists at The Crimson who had been in favor of publishing the ad. When the emails, telephone calls and letters poured in to The Crimson from on-campus and off-campus special-interest groups, Harvard faculty played out the role of “bystander,” allowing Crimson journalists to hang and twist in the wind.
President Faust: why do you believe no academic at Harvard is willing to respond to two simple questions about German weapons of mass destruction? Why do you believe Harvard faculty is unwilling to support Crimson journalists who favor a free exchange of ideas on the matter? Does the Office of the President support what appears to be a taboo at Harvard that prohibits questioning the orthodox (the State) position on German weapons of mass destruction?
Do you not think it right for Harvard students to be aware of the fact that Dwight D. Eisenhower chose (chose!) to not mention gas chambers in his Crusade In Europe? That Winston Churchill, in his six-volume History of World War ll, chose to not mention gas chambers? That Charles de Gaulle chose to not mention German gas chambers in his Memoirs? That when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly only last month to proclaim that the Wannsee Protocols contained “precise” information on the extermination of the Jews, that those who produced those Protocols chose to not mention gas chambers? How “precise” does Harvard faculty believe that is? Exactly?
Perhaps you believe it is “hateful” to ask critical questions about German weapons of mass destruction. If that is so, you must view the asking of such questions as a moral issue. I see it as a moral issue myself, but from what I believe is a different perspective. I believe it is immoral to suppress intellectual freedom at Harvard, as it is to suppress it anywhere. I believe it immoral for Harvard (or any) faculty to not come to the aid of students who have opted for a free exchange of ideas and a free press. That it is immoral for Harvard faculty to exploit taboo to forbid students to question a charge of unique monstrosity routinely made against others.
Harvard faculty has the right to be skeptical of every revisionist argument that questions German weapons of mass destruction. Skepticism is not a sin. Revisionists are skeptical of the orthodox claims about German WMD and have published a good deal of material to illustrate why they are skeptical. To my knowledge, no Harvard professor has published one paper in one peer reviewed journal illustrating where a core revisionist text about German WMD is worthless. The skepticism of Harvard faculty, then, only reveals its credulity.
President Faust: do you believe it right that the Office of the President should allow and even encourage taboo to trump intellectual freedom at Harvard? That taboo should be used to forbid an open debate in student publications on the question of the German use of weapons of mass destruction? If so, how am I to distinguish a member of your faculty committed to this particular taboo from a member of a South Seas cargo cult committed to some other taboo? His trousers?
Thank you for your attention.
Bradley R. Smith, Founder
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327
NOTE: I will copy this letter to some of your colleagues and to others who I believe might find it interesting.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Broadcaster Jeff Rense had Jim Condit, Jr., on in the middle hour of his radio program. In their dialogue, the two of them discussed dissenting views about the Nazi Holocaust regarding the alleged plan to completely exterminate the Jews of Europe, noting the intricate provisions for immigration that had been made in formal agreements brokered between the Nazi regime and the Zionists during the 1930s to transfer a significant number of German Jews to Palestine.
This came on the heels of the Rense website posting three videos featuring a series of discussions between David Cole and Ernst Zundel. It must be said that rense.com has become an impressive clearinghouse for a wide spectrum of dissenting views on a broad range of subjects over the years, including Holocaust revisionism.
Ditto Mike Rivero’s equally eclectic website, whatreallyhappened.com; and others, in their blogs or up on their websites. Revisionism has been welcomed into the broad community of dissentients; not by all, certainly, but by some. It has a presence, and both Rense and Rivero have carved a niche for it in their daily postings as a perfectly valid avenue of historical inquiry.
Meanwhile, in a growing number of street protests across the U.S. we see a kind of populist revisionism taking form. Posters showing the American president, Barack Obama, with a Hitler mustache are a common feature at health care and anti-tax rallies. Some policies of the government are denounced as Nazi-like. The media fend off accusations of taking their cue from Goebbels’s propaganda machine, and so on.
Over in Tehran, Dr Ahmadinjad, the Iranian president, delivers yet another barn-burner of a speech, wherein he again dismisses the Holocaust as an historical myth. Which, very predictably, elicits a Pavlovian gnashing-of-teeth reaction among the chattering classes in the West, with foaming outrage over Dr A’s “Holocaust denial” being a recurring motif for talking-heads, and knee-jerk bashing of geopolitical villain du jour, the Islamic Republic of Iran, reaching new heights (new lows?). All of which, naturally, underscores belief in the received version of the Nazi Holocaust as an Establishment orthodoxy. That alone would make it suspect for some among us, given a growing popular recalcitrance to Establishment-sanctioned viewpoints.
In the 1980s, it was reported that Holocaust revisionism was being imported into Germany via its large and thriving Turkish community, and treated as sound intellectual currency. Since then, needless to say, the population numbers in the immigrant community have grown all over Western Europe and across North America. And with that has come a degree of openness to ideas that conflict with the received version of history as promoted by the old-line Establishment. There can be no doubt that new and auspicious circumstances, in terms of multiculturalism and its by-product, the warm reception given renegade ideas, are filling up tributaries that feed into the swelling torrent that is Holocaust revisionism.
Social fragmentation married to media fragmentation is producing a mosaic composed of discrete tiles, rife with intellectual pluralism, in which old established ideas are being challenged. Michael Moore’s latest documentary deconstructs the core idea that capitalism is a force for good. On scores of university campuses, an annual Israel Apartheid Week decries Zionism as a racist ideology. Even now, as I write, an arrest warrant has been issued for a Catholic bishop in Nova Scotia, wanted for the cache of kiddie porn he had allegedly uploaded to his laptop computer. His distraught superior, the archbishop of Halifax, was heard fending off the spectre of nihilism, asking despairingly: “Who is there left that we can believe?” The man speaks for many; such bedrock disillusionment is well-nigh universal.
Skepticism regarding the media abounds, cynicism concerning the political classes abounds, a distrust of ascribed moral authorities is rampant, a rising alienation from mainstream views is rampant -- but plain old human curiosity remains constant. They all add up to market forces that will advance the fortunes of revisionism. Robert Faurisson was right: Going forward, Holocaust revisionism can only grow in strength and influence and outreach.
This is a test to scan the lay of the land with regard to advertising a revisionist title on the American university campus. In 2002 when I first advertised Break His Bones I ran a quarter-page ad that contained an image of the book cover with my happy smiling face and beneath it the address to Committee for Open Debate on the Hoalocaust www.codoh.com. That was the entire enchilada.
It ran one time at Harvard when it was pulled under pressure from the usual perps. It ran one time in The Daily Texan, when it was pulled under pressure from the usual perps. My understanding is that it ran twice in The Daily Californian at Berkeley before it was pulled under pressure from the usual perps.
In each case student journalists at those three universities were okay with running the ad. Student journalists were okay with the propostion of contributing to a free exchange of ideas. It was special interest groups backed by faculty, in the sense that no professor stood with any of the student journalists against those special interests, that took care to see that the ad was censored.
Same story, again, with Harvard earlier this month. Student journalists are oftentimes willing to go out on a limb in the name of a free press. Faculty, as at Harvard again this month, are victims of their own taboo against intellectual freedom. The taboo has become so powerful that the professors have frightened themselves with their own doing to the point of being willing, more than willing, to leave student journalists to hang and twist in the wind.
What a crowd!
Friday, September 25, 2009
The phrase “what they are feeding the public” conjured up the image of a barnyard trough brimful of bland animal fodder where people lined up to uncritically consume a daily ration of “news” calories.
The phrase “what they are feeding the public” stuck with me. The man was a defector from behind the Iron Curtain, a physicist in the employ of the National Research Council in Ottawa. I thought: If you want to know about propaganda, this would be the fellow to talk to: An intellectual, a political refugee from an East European nation ruled by a communist regime, a diehard cynic and skeptic.
Now I, too, find myself watching TV network news to learn what it is they’re feeding the public nowadays. Not solely that, though. In this age of the Internet, a viewer is far better equipped than he’d been before to discern the different ways in which a news story is configured and presented. The attentive reader will be mindful of not only what's in the news, but also of what’s been left out of it.
James Baldwin had once described a writer’s capacity for listening this way: “[A] writer is never listening to what is being said, he is never listening to what he is being told. He is listening to what is not (italics) being said, he is listening to what he is not (italics) being told, which means that he is trying to discover the purpose of the communication.” (1)
What, according to Baldwin, is true of writers, is now also true for millions of news junkies who get their information online. Which may explain, in part, why it is public trust in the veracity of mainstream media ranks generally low. (2)
Their sins of ommission in reportage, which speak to "the purpose of the communication," are often glaring; the failure to adequately report on Israel's vicious assault on the Gaza Strip, last December and January, being a salient example.
Quote from Haroon Siddiqui in the Toronto Star: “[Judge Richard] Goldstone's report is a condemnation not only of Israel but also its apologists in Canada, including the media. The latter are now busy burying the report under an orchestrated avalanche of negative reaction without ever properly reporting its contents.” (3)
The headline for Nathan Guttman’s article in the Jewish Forward: “A Quick Burial for Goldstone Report on Gaza.” (4)
A growing awareness of the news report as a product tailored to sell us on a given narrative makes it more likely that the holes in a current story will not go unnoticed; an insight that extends to the many forms of media; fewer things get past the informed citizen in today’s world.
Consider this passage from the autobiography of notorious fraud artist, Julius Melnitzer. In 1992, A Canadian court had sentenced Melnitzer to nine years in prison on 43 charges of fraud totalling more than $67-million. The disgraced lawyer used the two-and-a-half years he actually served time to pen his memoirs.
“I believed in criminal law,” he wrote. “I valued procedural justice in a meaningful, passionate, substantive way that filled an inner vacuum. The strong civil libertarian tendencies endemic to children of Holocaust survivors, the streak of antiauthorianism that got me tossed out of high school, my internal sense of not belonging, and my own victim mentality gave me the perfect psychological makeup for a specialty that pitted outcasts against the State.” (5)
Melnitzer penned those words in a prison cell in a country where Holocaust revisionists like Ernst Zundel have endured long and costly trials with the prospect of prison time hanging over them, all for peacefully expressing their views on a matter of history; with the charges against Zundel and others brought at the behest of Jewish groups that included both Holocaust survivors and their families, with the touted “strong civil libertarian tendencies endemic to children of Holocaust survivors” not being in any way toweringly evident.
Of all the civil liberties issues in matters to do with free speech, nothing so stridently calls forth the strong arm of intellectual repression by the State in our fair dominion as manifestations of Holocaust revisionism. If anyone needs the qualities Melnitzer has ascribed to himself -- the “strong civil libertarian tendencies,” the “streak of antiauthorianism,” and a “sense of not belonging” -- it’s a Holocaust revisionist, an outcast with often limited resources who is pitted against the limitless resources of the State, goaded by an unforgiving Holocaust lobby.
1. James Baldwin, The Evidence of Things Not Seen, Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, 1985, p, 95.
2. “Public trust in US media eroding: Pew study,” Agence France Press, September 14, 2009.
3. Haroon Siddiqui, “Shining a light on Israeli aggression in Gaza,”
The Toronto Star, September 20, 2009.
4. Nathan Guttman, “A Quick Burial for Goldstone Report on Gaza,”
Jewish Forward, online September 23, 2009.
5. Julius Melnitzer, Maximum Minimum Medium, Key Porter Books: Toronto, 1995, p. 103.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
There was no assertion of fact in the ad, no claim to “truth,” only a simple question. The question asked why General Eisenhower, the leading Allied commander on the Western front during WWII, made a decision to not mention the German WMD in his account of that campaign in his book Crusade In Europe published in 1948.
He made that decision consciously! To not mention the German WMD! We are not going to suppose that it just slipped his mind. The question asks why he chose to make that decision? That’s all. Why?
Once the ad was published in The Crimson it caused a furor on and off campus. The story was picked up by all local media in the area, and then by CNN. CNN quotes me as saying, with respect to the scandal caused by the ad at Harvard: “Why the fuss? Because it’s taboo, and has been taboo from the beginning. When you break a culture-wide taboo, supported in theory and practice by the State, the University, and the Press, you create a fuss.”
That quote was repeated again and again in media all around the States, the Spanish speaking world in Europe and South America, in Israel, the Jewish American press, in the Portuguese language O Globo in Brazil, and on so many Web pages and Blogs (most recently on History News Network, a Web page run By Historians For Historians) that we stopped keeping track.
I want to run the “Eisenhower” ad in student newspapers on university campuses all over America. The number of university-connected people we can reach is very impressive. If we use the Harvard statistics for a base, and those stats are minimal, when we run the ad in ten student newspapers we will reach some 260,000 students, faculty and administration. A good number of State universities have 40,000/50,000 students alone, so you can see where this can go.
This is where you come in, hopefully. Will you help me run the Eisenhower ad in student newspapers on university campuses? Every contribution you make will help and be much appreciated. The ad itself will cost about $135 per insertion. It varies. If you can fund the cost of running the ad one time, that would be swell. If you can fund two, three or more runs of the ad – that would be magnificent.
We are working here to break through a taboo. The professorial class in America joined with the State following WWII in asserting the “unique” monstrosity of the Germans with their infernal behavior (Germans cooking Jews to make soap from their fat, Germans skinning Jews to make lampshades and riding breeches from their hides, Germans using WMD to “exterminate” millions of innocent civilians—the list goes on and on). No one is saying that the Germans behaved like angels during WWII, but enough is enough.
It is more than enough when we understand how the assertion of “unique” German monstrosity is exploited to morally justify the conquest of Arab land in Palestine by European Jews, to morally justify the ongoing Israeli subjugation of and humiliation of the Palestinians, and to morally justify the U.S. Congress in passing on more than 100-Billion (!) dollars of American tax-payer monies in direct aid to the Israeli State—so far (The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs).
The American university is not the place, under any circumstance, where taboo should be preferred by academics over the questioning of historical orthodoxies. To the contrary! You do not have to be a professor to understand that it is better to encourage a free exchange of ideas than it is to discourage such an exchange via suppression, censorship, and taboo. We all understand that whether we have been to university or not.
If you agree with the thrust of this letter, please help me run our Eisenhower ad in student newspapers in universities around the country. Your contribution will be very much appreciated, I will use it carefully, and it will be productive. We will encourage the debate, in the full light of day, that the professorial class and those who serve the Holocaust Marketing Industry are determined should not take place.
Bradley R. Smith
PS: All communications regarding contributions will he held strictly confidential.
PPS: I realize that you don’t really know who I am, that so far we have done no work together. With that in mind I want to remind you that you can get my 320-page confessional, Break His Bones: The Private Life of a Holocaust Revisionist, for $4. No shipping, $4. That’s it. All my cards are there on the table, face up. I think it will help you decide that this is an important project, and that I am someone you can trust to carry it forward.
You can order Break His Bones here.
You can contribute directly to the Eisenhower ad via Paypal here.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Oaxaca, Mexico, Thursday 17 September 2009
Dear Thomas Dalton and Michael Santomauro,
Today Michael, you notified me that you added me to your Reporters Notebook mailing list, and sent me three other e-mails as well. I hope this is not the beginning of a flood of e-mails. One of them announced Thomas Dalton's book, [where I found]the following:
Preeminent Holocaust expert Raul Hilberg said: "What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. [These measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."
Please let me have a specific (Title and page number) reference for this quote. I have, and have read cover to cover, The Destruction of the European Jews (Student Edition), by Raul Hilberg, published in 1985 in the U.S. by Holmes & Meier. Thank you.
Sept. 18, 2009
The source of that statement of Raul Hilberg is to be found in: George DeWan, “The Holocaust In Perspective”, Newsday (Long Island, NY), 23 February 1983, p. II/3.
On 16 January 1985, R. Hilberg confirmed those words during his cross-examination at the first Zündel trial in Toronto, Ontario (Canada); see transcript, p. 846-848.
He repeated his strange if not metaphysical theory (but with other words) in The Destruction of the European Jews, [second] revised and definitive [sic!] edition, New York, London, Holmes & Meier, 1985, in his chapter on “The Structure of Destruction”, especially on p. 53, 55 and 62.
On p. 53 he said there was “no basic plan”.
On top of p. 55 he wrote there had been: “Written directives not published” / “Broad authorizations to subordinates not published” / “Oral directives and authorizations” / “Basic understandings of officials resulting in decisions not requiring orders or explanations” (emphasis mine).
On the same page he explained: “In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization.”
On the same page, he also specified: “no one agency was charged with the whole operation [of destruction]” and “no single organization directed or coordinated the entire process.”
On p. 62 he concluded: “The destruction of the Jews was thus the work of a far-flung administrative machine. This apparatus took each step in turn. The initiation as well as the implementation of decisions was largely in its hand. No special agency was created and no special budget was devised to destroy the Jews of Europe. Each organization was to play a specific role in the process, and each was to find the means to carry out its task.”
Please, acknowledge receipt of this message.
My next trial (because of what happened at the “Zenith Palace” with Dieudonné on December 26, 2008) will take place in Paris on September 22 at 13:30. The result will be known about one month later.
R. Faurisson, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Some critics of the Say No to Cultural Appropriation camp drove home their dissent by sub-dividing communities into an infinitesimal number of sub-groups, and then re-framed the issue with a question like: “Can a straight, able-bodied, male, Aborginal author write a novel in which the hero is an infirm, Aboriginal Lesbian?”
In any event, it got me brooding during my commute to and from my job on the whole issue of appropriations, which my Concise Oxford Dictionary defined as to “take possession of” -- but more especially “without authority.”
I thought back to an early struggle that I had with appropriation as I wrestled with puberty and my compulsion to indulge my favourite sexual fantasies every night after lights out. In those mental porn movies I projected up on a screen in my imagination, my “co-star” was often a friend’s sister or a pretty class-mate or other, older women whom I happened to catch a glimpse of during the day. It was their enticing image I lasciviously co-opted.
In those younger days -- during the early 1960s -- a remnant of Victorian prudery still prevailed in matters of sexuality, and because of this I felt the practice of masturbation to be intrinsically bad, but made much worse by a habit of appropriating the images of women I knew, young and old, and including them in my X-rated mental movies. Was it right to do this (I asked rhetorically) and, more importantly, since grievously wrong, how might the God overseeing the Catholic Church punish me for it in the hereafter? I carried on despite dread of divine wrath, of final judgement, and eternal hellfire.
Of course, appropriation can take many forms. I recall a chum of mine in university describing the week he’d spent in Quebec City during the summer of 1967. Mike was Jewish only on his father’s side, and his old man was room temperature as regards his devotion to both Judaism and Zionism, but Mike was exhilarated by the Israeli victory in the Six Day War and introduced himself to girls he met as an IDF veteran. The image of the Israeli soldier promoted by the Western media was a heroic one then, and posing as such, Mike averred, definitely helped him to score.
The funny thing is, Mike did “make aliyah,” as they say, five years later. He moved to Israel; was assigned work on a kibbutz; and slept in a barracks-like dorm, along with other, wannabe Zionist pioneers. A disenchantment with the campfire life of a kibbutznik soon set in. Certainly, the task Mike had been given in the egg hatchery -- collecting and disposing of the rotten eggs -- was very off-putting, to say the least. He suddenly up and quit the kibbutz, and left Israel after just a couple months; he hightailed it back to Montreal.
It was around this time, living in Montreal’s north end, that I made friends with a student at Sir George Williams University. Jerry was the first child of Holocaust survivors that I got to know. Because of this, his was, he said, a family home that was deeply troubled and dysfunctional. His mother had attempted suicide; his father was an incurable hysteric. Jerry himself was receiving psychiatric counseling at the Jewish General.
One day he told me his father’s story. How, as a Red Army captain, he paid a visit to his home town in Ukraine, and stood before a common grave that contained the bodies of his father and mother, of three bothers and three sisters, his first wife and their twin children -- all victims of the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union.
His telling me this story came on the heels of our discussion of a made-for-TV series, QBVII. Based on the Leon Uris novel, it starred Anthony Hopkins as Sir Adam Kelno, a good Polish doctor, who was knighted for his charitable work, but now forced to defend his otherwise sterling reputation in a libel suit after allegations surfaced that formerly, as a prisoner of the Nazi regime, Kelno performed ghoulish experiments on Jewish inmates in a German concentration camp.
Jerry flushed as he recounted his father’s rants during the TV commercials as they watched one of the QBVII episodes together.
“If we learn anything from all this,” he declaimed, “It is that gentiles absolutely cannot be trusted.”
As he quoted his father, forked veins inflated on his temples, pulsed and throbbed; for a moment he seemed to channel his father’s boiling outrage. The penetrating expression in Jerry’s darkening eyes left me in no doubt that, then and there, he also included me among the general run of treacherous gentiles.
Jerry was appropriating the tragic and bitter legacy of his father’s wartime experience. It was as if a sudden gust of wind had blown open the front door to the house, rattled everyone momentarily, until somebody promptly shut it again, and calm was restored. For after a while the tension between us eased and dissipated, and we resumed our casual banter.
After graduation from university, we went our separate ways. On a snowy afternoon several years later I shared a subway ride with his sister, Rosalind. She explained that her brother had become an orthodox Jew, dressed like a Hasid, and was constantly hectoring their parents for their lack of strict kosher observance in matters pertaining to diet, subscribing as they did to Judaism’s slightly more lenient conservative branch. “Jerry’s turned the tables on them, after all the years they were nagging him about his lacklustre display of observance.”
Another captive eddy in the ebb and flow of appropriations.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
My book, Break His Bones, presents a human face to students who have been taught for decades that it is a “sin” to question the gas-chamber stories, that only a moral monster would question the “unique” monstrosity of the Germans.
Break His Bones exposes the double standards that the professorial class, along with the rest of the Holocaust Marketing Industry (Holocaust Inc.) exploits to suppress and censor the call for a routine examination of the gas-chamber question.
The ad will cost on average about $100 -- $125 per run. Your contribution will ensure that the ad will be read by university students around the country, and that each of these students, with a couple clicks on his keyboard, and $4, will get a copy of Break His Bones, a book unlike anything he/she has ever read.
It will be clear to one and all that no one is going to “make money” selling a 320-page book for $4 with free postage and handling. Money is not the purpose of the ad. I want students to have the opportunity to see a side of the revisionist struggle that they have been successfully blinded to because of a Holocaust Marketing Industry with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, an ignorant press, and at the bottom of it all a broken-backed professorial class that will not stand up for its own ideals.
Once the ad is running, you will be able to follow the story on the CODOH blogs, and in Smith’s Report.
For ten years and more I suppose I have been the most visible holocaust revisionist activist in America. I'm very far from being the right person for the job. The most visible revisionist activist in America should be a scholar and someone who is passionately interested in the litera-ture.
I'm very far from being a scholar and I find the literature to be a real yawner. At the beginning of course it was awfully shocking to discover that it has not been demonstrated that the gas chamber stories are true. What I couldn't get out of my mind however was not the apparent fact that there had been no program for the mass gassing of Jews, thank God for that as they say, but how urgently intellectuals argue against intellectual freedom on this one issue.
Even in the early 1980s I had only a casual interest in the historical record. What held my attention was what I perceived to be the challenge of finding a way to convince the intellectuals, and the media intellectuals, that revisionist research should be judged on its merits, as I presumed they judged all other historical research. I see now I presumed much too much. These days, as students display a growing interest in an open debate about the Holocaust controversy, the intellectuals increasingly display signs of bad temper and even hysteria.
Professor Deborah Lipstadt, the leading voice representing the Holocaust industry in academia, has chosen to single out the work I do on college campuses for special attention in her muchpraised book, Denying the Holocaust, The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. There she devotes a 26-page chapter to what she sees as "The Battle for the Campus," writing plaintively that: "Colleagues have related that their students' questions are increasingly informed by Holocaust denial:
"How do we know that there really were gas chambers? . What proof do we have that the survivors are telling the truth? . Are we going to hear the German side?"
Now there's a real scandal for you! Some students are no longer willing to accept on faith what their professors assure them is true about the gassing chambers, but want to learn what the evidence demonstrates. They suspect that while most survivors speak truthfully about their wartime experiences in the camps, some do not. Where do students get such ideas? There are even students who want to hear the "German" side to the Holocaust story. Unbelievable!
The Deborah Lipstadts of the world must be asking themselves what in hell is going on? They've run the Holocaust show on campus and in the media for so many years they see these signs of student curiosity and principle as the outbreak of some dreadful intellectual pox. I see them as the cure to one. The Lipstadts write about the "terrible harm" such questions can do. I ask why such questioning does not measure the good health of the culture?
Professor Lipstadt is no shrinking violet when it comes to arguing against intellectual freedom. She even has the brass to argue against "light of day," the concept that false statements and even false ideas can be exposed as such by flooding them with the light of free inquiry and open debate. She writes:
"[I]t is naive to believe that the 'light of day' can dispel lies, especially when they play on familiar stereotypes. Victims of racism, sexism, antisemitism, and a host of other prejudices know of light's limited ability to discredit falsehood."
What does Lipstadt believe will dispel lies and discredit falsehood? Night? How many victims of racism, sexism and antisemitism speak against light in favor of suppression and censorship? I wonder how Jews felt about "light" in pre-war Nazi Germany? Early on the Nazis moved against Jews in the arts, against Jews in publishing, against Jews in the universities-all places where traditionally light is so highly valued. The Nazis had views about light in the 1930s that are similar to those of some professors today. Light for the Nazi-minded, darkness for everyone else. In the long run, light might not have made any difference for German Jews, but when you look at the record you find that when Hitler began to deny light to Jews, the Jews began to leave Germany. Those Jews understood the necessity of "light." Those who didn't soon found out what it meant to live in darkness. Without tyranny, human life is full of light.
The problem for the Lipstadts is that light is there for all of us without fear or favor. It is no respecter of persons. Just as the sun shines on the good and the bad alike, light refuses to choose sides. Historians who ask it to betray their professional ideals and the ideal of light itself. It's Lipstadt's need for guarantees from light that causes her to argue against this great ideal of Western culture. We all have to be willing to accept what light illuminates. I admit on principle I might be wrong about the gas chambers, to say nothing about a lot of other stuff. Nevertheless, here I am, looking for ways to encourage intellectuals to encourage intellectual freedom with regard to the holocaust controversy. I don't care anymore who's right or wrong about the gas chamber stories. I'm fishing a bigger lake.
My friend William called from Chicago to ask how the video project on Auschwitz is going. William is one of my volunteer advisors. I told him there had been too many production problems and I'd had to lay it aside. I said I was going to concentrate on finishing the book manuscript.
"Is that the manuscript you've been talking about the last two or three years?"
"Has it been that long?"
"This is bad news. This is really bad news."
"What are you suggesting?" I said. William is one of those very sincere men who wears his thoughts on his sleeve. You always know what he's suggesting.
"What I'm suggesting is you're very mistaken if you think people are interested in reading about your inner life as a holocaust revisionist. Nobody wants to read about you, Bradley. Are you listening to me? Your personal life is a bore. People are interested in their own lives. The only interesting thing you've ever done is revisionism and you don't want to write about that. You want to write about your feelings. Can't you understand how childish that is? I have that first little book you published, what's it called? It's unreadable. Do you understand what I'm saying? It's a miracle you've been able to accomplish anything at all for revisionism."
"I understand what you're saying. But some people like the way I write. A writer can only have his own audience."
"I don't know who the hell you've been talking to. Listen to me. Let me tell you what your problem as a writer is. I'm telling you this as a friend. As someone who's interested in the work you're doing. Your problem is that you write like a sixty-year-old teenager."
"Sixty-four, William. I'm sixty-four now."
After a moment William said: "Is that a joke? I know how old you are. What the hell are we talking about here? Are we talking about something serious? I'm worried, Bradley. It's no joke that revisionism's got you for its point man."
When I found out that something was wrong with the gas chamber stories I was fifty years old. By the time you're fifty you've been around the block a few times. You've come to believe you're finished with fear, for example, yet here it was again. In a certain way, it was the fear that held my attention. I quickly lost interest in "survivor" yarns about gassing and torture and how good and innocent Jews are compared with Christians and everybody else.
Instead, I was intrigued and maybe a little obsessed with how afraid I was of admitting-of confessing I might even say-that I no longer believed. I had lived most of my adult life among Jews and with Jews, and some of us were terribly devoted to one another. When I realized I was going to go against the gas chamber stories, a terrible tumult entered my life because I understood many of my friends would feel I was going against them too. It was in that place that fear grasped me and held on.
I could have dropped the story and gone on my way, but when you write the way I write, the stories you dread most are the stories you are most obligated to pursue. My sense of things was that I had to risk friendships, even risk my family. I had to risk the contempt of my peers and the ostracism of a community and society, which would judge my doubting to be despicable. Nietzsche writes some place that we all work out of our weaknesses and I suppose that's what I did. In my anxiety and fear I decided to take on, not the gas chamber story itself, but those who run the story as if it were their private franchise, who condemn those who question it. Those who have the power to destroy many of those they condemn.
The ruling discourse in America, and indeed the West, demands that the Holocaust story remain closed to authentic debate. The holocaust happened. Revisionists say it didn't. For that reason all worthy persons and particularly intellectuals-who are all worthy persons by definition-favor the suppression and even censorship of revisionist theory. Meanwhile, because over the last half century the story has been revised so much, it becomes increasingly difficult to say exactly what the holocaust was. That's where I saw my role. I fell into it like a blind man falling down a well. All I could see was the taboo that protected the story from real examination. How could anyone put his finger on what the thing itself had been if it was taboo to talk about it freely-really freely? I would be the one then, the blind man said, to help start the discussion going.
I didn't know how to get it going. Not knowing what to do, I did everything. One on one discussion, newsletters, radio talk shows, newspaper articles, television interviews, books, public speaking, print interviews, video tapes. You name it, I tried it. I became a one-man band. Dr. Franklin Littell, professor of religion at Temple University in Philadelphia and a holocaust scholar himself, refers to me as a "malicious burst of energy" and compares me to "the adversary who wanders to and fro in the earth and goes up and down in it."
Friends tell me this is an insult. I think maybe it's something more subtle. I'm being compared to one of the great innovators in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Wanders to and fro in the earth and goes up and down in it? All right. Maybe I see what he's getting at. There's a whole world down there I didn't know existed. Dr. Littell's thoughtful observations on my character and movements illuminate the learning gap that exists between highly educated, professional holocaust scholars on the one hand and ex-concrete contractors on the other.
When you express doubts which others believe are evil, and which in fact may cause many individuals to suffer and to feel diminished and perhaps even humiliated, you have an obligation to act out of a good conscience and to value what can be called right relationship. Which means I must be a good man or the mischief and grief I cause by saying I doubt what I doubt will be gratuitous. What does it mean to be a good man? I have only the foggiest notion. It would seem to me as a writer, however, that it would include being willing to say publicly I do not believe what I do not believe, particularly when what I no longer believe relieves another people, in this instance Germans, of the moral burden of a specifically horrendous crime I no longer believe they committed.
When my first essay advertisement, "The Holocaust Story: How Much is False? The Case for Open Debate," appeared as a full-page ad in the Daily Northwestern, an article responding to it appeared in the Daily written by Peter Hayes, an associate professor of history and German with a special interest in Nazi Germany. Titled "Some Plain Talk About the Holocaust and Revisionism," Hayes' article is a paint-by-the-numbers example of how your typical holocaust historian reacts when faced with even the simplest text challenging what he wants his students to believe.
I note his response here, not because it proved to be unique in any way, but because it was the first to reply directly to one of my ads, and because it proved to be a textbook guide to the subjective life of those academics who are willing to betray light.
"When this newspaper printed Bradley Smith's advertisement last Thursday it fanned not one, but two, gathering controversies on campus. The first concerns our knowledge about the Nazi massacre of the Jews of Europe. The Second centers on the policies of the Daily itself.
"Surprisingly perhaps, the first issue is far easier to clarify than the second. Of course, there's been no suppression of free inquiry into the Holocaust. It is precisely because of extensive and vigorous research by bona fide scholars over the past three decades that we know not only several of the facts that Smith manipulates in his ad, but also a good many that he does not want you to believe.
"There's no point in writing more here about the factual deceptions and distortions in Smith's ad."
No point in writing more about the factual deceptions in my ad? Which factual deceptions? For a moment I felt I must be blind to something your average Northwestern professor could see at a glance. Was there a misstatement of fact in my text or wasn't there? We all have our own way of looking at things, but this thing was not clear to me. How do you describe an intellectual environment in which an historian can write there is no point in writing more about factual deceptions in a specific text when, as a matter of fact, he hasn't written anything about them at all. However you do describe it, you should include the word vulgar.
Professor Hayes' article on my article continued for another seventeen paragraphs.
He avoided the temptation of attempting to reveal an error of fact in what I had written but charged me with "deception," "manipulation," "distortion," "ignorance," "nastiness," "dishonesty," "duplicity," "maliciousness," "tastelessness," "conspiracy mongering," "promoting implausabilities," "promoting anti-Semitism," "spreading disinformation" and, the one I still like best, "brow beating academics." I would not have thought,
considering the bold language the professor used, that he would have mentioned that last one.
Revisionist theory isn't wrong about everything, and there's the rub. Revisionism is simply a criticism of pub-lished academic writings on the holocaust story. I take it as a given that revisionist research is wrong about a lot of things. The problem the professors face is that if they point out where revisionists are wrong the professors are left with what's left over-with what revisionists are right about. This is a conceptual tragedy for your average academic. In each case where the revisionist is right, a bunch of academics are wrong and would have to fess up to being wrong, to having been wrong for a long time-and to having been stonewalling about being wrong. It would then become clear that while the good guys are right most of the time with what they publish on the story, the bad guys are right some of the time.
After the ad ran in the Daily Targum at Rutgers University, the New York Times ran an editorial on the controversy, as well as several news stories, letters to the editor, and a dumb opinion piece by two Rutgers' professors. It also assigned a reporter from its San Francisco bureau to drive down to Visalia with a cameraman to do a profile on me. I expected the worst but I liked the reporter, Catherine Bowan. She's a big hearty woman with a big hearty laugh. A photo ran with her story showing me gesticulating dra-matically, giving the impression I actually believed what I was saying. Bowen informed me she is a specialist on the White separatist movement in the Northwest. She said she'd interviewed all those guys, in prison and out. She said every racist and anti-Semite in the Northwest knows who I am and all about the work I do.
"Is that right?" I said.
"Do you keep up with the people in the movement?"
I understand she's fishing, but then, I'm here to be caught. I tell her a lot of those people contacted me when I first started doing revisionism but over the years they'd all dropped me. "I'm not anti-Jewish, so that was a big strike against me. My family is Mexican, so the racialists see me as a race traitor, and I don't have any guns so the militias and the anti-Zog forces are convinced I have no sense of honor."
"Three strikes and you're out," Bowan says laughing:
"I suppose so. I think the movement people think I'm a pantywaist."
"That's exactly what they think," Bowan says laughing heartily. "They think you're a pantywaist.
Her photographer thinks my being a pantywaist is funny too but it's Bowen's laugh that rings in my ears. Maybe it's because she's a lady. You can laugh at being called a pantywaist when a man says it because you have a choice what to do about it, but when a lady laughs about something like that you're kind of helpless. So I remain quiet. I'm a good sport about it. When the movement people read this they'll say, "Of course Smith's a good sport. Smith has no sense of honor."
When William Blake writes that Jesus acted on impulse, not from thought, he means that Jesus' actions did not depend on his being obsequious before the ruling discourse of his day. Of course in Blake's view Jesus was good all the way through so his impulses were good so his acts were good. It pleases me to think that Jesus acted on impulse and not by the rules, because I think when push comes to shove that's what I do and that throws me in with good company. How good I am is another question. It's not one I can pass judgment on. Actually I think I'm a pretty swell guy. One irony here about impulse is that the professors can be seen to be acting on it too. They dismiss revisionist theory with a wave of the hand, holding that there can be no debate about the gas chambers because there can be no "other side" to the story. Only their side. Maybe it was something like this 200 years ago that drove Blake to conclude that education is the work of Satan.
It's simply a core belief among our intellectual classes that the Germans killed millions of Jews and others in gassing installations. Entire classes of intellectuals have become True Believers. I understand it can be argued that I'm a true believer too-in intellectual freedom. I can't prove that intellectual freedom is better than tyranny. It's something I want. That's the long and short of it. I doubt many things that others believe. No one can keep me from doubting, but I crave the freedom to be allowed to express my doubts to others.
This isn't an argument over natural rights. I don't want to make intellectual freedom a plank in a party line. Intellectual freedom is not primarily a political issue or even an intellectual one. It's a spiritual issue. You either desire it or you don't. You either want it for others as well as for yourself or you don't really want it. They say Buddha said that desire is at the root of all pain. I'm willing to go with the pain. My desire is the foundation of whatever arguments I make to convince others that intellectual freedom is better than tyranny. First the wanting, then the argument. The other way around and it's mere thinking.
One day I ran across an article about mad poets in the New York Review of Books. Not poets who are annoyed. Crazy ones. I have some interest in poetry, and an intermittent interest in madness. Professor Charles Rosen of the University of Chicago wrote the article. Early this year I submitted a second fullpage advertisement to a student newspaper on that campus, The Chicago Maroon. You can see the coincidences gathering themselves together here. This ad was titled "The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate." In the end it was suppressed so Chicago students didn't get to read it, but the word had gotten out on campus about the text of the ad and there was a big stink about it.
So one afternoon I was in the mall here drinking a diet Pepsi and reading Professor Rosen's discussion of madness in English and Continental poets from about 1750 to 1850. It looked as if half my favorite poets from the period were goofy. At the same time, Rosen noted that madness is oftentimes a matter of social convention and that social pressure oftentimes determines whether or not you will be certified as a lunatic. It is not clear, he writes, that those men with their visions were any more insane than the people today "who believe that no one was gassed at Auschwitz."
What was this? Was Professor Rosen talking about me? It's come to the place where professors can't make mention of Mayan sinotes, bureaucracy during the Sung dynasty or a lunatic English poet without introducing some fatuous reference to Auschwitz. I read someplace fifteen years ago that there were already 200,000 bibliographical references to Auschwitz, and that was before the professors really got cooking. I suppose Auschwitz will start popping up in new editions of Grimm's collected tales for first readers.
Despite the obstacles and the longing for night so prevalent in the universities with regard to holocaust studies, I've been able to create a tremendous free-press scandal throughout the academic community. My ads call attention to revisionist theory on one campus after another across the nation. My second article, "The Holocaust Controversy: The Case For Open Debate," has run as a full page ad at Michigan, Duke, Cornell, Rutgers, Ohio State, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Louisiana State, Howard, Arizona, Montana and at half a dozen others. Howard is the largest Black university in the country. When the ad ran at the University of San Diego, the President of that Catholic institution ordered special agents to fan out over the campus and confiscate every copy of the paper still available and destroy it. Prospective entries for a new Catholic Index perhaps?
When the New York Times ran its snooty editorial on my ad, asserting it was trashy and barren of ideas, it nevertheless affirmed, "When there is free expression, even the ugliest ideas enrich democracy." How do ugly ideas enrich democracy? Professor Lipstadt found the answer at The Harvard Crimson and took the trouble to repeat it in her Denying the Holocaust.
In one of the most unequivocal evaluations of [Smith's] ad, The Crimson declared it " . . . utter bullshit that has been discredited time and time again."
So there we have it-light on the one hand and bullshit on the other. The yin and yang of intellectual freedom. What browbeaten professors and far-too-elegant editorial writers at The New York Times find ugly is actually part of the process of fertilization when open debate is allowed. Of course, everything new and daring looks bullshit-ugly to those who have something to lose from the new and the daring. When you live in a farming community like ours, you learn to appreciate the necessity for light and fertilizer both. Together they're what make the grapes grow. They make the white blossoms appear on the fruit trees.
Yousof, another of my volunteer advisors, says serious people don't take me seriously because my writing reveals my lack of a university education.
"You missed something by not going to school," he says. "It shows in everything you write. Your thinking is disorderly and incomplete. How can anyone who is well read take you seriously? You don't understand the logic of language. You have no formal intellectual training. Educated people understand that when they read you. When you write about the Holocaust from an intellectual perspective they know you're in over your head."
It's obvious to me Yousof has his finger on something. There's plenty missing here. More than he suspects maybe. But this is the hand I was dealt. We can't all be scholars. Most of us aren't. Many of us never went to school at all. When my father-in-law finished the first grade in a Mexico City grammar school, that was it for him. He had to get a job. Nevertheless, ordinary people everywhere feel committed, in the context of their own lives, to right action and right relationship. These are no more and no less the first responsibilities intellectuals bear, in the context of their lives. I have found everywhere that ordinary people sense it is good to be truthful, generous and open minded and that it's base to be deceitful, uncharitable and bigoted. With respect to the Holocaust controversy, I don't know of a single intellectual elite that has not betrayed those simple standards.
Occasionally one of my revisionist colleagues will speak to me of honor and urge me not to allow my enemies to insult and ridicule me without striking back. Honorable men feel it's degrading to be ridiculed and insulted. I've come to see something of the comic in it. That's how low I've sunk. When I was a kid it made me angry to be insulted or treated contemptuously, but the older I grow the more difficult it is for me to feel offended by anything said by anyone. One of my problems is that I don't have enemies. Many people think of me as their enemy but I see those persons as potential friends with whom I disagree on a few matters. Maybe if I had been to university I'd be able to relate to them in a more mature way.
Ramana Maharshi advises going at this matter very differently, but he's a Hindu so you have to cut him some slack. He says he doesn't care why an insult hurts, he wants to know who it is who believes he is being hurt. It doesn't do to tell the Maharshi it's you because the Maharshi will ask you who you are and you won't be able to tell him-not to his satisfaction anyhow-and after a while not to yours either. That's the theory. I think there's something to it.
I can still see (who am I?) the television images of the monks in Saigon sitting on the sidewalk setting fire to themselves. They weren't laughing or cracking jokes but they weren't complaining either. They were protesting what they held to be unacceptable behavior by those who had chosen to rule them. I detest complaint but I admire protest. One of the many reasons Adolf puts me off so is that he was a truly chronic complainer (many "survivors" resemble him in that way). I don't think he ever would have been a happy camper, but if he'd chatted up the Maharshi every now and then (their lives spanned the same decades) maybe his own life and the lives of everyone in Europe would have taken a different turn.
Debbie M. Price, a good looking syndicated columnist writing for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, begins one of her columns:
"From California it came, a voice of pure evil, whispering gently, persuasively into the phone . . . . on the very day President Clinton dedicated the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, here was this voice, this man, Bradley Smith. . . . "
Now that's a terrific lead. Her prose goes down hill after that opening paragraph, but I have a soft spot in my heart for anyone who'll kick off a column the way Debbie kicked that one off. I've gotten clippings of it from newspapers all over the country. A voice of pure evil. That's something. Secular journalists are joining Christian scholars to elevate me to extravagant heights of influence. Still, it makes sense. When you find yourself identified with the One who wanders to and fro inside the earth and goes up and down in it, a voice of pure evil comes with the territory. What I need to know is, when I come up to the surface to chat with Texas journalists, where is my point of entry? If the time ever comes when I have to make a run for it, I'd like to know where the devil the hole is.
It's six o'clock in the afternoon on the last Sunday in May. A surprise storm has covered the valley with dark heavy clouds. I'm in the patio behind the house checking the air in the tires on Marisol's bicycle. The front one is low. I hear thunder, a sudden wind blows through the plum trees, then the first drops of rain fall heavily on the patio roof. Fat water drops splatter the concrete walk that leads around the side of the house. I sit on the saddle of the metallic-red girl's bike and watch the rain shake the plumtree leaves and listen to it fall on the corrugated plastic above me. When it stops I pedal over to Mooney Boulevard to the gas station where I use the air.
I wait out another squall beside the pumps, then start pedaling toward downtown-toward the Main Street Diner and Bar. I might make it before it rains again, I might not. Since coming to Visalia I've been drinking Bass Ale but the last time out after I drank a few Bass and left the Diner and was pedaling back along Locust-I don't know how it happened-I fell off the bike into the gutter in front of the Tulare County Escrow Office. From now on when I'm riding the bicycle, no more Bass Ale. Today I'll drink something lighter. Maybe a few Becks clear. Nearing downtown I cut across Noble and coast over the Locust street bridge across the sunken freeway. I look east up the freeway past where the concrete goes out of sight and beyond to the mountains and there, where the clouds have blown apart, I can see the first ranges of the Sierra Nevada beneath a pure blue sky and how their crests are covered with a fresh white snowfall. And then out of the blue as they say, I hear a voice speak.
"The time is come for you to live a life of intellectual freedom, not argue for one."
I don't understand very well what the voice is getting at. But I'll think about it.