This blog moving on

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am in the process of reorganizing The Founder's Page, which includes
this blog,The Holocaust Question Today. The first thing you will note is that this blog will not accept new posts of any kind, and those who have been writing for it will be writing for Bradley Smith's Blog. From here on out, one blog, not two. We'll find a place to put the posts that are here now together with other materials. When I do, I will announce the fact on Smith's Blog.

No regrets.

--Bradley

A (Small) Battle Won on Wikipedia

I was browsing Holocaust-related articles on Wikipedia, most of which espouse the “traditional” Holocaust mythology (many virulently) when I came across a reference to David Cole, main on-screen talent in a long and very influential 1992 video debunking tour of the Auschwitz theme park. I noted from the reference that the article itself that concerned Cole had been deleted fairly recently (December 6).

Why wouldn’t Wikipedia, which covers Ernst Zündel, David Irving, and even (scathingly) Holocaust Denial, cover David Cole? Why, indeed? Wikipedia doesn’t provide access to deleted articles (they wouldn’t be deleted if Wikipedia did), but it does provide access to a kind of “audit trail” in which it is recorded “who” (that is, which Wikipedia Editors) deleted an article, and their statements as to why the article should be deleted. The article was established on November 29 by an Editor identified as Ramos221, who has since been deleted. The article lasted a week, and Editor Ramos not much longer. Thank you, Ramos221, whoever you are!

I looked up the Deletion Discussion on David Cole and encountered a few disingenuous citations as to why he didn’t merit coverage on Wikipedia, concluding in four votes to Delete and none to Keep. I recognized one of the participating Editors (WilliamH) as one who has in the past monitored my contributions to Wikipedia on the Holocaust, and altered or, in most cases, deleted them. The other Editors voting were the one that apparently initiated the deletion, and two others that, when I checked them around December 30, had been permanently banned from Wikipedia, which is usually done to notably destructive Editors.

One of the two had been identified as a “sock puppet,” which is a fake account created by an Editor (who may or may not have a “legitimate” account) who wants to make edits without their being associated with his or her “real” account. Having and using “sock puppets” is a way to get around having been banned, and Editors detected doing this are themselves banned, along with their sock puppets, of course. The other banned User also showed all the indications that it was a sock puppet.

Wikipedia, which is nothing if not procedural, has a procedure for calling a situation like this to the attention of Administrators, which are “Super-Editors” who have official responsibilities and powers in Wikipedia. I wrote up the situation I describe above, and in a matter of minutes, the Administrator who had approved the original deletion put the article back!

This small victory is likely to be transient without ongoing vigilance on the part of me and all the rest of us concerned that the truth regarding the Holocaust be allowed even the slightest chance of being detected by the determined researcher. The Holocaust Legacy has squads of Einsatzkommando who patrol Wikipedia day and night and jump on Editors like me and Ramos with amazing speed and ferocity. They have probably already marked David Cole for deletion out of fear that Wikipedia users will discover his persuasive videos through links from his article.

So go check the article fast, while it’s still there! And help me patrol Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet trained yourself to be a Wikipedia Editor, log a Comment to this blog post to let me and the other readers of this blog know that we need to act on Wikipedia. Again.

Irving Hacker Caught?

David Irving arranged his November 23 meeting near Chicago with his fans with all the discretion of a witch assembling her coven for a private toad-boil. Despite this, a group of eight (young, male) witch-hunters invaded the Edelweiss Restaurant in suburban Norridge and proceeded with a maximum of noise and destruction to the back room in which Irving was conducting his oh-so-quiet, by-invitation-only gathering, throwing furniture and some red fluid they had brought with them.

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.

Elie Wiesel's Hope for America

Elie Wiesel fails Holocaust lesson

News on December 10th coming from Hungary announced Holocaust spokeman Elie Wiesel's urging of the Hungarian government to outlaw Holocaust denial. Although a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize Wiesel thinks that Hungary should follow the example of France and Germany where skepticism about the orthodox Holocaust story results in imprisonment.

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.

John Demjanjuk: What does the Guardian judge offensive?

This is the letter that offended the ideals of good journalism at the Guardian

"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."

John Mortl

***

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.

Never Forget ... to Pay ... and Pay ... and Pay

The Alamo. Pearl Harbor. 9/11. The Holocaust. Never forget! Actually, we won't get the chance to forget - at least not for a hundred years or more. Because the open palm is always outstretched. "Victims" - in this case of 9/11 - are virtually always in a position to collect pensions if they survive, or their heirs collect if they don't, and today this very much includes not only Holocaust survivors, but millions more who have managed to pass themselves off credibly or otherwise as being one.

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.

And paying.

And paying.

Nazi victims' families testify at Demjanjuk trial

AP reporter David Rising writes that Rudolf Salomon Cortissos sobbed as he told a Munich court about the letter his mother had written on May 17, 1943 — four days before she was gassed in the Nazis' Sobibor death camp with some 2,300 other Dutch Jews.

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.

Coffee with Bradley Smith : Elie Wiesel, a ludicrously unreliable survivor

Me and the H-Bomb Part Two: The Gas Chamber of Samuel Crowell

By Chip Smith

PREFACE

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.

Demjanjuk tried on Nazi death camp charges

AP’s David Rising reports that John Demjanjuk was put on trial today charged with being an accessory to the murder of 27,900 Jews at the German camp at Sobibor more than six decades ago. The wheels of justice never stop turning for Germans and those who served Germans during WWII—always with the exception of Jews who served Germans during WWII.

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.

Holocaust Denial, Meet Climate-Change Denial

These two denials will meet, December 3, in London, at an event held under the auspices of the Index on Censorship magazine. I celebrated what now is becoming known as ClimateGate on this blog a couple of days ago ("A Hack-in for the Rest of Us,") and now, the sort of institutionalized censorship arrayed against climate-change skepticism is being appreciated as similar to the grand-daddy of them all, the censorship of Holocaust skepticism. The perpetrators are different, the cause seems different, but the methods are the same, and money is coming from the same places - taxpayers like you and me.

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.

"Holocaust Denial is Pervasive, Growing, and Doomed"

Sunday, November 22, 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 [....]

A Hack-in for the Rest of Us

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

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

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

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

The emperor has no clothes.

Wikipedia and the Holocaust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor of the Clemson University Tiger:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bradley R. Smith

Would You Buy an Apartment from This Guy?

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

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

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

Anti-Semitism: New Movie

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

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

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

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

Fredrick Toben is out of jail and talks about it

Not Much of a Blog . . . Yet

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

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

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

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

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