Friday, December 30, 2011

Holocaust Controversies: It's Here!

For those who have read "our" indefatigable researchers Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, and Jürgen Graf, the anti-revisionist Web site Holocaust Controversies have produced an imposing "Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf, and Kues."

I haven't read it (just received it - I HAVE read the aforementioned falsehoods themselves), but it looks quite like engagement - 571 pages of it! Even if it is itself a load of falsehoods, it is clearly a very large body of them, assembled with care and even skill by the Others who care about the things we care about.

There are today so few with the awareness involved in appreciating the importance of our issues that I feel we rather owe it to our adversaries to accord their efforts the (considerable) attention involved in evaluating their work - and cheer the spirit of engagement that their massive oeuvre bespeaks!

Thursday, December 22, 2011

A Glimpse into the Future?

This report, relayed from a "warmist" Web site, is most remarkable for its description of an uneasy kind of truce between those asserting that the world will grow hotter with increasing speed and those saying there is insufficient evidence for such an assertion, and backing up their skepticism with repeated releases of (chiefly e-mailed) evidence of a campaign of deception on the part of many warmists.

This grudging recognition of their opponents by the previously dominant warmist movement came about only after the devastating revelations of "Climategate" (and recently, Climategate II) provided sufficient impetus for admitting the validity of the "deniers'" case. Until that time, such people as Gro Brundtland, Special Envoy of the United Nations for Climate Change, pronounced people who expressed skepticism at the warmist assertions "immoral."

Sound familiar? As yet, no respectable historian has placed his or her career at the mercy of those many (historians and otherwise) who assert the exterminationist understanding of what they have trademarked "The Holocaust," and it may be a long time before any does, despite the many and devastating exposes that have been published of the mendacity of most members of the dominant party to the dispute.

But as the heretofore-dominant case continues to crumble under the relentless and growing attacks it sustains every day from revisionists, the situation at historical conferences may one day come to resemble the description in the article. After all, "Hologate" has already occurred, many times over.

And it will continue to occur, over and over, and worse and worse.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

France: Watch What You Deny

In a move that trades off freedom of expression for consistency in the legislation of historical sensitivity, the French General Assembly will vote on a bill (let's call it Gayssot II) making it a crime to publicly deny the (or a) genocide of Armenians on the part of Turks in World War I.

Objection to this bill is coming from . . . Turkey! The concern expressed by Turkish leaders has everything to do with the reputation of Turks and Turkey and nothing to do with freedom of expression, never a hallmark of Turkish governance to begin with.

This development portends curious future events in French politics. What if, for example, some latter-day Gayssot gets it legislated that it is a crime to deny the postwar genocides against Germans that occurred in Poland and Czechoslovakia? Would fingering Germans as merciless butchers of innocent Jews run one afoul of one of that law's subclauses?

When in France, just keep your mouth shut.

Monday, December 19, 2011

Holocaust Denial and Anti-Semitism

First published in
Inconvenient History

Holocaust Denial and Anti-Semitism

Richard A. Widmann

The terms “Holocaust denial” and “anti-Semitism” are hopelessly bound together in the public consciousness. In an article published this November on a blog page of the Chicago Sun-Times, it was reported that the US State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, would pay particular attention to a growing level of Holocaust denial. The article goes on to report that Rosenthal, the daughter of a survivor of the Buchenwald camp, conducted a group of seven American imams and Muslim community leaders to the sites of the former concentration camps of “Dachau and Auschwitz where millions were systematically murdered by Nazi Germany.” The article concludes with the statement that Rosenthal managed to get from the imams bearing witness to the tragedy of the Holocaust.

It all sounds neat and tidy, except of course that anyone who has bothered to look into the Holocaust story at all understands that millions were not systematically murdered at Dachau and Auschwitz. No historians of the revisionist or orthodox schools have made this claim for decades. Ultimately it is exactly such distortions and anti-German statements that motivate many who seek to revise the history of the Holocaust in light of the facts. And make no mistake about it, assertions that the Germans committed crimes in exaggerated numbers or with false macabre details amounts to anti-Germanism. Would there not be wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone asserted that even thousands of Palestinians were killed in Israeli-run refugee camps? In today’s hyper-sensitive, some might say Orwellian, society, which has exponentially multiplied the political correctness of the 1990s it is impossible to correct such outrageous claims about Dachau and Auschwitz without first being charged with Holocaust denial and then along with it anti-Semitism. It is demanded that everyone accept all claims about the Holocaust no matter how fantastic or improbable.

Plato established in his Gorgias, that when engaging in an argument it is most important to initially define your terms in a precise manner. While the general public unconsciously assumes they understand the terms "Holocaust denial" and "anti-Semitism" and their relationship, the truth is likely far from those carefully planted assumptions.

Continue Reading:
http://tinyurl.com/73jxzpx

Saturday, November 26, 2011

A Note from Arthur Butz

Caution.

In the September issue of SR (no. 185) I wrote that Rudolf Vrba was a cousin of Vera Atkins, the World War II British intelligence agent. Wikipedia based this claim on the 2007 (I erroneously wrote 2011) book Spymistress by William Stevenson. I confirmed via Google Books that Stevenson had written thus on his p. 3. Stevenson being a well-known popular biographer, I assumed he passed along a fact.

I later got the book from the library and looked for Stevenson's account of Atkins' encounter with Rudolf Höss, which he described on p. 310. The meeting is presented as occurring at the Soviet occupied Auschwitz camp in fall 1945. Received history, e.g. the earlier (2005) Atkins biography A Life In Secrets, by Sarah Helm, places the meeting in British-occupied Germany in March 1946.

I wrote to Stevenson c/o his New York publisher on 11 Oct. 2011 to ask for his comment on this discrepancy and as of 25 Nov. 2011 I had received no reply. Thus I assume Stevenson's version of the meeting is wrong.

Now I have found that Stevenson's book got reviews that made very negative judgments on grounds of factual content (e.g. Nigel West in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, vol. 21, no. 3, 2008, pp. 594-608). This calls into question the veracity of Stevenson's claim of the Vrba-Atkins relationship. I have thus far been unable to verify the relationship because all relevant web pages I have found are based on Stevenson, the Wikipedia article referencing Stevenson, or in some cases on my September article.

My hunch is that Stevenson got that point, at least, right, but the reader is belatedly warned. I hope that the only factual error I passed along was the publication date of Stevenson's book.

Arthur R. Butz

25 November 2011


Thursday, November 24, 2011

Dishonest Journalist of the Week Award

Lynn Sweet,
Washington Bureau Chief
Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans St., 10th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
lsweet3022@aol.com
Copy to
Tom McNamee, Editorial page
tmcnamee@suntimes.com
23 November 2011
Dear Ms. Sweet:
I am writing in response to your rejection of several comments sent to you regarding your article, Fight against anti-Semitism still has hurdles
Your article is laudatory of Hannah Rosenthal, the State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and noted that Ms. Rosenthal is “paying particular attention to growing Holocaust denial…”
The gravamen of the rejected comments was that the United States government should have neutral officials, not officials who are emotionally involved in the issues before them. As a daughter of a victim of Nazi persecution and a former head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an organization with a strident anti-Revisionist agenda, Ms. Rosenthal appears to be extraordinarily inappropriate to act as a monitor of what is “Denial.” Another writer submitted a question concerning the cost to the taxpayers of a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat…”
The comments were reasonable and interesting. Rather than post them, you ditched them.
CODOH is a Revisionist organization. We believe that it is important to defend free speech and promote open discussion. Expressing "Denial" has been made a felony in many countries, usually with the dishonest conflating of Revisionism with “anti-Semitism. We have seen a disturbing tendency to erode free speech and discussion in the United States State Department starting with the US sponsored declaration in the United Nations “Rejecting any form of Holocaust denial.”
With all due respect, Ms. Rosenthal seems to be part of this trend. Rather than a banal panegyric you should have asked important questions about the cross-over of private concerns and positions of public trust. For your uninspired article and your dishonest treatment of negative comments, you have been awarded CODOH’s "Dishonest Journalist of the Week award."
Sincerely, David Merlin
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA 92143
Telephone: 209 682 5327

Friday, November 18, 2011

The end of YouTube ....?

First published in

Avaaz

The end of YouTube ....?

Amazing! Almost 500,000 signers from across the globe in just one day -- sign below and forward this email to grow our call

Dear friends across the US,

Under the new law, our government could force Internet providers to block any website on suspicion of violating copyright or trademark legislation, or even failing to sufficiently police their users' activities. And, because so much of the Internet's hosts and hardware are located here in the US, their blacklist would clamp down on the free web for all of us in America and millions across the world.

We only have days before the vote but we can help stop this -- champions in Congress want to preserve free speech and tell us that a global outcry would strengthen their hand. Let's urgently raise our voices from every corner of America and join Avaaz members across the world to build a massive call urging our decision makers to reject the bill and stop Internet censorship. Click below to sign and then forward as widely as possible -- our message will be delivered directly to key members of the US Congress ahead of the crucial vote:

vote here

For years, our government has condemned countries like China and Iran for their clampdown on Internet use. But now, the impact of these new censorship laws could be far worse -- effectively blocking sites not only in the US but also to every Internet user across the globe.

Last year, a similar Internet censorship bill was killed before reaching the Senate floor, but it's now back in a different form. Copyright laws already exist and are enforced by courts. But this new law goes much further -- granting the government and big corporations enormous powers to force service providers and search engines to block websites based just on allegations of violations -- without a trial or being found guilty of any crime!

Free speech advocates have already raised the alarm, and some key Senators are trying to gather enough support to stop this dangerous bill. We have no time to lose. Let's stand with them to ensure our lawmakers preserve the right to a free and open Internet as an essential way for people in the US and around the world to exchange ideas, share communication and work collectively to build the world we want. Sign below to stop censorship, and save the Internet as we know it:

Click here

In the past months, from the Arab Spring to the global Occupy Movement, we've seen firsthand how the Internet can galvanize, unify and change society. Now, if we stand together, we can stop this new attack on Internet freedom. We've done it before -- in Brazil and Italy, Avaaz members have won major victories in the fight for a free Internet. Let's mobilize here in the US to defeat the most powerful censorship threat that the Internet has ever seen.

With hope,

Luis, Dalia, Diego, Emma, Ricken, Aaron, Antonia, Benjamin and the rest of the Avaaz team

Thursday, November 10, 2011

CODOH Urges President of Humboldt University, Berlin, to Cancel Use of Humboldt Facilities for a Conference on “Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech


San Diego, CA, November 9 2011

Prof. Dr. Jan-Hendrik Olbertz, President

Humboldt University

Berlin, Germany

praesident@uv.hu-berlin.de

Dear Prof.-Dr. Olbertz:

Through its law school, Humboldt University is hosting a conference this month whose purpose is hostile to freedom of expression. Not only is your august institution making its Grimm Auditorium available for the sessions, two members of the Law School faculty (Bernd Heinrich and Tatjana Hörnle) are speakers at it. I refer, of course, to the conference of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists of November 15 through 18, titled “Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech in the Internet Era.”

The title is deceptively abstract. In fact, it takes little imagination to see, the subject is “Using the Force of Law to Discourage Open Debate of the Holocaust on the Internet,” an agenda antithetical to the freedom of discourse upon which both universities and the development of knowledge depend.

Now, I know that in today’s Germany, open debate of the Holocaust is indeed discouraged by the force of the law, and I know that Humboldt University’s Law School concerns itself with the design and application of laws. But excusing the complicity of Humboldt University in this campaign of repression is like excusing the firm of Tesch & Stabenow from developing and supplying the alleged means of the deaths of millions of Jews, Zyklon-B. (I might question whether it was used for this purpose, but I suppose doing would violate German law, so I demur.) The accusation against Tesch & Stabenow and the German people themselves, of course, comes from the very interests whose conference you plan to host. And they mean to suppress discussion of these and many similar accusations—all over the world.

Just because a pesticide firm concerns itself with poisonous gases, or a law school with the administration of laws, is no excuse for the firm, or school, to knowingly abet inhuman conspiracies. Your relying on the innocuous styling of the conference’s title will be rejected just as were Tesch & Stabenow’s claims that Zyklon-B was for killing lice.

Germany’s academy has a long and shameful tradition of serving the state in ways later shown to be deleterious to the wellbeing of mankind.

It is time for Humboldt to uphold humanitarian ideals that always have, and always will, transcend the state. Cancel the use of your facilities. Withdraw your speakers from the program. And take a stand for freedom of speech that even today remains so sadly lacking in the heart of European civilization.


Bradley Smith

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

PO Box 439016San Ysidro, CA 92143


Telephone: 209 682 5327


NOTE: This release is being distributed to academics and students at Humboldt University, Berlin, and to journalists and associations in Europe and North America with a strong interest in a free press.

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, founded in 1989, argues that the Holocaust story should not be the preserve of some at the expense of others, but should be open to a free exchange of ideas for all.


Wednesday, November 9, 2011

CODOH Challenges The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists to Work for Intellectual Freedom Rather than Censorship


San Diego, CA, November 07 2011

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) calls attention to the activities of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). It is holding a massive promotional event in Berlin entitled Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech in the Internet Era November 15 19 2011

The agenda of the IAJLJ is presented in a string of policy statements posted at IAJLJ. Policies include a defense of Ariel Sharon’s infamous 2000 "Strut through Temple Mount," a demand for the release of convicted spy Pollack, a call for the revocation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, a denunciation of the Durban World Conference Against Racism, a demand that a human rights conference be canceled because it "will have prominently on its agenda allegations of violations of the human rights of the inhabitants of the Palestinian territories," and a petition accusing UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard of inciting terror with his reference to “the deaths and expulsion of thousands of Palestinian civilians…”

In short, the IAJLJ is especially noteworthy for its brazen hypocrisy in masquerading as a human rights organization while being dedicated to a notorious stand against free speech.

Unfortunately, this group is adept at soliciting governmental officials of good will to participate in its pseudo educational promotional events by touting itself as "a membership organization whose objects are to advance human rights everywhere." In fact, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists now has the sinister distinction of being the most militant anti-free speech group on earth.

We are a group of historians, scholars and committed lay persons who feel that the up-coming conference in Berlin will only serve as a propaganda tool for restricting free speech and a real exchange of ideas. We understand and can respect the fact that different groups have memories and histories which are sacred to them. We understand that to even question accepted history can be controversial and even offensive to some. It is not our intent to shock or offend or "teach anyone a lesson." But forwarding a living memorial to a particular historical event is one thing, while having the freedom to examine that historical event in the routine way that all other historical events are examined is another.

Unlike the IAJLJ, we encourage the examination of history in the light of day over creating a memorial to any one specific historical event. We hold that it is the right, and the duty, of students and scholars alike to investigate and search for the Truth. The IAJLJ has successfully sold its idea linking Revisionism (referred to as "Denial") with "hate." In nearly every statement on the matter the IAJLJ uses the formula, "Combating Anti-Semitism and the Denial of the Holocaust." From our perspective, the IAJLJ is using dishonest rhetoric and misrepresentations to promote laws against what it sees as blasphemy regarding its memorializing of the orthodox Holocaust story.

The IAJLJ regularly defames Revisionists as “anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda.” That is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of the history we are taught today about the WWII era has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for the propaganda purposes of the victorious States. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. There is considerable research that supports our point of view and it should be inconceivable that anyone should be threatened with prosecution and prison for stating in public that they doubt what they can no longer believe.

We at CODOH want to encourage a progression to an age where governments can no longer pass laws mandating belief in a government-approved historical theory. The one-sided presentation of anti-Revisionist Conferences like the Berlin show have led to Draconian laws against “Denial,” laws that go against our fundamental ideals of free speech and are meant to stifle a free exchange of ideas. All people of good will, and all people who support the right of humans to speak openly about that which they feel important, and the right to dissent from the views of the State or a ruling class, should be concerned by the activities of the IAJLJ.

Bradley Smith, Founder
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California

Telephone: 209 682 5327
Email: bsmith@prodigy.net.mx

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, founded in 1989, argues that the Holocaust story should not be the preserve of some at the expense of others, but should be open to a free exchange of ideas.

NOTE: This release is being distributed to journalists and free press organizations in Europe and North America.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Google’s Recent Decision not to Impair Access to sites with Revisionist Content

David C. Drummond, Senior Vice President,

Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

Google, Inc.

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway

Mountain View, California 94043


Phone: +1 650-253-0000

Fax: +1 650-253-0001


04 November 2011


Dear Mr. Drummond:


Google’s recent decision not to impair access to sites promoting history displeasing to certain Jewish-aligned groups was not only a blow in defense of freedom of expression, but also, I suspect, in the long run a good business decision. I presume the scope of the decision was Google’s United States market, and that Google subsidiaries in other jurisdictions remain free to comply with local requirements in whatever manner least impairs the freedom of expression of users of the Internet and—more at issue—access to information on the part of Google users.


Your European areas of operation remain in some countries subject to laws concerning “hate speech” and “Holocaust denial” that undoubtedly lead you to abridge your compliance with Article I (Serve Our Users), Item 3 (Privacy and Freedom of Expression) of Google’s Code of Conduct.


Compliance with legal requirements, I am sure you well know, is one thing. Complicity in undertakings contrary to Google’s Code of Conduct is something else. And it is the possibility of such abetment that concerns me regarding a speech scheduled for November 16 in Berlin by Arnd Haller, Legal Director for Northern Germany and Central Europe of Google Germany GmbH at a conference of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists headed “Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech in the Internet Era.”


Dr. Haller’s talk is an untitled “Greeting,” in which his role might be somewhat that of a host (there are three other “Greeters,” all with German institutional loci). The next day, a session titled “The Recent Google Case in Argentina” is scheduled to be given by a judge and a lawyer from that country.


Of course, while I’m able to infer the necessary latitude allowed remote operators such as Google Germany GmbH, I’m in no position to appreciate any parallel latitude they might enjoy in quasi-official speaking engagements such as this. It is a gray area in which coordination across a far-flung enterprise such as the global Google is difficult to maintain and requires both vigilance and judgment.


And it is for this reason that I seek to notify you of Dr. Haller’s scheduled speech, in the hope that you will direct attention to it sufficient to ensure that his speech adheres to the letter and the spirit of the Google Code of Conduct I cited above, which I feel sure applies to him as well as to every other Googler.


I should heartily welcome your assurances that Dr. Haller’s remarks, and for that matter, the practices of Google in Germany and elsewhere adhere to the Google Code of Conduct in as punctilious a manner as Google’s recent related decision in the United States exemplifies.


Sincerely,



Bradley Smith, Founder

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

PO Box 439016

San Ysidro, California


Telephone: 209 682 5327

Web: www.codoh.com


Wednesday, November 2, 2011

The German Ambassador and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists



Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:11 AM

Ambassador Peter Ammon

Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany

2300 M Street NW

Washington, DC 20037

Dear Ambassador Ammon:

We are writing to call attention to the worrisome activities of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). It is holding a promotional event in Berlin entitled Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech in the Internet Era November 15-19 2011.

The agenda of the IAJLJ is presented in a string of policy statements posted at http://tinyurl.com/3j6fzp9

the tenor of which can be seen in the following quote:

“The Hamas so-called Charter is a cruder and more action-oriented version of Mein Kampf, calling explicitly for the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of all Jews. The release of the Hamas prisoners by the Palestine Authority constitutes an invitation to these artisans of death to resume their terrorist bombing campaign in Israel's population centres, for the consequences of which the Palestinian leadership will be held directly responsible.”

IAJLJ policies include a defense of Sharon’s infamous 2000 "Strut through the Mosques," a demand for the release of convicted spy Pollack, a call for the revocation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, a denunciation of the Durban World Conference Against Racism, and a demand that a human rights conference be canceled because it "will have prominently on its agenda allegations of violations of the human rights of the inhabitants of the Palestinian territories." No mention is made of thousands of deaths of Palestinians. In short, the IAJLJ does little more than promote the reactionary, racist, and repressive agenda of the extremist right-wing. The IAJLJ is noteworthy only for its brazen hypocrisy of masquerading as a human rights organization and its notorious stand against free speech.

Unfortunately, this group solicits governmental officials of good will to participate in its pseudo-educational promotional events by touting itself as "a membership organization whose object is to advance human rights everywhere." In fact the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists now has the sinister distinction of being the most militant anti-free speech group in the world.

We are a group of historians, scholars and concerned laymen who feel that the up-coming conference in Berlin will only serve as a propaganda tool for restricting free speech and open discussion.

The IAJLJ regularly defames Revisionists as “anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is only Jewish propaganda.” That is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of the history we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. There is considerable research that supports this point of view and it should be inconceivable that anyone be threatened with prison for stating in public that they doubt what they believe they have good reason to doubt.

The one-sided presentation of anti-Revisionist Conferences like this one have led to Draconian laws in a number of European nations against “Denial,” laws that go against fundamental Western ideals of free speech and open discussion. We respectfully request that the government of the Federal Republic of Germany reconsider its participation in the IAJL show.

Bradley Smith

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)

PO Box 439016

San Ysidro, California

Telephone: 209 682 5327

Email: bsmith@prodigy.net.mx

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Is Elie Wiesel "the world's most famous hypocrite" ...

First Published in

Elie Wiesel Cons the World


Is Elie Wiesel

"the world's most famous hypocrite" ...



By Carolyn Yeager


Just one year ago, Elie Wiesel gave a speech in Connecticut, while a jury was in session just miles away, calling for the death penalty to NOT be given to two men who had committed an appalling crime against a family of four. Wrapping himself in self-righteousness, he intoned "Death is not the answer" to the man, William Petit, who had lost his wife and two beautiful young daughters to a couple of amoral monsters, and to Petit's supporters.


The crime committed was so brutal and horrible, and senseless too, that for this writer the death penalty is too good for these perpetrators. You can read about it here and here.


Did Elie Wiesel have the right to barge into this family's tragedy as some sort of "spiritual advisor", for which he was not asked? Of course not. Did he have any right to bring his "holocaust experience" into their personal grief as some kind of Jewish lesson in humanity?


No, and it's in the worst of taste but he is used to flaunting his imaginary suffering to audiences who have been indoctrinated and conditioned to respond like Pavlov's dogs to his trite phrases.


Continue Reading

Friday, October 21, 2011

Germany Not Playing Nicely?

Predictions of dire consequences for Europe and the world suffuse Yasha Mounk's article in Foreign Policy if Germany's government acts in accordance with what is admitted to be the will of its people. He accuses/warns that the feared actions of Germany's government will even be harmful to Germans themselves, imputing to them a willfulness that he charges is an unwarranted reaction to the country's systematic demonization and subjection to reparations requirements since the unpleasantness of 1939-1945.

That a country's populace should remain peevish two generations after its suffering a genocidal bombing campaign, invasion from both sides, losing a third of its territory and being kept split in two by occupying powers for 45 years after the Unconditional Surrender would seem a bit churlish to anyone whose own country hadn't undergone anything similar, I suppose.

Interestingly, the author bio at the bottom of the article indicates that Mounk will soon release a book on German-Jewish relations since 1945.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

First published in the
USC Daily Trojan

NOTE: Comments on this article take a turn no one will have expected, beginning with our own Jett Rucker re the "statistics" of the Holocaust. You might decide to comment yourself.
=========
Students Must Learn to Question Statistics

By MAYA ITAH · Daily Trojan
You're the 99 percent.
Thanks to the Occupy Wall Street protests, that statement is now full of negative connotations: debt, joblessness, misery.
Still, look at the number - what does it actually say?It's easy to see why statistics are appealing. They have the power to make broad claims seem concrete.In a tidy manner, they tell us the scope and seriousness of the problems we face.
Unfortunately, people often arrive at those tidy figures in a disorganized fashion. Few people are dishonest enough to completely falsify their numbers, but many popular statistics create a deceptive picture of reality.
Because new media proliferates statistics at a greater rate than ever before, all levels of education need to address the issue of misleading statistics. Students should come to college with basic skills in statistical analysis.
Take the divorce rate for example. If you've heard (and believe) America has a 50 percent divorce rate, you're not alone. I took that statistic at face value for a long time, having read it again and again.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Whatever Happened to ... Control of Hollywood?

Way back at the beginning of last year (can you remember back that far? memory's important, as we all know), Oliver Stone got himself into hot water revealing that a miniseries he had completed called "The Secret History of America" showed Hitler in a nuanced light founded on the notion that he was, after all, a human being like many of the rest of us, rather than a two-dimensional cartoon of a demented monster, as depicted before, during and after World War II by those whose office it is to depict to the masses.

Did he also claim that Hollywood and TV are controlled by Zionist and Israel-promoting interests (he's half-Jewish himself)? Anyway, whatever he said, he retracted it with an apology, as noted back then in a blog post of mine here.

Anyone seen or heard of "The Secret History of America?" My inquiry today of Showtime, whose project it is (was?) garnered this response:
Response Via Email(KatieG) - 10/19/2011 04:25 PM Thank you for writing to us. No announcement has been made regarding a premiere date for this series. All scheduling and programming information is posted at SHO.com as it becomes available. Keep checking back for updates to the schedule, and thanks for watching!

The Secret History of America. I wonder if it has anything in it about who controls Hollywood (and always has, as long as there's been a Hollywood).

Remember: you never saw it here! Or anywhere!

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Sinister Female Auschwitz Guards

A seemingly anti-Nazi (and -German) book has appeared in Britain about how evil the modal German (Nazi, same thing) woman was during World War II, complete with pictures, of which the one showing female auxiliaries is alone well worth the effort of following this link to the review of the book.

Habitues of this blog recognize the always-implicit, and here explicit hatred mongered by the producers of the Holocaust propaganda of which this book is a prime example. The review would appear to be, as well, except possibly for the caption on the picture mentioned above, which could be interpreted as tongue-in-cheek by anyone actually viewing the picture itself.

The Comments section on this article has for some reason been shut down. I wonder what people had to say about it? Of course, the Comments section on this post is wide-open, as always.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Any friend of Israel is a friend of Elie Wiesel

First published in
Elie Wiesel Cons the World


Any friend of Israel is a friend of Elie Wiesel

By Carolyn Yeager


Elie Wiesel joins Israeli Settlers and Intelligence Chiefs to Celebrate Theft from Palestinians

One of the leading land-grabbers in East Jerusalem is a settler non- governmental organization by the name of Elad. Elad’s goal is to rid Jerusalem of Arabs. One of its tactics has been to have Palestinian homes declared archaeological sites, whereby the homes can be taken over and the owners/residents evicted. It will do so by hook or by crook, says a left-leaning Jewish website Tikun Olam.

Joining these settlers at their commemoration service on behalf of this enterprise is Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Not only that, he’s the chair of Elad’s Advisory Board. Also attending the commemoration as friends of Elad were two former Israeli intelligence chiefs, Shabtai Shavit and Amos Yadlin, and a number of prominent officials.

To Wiesel, anyone who is a friend of Israel is a friend of his.

Another friend is John Hagee. In 2009, after reportedly losing a large sum of money he had invested with Bernie Madoff, Wiesel made a cool half million for one speech to Hagee’sChristians United for Israel (CUFI) benefit. During the celebration of the Feast of the Tabernacles at Hagee’s San Antonio TX mega-church, Wiesel was keynote speaker on the “Night to Honor Israel.” CUFI gave $9 million to Israel charities that night, of which $500,000 went to Wiesel’s Foundation for Humanity.

Continue Reading

Monday, October 10, 2011

Another photo of young Elie Wiesel that is not Elie Wiesel

First published in
Elie Wiesel Cons the World

Another photo of young Elie Wiesel that is not Elie Wiesel


by Carolyn Yeager

Discovered! The newspaper photograph in which Hilda Wiesel recognized her brother Elie at the OSE home near Paris.


At the end of her video-taped Shoah Foundation testimony in 1995 (the same year Wiesel’s memoir All Rivers Run to the Sea came out), Hilda shows some family pictures: her mother, her father, her sister and brother, and lastly the one above.

Hilda says (translated from French): With the cap, that’s him. My brother with the cap. That is this picture that I saw in Paris and thanks to this picture we met. I was for several months in Paris, as he was too; and we didn’t know we were both alive—and thanks to this picture we met.

Hilda may have been on the look-out for her brother when she saw this photo and thought or hoped it might be him. By contacting that OSE home that was mentioned in the story, and asking about Eliezer Wiesel, they located him there and the brother and sister were reunited. A heartwarming story, but it’s clear to me that the boy in this picture is not Elie Wiesel. Compare the known Elie in the picture below taken at the same time.

Continue Reading

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Pay Pal agrees with Hillel and the ADL


Friends and Supporters :

PayPal has banned me from using its services.
Again.
PayPal agrees with Hillel: the Foundation for Jewish Life on Campus.
PayPal agrees with ADL: the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.
NO OPEN DEBATE RE THE HOLOCAUST.
It will not be allowed. Such an exchange of ideas, freely participated in by all, will expose the fraud and falsehood at the core of this ugly story. It will expose how the orthodox Holocaust narrative is exploited to bankroll the immense Zionist project both here and abroad.
HELP ME DEFEAT THIS OBSESSIVE ATTEMPT AT CENSORSHIP.
Please contribute using your credit card, a bank transfer, your check. What else? Help me go around this new barrier, to go under it, over it, help me break straight through the center of this Zionist-benefiting taboo that is promoted and defended so ably by the Ghetto-heads in our universities, our media, our government.
If you will.
Thank you.
--Bradley

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Unfreedom of Speech on Campus

The now-infamous "bake sale" of the Young Republicans Club of the University of California at Berkeley drew an official rebuke from the university's chancellor and its toady Student Senate. Salon.com co-founder Gary Kamiya explores this regulation of speech and the subject of the speech in this post, which at one point even touches hypothetically on the Israel/Palestine confrontation that is so fueled by the Holocaust mythology.

The thrust of Kamiya's post is that race can't be openly, frankly discussed on (most) campuses.

I wanted to add a comment to the effect that race wasn't the only verboten subject on campus, nor even the most verboten. But I was unable to access comments on the post, of which there were said to be 48 at the time I tried. And I was unable to post my comment, either.

Oh well.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Netanyahu Heals Partisan Divide in Washington

First Published in


Netanyahu Heals Partisan Divide in Washington



Michael K. Smith
Legalienation News Bureau
Washington, D.C.
www.legalienate.blogspot.com


Moses parted the Red Sea. Jesus walked on water. And now Benjamin Netanyahu has healed the partisan divide in Washington D.C., the greatest miracle of all time, according to this morning's editorial in the New York Times.

In a forty-five minute address before a Joint Session of Congress the tough-talking Israeli Prime Minister convinced a heretofore bitterly divided U.S. political class to lay aside its budget battles and concentrate on America's transcendent purpose: to resettle Palestinian Arabs in outer Mongolia so Israel need no longer face the Arab "demographic threat" to Jewish democracy.

The nuance-laden speech, entitled "They Must Go!" was interrupted 637 times by standing ovations, which left many Congress members afflicted with repetitive motion disorders. "He makes it all so clear," gushed California Senator Barbara Boxer, rubbing an elbow dislocated by continuous applause. "Why should we be at each others' throats over budget matters when Israel faces extinction at the hands of HAMAS (Horrible Arab Mothers Affirming Sexuality)?"

"If they are not stopped from having babies on Jewish land," said California's other Senator Diane Feinstein, Jews will soon be a minority in their own country. In other words, it will be the Holocaust all over again."

"And that would undermine the free market," added Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, "because God gave the land to the Jews, and no one has the right to tell a landlord what to do with his land."

"It would also be a defeat for immigrants' rights," said Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) a leading spokesman for comprehensive immigration reform, "because Israel is a nation of immigrants continually made subject to terrorist attacks by Arab nativists refusing to recognize that unlimited immigration is good for everyone. They'll find that out once we relocate them to Mongolia."

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) agreed that violent expulsion was the best solution, but added that Fidel Castro should be included in the forced march to Mongolia. "The Arabs are radical Communists like Fidel. I mean, what's more Communist than one person, one vote? They're birds of a feather that should flock together."

Michele Bachmann (D-Minn.) offered to switch her party affiliation to Likud " if that would help God win in 2012." President Obama praised her spirit of conciliation and said he would consider her as a running mate if she didn't get the GOP nomination.

"She's on my short list," said Obama. "It's either her or Palin or Joe Lieberman," he added." "Bibi has promised to let me know soon."

The president pooh-poohed talk of Bachmann lacking qualifications to serve as president. "She loves God and Israel, and what other qualifications are there?"


Thursday, September 29, 2011

USC Student replies to CODOH letter to Daily Trojan

Sat, 24 Sep 2011


Dear Mr. Rucker,

Re: The Trojan protects you from what?

I support intellectual inquiry and healthy debate. But though you claim to be making the case for both, I don't see you using either. To discuss the unfortunate plight of Palestinians in Israel (who despite their mistreatment, generally live in better conditions than Palestinians in Arab-majority countries) is reasonable. But to dismiss the suffering and/or brutal murder of millions of innocent Jews through central and eastern Europe is derangement.

The ADL / Hillel manual for action is not a Zionist script to stifle free speech, as you may make it out to be. It's a simple defense against hate speech, such as yours; against overgeneralized, misinformed statements that people like you make with your "minimalist" ads. I am especially disgusted by your following comments:

1."invader in an area previously populated by Muslim Arabs" - are you saying that Jews never lived in Israel, for example, in the time of the Bible? And regardless, Muslim Arabs are still allowed to live, to earn a living, to vote, and to serve in elected positions in Israel.

2. "upon which Israel excuses not only the bloody process by which it established itself in Palestine"- do you mean the UN Mandate establishing the State of Israel? Or the 1948 War in which Israel was attacked by 3 countries simultaneously? Or is that history also fabricated.

3. "under the guns of its American-supplied military supremacy"- if you're lamenting the unfortunate circumstance in which a country under constant threat from extremist terrorists has to have soldiers providing security at shopping malls, I agree with you on that. And yes, Israel receives financial support from America. As do scores of other countries; probably most of the developing world, in fact, receives direct or indirect support from America. Israel also provides America with technological innovation. Ever read Startup Nation?

4. "the plight of Palestinians displaced (or slaughtered) by the Zionist project in Israel"- again, Palestinians are allowed to live in Israel. And, yes, there are bound to be unintended casualties when fighting against terrorists that use civilians for protection. Israel tries to minimize such casualties. In fact, Israel's ratio of civilians killed to armed enemies killed is the envy of American generals in Iraq for its lowness. Again, if there weren't terrorists attacking Israel, then the Israeli army could completely avoid killing civilians.

5. "soil of Palestine"- I understand that by using this name for a strip of land bounded by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea, you are trying to establish that the land belongs to Palestinians. I agree that they have a right to live there. They have a right to economic opportunity there. They have more there than they have available in most Arab countries. But Jews have a right to live there, too. To deny the latter fact is as cruel and inhumane as to deny the former.

6. "Their schooling... force of arms."- are you lamenting that young people are prejudiced against Nazis? That does not require any schooling. A heart and a history book are sufficient for that. Even if you can't have the former, you should try to access the latter.Prejudice against Germans is inappropriate. For the most part, as is true for most peoples, they are respectable. But prejudice against Nazis is actually support for human rights, for equal opportunity, and against discrimination.

7."Steven Spielberg's monument to retributive hatred"- I dare you to find a single scrap related to the Shoah Foundation that promotes retribution or hate. On the contrary, the Shoah Foundation states as its goal "to overcome prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry through visual history testimonies." It is a shame that you have so obviously not watched any of their videos, which cover not only Jewish suffering, but the suffering of others, such as a survivor of Rwandan genocide, too.

An attack on ADL and Hillel is one thing. But I cannot stand the casual dismissal of the suffering of my friends' grandparents. It is indicative of uneducated and misinformed hate, which you are very good at displaying. Your flippant remark about sending the young off to war equally displays ignorance in your over-generalization of a situation that is already unfortunate. The less wealthy in our society are more likely to end up dodging bullets in foreign countries. That is a tragedy. But that is not related to the main thrust of your ignorant remarks about the Holocaust, so I'd rather not venture into that discussion.

I hope this gives you and Mr. Bradley Smith pause before the next time you try to spread your hate.

Sincerely,

Dmitry Galkin

Master of Planning, 2012

University of Southern California

The End of Debate: Playing the "G" Card

A book by Edward Herman published last year catalogs examples since World War II that argue that calling the deeds or effects of political opponents "genocide" is the chief weapon by which the US and its allies stain their images indelibly and at the same time shut off all debate or analysis that might in any way ameliorate their guilt or the magnitude of their purported crimes. The book further identifies the United States as the chief abettor, enabler, and instigator of the massacres in question in every case.

Herman's choice of time frame enables him to include a genocide of Palestinians that he marks as having begun in 1948 and continuing to the present day. It also enables him to exclude what people on both sides of the debate might call the "mother of all genocides," that in Europe from 1939 to 1945. In this 2007 blog post, Herman dismisses Paul Rassinier and Arthur Butz as "cranks," perhaps to mollify the terrible forces massed in defense of the Holocaust legend, but to my reading leaving open the possibility that with that word, he expresses not his own verdict, but rather the comparative impotence of these writers vis-à-vis popular opinion.

Despite his ducking the seminal instance of his subject, Herman's study and commentary are of great relevance also to people who do not regard Rassinier and Butz as cranks.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Another "Denier" Bites the Dust

The war against open debate claimed another victim recently, the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who, under Zionist pressure, recently decorated their Web site with this declaration:
"Any expression of racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust have no place in our movement."

Notice how "intolerance" and "deny or minimize the Holocaust" are put in the same sentence, in this case without quite saying that they are the same thing. Clever.

Affiliated with the PSC? Run afoul of this proscription, and those two unrelated things may come crashing together - with your name right in the space between them.

The Nakba, of course, remains fair game - deny and minimize all you like.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist

John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist

By Jeffrey Goldberg

Sep 23 2011,

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz saxophonist who lives in London and who has a side gig disseminating the wildest sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He is an ex-Israeli and a self-proclaimed "self-hater" who traffics in Holocaust denial and all sorts of grotesque, medieval anti-Jewish calumnies. Here is a small sample of his lunatic thoughts:
==========

(Gilad Atzmon)

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.

Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents' plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity...

...The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Was Adolf Eichmann kidnapped by Mossad for his involvement in the Holocaust?

First Published in
Inconvenient History Blog

Was Adolf Eichmann kidnapped by
Mossad for his involvement in the Holocaust?

By Wilfried Heink

On 11 October 2008 an article appeared in junge Welt, a German daily, titled “Er galt als Amispizel und mußte aus dem Weg geräumt werden“ (He was considered to be an American agent/spy and had to be eliminated), featuring a picture of Adolf Eichmann (I was unable to access the original junge Welt article at this time, available here but for a fee

https://www.jungewelt.de/loginFailed.php?ref=/2008/10-11/001.php ,

the following a link to a copy http://www.kominform.at/article.php/2008101023471245/print ).

The headline continues to say that the article is an interview with Gaby Weber about the mass murderer Adolf Eichmann and that he knew too much about the tripartite dealings (Dreiecksgeschäft) concerning the Israeli atomic bomb. Weber has written a book about what she had uncovered titled chatting with Socrates and followed this up in a radio show on Deutschlandfunk on 4 March of this year (2011). This suggests that here, too, the official version differs from actual events.

Before addressing the Weber research results, let’s review some background on what was known about Adolf Eichmann, and when. He came into prominence at the IMT when, on 14 December 1945, an affidavit by Dr. Wilhelm Höttl was introduced as evidence (Document 2738-PS; Exhibit USA-269), in which Eichmann was mentioned. Here is part of ....


Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Letter to the Editor of the The New University at UC Irvine

Gregory Yee, Editor in Chief

The New University

UC-Irvine

newueic@newuniversity.org

26 September 2011

To the Editor:

Responding politely to our applications to buy a small ad in your newspaper, New U’s Advertising Manager Natasha Monnereau wrote, “We are unable to accept requests having any association with Bradley Smith.” In another, she included a full copy of New U’s advertising policy, which emphasizes your right to reject any advertisement that doesn’t suit you, but leaves unmentioned your right to accept advertising that might not suit other powers holding sway over your publication.

Powers, for example, like the Anti-Defamation League and the Hillel Foundation. Perhaps Natasha, or even your entire staff, have already received a friendly warning from a representative of your campus chapter of the Hillel Foundation, in accordance with the instructions on Page 16 of the ADL/Hillel publication “Preventing Holocaust Denial on Campus: A Manual for Action.” Those instructions include marching orders for keeping ads from my Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH) out of your paper, and in the event one slips through, how to punish those who have allowed it to happen.

The Manual is a remarkable document. You can inspect it at http://tinyurl.com/3s5czz7 to see what fate you have been spared. You are, for whatever reason, punctilious about complying with the censorship imposed by the terms of this Manual, and to my mind this raises the question as to whether you comply with it when you make editorial decisions as well. That question will be answered, of course, if you fail to carry this letter in your pages as a letter to the editor.

In any case, New U continues to support the interests of Israel warmly, as may be noted on Page 4 of your May 31 issue, in which the avid reception of the Fourth Annual iFest Week of Anteaters for Israel is noted with the rousing headline “It’s a Celebration.” In the face of the strife that has torn your campus since Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech there February last, it is impressive to see that you remain quite fearless about promoting at least his side of the contretemps.

The Great Seal of UC Irvine displays the uplifting motto, “Let There Be Light.” I regret that your paper does not better uphold it.

Bradley R Smith

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

PO Box 439016

San Ysidro, CA. 92143

Desk: 209 682 5327

Email: bsmith@prodigy.net.mx

Web: www.codoh.com

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Letter to the Editor of the Daily Trojan

The Daily Trojan

University of Southern California

Email: editor@dailytrojan.com.

Web: http://dailytrojan.com/

17 September 2011

To the Editor

The Daily Trojan does indeed provide protection. Its General Ad Policies recite the goal of “safeguarding USC’s Principles of Community,” in the copy kindly provided to the Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH) in rejecting the paid advertisement we sought to place in its pages.

In providing this protection, it also provided (unsought) protection to the student body from Open Debate of a body of history much called upon by the only nuclear power in the Middle East to claim over $3 billion per year of American taxpayers’ money, plus the additional billions paid to repressive client regimes in neighboring countries to bribe them to protect this invader in an area previously populated by Muslim Arabs.

And thus, it protects the USC community from the MTD (Mentally-Transmitted Disease) of an accurate understanding of the history upon which Israel excuses not only the bloody process by which it established itself in Palestine, but of the still-bloodier process by which it expands and tightens its hold on peoples (Jews and Arabs alike) under the guns of its American-supplied military supremacy.

Principles of Community? USC is home to students from Israel. It is home to students from Palestine and other Arab countries whose citizens appear to sympathize with the plight of Palestinians displaced (or slaughtered) by the Zionist project in Israel. USC is home to thousands of American students, many Jewish, most not, thoroughly schooled in the sanctity of this very “controversial” novelty on the soil of Palestine. Their schooling likewise, pursuant to the law in many of their states, instructed them prejudicially on Germans before and during World War II and Germany’s National Socialist regime that America and its allies “changed” through devastating force of arms. And it is home to Steven Spielberg’s monument to retributive hatred, the Shoah Foundation.

What Principle of Community, then, might it be that the Trojan is protecting by rejecting a text link that reads, “The Holocaust. The Power of Taboo” The link, of course, goes to the Web site of CODOH. Below you will find the link to the ADL/Hillel Manual For Action detailing how to prevent or punish college student newspapers for carrying ads from -- CODOH

I trust USC would—if it were aware of it—be grateful for the protection its Daily Trojan affords it. The young need protection. So they’ll march off to war when we tell them to.

On Principles of Community, of course.

Jett Rucker (American veteran, age 68)

for CODOH


THE ADL/HILLEL MANUAL FOR ACTION

Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements

CODOH’S FREE SPEECH RESPONSE

The ADL/Hillel Manual for Action: A Crime against Thought

Thursday, September 15, 2011

The ADL/Hillel Manual for Action: A Crime against Thought

by Jett Rucker

It’s a Plan. What to do if you care about Israel above anything else (über alles), and Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH), manages to get the student newspaper on your campus to carry one of his minimalist ads. Israel, according to the script, is to be defended against any and all who might attack, or even attempt to reason with it, or the widely held beliefs upon which its command of so much sympathy on the part of Americans is based. Americans, after all, constitute the heart and mind of the world’s 800-pound gorilla, Israel’s benefactor, enforcer, legitimizer, and Godfather.

The Plan is disseminated through those outposts of subservience to Israel on American campuses, the chapters of the Hillel Foundation, and its goal is to prevent those few inquiring (young) minds on American campuses from prying into the factual basis of the story of the Holocaust (the Martyrdom of the Jews). Bradley Smith’s CODOH engages in the annoying practice of placing advertisements in campus newspapers that tempt respondents to be exposed to alternative views of the Story and the findings of (some, proscribed) investigators who have looked into the matter.

The investigators CODOH favors, undeniably, are those who attend primarily to “forensic” evidence—archaeology and documents from the period, much of it recorded by those (Germans) who are held to have perpetrated that Holocaust. Indeed, many of the investigators, though by no means all of them, are themselves Germans—all too young, of course, to have numbered among the perpetrators themselves.

Back to the campus newspapers. Hillel and its “big brother” in the larger society beyond the campus, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), somehow, react to such initiatives in a way that clashes conspicuously with the ostensible spirit of enlightenment at institutions of higher learning—that ideas are to be considered on their merits, and in particular, that allegations as to historical fact are to be considered on the basis of the evidence for or against them, with quality of evidence taking precedence over quantity, popularity, or the weight of coercion employed for their defense or enforcement. Examples such as that of Galileo are sometimes called upon to depict the dynamics in play in such cases.

Hillel and ADL, then, undertake to oppose these insidious little ads from CODOH not with rejoinders of facts, but rather with that essential tool of the Inquisition, charges of blasphemy (or, more recently, “hatred” of the victims or of those who today claim to be descended from them, or to run a country that “protects” them). Their Manual for Action encourages—in chilling detail—a confrontation of fact with “force” that would make Torquemada cheer. That is, the Manual at no point even admits any possibility of engaging Bradley Smith’s side with argumentation, fact-based, morality-based, or otherwise. It instructs in the methods of marshalling the force of institutionalized opinion against his invitation to partake of the fruit of knowledge—a modern-day reincarnation of the hoary sin of Blasphemy, resplendent in all the reeking Medieval rags of superstition and persecution for Wrong Thought.

Far be it from what any Jewish organization besides the Jewish Defense League would recommend to entail violence: the Manual even suggests that activists refrain from confiscating or destroying existing copies of a campus newspaper carrying an offending ad—leave this to the contrite perpetrators themselves as they come to grips with the enormity of the offense they have committed in light of the “firestorm” of official and popular rebuke, igniting which is the main focus of the instructions in the Manual. Let Jewish hands always remain clean, at least insofar as visible physical acts are concerned.

Meantime, those acts that are not necessarily visible to all remain at center stage: complain and threaten, and do it where it counts: with the Administration. This issue of visibility illuminates an interesting attribute of the Manual as it has thus far been distributed. It is, in all its repressive glory, visible to all on the Web site of the ADL. One might think, in view of its reason-phobic character, that it might have been distributed to its adherents as at least a semi-secret communiqué—something short of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, for example, but nonetheless discreet to at least some extent.

But no. It’s There for All to See on the ADL Web site, at least for now. And in the thoughtful, such as your correspondent is pleased to see himself, this raises a question: why so public about all this? Two possibilities come to the mind of your thoughtful, but cynical, correspondent: first, that the instigators of the Manual are so filled with a self-impression of such unimpeachable, universal righteousness that they have no inkling of the crime against thought (not to be confused with thought-crime) they are committing; and second, that they are so grossly overfunded for their obsolete mission of combating anti-Semitism that they must contrive even this improbable project as a means of creating the impression that they are putting their surfeit of pelf to good use despite the paucity of targets against which they could direct it. Take your pick. Maybe it’s both, but in either case, it’s grotesque, when you step back to contemplate it.

The treatment it advocates for Bradley Smith’s invitations to inquiry does, indeed, imply some sort of criminal intent in the advertiser, despite the fact that there is as yet in the United States no official thought-crime on the books such as stops the mouths, if not the minds, of Germans, Austrians, Swiss, French, and people in a growing list of countries headed, of course, by Israel.

The matter at issue in the case of CODOH’s paid advertisements in student newspapers is a slight twist of the standard issue of freedom of speech for students (and faculty) on campus. It has, rather, to do with freedom of hearing or, more broadly, freedom of information (including “lies,” notwithstanding the protestations of Hillel/ADL). Censorship by the university administration is still censorship even when it is inspired by the righteous indignation of Hillel and ADL, and just as well for a paid advertisement as for any other part of the newspaper.

Wrapping itself in sheep’s clothing, the Manual cleverly couches its assault on students’ informational rights in terms of those very rights, diverting attention by urging its executors to remind student editors that they have the right to reject any advertisement that agents provocateurs like ADL/Hillel may make it too uncomfortable for them to carry. And they certainly do, but naturally ADL/Hillel make every exertion to avoid the obvious implication that rejection of a free-information-proffering ad such as CODOH’s itself limits the rights of the readership to receive information, not to mention the newspaper’s right to collect the admittedly minor fees that CODOH always pays up front. Propaganda is always about controlling the subject.

The Manual at no point discloses the ulterior motive of its campaign, which is, ever and always, suppressing criticism of the actions of the state that excuses its very existence on a sort of restitution for the “Holocaust” visited upon Jews and other enemies of Nazism in Europe before and during World War II. The linkage, again, is to be found on a Web site, in particular that of Hillel, which declaims:

Israel advocacy is a central force in promoting a positive Israel agenda on campus and for developing a cadre of articulate Israel activists. This is an outstanding opportunity for student leaders to affect the culture of Israel on our campus. Through their knowledge of and passion for Israel, we have the ability to have a profound impact on our campus community.

The “profound impact” referred to in this passage not only includes dissemination of a thorough whitewash of Israel and its actions in the real world, but suppression of any inquiry into those portions of history that happen to bear on its founding mythology and the basis of ongoing excusal of the depredations it continues to commit on those peoples and countries with which it shares the world.

Inevitably and vociferously, it conflates CODOH’s opposition to suppression of free expression into hatred of a people and/or a religious group. This shrill calumny, long the stock in trade of parties who have no substantive argument to mount in their own defense, is wearing thin.

Just how thin can be tellingly gauged from the laundry list of repressive, vengeful, fearsome list of measures detailed in the forty pages of the ADL/Hillel Manual for Action.