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