Saturday, December 27, 2008

Gaza and the rockets of Hamas in the context of Allied "Good War" morality

The latest Israeli slaughter in Gaza and the rockets of Hamas in the context of Allied "Good War" morality
by Michael Hoffman

Copyright©2008. All Rights Reserved

The latest Israeli war crime in Gaza reminds me of a central idea of a book I hope to one day complete on the Cryptocracy's great game with Islam, in this case pertaining to the morality message of World War II.

In World War II the Allies conducted themselves, as Franklin Roosevelt stated, as though the entire German people were collectively involved in a conspiracy against civilization. With this rationale in hand, the Allies proceeded to terrorize the German people as no people have ever been terrorized by a state. Every instrument of the terrorist was employed: assassination, bombing and mass murder. Rather than being condemned or prosecuted, the Allied terrorism was characterized as history's one, certain "Good War" and I will not exhaust you with a litany of the other sterling sobriquets with which moralists and alleged humanitarians have laurel-wreathed the Allied bloodbath.

The Muslims, along with the rest of the world, observed the Allied morality play and in the midst of the West's media blitz have had a center seat at all of the movies, documentaries and official commemorations of the heroism and goodness of the Allied attacks on civilians, on the basis that the Germans, including German women, children, infants and the unborn of pregnant German mothers, were occupiers, colonizers, aggressors and exterminators who got what they deserved.

I have witnessed no serious attempt anywhere across the spectrum of western public opinion to overthrow World War II Allied morality. If anything, it has become more extravagant in its claims of moral purity and ethical crusading.

The Palestinians, having learned the lesson of World War II as perpetually imparted by Hollywood and New York, identify the Israelis as Nazis who colonize, occupy and yes, exterminate -- in so far as they are able in a media age where little is done in secret that escapes hand-held video cameras and Internet blogs.


Tuesday, December 23, 2008

The question of empathy

Dan wrote an interesting comment in response to my last post titled “If Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism, what are the rest of us responsible for?”

“ … it seems that most people i meet on the net who want to question the Holo C, and even I want answers, too, me who is Jewish, but what i see most often about people who want answers here are people who don't really seem to have much empathy...EMPATHY....not sympathy...but EMPATHY...for Jewish people … they seem to lack i think the first step in addressing the real issues and stats of the Holo C is to develop EMPATHY for the Jews … first, develop EMPATHY...and then, yes, go and ask these important questions … First, develop EMPATHY....then go find the truth, yes....i support you.”

The question of empathy is an interesting one.

What I have found over the last twenty-five years is that with regard to the Holocaust story all the empathy in the press, on campus, in government, in Hollywood, is in fact flooded with empathy for Jews. No where do we find empathy for WWII Germans. Or for that matter any other WWII Europeans who are not Jews. With regard to Jews and Germans, Hollywood reflects, and in its way directs, empathy throughout American culture toward Jews, none toward Germans. There is so much empathy for Jews that what they say about German behavior during WWII is “always” believed, while there is so little empathy for Germans that nothing they say about their own behavior is believed, other than that which collaborates what Jews say.

Empathy is a human quality that most of us feel in real life toward others who are in distress. In the case of the Holocaust, empathy for Jews is orchestrated by the Holocaust Marketing Industry to exploit Jewish suffering for financial and political gain, while antipathy for Germans is exploited by the same folk for the same reasons. The Industry has been a resounding success, carried out with great energy, intelligence, and greed.

This is the primary reason why Holocaust revisionist arguments are so feared by those who are benefiting from the H. Marketing Industry. Revisionists are undercutting, with rational discourse and the forwarding of the concept of a free flow of ideas, an immense, multi-billion dollar scam based on fraud and falsehood, and enforced by taboo, censorship, and imprisonment.

I agree with Dan. A human life without empathy for others is somehow less than fully human. Empathy for Jews, empathy for Germans, empathy for all Europeans who suffered during WWII, and today especially empathy for Arabs living in what was once Palestine and is now occupied and being destroyed by those for whom so much empathy has been manufactrured.

Empathy is either a human quality shared by all, or a political one that is to be exploited for profit by those who have a special empathy for a special few, while the rest are told to eat it.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

If Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism, what are the rest of us responsible for?

Today I am informed that: “Anonymous has left a new comment on your post 'Anti-Semitism and obsessive philo-Semitism revealed...'":

He writes: “Bradley, come now. You know full well that what these jews call anti-semitism is just the ugly, inconvenient truth. They would have people believe it's just irrational hatred. It's sad to see you propping up that falsehood in a small way here. It's not two opposite sides. Anti-semitism is a natural, perfectly justified reaction to jewish behavior..”

This brief comment represents many I receive but do not post. My sense of things is that the feelings expressed are sincere. Now, with the Madoff affair all the rage, I agree with the Deborah Lipstadts that the Madoff story is a gift to those annoyed with Jews generally, and to antisemites particularly (she isn’t wrong about EVERYTHING).

While I criticize the Deborah Lipstadts and Elie Wiesels and others who are Jews and who front for the Holocaust Marketing Industry, I criticize them for the bigotry, hypocrisy and greed they use to forward that Industry. Not because they are Jews.

The simplest way to put it for those interested in Holocaust revisionism, from any perspective, is that it was not Jews who were responsible for institutionalizing Holocaust fraud at Nuremberg: it was the U.S. Government—especially its Executive and Congressional wings. If I knew anything about the law I would probably include the Judicial wing as well.

In short, the three bodies of the U.S. State that were made up overwhelming of folk who were not Jews. It was made up of “my” folk. That is not to deny that greedy, bigoted, hypocritical Jews were in there pushing for all they were worth, but it was us, those of us who are not Jews, who had the power—and more importantly the responsibility—at Nuremberg, and therefore are the primary responsible party for the catastrophic consequences of those proceedings, of which the criminal U.S. alliance with Israel might be the most appalling.

I apologize for saying it again: if Jews were responsible for what Jews did at Nuremberg and the other War Crimes trials, and Jews were responsible for what the rest of us did there, what are we who are not Jews responsible for? What am I responsible for? If we are not willing to bear responsibility for what we do, and what we do not do, then someone is going to fill the void. At this time in history, guess who?

There is not one U.S. Senator or Congressman who argues against the U.S. alliance with Israel or even for an open debate on the matter. A small minority of these people are Jews.

There is not one academic anywhere in America, other than Professor Arthur Butz at Northwestern, who is willing to argue publicly that not all revisionist arguments are wrong, or to even argue that an open debate on revisionist arguments should be encouraged, not discouraged. The overwhelming majority of American academics are not Jews.

Are we who are not Jews to blame our own cowardness, our own greed and hypocrisy on Jews? There are those among us who sincerely believe we should.

I won’t do it.

And then there is the matter that I have had too many friends over too many years, too many very close, even intimate relationships with Jews, to be able to identify with the feelings of those represented (mildly) in the above message.

I can’t do it.

The Holocaust Marketing Industry is one thing, Jews are another.

For some reason memory just recalled, with no effort on my part, where Fitzgerald wrote that the sign of a sound (?) man is that he can hold two ideas in his mind at the same time. But then, what I said is not two ideas. It’s one.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Anti-Semitism and obsessive philo-Semitism revealed

Deborah Lipstadt is shaking her head over the adventures of Bernard Madoff, a Jew who appears to have constructed a 50-billion dollar Ponzi scheme, in large part on the backs of Jews. Lipstadt is especially worried that Madoff will prove to be “an antisemite’s dream.” Lipstadt tells us that “Ha'aretz's Bradley (no relation) Burston says exactly what I have been thinking: Christmas came early for the worst of the antisemites this year.”

The article Lipstadt refers to is Burston’s “The Madoff betrayal: Life imitates anti-Semitism.” Here we find that anti-Semitism is the core of the Bernard Madoff story—if you are a Judeophile obsessed with Jews. Burston writes:

“For the true anti-Semite, Christmas came early this year. The anti-Semite's new Santa is Bernard Madoff. The answer to every Jew-hater's wish list [….] The beauty part, for the anti-Semite: Madoff's machinations, which could have been put to use for the sake of humanity, have directly harmed Jewish welfare and charity institutions. [….] He has managed to harm contemporary Jewry in ways anti-Semites could only dream about. [….] It remains to be seen how far we've come from the days of the frank Jew-hate and genteel anti-Semitism of the likes of Henry Ford and F. Scott Fitzgerald. [….] Bernard Madoff, you've made the days of uncounted devout Jew-haters. This year, all they want for Christmas, is you.”

So here we have it, anti-Semitism and obsessive philo-Semitism revealed, two sides of the same coin, each destructive, each needed to encourage the other.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Is the search for Truth an individual or congregational matter?

Cold, windy, rainy afternoon. I’m taking a nap under the covers. As I wake I hear a voice speak my name. It’s my Father’s voice. I don’t see anything. There are no other words. Only my name. Bradley. It sounds just like him. My father died in 1966.


A boyfriend of our neighbor has been murdered. I used to see the kid around. The story on the street is that he took some two dozen rounds. He was leaving the candy store where he worked. I was told that they “shot his face off.” An AK-40 was mentioned, an old Swedish assault rifle. I suppose it was an AK-47. It’s a smallish weapon that can fire some 700 rounds per minute. When I was a kid in Korea one of the guys took seven hits on the inside of his left forearm. It was like the Chinese guy was stitching him up after an operation.


My wife and I were having lunch in a fish place when we ran into a Mexican couple we know. When the wife learned that I have cancer she told us about a Cuban treatment for cancer and to help with the effects of chemotherapy. It’s called alacran azul (blue scorpion). The primary component of blue scorpion appears to be the poison produced by the scorpion itself. One problem is that the Cubans have not commercialized the product, it’s not for sale, but if you follow a certain procedure and you go to Cuba you will be given it at no cost. The lady will see to it that I get information on the treatment, and the telephone numbers and so on to arrange to get to Havana. We’ll see.

The husband of the blue scorpion lady runs a small manufacturing business in Tijuana. He was telling me that one of the partners of a local hardware store had been kidnapped the day before and a very high ransom was being demanded. Businessmen here are under a high level of threat. They are primary targets of both professional and amateur kidnappers. My friend drives a fancy car. In the name of public anonymity he said he is thinking of trading it in for a used pickup.

I feel pretty good, all things considered, but I am affected with periodic bouts of brain fog brought on by the chemo treatments. This week the individual who proofs Smith's Report informed me that when I sent out the Online version of the newsletter I sent the version that had not yet been proofed by him. I apologized for blowing his work and yesterday I sent out the proofed version with an apology to my readers for bothering them. Within hours my editor wrote me saying that I had sent the same draft, without his proofing. Brain fog. I’m not going to send it again. Who knows what version of the hard copy I mailed. I’ll check, but it’s too late now. It’s gone. Behind the curtain with a Holocaust revisionist.


It has been argued that a religious man does not seek God. That the religious man is concerned with the transformation of society, which is himself. That’s probably what is meant when it is said that the search for truth is individual, not congregational. It is clear historically, even in the West, the birthplace of intellectual freedom, that the congregational search for truth has invariably hardened into dogma.

Which brings us to organizations such as UNESCO (we won’t bother with the pipsqueaks who run History News Network). While the Communication and Information Sector of UNESCO (CIF) is dedicated to “Empowering people through the free flow of ideas by word and image, and by access to information and knowledge,” in fact it encourages a free flow of ideas for some, but not for all. That is what we have learned to expect from “congregational” approaches to Truth. Dogma.

The Holocaust Marketing Industry is the core instrument for the congregational approach to the history and morality of our age. Dogma, pure and simple.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Repressive Tolerance and the Holocaust Marketing Industry

Repressive tolerance! Wonderful phrase. All is tolerated so long as it does not go against anything said by our “protectors of the known things” at History News Network, in academia, or by the Holocaust Marketing Industry.

Repressive Tolerance
by Herbert Marcuse

THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression [emphasis mine].


Tolerance itself stands subject to overriding criteria: its range and its limits cannot be defined in terms of the respective society. In other words, tolerance is an end in itself only when it is truly universal, practiced by the rulers as well as by the ruled, by the lords as well as by the peasants, by the sheriffs as well as by their victims. And such universal tolerance is possible only when no real or alleged enemy requires in the national interest the education and training of people in military violence and destruction. As long as these conditions do not prevail, the conditions of tolerance are 'loaded': they are determined and defined by the institutionalized inequality (which is certainly compatible with constitutional equality), i.e., by the class structure of society. In such a society, tolerance is de facto limited on the dual ground of legalized violence or suppression (police, armed forces, guards of all sorts) and of the privileged position held by the predominant interests and their 'connections'.


Tolerance of free speech is the way of improvement, of progress in liberation, not because there is no objective truth, and improvement must necessarily be a compromise between a variety of opinions, but because there is an objective truth which can be discovered, ascertained only in learning and comprehending that which is and that which can be and ought to be done for the sake of improving the lot of mankind. This common and historical 'ought' is not immediately evident, at hand: it has to be uncovered by 'cutting through', 'splitting', 'breaking asunder' (dis-cutio) the given material--separating right and wrong, good and bad, correct and incorrect. The subject whose 'improvement' depends on a progressive historical practice is each man as man, and this universality is reflected in that of the discussion, which a priori does not exclude any group or individual. But even the all-inclusive character of liberalist tolerance was, at least in theory, based on the proposition that men were (potential) individuals who could learn to hear and see and feel by themselves, to develop their own thoughts, to grasp their true interests and rights and capabilities, also against established authority and opinion. This was the rationale of free speech and assembly. Universal toleration becomes questionable when its rationale no longer prevails, when tolerance is administered to manipulated and indoctrinated individuals who parrot, as their own, the opinion of their masters, for whom heteronomy has become autonomy.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Invoking the Holocaust to Defend the Occupation

By John Mearsheimer - December 9, 2008, 5:29PM


Let's hope that [Avraham Burg's] The Holocaust Is Over is widely read and discussed, because it makes arguments that need to be heard and considered by Americans of all persuasions, but especially by those who feel a deep attachment to Israel. The fact that Burg wrote this book also matters greatly. He cannot be easily dismissed as a self-hating Jew or a crank, as he comes from a prominent Israeli family and has been deeply involved in mainstream Israeli politics for much of his adult life. Moreover, he clearly loves Israel.


For Burg, Israel's troubles are self-inflicted. Specifically, he maintains that the principal cause of Israel's problems is the legacy of the Holocaust, which has become omnipresent in Israeli life. "Not a day passes," he writes, "without a mention of the Shoah in the only newspaper I read, Ha'aretz." Indeed, Israeli children are taught in school that "we are all Shoah survivors." The result is that Israelis (and most American Jews for that matter) cannot think straight about the world around them. They think that everyone is out to get them, and that the Palestinians are hardly any different than the Nazis. Given this despairing perspective, Israelis believe that almost any means is justified to counter their enemies. The implication of Burg's argument is that if there was less emphasis on the Holocaust, Israelis would change their thinking about "others" in fundamental ways and this would allow them to reach a settlement with the Palestinians and lead a more peaceful and decent life.


In particular, he shows that Israeli society is plagued with a host of serious problems that are threatening to tear it apart and that the Holocaust is a "tool at the service of the Jewish people," which they use to protect Israel from criticism and to keep those centrifugal forces at bay …. He quotes the Israeli writer, Boaz Evron, to make this point: the Shoah "is our main asset nowadays. This is the only thing by which we try to unify the Jews. This is the only way to scare Israelis into not emigrating. This is the only thing by which they try to silence the gentiles." Of course, there is another instrument that Israel and its defenders frequently employ, which is the charge of anti-Semitism.

To take my instrumentalist argument a step further, Burg provides evidence that the main reason that Israelis and their supporters constantly invoke the Holocaust is because of the Occupation, and the horrible things that Israel has done and continues to do to the Palestinians. The Shoah is the weapon that Israelis and their supporters in the Diaspora use to fend off criticism and to allow Israel to continue committing crimes against the Palestinians. Burg writes: "All is compared to the Shoah, dwarfed by the Shoah, and therefore all is allowed -- be it fences, sieges, crowns, curfews, food and water deprivation, or unexplained killings. All is permitted because we have been through the Shoah and you will not tell us how to behave."


I have tried to find Deborah Lipstadt’s reflections on Burg’s The Holocaust is Over but no luck. It must be a horror for her. Any links would be appreciated.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

On giving a "voice" to David Irving

As Professor Lipstadt reports, “On Tuesday night [09 December], C4's offshoot channel, More4, [showed] a 90-minute documentary, An Independent Mind, in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [….]

“According to the puff: 'This unique film gives a voice to eight characters from around the world who have fought to exercise their right to free speech.' What C4 doesn't say is that the film's eighth and final hero is [David] Irving."

Lipstadt doesn’t think this right because Irving’s views are “odious” and “disgusting.” That he is a “liar” and that the film “celebrates” Irving’s “lies and distortions and inventions.” She asks why the film maker should “give someone who is simply twisting the truth and lying a platform?”

We should note that others have other views about David Irving, who has actually written history books.


On Goebbels: "David Irving knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War. He discovers archives unknown to official historians ... His greatest achievement is Hitler's War ... indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round. Irving as usual, knows more than anyone of the details [of the death of the Goebbels family in 1945]. He does not spare us."
-- Professor Sir John Keegan

"British historian, David Irving, perhaps the greatest living authority on the Nazi era"
-- Professor Stephen Spender

On Goebbels: "Silencing Mr. Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933 1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications.
-- Professor Gordon A Craig

On PQ.17: "David Irving knows how to appraise the unassuming heroism of the ordinary man. From both points of view, his present book on the destruction of convoy PQ.17 is even better than the one which made his name on the bombing of Dresden. It is a melancholy story, with many separate strands leading to disaster."
-- Professor A. J. P. Taylor

On Churchill's War: "Enormous mastery of the sources and ability to maintain a sweep of narrative and command of detail that carry the reader along."
-- Professor Donald Cameron Watt


Two questions.

Are these quotes accurate?

Have any of these eminent historians written anything like this about Deborah Lipstadt and her “historical” writing? For the purposes of this exercise let us not refer to spokespersons for the Holocaust Marketing Industry, a business for which Professor Lipstadt is a leading representative.

Monday, December 8, 2008

History News Network. Mavericks, or "protectors of the known things?

History News Network is soliciting contributions using ten reasons to give to HNN. Reason #7 is: “Give to HNN because we’re mavericks.”

What a laugh!

On May 28, 2008, at 2:44 PM, I wrote Professor Rick Shenkman, Publisher & Editor-in-Chief of History News Network, expressing dismay that some three years of my posts on HNN had been “disappeared” from the HNN Forum without notice. For close to three years they had been there, then they were gone. I asked him how that could have happened.


From: HNN Editor
To: Bradley Smith
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:53 PM

Mr. Smith,

Your comments were deleted and your account suspended because we found your posts to be in violation of our civility rules.

Rick Shenkman


From: HNN Editor
To: Bradley Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 11:54 PM

Our assistant editor notified me that you were bounced from HNN because you expressed doubts about the Holocaust. We draw the line at that. Sorry, but you will not be welcome to participate in our forums.


From: HNN Editor
To: Bradley Smith
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 2:12 PM

[....] I am told that you expressed doubts about Auschwitz. That's enough for me.


Rick Shenkman is no "maverick." Rick Shenkman is one of those run-of-the-mill conformist professors that Morely Callaghan identified as “protectors of the known things.”

If you "express doubts" about Auschwitz, this weenie will disappear you from all History News Network forums. This is how professorial weenies pursue "open debate" in academia. You disappear the guy who is willing to question the "known things."

Friday, December 5, 2008

Content in Local Languages is as Essential as Connectivity

Miriam Nisbet, Director
Information Society Division,
Secretary of the IFAP Council

06 December 2008

Dear Madam:

Your latest News Report from the UNESCO Communication and Information Sector's news service, dated 05 December 2008, is headlined

“Content in Local Languages is as Essential as Connectivity.” Your release reads in part:

“The power of the Internet is multiplied when people are able to access and use content in their local languages, agreed a group of experts who opened the 2008 Internet Governance Forum in a session on Reaching the Next Billion: Multilingualism … Content in local languages is as essential as connectivity. People must be able to create and receive information in their local language and to be able to express themselves in ways their peers can understand.”

We could not agree more. Yet there is an issue here that you have not addressed.

In Germany, Austria and France, for example, people are not able to “create and receive information in the local language” – that is, in German or French – about the Holocaust question because it is prohibited by law, law that is not challenged by UNESCO. Are we to take this to mean that you agree that people should be allowed to “create and receive information” in their local language only in “some” languages? If so, in which languages other than German and French is it agreed by UNESCO, and by you, that people should NOT be allowed to create and receive information freely?

Your response will be much appreciated.


Bradley R. Smith, Founder
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro CA 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327

Advancing the UNESCO mandate to encourage the free flow
of ideas, not for a preferred minority, but for all.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

What is good authority?

Defending the Right to Deny the Holocaust
by Sean Gabb

My own view - and I speak on this matter not only for me but also for the Libertarian Alliance - is that there should be no restrictions on freedom of speech where public affairs are concerned. This involves, among much else, the right to say anything at all about politics, religion, sex, science or history. It is no business of the State to tell people what they can and cannot think. Our bodies are our own. Our minds are our own. What we do with them is our business. It is one of the highest glories of the Enlightenment that states were shamed out of dragooning people into the various established worships of Europe. It is one of the most ominous signs of the modern counter-Enlightenment that people can again be persecuted for their opinions.

Of course, there are people who claim to believe in freedom of speech, but who say that the promotion of “hatred” is a distinct matter. They say that “hate speech” is direct or indirect incitement to acts of violence against others, and so should be put down by law. This is not, on their reasoning, censorship. It is simply a matter of keeping the peace.

We in the Libertarian Alliance reject this supposed distinction. What some call the promotion of hatred others call telling the truth. Quite often, whatever opinion the rich and powerful do not like they will find some means of calling “hatred”. In any event, we believe in the right to promote hatred by any means that do not fall within the Common Law definition of assault..

Professor Charles Weinblatt, University of Toledo

Professor Charles Weinblatt retired from the University of Toledo in 2004, where he was credentialed. He is the author of a book about the Holocaust, "Jacob's Courage." He writes that “after conducting three years of exhaustive research into the Holocaust, I can safely say that your [my] messages on the topic lack any semblance with reality.”

On October 27 I posted in full a substantial letter on this Blog from Professor Weinblatt meaning to respond to it, but other stuff got in the way and I couldn’t, didn’t do it. He has since written twice more. I’m interested here in his point of view about bigotry, as I believe he represents so well in his person the bigotry of the “protectors of the known things” in academia.

Professor Weinblatt writes: “People are imprisoned in some European nations for questioning the Holocaust in order to prevent another Holocaust. …”

Professor Weinblatt believes, then, that to “question” the Holocaust, that is to argue that there should be a routine examination of this one historical event, will lead to a similar historical event in the future, even if the examination in question changes our understanding of the original event. It is illogical, but it is an understanding that permeates the rhetoric of the “protectors of the known things” in academia, particularly the “known things” about the Holocaust.

Professor Weinblatt writes: “Anti-Semitism is bigotry. And bigotry is a social evil. People who defend Nazi Germany's attitude towards Jews today propagate a terrible malevolence …”

Professor Weinblatt holds that to question what the “protectors of the known things” say is true about the Holocaust via a routine examination of that event “defend Nazi-Germany’s attitude towards Jews.” In fact, some do, but others do not. In this case the professor is addressing a man who does not defend Nazi-Germany’s attitude toward Jews and he cannot demonstrate that I do.

Professor Weinblatt writes: “Until people learn to stop hating each other because of the color of their skin or the way they worship God, there must be a limit to free speech. When that speech is used to promote intolerance, it should be prevented. When it is used to deny the Holocaust, then the purpose of that speech is terrible, anti-social, unbearable and intolerant. In the words of writer and philosopher George Santayana, "Those who ignore the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it."

It is commonly understood that a bigot is one who is “intolerant of the opinions of others.” The irrationally intolerant quality of Professor Weinblatt’s language here suggest nothing if it does not suggest bigotry. When he quotes Santayana, he does not consider the fact that one of the glories of Western Culture is the ideal of intellectual freedom, an ideal that even UNESCO, though unable to hold a steady position on the matter, professes a mandate “to encourage the free flow of ideas.”

Professor Weinblatt, as are all “protectors of the known things” in academia, stands four-square against a free flow of ideas, against a real examination of our own history, and is awash with an intolerant bigotry for those who do not believe as he believes. His vocabulary goes against the ideal of the university itself in Western culture.

In a free society, one devoted to the ideal of intellectual freedom, bigotry would be legal. But not for some. Not alone for a privileged minority. In a free society the Professor Weinblatts would have the right to their bigotry, and I would have the right to mine. The difference here should be made clear. I would never attempt to use force, to use prison, to silence the irrational vocabulary or the expressions of bigotry used by our Professor Weinblatts, “the protectors of the known.”

I wonder how Professor Weinblatt was looked upon at the University of Toledo by his peers and his students. Did they understand that he stood for State censorship and the imprisonment of those who express doubt about what Professor Weinblatt believes? If so, what did they think about that? What do they think about it now?

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Protectors of the known things

Every once in a while I am asked the question that Troy Claycamp asks me here.

“In response to your one person with proof challenge, I have one for you. Isabell Katz watched her sister and mother enter a building at Auschwitz and never return. If there were no mass exterminations, where are they? Please let me know. I am sure that Isabell would be ecstatic to learn of the whereabouts of her family members after all these years. See the burden of proof works both ways. Prove that just one reported holocaust victim is alive and well and I'll become your biggest supporter. I will anxiously await your proof. You don't even have to do Ms. Katz's family, just pick any victim listed by the Holocaust museum and prove they were not murdered by the Nazis. I anxiously await your proof.”

Aside from the fact that I have no idea who Isabell Katz is or what document/s Mr. Claycamp is referencing, and he does not think it necessary to tell me, the initial response is that one cannot prove a negative.

But the question does bring up an important moral issue. The charge that Germans used homicidal gassing chambers to kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent victims is the basis of an immense Holocaust Marketing Industry that has raised billions of dollars, primarily benefiting Jewish interests, by forwarding the unique monstrosity of the Germans. If we are going to charge the Germans with such unique monstrosity, we should be willing to allow the examination of the history of that monstrosity in the routine way that all other historical issues are examined.

But no. Taboo, censorship, arrest and imprisonment are routinely used to prevent such a historical examination. And all of it supported, or ignored, by the professorial class.


This past Saturday when I was packing a small bag to go to the other side to the VA hospital in La Jolla for cat scans on Sunday and a chemo session Monday (yesterday) morning, I flipped through some books piled on my desk in the bedroom. I decided to take Morley Callaghan’s “That Summer in Paris.” It’s touted as “Memories of Tangled Friendships with Hemmingway, Fitzgerald, and Some Others.” In the beat-up Penguin paperback, published in 1963, I had noted on the first page that I had started reading the book in September 1998 but didn’t finish it. I had started reading it again in January 2003 without finishing it. I decided to give it another try. I don’t know why.

This time I read it straight through from start to finish. At the hospital Saturday evening, Sunday evening, finishing it Monday afternoon during the infusion itself before I fell asleep. It was about people who in the early 1950s, when I first began to read, were who you read. I was back from Korea living with my mother and father in South Central Los Angeles, sleeping in my childhood bedroom. I would oftentimes sit on the couch in the front room with my back to the big window and read. I remember Aldous Huxley, Phillip Wylie, William Saroyan, and Hemmingway. I don’t remember where I head about any of them. I remember reading “The Sun Also Rises” and knowing that for me it was a perfect book. I didn’t understand where he found the last line: “Isn’t it pretty to say so?” Who would ever think of such a line to end such a book as “The Sun Also Rises”? It wasn’t even English. Of course it wasn’t. A few years later I would realize it was something of a transliteration of a line that could be used in Spanish: “Que bonito decir eso.” Now I no longer remember if the word in English was “say,” or “think.” Either works in Spanish.

At one place in “That Summer” Callaghan was talking with Fitzgerald when Fitzgerald asked him: “How carefully do you read reviews?” As it turned out, Callaghan did not read reviews with the care that Fitzgerald did. It was Fitzgerald’s view that by reading every review with the greatest attention that one reviewer, even if missing the point, might make one helpful remark.

Callaghan writes: “I looked at him in wonder, the author of “The Great Gatsby,” pouring over some dumb, unsympathetic review, hoping for one little flash of insight that might touch his own imagination, make him aware of some flaw in his work, make him a better artist.”

Callaghan had a different point of view. “In all America how many critics were there who were capable of submitting themselves to the objective—the thing written—and judging it for what it was. … What was the whole academic training? I asked. A discipline in seeing a thing in terms of something else. Always the comparison. The poem, the story, had to be fitted into the familiar scheme of things, or it didn’t exist and the academic man was lost. A work had to be brushed off if the critic couldn’t comfortably make it look like something familiar to him. It had always seemed to me that most reviewers were simply protectors of the known things.”

“Protectors of the known things.” That’s where Callaghan caught my attention. Critics, academics, protectors of known things. The Holocaust. Holocaust revisionism. For thirty years “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century” has been condemned by academics without let, yet never once examined in one paper in one peer-reviewed journal anywhere in America. “Protectors of known things.” Historians and literary critics both deal with story. One perhaps imagined, but one that actually took place, in some form. An historical event. A story. All the academics can do is protect the Holocaust story as a “known thing.”

Callaghan was right. He agrees that Fitzgerald was right too. You can learn from a careless, even stupid review of a story. I’ve learned a lot from the “reviews” of “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.” Professors. As a class. Protectors of the known things.


I should say that the cat scans on Sunday showed that the malignant nodes were diminishing in size everywhere from the neck on down, while those in the stomach had disappeared entirely. So, more good news. No bad news. I feel pretty good. Compared to how I felt a few weeks ago.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

More than fascist, more than Nazi, I am Italian

A reader has sent me a summary (not a strict translation) of a story originating in Rome. It’s one more news story that illustrates the growing resentment in Europe toward the Holocaust Marketing Industry and its refusal to allow any real debate on the Holocaust question.


Some 250 students, age 17-18, in a School of Fine Arts in Rome, went on a trip to Auschwitz organized by the mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, a youthful neo-fascist, today an anti-fascist, and accompanied by Alemanno M. Pacifici, leader of the Jewish community of Rome.

On their return students and teachers met on Saturday, Nov. 15 to discuss the trip when teacher Roberto Valvo, who had said nothing about the project till then, literally "exploded," declaring that the Holocaust is "a lie invented by the British" and that Italians should think more about their own dead than the Jews, who "aren't Italian" anyway. The preceding Wednesday he had told a meeting of teachers that "There's no proof of the Shoah; let's speak rather of Italian victims and not of the Jews."

To a student who asked "are you fascist" he replied, "More than fascist, more than Nazi, I am Italian." And to a group of students he said, "To film the extermination camps after the liberation they had recourse to Alfred Hitchcock. It would seem that they would have been able to get somebody a bit more impartial."

The disciplinary commission is apparently studying sanctions . . . .

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Töben Extradition - criminalising history in Europe's courts

Media Conference Announcement

Date: Monday 24th November 2008

Time: 2pm

Venue: contact Lady Renouf 0207 460 7453 between 10-12 am, thereafter mobile 07903133584, Monday

Subject: Töben Extradition - criminalising history in Europe's courts

By Lady Michelle Renouf.

The Fredrick Töben Defence Committee will hold a media conference at 2pm on Monday 24th November to discuss the serious implications for Britain and Europe of Dr. Töben's arrest and the attempt to extradite him to Germany, which failed in the High Court this week.

Until a few days ago Dr. Töben was facing a five year jail sentence. The public prosecutor in Mannheim, Germany, had openly boasted that this Australian academic, who had broken no U.K. law, would almost certainly receive and serve the maximum sentence due to his failure to "recant" historical opinions which the German state chooses to criminalise.

Dr. Töben had been arrested on 1st October while in transit at Heathrow Airport and held in prison for fifty days on a European Arrest Warrant. At Monday's media conference questions will be raised about the position of the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, who had personally guaranteed to Parliament that no one in such cases would be extradited to Germany, then had allowed this arrest and extradition procedure to go ahead. Also under scrutiny is the position of Mr. Gareth Julian, Crown Prosecution Service head of extradition, who permitted a serious waste of public money as well as a grave injustice by permitting this process to carry on for two months, despite the inadequacy of a warrant for which the Crown is unable even to mount a case on appeal.

The function of Scotland Yard's Serious and Organised Crime Agency, which improperly certified the warrant and liased with German prosecutors, is also under an embarrassing cloud after the prosecution's ignominious retreat.

Aside from these questions of ministerial dishonour and bureaucratic incompetence on the grossest scale, there are serious issues of principle at stake in the Töben case, which would have taken the case as far as the House of Lords had German prosecutors been capable of constructing a valid arrest warrant.

Is the expansion of the European Union into the sphere of judicial affairs now allowing German law to be imposed even on passengers transiting Heathrow Airport? Is Germany's law restricting research and source critical interpretation of Holocaust history now being extended into Britain, not through Act of Parliament, but via a procedural back door? Most important of all - what is this "revisionism" which so many European states wish to criminalise, and why should the stakes be so high that an academic dispute results in long prison sentences imposed on authors, publishers and even their lawyers?

Monday's media conference will address these questions, and outline the next stage in the conflict between European criminal law and the freedom of academic research. A new initiative in U.K. education policy now seems to be governed by the same principles which underlie German criminal law, and which were spelled out in Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust at the Stockholm International Forum 2000: "Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers... or seek to disprove the deniers' position through normal historical debate and rational argument".

International guests at the media conference will explain how revisionists intend to respond to these new challenges, whether in the courtroom or the classroom, while civil libertarians will examine the threat to Europe's traditions of sceptical enquiry.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

UNESCO announces plan to battle Holocaust denial

This one came across my desk only today. It was published in Haaretz on 23 October 2007, more than a year ago. Barak Ravid writes: “The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) announced on Tuesday it would launch a program to promote awareness of the Holocaust by means of battling every form of Holocaust denial and formulating educational curriculums ….”

I’ll have to ask Mogens Schmidt, the gent who is the Deputy Assistant Director General for Communications and Information, Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, UNESCO, about this. What program has UNESCO launched, and how has it battled “every form of Holocaust denial” to date? And how does this all fit in with UNESCO’s three principal strategic objectives, including the promotion of “the free flow of ideas and universal access to information?”

Monday, November 10, 2008

On the question of wakefullness

Back from an overnight at the VA hospital in La Jolla where I had my fourth chemo infusion. I found the first few months wrestling with this cancer business new and rather interesting. Saturday night, last night, getting ready to leave the house, with a two to three-hour traffic line waiting for me in the dark at the border, I realized that whatever charm the business had held for me before last night, last night I wanted to be quit of it. I had to go, so I went. It was after 10pm when I arrived. Then a long night in a room with a couple other guys who were already asleep when I got there. I coughed most of the night and couldn’t sleep.

This morning when Dr. Go found me coughing in his office he held up the infusion procedure so that I could get my chest x-rayed. If I had an infection in the lungs he would call off the infusion. I didn’t, so we went ahead with it, five and a half hours, after getting started two hours late. Couldn’t sleep in the chair, though I was stretched out full length. A long night, a long day. Glad to be back at the house. With regard to the cancer-rite-of-passage, the bloom is off the rose for me. Now the adventure is to find a way to be awake, to be conscious, as much as possible. I understand that I have more or less failed the test of wakefulness the last couple weeks. Not entirely, but more or less.

In part, I failed by trying to work when I should have gone to bed. As if memory and desire—the mind--were in a contest with the body. There is no contest so far as the body is concerned. It wants what it wants without reference to anything else that exists. (In this moment, while it is not particularly pertinent, I recall Alan Watts noting, “we do not beat our hearts.”) Mind is another story. Mind betrays wakefulness endlessly with its obsession for remembrance on the one hand, and for the imaginings of desire on the other. I know the story well. The past, the future. It’s what caused me in the moment, again and again these past few weeks, to go against the soundness of the body in its need for rest. There is no desire there on the part of the body. Only perceived need. The body beats its own heart for its own reasons. Mind has nothing to do with it.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Deborah Lipstadt and Holocaust Remembrance

Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J,
Loyola University
Office of the President
New Orleans, LA 70118

05 November 2008

Dear President Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J.

I note that the 2008 President's Forum on Current Issues and Controversies will seek to explore a compelling contemporary issue facing society today -- "Holocaust Remembrance." The Guest Lecturer will be Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at EmoryUniversity. A subsequent Loyola press release, dated November 3 updates and narrows the focus of Dr. Lipstadt's exploration to "Contemporary Holocaust denial: a clear and present danger."

To one who stands to one side of the existing taboos on the American campus, it is clear that Holocaust Remembrance is a studied effort on the part of the multi-billion-dollar Holocaust Marketing Industry (henceforth HMI) to promote the "forgetting" of whatever does not forward the Marketing Plan itself.

The HMI marketing program is undercut by one of the great ideals of the university, the concept of a free flow of ideas, so HMI argues against the free flow of ideas with regard to the Holocaust, against intellectual freedom, and anyone who dares try it is condemned out of hand with the most vicious vocabulary imaginable. You may expect Dr. Lipstadt to "forget" a good part of this matter in her address at Loyola.

To that point you should expect Dr. Lipstadt to forget, in the sense that she will not raise it at all, or will not raise it seriously, how HMI is used to morally justify the arrest and imprisonment of men and women throughout much of Europe who question the charge that Germans used weapons of mass destruction ("gas chambers") to murder millions of civilians during WWII. Dr. Lipstadt has said that she does not think it wise to imprison men and women for memory crimes, but she acts out the role of "Bystander" so long as the HMI marketing plan remains solid.

HMI forwards its never-ending charge of "unique monstrosity" against the Germans and uses every means at its disposal to crush any person who attempts to question the charge-as if Germans do not deserve the same human consideration that all others deserve. At the same time, neither HMI or Professor Lipstadt can provide, with proof, the name of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. I have asked her that question. She has not replied.

I have asked the same question of Dr. Paul Shapiro, Director, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, as well as some 3,000 other American academics. Neither Dr. Shapiro or any other academic has attempted a reply. Do you believe that in every instance this silence is honorable?

Those who market Holocaust Remembrance specialize in "forgetting" that the free flow of ideas is meant for all, not only for those who are disposed to buy what is being marketed. It is meant as well for those who are disposed not to buy it, so long as they are not convinced that what they are being sold is the truth.

The primary way that HMI spokeswoman Dr. Lipstadt defends herself against any questioning of the Auschwitz gas-chamber charge or that of the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans (two examples of Holocaust "denial") is to use an irrational vocabulary that invariably characterizes those who do ask such questions as "extremist antisemites" and to compare them to "Nazi rats" spreading a "virulent form [a bacillus] of antisemitism ..." She claims that revisionists "camouflage their hateful ideology ... under the [mere] guise of scholarship ..." But she will not venture to name one person, with proof, who was killed in an Auschwitz gas chamber by her "Nazi rats."

I am going to guess (forgive me) that among the academics at Loyola there will not be one who will seriously challenge anything that Professor Lipstadt has to say about "Holocaust," or "Remembrance," or "gas chambers," or about the "unique" monstrosity of the Germans. Not one. And so it goes, as we say.

In any event, thank you for your attention, and good luck with your 2008 President's Forum. I imagine it will be a fine and even a merry affair.

Bradley R. Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327



Note: This will be copied to students and academics at Loyola.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

There Is No Jewish History

Dreamed that we were living in a different house, rather cramped, when I found a young lady in a bed. All I saw of her was some long tousled brown hair and a bare foot sticking out from beneath a sheet. I went in the other room to tell my wife. She told me that the girl and her boyfriend had visited us in Baja and that they had left for a place where they were to do meditation. I half-remembered the visit, but not really. Then my wife added that they had flown to their destination.

When I woke I told the dream to my wife and asked her if it rang a bell with her. She said no. Then she told me that it is in the Word of God that each of us is to meditate, and that it is time for me to start. I understand that every dream is about the dreamer, but this is one of those that appears to have no connection whatever with my life. Empty. Only at this moment, writing that it has no connection with my life, does it occur to me that I am informing myself that the time is come for me to meditate. Think about things. What things?


I admire Sarah Palin. But then there’s Sandra Bernhard. Difficult to choose.


The worst two days of my life – the entire life – were Monday and Tuesday. An exhaustion I have never known. I couldn’t even hold my head up. Today I’m largely over it. From here on I follow my wife’s advice. When tired, stay in bed. Simple. In bed, the issue of whether I can hold my head up is neither here nor there.


In the past, when revisionists used to get together, there was some talk of a revisionist “movement.” There was considerable argument of whether we wanted to identify ourselves as a “movement.” Recently I came across something by Andrei Sakharov that addresses the question very simply:

“The use of the word ‘movement’ should not bring to mind any sort of organization or association, much less the concept of a party. We are simply speaking of people who are united by a largely common point of view and method of action.”

I believe that represents most revisionists. A people who are (more or less) united in arguing for a free flow of ideas with regard to the Holocaust question.


There Is No Jewish History

This is a matter that had never caught my attention. With the Holocaust story, it's as if the tradition is being forwarded

"It is an established fact that not a single Jewish history text had been written between the 1st century and early 19th century. The fact that Judaism is based on a religious historical myth may have something to do with it. An adequate scrutiny of the Jewish past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably the lack of a need of such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer most relevant questions having to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Shlomo Sand puts it, 'a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah”.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Alleged Holocaust denier allowed bail

District judge says German extradition warrant ‘not valid’ and must be discharged. Fredrick Töben granted bail pending appeal by Germany but on strict conditions.

By Joshua Rozenberg
Last Updated: 4:09PM GMT 29 Oct 2008

Fredrick Töben, the alleged Holocaust denier detained in London a month ago, will be released on bail if he can raise £100,000.

The sum of money is described as “security” rather than a surety because it must be lodged with the court and not merely pledged.

Other bail conditions imposed by District Judge Daphne Wickham are residence at an approved address, daily reporting to the police, surrender of all passports, no participation in public meetings, no media interviews and no use of the internet — even to receive information.

It is difficult to see how this last condition could be enforced.

(Smith comments) "Heh, heh."

International Symposium on Freedom of Expression

Mr Frank William La Rue Lewy
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
Special Procedures Division,
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,
UNOG-OHCHR, CH-1211 Geneva 10,

Email :

27 October 2008

Dear Special Rapporteur Frank William La Rue Lewy:

On 29 October 2008 you will be a featured speaker at the International Symposium on Freedom of Expression to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. My understanding is that you hold that, in combination, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UNESCO Constitution provide irrefutable evidence in the belief that freedom of opinion and of expression constitute the cornerstone of any democratic society and a fundamental basis for development.

The first of the three sessions of the Symposium will address Freedom of Expression with regard to Development, the second Freedom of Expression with regard to Democracy, and the third Freedom of Expression with regard to Dialogue. That is, "Development," "Democracy" and "Dialogue" are all seen to be dependent on Freedom of Expression. I agree.

At the same time, you must be aware that Nations such as Germany, Israel, France, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and others deny Freedom of Expression to those who question the taboo that protects the Holocaust question from being addressed in the routine manner that all other historical questions are addressed. That those who do question the Holocaust in full or in part are subject to arrest, trial, and imprisonment in those countries for having an opinion about history.

At this moment the Australian writer, Fredrick Toben, is in a British jail awaiting extradition to Germany to be tried for the "crime" of asking taboo questions about the Holocaust. Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does the UNESCO Constitution, have anything to say about this? Will you have anything to say about this as a featured speaker at the Symposium?

UNESCO argues that "journalists are under increasing attack and good journalism is endangered, especially in societies that would most benefit from a pluralistic and independent media ... This violence constitutes one of the greatest threats to freedom of expression and freedom of the press."

Do you not agree that "all" societies would benefit from a pluralistic and independent media, even German society where revisionist writers and publishers are now in prison for asking questions about history? French society? Swiss society? Or is it only those societies we identify as being in the "Third World" that are in need of a pluralistic and independent media?

We all agree with UNESCO that when a journalist is imprisoned for having written something that offends his Government it is inexcusable - in Thailand, or Burma, or Kenya. But when a journalist or publisher is imprisoned in Germany or France or Austria for writing something that offends his government we are perfectly willing to rationalize it. Do you believe we should judge press freedom one way in Asian and African nations, but use a different standard to judge press freedom in Europe?

I would hope that you, as the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Procedures Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, would address this issue at the 29 October Symposium. Why would you not?

Thank you for your attention.

Bradley R. Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327

Note: I will copy this to some of your colleagues.


Monday, October 27, 2008

Elie Wiesel and the issue of indifference

Dr. William O’Neal, Director of Graduate Studies
Chair, Department of History
University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio 43606-3390

Dear Dr. O’Neal:

I am informed that on 30 October the University of Toledo's College of Arts and Sciences will host a talk by Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel on "What the Ancient Masters Can Teach Us About Confronting Fanaticism and Building Moral Unity in a Diverse Society." It’s an interesting idea for a talk, though looking around the world from the point of view of UNESCO, it does not seem they have taught us much.

In the Toledo Blade Mr. Wiesel addresses a simpler issue, one he has addressed before, the issue of “indifference.” We read again where he argues that “the opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference.” That the opposite of education, beauty, and life itself is indifference. That “indifference is what permits evil to be strong …” Which brings me to the matter to hand.

Professor O’Neal, do you believe Toledo's College of Arts and Sciences has prepared its students in any way whatever to understand the issue of “indifference” with regard to Mr. Elie Wiesel himself?

Do UT students understand that for decades Elie Wiesel has shown himself to be indifferent to the fate of writers and publishers who question the orthodox Holocaust story and are arrested, tried, and imprisoned for such thought crimes in Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland and other European nations?

With regard to confronting “fanaticism,” have your students been prepared to understand that Elie Wiesel is the best known Holocaust fanatic in America? That he has spent his entire adult life forwarding with an unequaled fanaticism the charge of “unique monstrosity” against the Germans, including the charge that they used weapons of mass destruction (“gas chambers”) for mass murder at Auschwitz, and that even though he was interned there, after more than half a century he is unable to name, with proof, one person who was killed in a gas chamber at that camp?

Are UT students prepared to question Elie Wiesel’s indifference to “Building Moral Unity” when he writes "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.”? A remark that for forty years he has refused to recant?

Have UT students been prepared to understand the sheer silliness of a man like Elie Wiesel who will claim that when he was struck by a taxicab in mid-Manhattan in New York City that he flew an “entire city block” before coming down to earth again – that is, about two thirds the length of a football field?

Will the UT College of Arts and Sciences begin to promote a free press and a free flow of ideas about the Holocaust question and its agents such as Elie Wiesel, or will you, with indifference, continue to act out the role of being mere stenographers for a massive, multi-billion dollar Holocaust Industry?

Do you not agree that “indifference,” as Elie Wiesel has it, “is what permits evil to be strong?”

Thank you for your attention.

Bradley R. Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro CA 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327

Note: This inquiry will be copied to some of your colleagues.



Sunday, October 26, 2008

The multi-billion dollar Holocaust market creates valuable new product

A few weeks ago I wanted to involve Noam Chomsky in a couple yes or no answers with regard to an open debate on the Holocaust. The two letters I wrote him are published here on the Blog. I was particularly interested after he replied with a few words to Robert Faurisson’s questions and observations. He did not reply to Faurisson in a serious way, and he ignored me completely. Some of us on the Forum took umbrage at Chomsky’s unwillingness to get involved with the Holocaust question.

I took the time to review some of the work he has been doing. I don’t know of the work of any other American that can compare with the breadth of what Chomsky is doing or the insights to be found in his voluminous work. I am not saying he is right about everything, I have no way to know, but this guy is absolutely at the top of the game he has chosen to play. The Holocaust question plays no role in what he is working at. Maybe this can be argued, but I don’t think it can be argued from a very convincing point of view. He is doing other stuff.

Most recently I read his “The Problems of Latin America and the Caribbean” and that finished it for me. I am going to leave the man alone. He doesn’t exploit the Holocaust story to forward anything he is doing, and saying yes or no to me in a public forum will only create another series of diversions for him that will distract attention from where his real interests lie. Altogether that is why, ten days ago, I put a link to his Website here on the Blog. If you haven’t been there, you’re in for more than a surprise.


“A full copy of nearly 52,000 testimonies of Holocaust survivors and other witnesses, from 56 different countries and in 32 languages, have been transferred from the archive of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education, and are now accessible for searching and viewing at Yad Vashem’s Visual Center. The Shoah Foundation, established by Steven Spielberg and the predecessor of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute, videotaped the testimonies between 1994 and 2000. These testimonies will supplement Yad Vashem’s existing Archive collection of 10,000 survivor testimonies, filmed beginning in 1989, as well as 5,000 Holocaust-related films of all genres, produced from 1945 until today.”

Swell. I think we can say that each testimony will forward the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans, while no testimony will provide proof that one person was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz, and no testimony will be honestly vetted, or vetted at all. And so it goes. A multi-billion-dollar industry surging forward with an ever increasing measure of product to market.


Paloma has discovered that Pepe was murdered because of a cock fight. I knew Pepe was into horses and was breeding and running them in rural tracks, but I didn’t know that he was into cock fighting. Seems that his cocks were winning too many fights, that at least one man lost too much money because of it, and the end result was that Pepe took a couple rounds to the head while his three young employees were killed with automatic weapons. No witnesses. We don’t know the real story of course, but that’s where it is as of now. It’s nearly always about money, or control, or the two together. Not always. In the end, it’s always a matter of the heart.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Holocaust denial and a case that shows flaws in the EU

The Independent
Friday, 24 October 2008

The case of the odious Holocaust-denier Dr Frederick Toben is destined to become a cause célèbre precisely because such hard cases test fundamental liberal principles. "I disapprove of what you say," said Voltaire, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is my position on Dr Toben.


October 23, 2008
Benedict May Shun Israel Over Pope Pius XII Issue

NEW YORK (JTA) -- Israeli President Shimon Peres urged Pope Benedict XVI not to put off a visit to Israel over a disagreement about Pope Pius XII.
A Catholic official was quoted Saturday by the Italian media as saying that the pope would not come, as long as a photo caption at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial alleging that Pius XII did not act to save Jews from the Nazis remains on display.


Night before last when when I thought the shootout on the Boulevard had taken place down in front of Pepe’s, our pet-food store, I was guessing, but I was right. Pepe was murdered, along with three young men who were working with him storing product. Today the local news showed Pepe on the sidewalk face down, half out into the street, blood streaming from his head and the shirt over his lower back black with blood. He’s the first of the recent murdered who was rather a friend and I was moved seeing hjis image there.

The images on Mexican television news are routinely more honest than those on American television. I am reminded that we are not allowed to see the coffins being unloaded from Iraq filled with American dead. We should see them. Every week. Every day. And we should stop being told how many Americans and Iraqis and Afghans are killed each week and month, but how many casualties there are, with a side note for the dead.

When Pepe opened his business ten years ago it was a wooden shed with a roof and only three walls. About the size of a two-car garage. The street that ran off the Boulevard was still dirt. At night he and his worker stretched a tarpaulin across the front of the shed and tied it down with rope. That was his security against theft. Ten years ago that was all he needed. Now we don’t know what we need. There was a general alert in town yesterday and Paloma had to go across the bridge to pick up Lil Brad at day care. There were rumors that kidnappings were going to take place.


Got the new Homepage for CODOH up this evening. A step in the right direction.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Don't want to hear anything I don't need to hear

Bad night last night. Exhausted but unable to sleep. Four cups strong coffee at 11am this morning and was able to come awake for the afternoon and then some. I’m working on a release for the UNESCO Symposium to be held in Pairs next week and another for an Elie Wiesel event, also for next week. I am also going back and forth with two campus newspapers about running my ad titled “A Question for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.” We’ll see.

Turns out the other night when I was resting in front of the Casablanca Bar and the two patrol cars swooped in on either side of me and the officers got out with long guns the guy inside was already dead. That’s why I didn’t hear any rounds go off. Our daughter Paloma tells us the dead man is the cousin of one of our neighbors. That’s all I know about it. I don’t want to hear anything I don’t need to hear.

This evening at 9pm I was about to leave the house when Irene came into the patio and asked if I had heard the shooting. I hadn’t. Then I heard the sirens. I walked up toward the Boulevard and watched six patrol cars race north, sirens blasting and lights flashing, then three ambulances, then two more police cars and another ambulance. Must have been a successful event. I think it was happening in front of Pepe’s where we buy our bird seed and stuff for the animals.

Last month when most of my hair fell out over a period of six, seven days, I was shy about visiting people I know. Then the forearm erupted with red swellings that had pus in them, and now the backs of both hands have done the same. I’m getting used to it and am more or less moving around in a normal way. Not entirely. Yesterday we took photos for my Mexican passport. Not as pretty as I used to be.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Dismantling a massive multi-billion dollar industry

Australian revisionist Fredrick Toben will remain in jail in London until 29 October waiting for a British judge to decide whether to allow him to be extradited to Germany to be tried for crimethink. Meanwhile, the Communication and Information sector of UNESCO, promoting “freedom of expression and freedom of the press as a basic human right” will have nothing to say on the matter as a matter of principle.

At the same time Toben recently put his finger on exactly one of the problems for those of us who believe that the Holocaust question should be open to the routine examination that all other historical questions are open to. Toben writes that we are, among other things, “dismantling a massive multi-billion dollar industry” that the Holocaust-Shoah enforcers are exploiting for their own ends. Follow the money. Follow the influence, and follow the money.


Roy writes from Norway. (I have straightened out the English a bit.) “Welcome to Norway. I don’t know if you are right or not, but if you are not allowed to say here in Norway what you think, or show what you can document, then I will be next, and that means tyranny. I will have to be arrested because I stood up for you. So welcome. If you are right, the reality of what you are talking about is uglier than I would have imagined."


One of my assistants goes by the name of “Azul” – that is “Blue.” Blue is the fellow who about ten days ago witnessed two gunmen exiting a taco shop a couple blocks from here after gunning down a retired policeman and wounding two others who got in the way. A couple days ago he told me that the brother of one of his friends was having lunch in a Tijuana seafood restaurant with a fellow who was associated with people he should not have been associated with when three men entered the restaurant and killed him at the table where they were eating. Blue’s friend was not shot. He was a witness. I think they should have shot him on principle. But then that’s me.

Last night I was out walking on the Boulevard. I was back from the VA and a chemo session only a few hours but the steroids were still working and I could walk a few blocks. I was sitting on a low wall in front of the Casablanca bar resting, a book in my hand, when two cop cars swooped in, one on either side of me, the cops getting out quick carrying long guns which is not the norm, one of them nodding his head in a way to tell me to get out of the way. I was already getting out of the way. I crossed the street hoping I was not going to hear any rounds go off and walked back the way I had come. In the event, there was no shooting. The Casablanca used to be called The Hemmingway.


We’re working on the Homepage for CODOH. It looks real good to me. But then, that’s me. Once we get it up, if any of you have any suggestions, I’ll be all ears.

With regard to the cancer thing, I’m getting all kinds of interesting information. I’ll devote a page to iut one day so everyone can understand what I am doing and why. At bottom, I don’t know what to do. There is an endless amount of research to investigate, and I couldn’t wait, the thing was moving very fast. It started in the neck and throat but moved very quickly all the way down through the chest into the abdomen and I didn’t think it was time for me to quit work and go to school to decide among the dozens of alternative approaches that are available. In the event, the latest news is good news yet again. It is all still there, but the cat scans show that the malignant nodes and clusters of malignant nodes are all diminished in size and I am having no side effects other than exhaustion, particularly the first five or six days after the infusion process. That means the rest of this week.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

I'll be away for a couple days

I'm going to the VA hospital in La Jolla this afternoon and don't expect to be back at the computer until Tuesday. Talk to you then. I'll have some news about the problem. My understanding is that it's going to be good news. We'll see.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

An end to Lonely Thinking

We’re remaking the Home page for CODOH. When Gustavo (my local Web master) got here we realized that he’d left a couple programs at his house so we drove over to get them. He lives about two miles north of here in the foothills. He told me that one night last week he heard a shootout about a block from his house. Two AK-47s and a handgun. Two men were murdered. They took so many rounds that their heads were severed from their bodies, as well as both hands of each corpse. It was deliberate amputation by bullets. Ugly. Never heard of that one. I still recall the unique sound of the AK-47 in Vietnam. Light and very fast. More than seven hundred rounds per minute. Do I remember that right? Oddly, I don’t remember the sound from Korea where AK-47s were a standard Chinese infantry weapon. Memory is getting ragged around the edges. Maybe the growing violence in Baja will refresh memory. No especial need for it.


We hear from France that revisionist Pierre Guillaume was arrested in Orléans "in the Loiret” (that is, a district or county) on a warrant issued in Paris. He was immediately released on bail and will be prosecuted for incitement. Last February he distributed, in Paris, flyers denouncing the "leftist Jewish lobby", allegedly signed by former Prime Minister Raymond Barre, deceased since August 2007.

PG admits he distributed the flyers in several regions but he was trying to get people to think, not incite hatred. Guillaume is the former proprietor of the publisher "La Vieille Taupe" (The Old Mole) and was Faurisson's first publisher, as well as Roger Garaudy's publisher. Orléans is on the Loire but I don't know what the "Loiret" is.


Art Spiegelman is the author and artist responsible for Maus, the remarkable comic strip and then book published in the 1970s. In it the Jews were mice, Poles pigs, Germans cats, and Americans dogs. It was based on stories his survivor father told him over the years. Spiegelman didn’t/doesn’t know anything about gas chambers but I am reminded that he drew them anyhow, including cut-away views of the inside of those uniquely murderous WMD. When Robert Faurisson issued his challenge to the academic and Holocaust-market worlds to “draw me or show me a gas chamber,” Art Spiegelman might well have answered the challenge. But he’s a modest sort.

Spiegelman says that Maus, for all its success—he got a Pulitzer Prize for it in 1992—has been a mixed blessing. "On the one hand,’ he says, it’s success ‘gives me license to do almost anything I want. On the other hand, it's a straitjacket. All people really want me to do is Maus III. But wait. The war ended, my father's dead. There's no Maus III. Or at least make a 'Maus' movie. But the one thing I am adamant about is that I'm not going to be the Elie Wiesel of comic books."

I can understand that. Spiegelman is clear about his mice and pigs being fictional characters. Elie Wiesel on the other hand. . . .


An end to Lonely Thinking

According to philosopher Kristof Nyiri, the man behind a conference in Budapest on 21st century communication and the mobile information society, communication has always been a central and unavoidable focus of European philosophy. Now, in the context of today's explosion in technological communication, we are attempting to re-formulate the questions traditionally asked in philosophy.

When asked to elucidate on this new formulation, Nyiri said: "Man was originally a communicating being. The philosophers of the 19th century were still very aware of this fact, then in the 20th century it went out of fashion for a number of decades and now in the era of the mobile phone, we are seeing ourselves confronted with the idea again. We are witnessing a re-evaluation of the idea of personal contact. This is part of man's most basic nature, but during the centuries of book printing, the technologies of lonely thinking, this was forced into the background. Today we are seeing a return to this primordial world of thought."

Interesting. I think the Internet, too, is part of the culture that Nyiri is talking about.


Several days after the first session with Chemotherapy my right forearm erupted in red hives, some with pus in the center begging to be scratched. Overnight. The sight of it was startling. Dr. Go told me to make an appointment with the dermatologist as sometimes chemo can create pre-cancerous eruptions resembling what happened to the arm. What with one thing and another, I didn’t make the appointment. One day last week the back of each hand broke out with the same eruptions. Tomorrow and the next day I’ll be at the VA Hospital in La Jolla. I’m not completely ga-ga. Surely I’ll take care of the dermatology business while I’m there.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Holding Opinions and the Problem with UNESCO

Mogens Schmidt
Deputy Assistant Director-General for Communications and Information
Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace

13 October 2008

Dear Deputy Assistant Director-General:

On 07 September I wrote you in part: “I am informed that UNESCO is the one United Nations agency with a ‘mandate to defend the basic human right of freedom of expression and press freedom, which are the essential components of democracy.’ I am further informed that this human right ‘includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’

“How does UNESCO reconcile this important ‘mandate’ to defend the basic human right of freedom of expression and press freedom with the 26 January 2007 call by the UN General Assembly to all its 192 Member States to ‘reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end’”?

On Tuesday, October 7, 2008 you replied:


“Dear Sir:
"Thank you for your letter. The UN General Assembly is a representative body of all the member states. It has expressed a position on the issue that does not infringe on your right to hold your opinions.
“Mogens Schmidt.”


Dear Dr. Schmidt: Thank you for writing.

You note that the UN General Assembly has expressed an opinion on the issue of the Holocaust, one that “does not infringe on [my] right to hold [my] opinions.”

How is it that revisionist writers who do hold opinions about the Holocaust “either in full or in part” are routinely arrested, tried and imprisoned in one European country after another? How is it that the Communications and Information Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, UNESCO, of which you, Sir, are The Deputy Assistant Director-General, do not even acknowledge that this is happening?

Am I not in the same danger of being arrested, tried, and imprisoned as such men as Germar Rudolf, Siegfried Verbeke, David Irving, Ernst Zundel and Fredrick Toben, who at this moment is being held in a London jail under threat of extradition to Germany where he will be tried, as you have it, for “holding his opinions” about the Holocaust?

I am afraid (forgive me) that it is an inversion of logic and good sense for you to tell me that I have the right to hold my opinions about the Holocaust either in full or in part when, at the same time, European governments have the right to imprison me for holding such opinions in full or in part, and to do so without protest, or even any notice, from UNESCO.

Dr. Schmidt, please tell me clearly where UNESCO’s Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace stand on the arrest, trial, and imprisonment of revisionist writers who hold opinions about the history of the Holocaust?


Bradley R. Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

Post Office Box 439016
San Ysidro, California
Desk: 209 682 5327

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Toben, Irving, Mahler and lice, lice everywhere

Fredrik Toben was to be in court yesterday in London to face extradition to Germany for expressing doubts about the Holocaust story. In the event, the hearing was put off for another week. Andreas Grossmann, the Mannheim district prosecutor handling Dr Toben's case, says that despite Toben’s attempts to avoid extradition from Britain to Germany, he expected Dr Toben to be on trial early next year where he faces up to five years in jail for thought crimes.


David Irving was to speak at the Norwegian Festival of Literature but the board of the Festival withdrew its invitation after other authors, free speech activists all, threatened to pull out of the program. Festival chief Randi Skeie says that "Initially we wanted to expose Irving as a liar and swindler, but then the issue became a question of free speech. Everything is fine as long as everyone agrees, but things get more difficult when one doesn’t like the views being put forward."


Horst Mahler went on trial on 08 October accused of publishing documents on the Internet denying the Holocaust. Denial of the Nazi Holocaust is a crime in Germany. Mahler has been charged with incitement [to tell the truth is “incitement” in Hunland] and faces up to five years in prison if convicted. Mahler had been found guilty earlier of condoning a crime for saying the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States were justified. They were, of course, in the eyes of those who carried out the attack. But that’s another story.


Steve Ferris sent me this. It’s more proof of Nazi atrocities, more evidence undermining revisionist arguments, but in the interests of full disclosure I think I should publish it here.

More proof of Nazi atrocities:
Leading statisticians and document analysts have uncovered irrefutable documentary proof that Adolf Hitler (with premeditation and malice aforethought) did willfully order the extermination (using Zyklon B) of more than 6 Trillion innocent Lice! Some experts put the casualties as high as 60 Trillion. Along with the documentary proof, Forensic investigators have found Gas Chambers (the murder weapon) in many places in Germany and Poland. Thousands of empty cans of Zyklon B were also found, and many eye-witnesses have come forward and testified under oath, saying "I saw it with my own eyes"! On August 8 2008 a team of forensic examiners were sent to Auschwitz to take soil samples and it was discovered (using Scanning Electron Microscopy) that in a single one ounce sample, the skeletal remains of some 1,200 Lice were found! Many critics deny the evidence saying "they did a Lousy job", while others say "Never Again"!

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Doing the work of a human being

I’m eight days out of my last chemotherapy session and I still can’t sleep and I can’t wake up. A struggle with exhaustion. I don’t really know what to say about it. If I leave the house walking, within a block I am too tied to go farther. It’s a real bother. I’m still not sick, I still don’t hurt, but I can’t wake up and I can’t sleep, and there are times when I feel separated from the work. In a way, of course, that’s being sick. Sometimes in the morning when I get up and the day appears grey and empty, sometimes I recall a line from Marcus Aurelius where he wrote (paraphrase), “On that morning when you do not want to rise, have this thought in your mind. ‘I am rising to do the work of a human being.’”


Mogens Schmidt has replied to my letter of 07 September 2008.

Mogens Schmidt
Deputy Assistant Director-General for Communications and Information,
Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace,

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your letter.

The UN General Assembly is a representative body of all the member states. It has expressed a position on the issue that does not infringe on your right to hold your opinions.


Mogens Schmidt.


A simple, perfectly understandable note, yet not really. To be allowed to hold an opinion is one thing, to be allowed to express it another. Only today I find that the prosecution of Gustav Mahler is to begin. Fredrick Toben is in custody in London, and men like Rudolf, Zundel, Verbeke, and others are all in prison or in court or in hiding for expressing opinions that they “hold.” I suppose I should point this out to Deputy Assistant Director-General Schmidt. And especially to his colleagues.


Watched part of the Obama/McCain debate last night. Too boring to watch it all. But Obama is a natural. He was born to politics. I don’t know if he can govern the country. I don’t know if anyone can govern this county any longer, including McCain. But Obama is a natural. He is willing to evade, cover-up, and simply lie about anything that might interfere with his getting the role he wants. His behavior with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story illustrates Obama’s willingness to do what it takes.

When Wright tells his congregation that “America” nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and “never looked back” (is that how he put it?) he was right. We intentionally burned alive tens of thousands of innocent women and children for a greater good. And then there was Tokyo and every city in Germany. After twenty years listening to the Reverend, I think Obama looks at the world more or less like the Reverend looks at it. Except he is probably not religious but will continue to pretend he is until he gets the role. But if he had told the truth, if he had said, simply, Reverend Wright is right about that, Obama would have been out of the race. He would have been denounced as un-American. Obama wants to win. They all want to win, so we might as well go with the guy who is the smoothest and coolest and most in control and hope he is not a cool guy who is interested in doing monstrous things for a greater good. Good luck to all of us, and to all those all over the world who get in our way.


Yesterday one of the guys in the neighborhood was murdered a couple blocks from the house. He was involved with dealing. Friday night a retired policemen was murdered out on the Boulevard. One of my part-time workers was across the street, heard the shots, saw the two gunmen run off. They weren’t kids. Meanwhile, dozens of citizens and policemen in Tijuana have been murdered over the past two, three weeks. This is the first time I have begun to, sometimes, feel insecure here.

A new café announces itself as a “family restaurant.” It features “Rattlesnake tequila.”

This afternoon we picked up Brad at daycare, then drove to Pepe’s to buy seed for the parakeets. I stayed in the car while Irene went in to make the purchase. In front of me on the sidewalk were cages with birds and puppies and chicks in them. One large case was overflowing with parakeets. Some were standing on the backs of others in the seed trays. The movement inside the cage was full of a dynamic and restless complexity. While I watched, the restless complexity inside the cage came to represent in my imagination the restless complexity of life itself. And, despite everything, how life is so valuable to us.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Free Speech Deniers

Richard L. Cravatts, Director
Program in Publishing at the Center for Professional Education
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts

07 October 2008

Dear Dr. Cravatts:

I have your article, published on History News Network (HNN), titled "Iran's Political Motivation for Ridiculing the Holocaust Again." You've made of it a heated exercise, but I can agree with you that the primary purpose of the Iranian State in suggesting that the story is fundamentally fraudulent is to undermine the moral legitimacy of the Jewish conquest of Arab land in Palestine following World War II.

With regard to the Holocaust story itself, you appear to be entirely uninformed about revisionist arguments that question a number of the core elements of that story, including (but not solely) the "gas chamber" allegations. If six million Jews were "exterminated" during WWII, an idea you forward, at least a million of them in gas chambers at Auschwitz, you should be able to provide, with proof, the name of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at that camp. Can you do that? Do you know anyone among your colleagues who can?

In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I spoke at the "perverse" Holocaust conference you mention that took place in Teheran two years ago. There I addressed the unwillingness of the American professorial class to allow the Holocaust to be examined in the routine way that all other historical issues are examined. Rather, it enforces a strict taboo on the matter, which leads oftentimes to a near-hysterical use of language, which is present in your article.

I have asked several thousand academics, including Dr. Paul Shapiro, Director of the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, to provide the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. None has replied to the question, including Dr. Shapiro.

And then there is the fact that because I ask this question I have been banned from posting on the HNN Website by its founder Rick Shenkman and his sidekick Jonathan Dresner. You believe what Rick Shenkman believes, so you can publish on HNN. I doubt what you and Professor Shenkman believe, so I am banned. So much for a Website run by historians "for" historians.

Meanwhile, if we are going to charge - endlessly - that Germans exterminated millions of Jews in gas chambers in the middle of the 20th century, I believe we have a simple moral obligation to demonstrate that the charge is true. Are not Germans human beings like the rest of us? All you (the professorial class) have to do is decide that you will no longer support a cargo-cult mentality where some questions about history are allowed, while others are not. It's not complicated. Rather, it's easy, and it's one of the glories of a culture in which the free exchange of ideas is considered a norm.

Meanwhile, I want to make it clear that I do not defend Iranian State policies, no more than I support, with regard to many such policies (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel among others) those of the U.S. Government.


Bradley R. Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, Ca 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327

Note: I will copy this missive to some of your colleagues.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

A Question for the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies

Rafael Medoff, Ph.D., Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
1200 G Street NW - Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005

06 September 2008

Dear Dr. Medoff:

In your recent article, “Rosh Hashanah 1944: A Holocaust Controversy,” you reference an advertisement that ran in the New York Times in 1944 sponsored by the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe. a group led by “Peter Bergson," a young Zionist activist from Jerusalem.

The usual references to “gas chambers” at Auschwitz are repeated here, both by Bergson and yourself. The text of Bergson’s ad includes the statement: "… a Jewish New Year which mourns millions of our people, brutally murdered, burned alive, asphyxiated in gas chambers …” You yourself write “… no order was ever given to bomb the mass-murder machinery [that is, the “gas chambers” of Auschwitz].”

Because the charge that Germans murdered millions of civilians in gas chambers at Auschwitz is an assertion of “unique monstrosity,” it is morally just that we ask whether the charge has been shown to be true. To this point, we note that nowhere on the The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies Website do you provide the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. Why is that?

I have asked several thousand academics and many prominent individuals employed by the Holocaust Industry, including Dr. Paul Shapiro, Director, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, to provide such a name. None has ventured an answer. I hope that you will be an exception to this dismaying rule of behavior, one of avoidance and suppression that has no place in our culture as we face deep moral and complicated historical issues.

Thank you for your attention.

Bradley R. Smith

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
Post Office Box 439016
San Ysidro California 92143

NOTE: I will copy this letter to a number of academics who teach journalism, to press on and off campus, and to those in relevant UNESCO sectors devoted to “free speech.”