Thursday, August 28, 2008

A long life -- some folk never learn

I have never been in that place in life where I have wanted to kill myself. Almost. Many of the folk Malcolm Forbes writes about in They Went Thata-Way did kill themselves. Depression due to one thing or another. He reports that Hemmingway had already written in 1926: “The real reason for not committing suicide is because you always know how swell life gets again after the hell is over.” Two years later Hemmingway’s father shot and killed himself. Hemmingway himself wondered how he might kill himself. He might jump off an ocean liner, or pull the trigger of a shotgun “with his toe.” Is that how a hunter would use a shotgun to kill himself?

In the late 1950s, Hemmingway’s inclination toward depression deepened following a couple airplane accidents in Africa. In 1961 he was admitted o the Mayo Clinic for electricshock treatments to treat the depression. Over the following year he was released, was seen to be acting suspiciously with his shotgun, was readmitted, and released again. Whereupon, back at the house in Idaho, he put his shotgun to his forehead and pulled both triggers. I do not know if he pulled the triggers with his toe, but I doubt it.

Earlier that year he had written: “A long life deprives man of his optimism. [Better] to die in all the happy period of unillusioned youth, to go out in a blaze of light, than to have your body worn out and old and illusions shattered.” The phrase “to go out in a blaze of light” suggests what he might have seen in the instant when the shotgun exploded into his forehead.

For myself, I have yet to be deprived of my optimism, do not recall that my youth was any happier than my old age is, and have not had any serious illusions to be shattered. In short, it is today pretty much like it was then. It’s probably the case of some folk never learning. One afternoon in a field outside Ojai, under some oak trees, Krishnamurti re-marked in an aside that we all want to go on living. He said: “I don’t know why.” And he paused and sort of looked around at the trees as if he were passing through a moment of wonder.

One noonday in the early 1960s I was driving the family Ford on the freeway from South Los Angeles toward Hollywood. Those were the days when I was seeing pictures on Hollywood Boulevard without benefit of theater. As I approached the overpass at Western Avenue (I think) there was a sudden inclination to drive the car headlong into one of the concrete pilings holding up the overpass. It was very close. The energy for it surged up through the shoulders and into the chest. It was over in an instant. But that could have been it. Even at the time I did not understand why I would do such a thing. I was under a lot of pressure from all the film I was watching while I walked the streets, but I found it interesting too. I would not have thought that I would give it up for anything. But there I was. No thought was involved. It was a gesture from the body. It lasted only an instant, but there it was. I was moving very fast.

In the event, it’s been a pretty swell life. Some folk never learn.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

George Washington on the U.S. alliance with Israel

It can be argued that GW was a little premature with this, but sometimes it’s better to be too early than too late. Did you watch the oily performances put on by Barack Obama and John McCain before their AIPAC audiences?


From George Washington's "Farewell Address" – 1796

A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.

It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. [emphasis supplied]

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.



Have received a welcome message from “Mike Smith” (no relation), the sole producer of “One Third of the Holocaust.”

“Hey Bradley: I just finished a new video. It's 2 hours and 22 minutes long. It's called ‘Buchenwald: A Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil.’ It's on the "One Third of the Holocaust" site.


Added AdBusters to my Blog Links.


Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Good questions are better than good answers. Yeah?

Elie Wiesel spoke before a sold-out crowd at Rochester Church of Christ in Rochester Minnesota. The Livonia (MI) Observer & Eccentric Newspapers give the story a sub-head that reads:

"Good questions are better than good answers. Good questions have no answers."

Professor Wiesel is a genius. If I were to ask him to provide the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz, I believe Elie would consider it one of those question that is too good to have an answer. It follows then that there are only answers to questions that aren’t much good to begin with.

This particular lecture was titled "The Power of Language for Reconciliation." Wiesel noted that examples of reconciliation, or the lack thereof, can be traced to early scripture. Citing the biblical tale of Cain and Abel, he said that when “language fails, it is replaced by violence … Violence becomes the new language. That was true then, and it is now. In other words, two brothers rejected reconciliation as a way of life."

Should I be encouraged to hope that it is possible for those who believe the core Holocaust narrative and those who doubt it could exchange language in an environment of openness and good will with an aim of reconcilliation? Would Elie encourage such a peaceful exchange? Or would he favor the prosecution and imprisonment -- that is, an act of State violence against an individual -- of those who doubt what he believes regarding the core Holocaust narrative?

“Wiesel said in times of extreme conflict and crisis, language is an early victim and is often ‘violated, maimed, enslaved, corrupted and perverted.’" That is, those who doubt what he believes about the core Holocaust story are commonly labeled “haters,” “anti-Semites,” “liars,” “sadists.” and general “no-goods.” Is the intent of such language to victimize those it is used against? Sometimes?

Adolf Hitler, Wiesel said, "referred to the extermination of six million Jews as the 'final solution,' as if it was a mathematical problem."

If I were to ask how Elie Wiesel can demonstrate that Adolf Hitler referred to “the extermination of six million Jews” anywhere under any circumstances, would that be a question so good that it could not possibly have an answer? Would asking the question itself be an act of violence? Would it violate language? Would it maim, enslave, corrupt or pervert language?

If so, how so? Another of those questions I suppose that is too good to have an answer.


I’m reading a book titled They Went That-a-Way by Malcolm Forbes. It informs me how some of the “famous, the infamous, and the great died.” I think my pulling this title out of a box of books that I’m giving away is a very small irony. At best.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Don't let the devil take your mind

Yesterday I was following up on Dick Meyer, the Bullshit Vigilante, putting together a mailing list of NPR reporters, having some trouble with it, when I came across NPR’s World Café via WXPN-FM and a young musician named Jackie Green. I hadn’t heard of him. He was to sing one of his own pieces he calls “Don’t Let The Devil Take Your Mind.” I thought it a nice title. I listened to it. He had me. The sound, the lyrics, the delivery. One line, “A baby crying from the well,” was particularly striking.

Today I worked okay through the morning but by mid-afternoon it was over. It’s not physical tiredness, but that attention closes down. Not all the way, but far enough where nothing interests it. I still recognize what I need to do, but without the encouragement of attention there's no recourse. The inclination is to just sit wherever it is I am, silent, the eyes somewhat out of focus.

This afternoon I forced myself to get out of the house and drive to the little, largely empty shopping center to my mail drop. I thought it was Friday and my last day to pick up a shipment of a vegetable supplement called All Day Energy Greens. Actually it's Thursday. While I was there in the office I got a call from Dr. Dent in Head and Neck at the La Jolla VA. He told me it had been decided that he would perform a surgical biopsy on the throat next week. He gave me the date and hour. He said once that was out of the way Dr. Go would have the information he needs to begin treatment. Dr. Dent looks like the actor Hugh Grant. Wonderfully uncertain smile.

Tonight went out walking in the fresh night air but there was nowhere to walk so I came back and sat down to the computer. I remembered Jackie Green and clicked on the URL to the World Café and played “Don’t Let the Devil Take Your Mind.” And here I am now, listening to a few cuts from three of his albums. None of it catches my attention like “Devil” but it’s just the ticket while I sit here, alone, to do a little typing.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Bullshit Vigilantes

I received a Google alert with a text reading: “I don’t like people who go to the Holocaust Memorial Museum wearing t-shirts that say ‘Eat Me.’” I thought maybe I was being referenced. When I clicked on the alert I found a review of a new book by Dick Meyer Titled Why We Hate Us, along with the first chapter of his book titled “Land of the Fake.” Meyer has been a professional journalist for 20 years and is now the editorial director of digital media for NPR.

Meyer writes of the May morning in 1998 when he attended a memorial service before the marble Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. A military band played the old hymn "Going Home" as an honor guard lifted the casket containing the remains of the “unknown” Vietnam soldier and carried it to the waiting hearse.

“It had rested there since Memorial Day 1984 when President Ronald Reagan led a ceremony to finally honor the soldiers of the Vietnam War by putting one of their own into the Tomb of the Unknowns. Who was he? What was his story? Where was his family? ‘We will never know the answers to those questions about his life,’ Reagan said that day.”

Meyer writes: “I remember the moment during the ceremony when I realized the Tomb of the Unknowns was literally a fake on a monumental scale. A deliberate fake. A false monument.” That is, everyone, from Reagan on down, knew the name of the Vietnam veteran who was being honored as the “unknown soldier.” Meyer had been working the story for months with CBS colleagues. CBS Evening News had produced a series of stories about the veteran.

After the disinterment ceremony at the false monument of the Tomb of the Unknowns, Meyers writes that he became more of a “phoniness” vigilante than he had been before. He became a professional “bullshit hunter.” He quotes columnist Lars-Erik Nelson as once saying: "The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy is bullshit." Meyer notes that now he had a motto.

So the enemy is “bullshit.” I agree with Dick Meyer and with Lars-Erik Nelson, a fellow I admired. Because the Tomb of the Unknowns is a “false monument” and a “deliberate fake” on a “monumental scale,” it only follows that, in the vulgate, that the Tomb is bullshit. Which brings us to the quote that caught my attention in the first place and took me to this story.

“I don’t like people who go to the Holocaust Memorial Museum wearing t-shirts that say ‘Eat Me.’”

Meyer implies that such an event took place. While the anecdote is refreshingly comic as it stands, we are left with a question. Was the t-shirt wearer an empty-headed social idiot oblivious to the immense pain he might cause displaying his t-shirt in a Museum dedicated to the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans, or was he making a statement? “This United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is bullshit?” Would that we could find the boy and ask him. Maybe he’ll read this Blog and step forward.

In any event, finding a professional bullshit vigilante like Dick Meyer interests me greatly. It’s very good news. I will soon have a simple question for Dick Meyer and his colleagues at NPR. We’ll see how far real bullshit vigilantes are willing to go.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

There are ideas, and then there are insights

I’ve been thinking about how, when I got into revisionism, I stopped writing. You can see what I mean if you peruse the stories I did in the 1960s and 70s and even into the 80s to those I have done since. During the 1980s attention moved inexorably from watching commonplace and other unlikely events of the day, to being vulnerable to the most inappropriate insights as they occurred in the daily round. I use the word insight rather than idea because, unlike idea, insight appears from a place that cannot be identified and oftentimes cannot be logically defended.

In 1979, after thirty years of absolute belief in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, during the twenty minutes it took me to read Faurisson’s “The Rumor of Auschwitz: the Problem of the Gas Chambers,” I understood I had come face to face with a great taboo, and that the Auschwitz gas chamber story was probably a fraud. This did not rise to the level of an “idea.” I knew nothing about gas chambers at Auschwitz, and nothing about Holocaust. The brain was empty of all that stuff. It was an insight, or “realization.” If the Auschwitz gas chamber stories were true, there would be no need for the taboo that enveloped them. Nothing was thought out. I asked no questions. Pure insight.

Insight appears to come from the meeting of one brain with one culture amid the circumstances of the day. Of course, everything human comes from such as that so what am I saying? My attention has probably been pierced by various insights over the last half century or so. I can recall only a couple. The latest is that to ask those who should know, and who benefit by exploiting the story, the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz – and here is the insight – that to ask that question is to put the dagger at the throat of American culture as it is held together today.

The image came to me one day last week, during a perfectly normal day. My work, if I am going to be attentive, is to be aware of the circumstances of the moment when the insight drew attention to itself. I was not attentive. I am only now becoming aware that I have been inattentive to the commonplace, unlikely events of the day. And while the language is violent, no “image” appeared with it. I would have to be a very great artist to imagine American culture with a single image.

Friday, August 15, 2008

A threat that goes to the throat of American culture

When I first got into revisionism, at the very beginning, I wrote that if the revisionists are right about the core Holocaust narrative, the history of the 20th century would have to be rewritten. That was a very big statement for someone like me to make. I soon understood that it was a matter, however, that was widely believed to be so by most everyone who was familiar with the significance of revisionist arguments.

This evening, reading in Donoghue’s The Ordinary Universe, it occurs to me for perhaps the second time today that the question -- it is really my question -- asking for the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz, goes beyond that early assertion I made more or less to myself. The question, “One Person, with Proof …” constitutes a direct threat to every individual associated with government, media, the academy, the arts, business in America. It’s a question that goes to the heart, to the throat, of American culture. And I’m the one asking it? Something isn’t right here. And then, why today?

I underlined some stuff in Donoghue and made a couple notes. I made a note on how Valery wrote that God gives the poet the first line free, but it is up to the poet to get the rest of it right.

Below that I noted that when I started doing revisionism, I stopped writing. That was more than 25 years ago. Why did I stop?

Thursday, August 14, 2008

An exercise in imagination, technology and judgment


Digitizing the Holocaust
By Bob Davis

August 14, 2008

JERUSALEM – “Yad Vashem, the famed Holocaust museum here, is planning for a world without Holocaust survivors. The museum aims to capture the interest of future generations by retelling the stories of those who survived the Nazi persecutions and those who perished. It is an exercise in imagination, technology and judgment.

“The museum is digitizing 75 million records over the next three years, videotaping interviews with one-time concentration-camp inmates and using art and multimedia displays -- even a YouTube channel -- to create a record that will outlive the now-elderly survivors. "We have to set up a dialogue in the ... “

Yad Vashem then is going to digitize some of its records – 75 million or so, which I suppose is only a fraction of what these energetic folk have been able to put together. Once Yad Vashem gets these first 75 million records into its digital system, the institution might be able to provide the world with the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. Can’t wait.

What would we say to the possibility that by the time we enter a world without Holocaust survivors, we will have entered a world where it is understood there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz? The folk at Yad Vashem would have to exercise their powerful imaginations, their complex technology, and their deep moral judgment in interesting new ways. Are they up to it? Are they not?

Follow the money.


When my wife watched Michael Phelps on television come up out of the Beijing Olympic pool after having won his sixth gold medal she said to me in Spanish: “That young man makes me nervous.”

We were to the other side to the U.S. Navel Hospital in Balboa for me to have a Pet (full-body) scan to see where the Lymphoma is going, if anywhere, and afterward we drove south to Chula Vista to Henry’s Market. There I stopped at the cold box to pick up a half-gallon of Altadena (not pasteurized) milk. As usual, most of the Altadena milk was in plastic bottles, but some of the half-gallons were in cartons. For the first time I chose to buy the carton. It was my first conscious “green” buy at the grocery market. What’s happening to me?

I’m making an effort to get rid of stuff. Give away books I’ll never read, boxes of old papers and magazines I’ll never refer to, duplicate copies of old manuscripts and drafts of work I never finished typed out on paper before I had a computer. The usual stuff. This morning I came across three soiled index cards held together by a rusty paper clip. The top card listed the names in one column of some of the guys who were in my platoon in Korea. I must have been thinking I would write something about them. That was thirty, forty years ago. The list goes like this.

Jack Dyche
Big Ben
Steubbins (dead)
Gray (dead)
O’Neal (dead)
Smith (dead)

Re the Smith fellow: for the record, it wasn’t me. I have mentioned some of these guys here and there in one story or another, but I never put together anything good on any of them. I don’t know why I made the “dead” references. It’s not that I was going to forget those I had last seen as corpses. I probably had something in mind.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Branding Israel

How to Get the World To Hate Israel
By Richard L. Cravatts

Mr. Cravatts, PhD, director of Boston University’s Program in Book and Magazine Publishing at the Center for Professional Education, writes frequently on terrorism, higher education, politics, culture, law, marketing, and housing, and is currently writing a book about the world-wide assault on Israel taking place on college campuses.

I believe this is a perspective that those of us who argue against the U.S. alliance with Israeli Jews against Palestinian Arabs should always have in mind. Not that we would agree with every point in the argument, but that we should be able to recognize the good sense in some of the argument. Still, we have only to ask how many Arabs in Palestine lost everything after a Jewish Israel was forced down their throats, and how many Jews in Israel lost have everything over the same period, to understand how Israel has been “branded” in the consciousness of the world.

Cravetts writes: “As part of evaluating the competitive landscape of the popularity of nations, in a process referred to in marketing circles as ‘place branding,’ Israel, to no one’s great surprise, comes up short in brand likeability, ranking last out of 35 nations included in an August 2006 survey conducted by nation branding expert Simon Anholt, even less attractive to respondents than Indonesia, Estonia, and Turkey.

“How could this have happened to a country that is the Middle East’s only thriving democracy and enjoys a remarkably robust economy that has spawned some 1000 startup high tech companies, for example, second only to the U.S.? How, in short, would you go about making the world hate Israel?”

Here is Cravett’s succinct response to his own question, first published on History News Network.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

A comic glimpse at our favorite humanitarians

Democrats: The Missing Years
By Jeffrey Lord

Missing: 52 years of history.


The DNC website section labeled "Party History," linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats' political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then...poof!...the next sentence says: "As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly." It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.

In a stroke, 52 years of Democrat history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.

So what's missing?

* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were 6 from 1840-1860.

* There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were 7 from 1800-1861

* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868-1948.

* There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Civil Rights heroine Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the front of a "whites only" bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.

* There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."

* There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth banned slavery. The Fourteenth effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision (made by Democrat pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The Fifteenth gave black Americans the right to vote.

* There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of Democratic President Andrew Johnson. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.

* There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

* There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."

* There is no reference to four Democrat platforms, 1908-1920, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching, and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynchings (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."



And so on. . . .

To be fair, I would want to mention that the intentional mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent, unarmed German, Japanese and other civilians around the world over the last century by the U.S. Government has been, and is being, carried out on behalf of a fully bi-partisan Republican/Democratic partnership.

Vote libertarian. One day it may matter.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Sherwood Anderson as a role model

I have uploaded half a dozen stories onto True Stories of a Holocaust Revisionist. I see now that some of them need work. I’ll get around to it. The stories are posted in a roughly chronological order by decade, from the 1930s into the 2000s. There are no stories from the 1930s and 40s. As I noted here a couple days ago, in 1963 I threw away everything I had written the previous eleven years. That included the stories I had from those two decades.

After I posted that anecdote I recalled that in 1963 the impulse to get rid of the work I had done up to that time was a copy-cat action. A famous American writer in the early 20th century had done something like it. I couldn’t remember his name. He had influenced Hemingway. For a period. This evening I decided to track the guy down. Not difficult. Sherwood Anderson. He lived from 1876 into 1941. His Winesburg, Ohio was still being read in the 1960s. In Wikipedia I read that in “November 1912 he disappeared for four days after suffering a mental breakdown. Soon he left his job and his marriage broke up. Anderson described the entire episode as ‘escaping from his materialistic existence,’ which garnered praise from many young writers, who used his ‘courage’ as an example.”

Wikipedia does not mention that during the four days of his mental breakdown Anderson threw away all his written work. Why wouldn’t they mention it? That would be the part of the story that “many young writers” would have seen as an act of “courage.” Maybe I have the story wrong. Maybe I had it wrong at the time. In any event, I wasn't a young writer in 1963. I was 33 years old. And if I thought I could copy-cat a courageous act by a first class American writer and then become one myself, I got it wrong.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Attention as a commodity

I am conscious now that time has become an issue for me. Nothing dramatic, but I became aware a while back that I was sitting around more than usual, watching television, browsing the Net more than usual, instead of working. The television never stops. The Net never stops. The difference is that the Net has a thousand, ten thousand times more interesting stuff on it than television. You can grow quickly bored with television, but it is impossible to grow bored with the Net. There is never a point in time, night or day, that you cannot find interesting, important, valuable information on the Net. The Net is the great wonder of contemporary civilization.

So I was sitting around watching television more than before. I was browsing the Net more than before. I was doing less real work than before. About a month ago I learned that folk with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma typically find that fatigue becomes an issue. I had to admit that I was napping more often than before, that I am only half awake more often than before. Once I became aware that this was how it was going to be, I found I could remind myself to stay away from the television, but drawing back from browsing the Net has been more difficult. There’s just too much good stuff there. And it is always less fatiguing to browse the work of others than to make your own stuff.

Yesterday I was on the Net when I came across a wonderful idea from the December 1997issue of Wired. Why was I browsing Wired? No idea.

“Silicon Valley futurist Michael H Goldhaber wrote an influential essay entitled ‘Attention Shoppers,’ which suggested that the great scarcity in the 21st-century digital media economy will be attention.”

Brilliant! In the Digital Age attention itself has become a “commodity.” I would never have dreamed to come up with such a concept. The accomplishments of the Age itself create the “scarcity” of what is the Age’s most valuable commodity. I saw instantly that that’s how it’s becoming with me. Attention is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity. But then, long before the present age, attention was not ever a commodity that I had in surplus. I’m too dreamy. I’m content to catch things on the fly.


Muslims, Jews and the free speech debate.

A column in the Daily News Egypt, a voice in English for the Muslim community worldwide, addresses the recent story about the French cartoonist Sine and how he was fired for a wisecrack he made about the son of French President Sarkozy.

The writer notes that it is ironic that Philippe Val, the editor of the French weekly Charlie Hebdo, who was once lauded for winning one of the most important court cases about freedom of expression — publishing cartoons depicting Prophet Mohamed wearing a bomb-shaped turban among others — has fired one of his own veteran writers for making indirect links between Judaism and upward social mobility or, that is, money. We'll keep in mind that producing money is the primary expertise of the Holocaust Lobby.

Double standards. There is one standard for Jews and things Jewish, another for most everyone and everything else. That is not the fault of Jews. It is “our” fault, those of us who are not Jews, we who do not have the stomach for being honest about such standards. The folk at the Daily News Egypt may be mere Muslims, but they understand the hypocrisy that is so pervasive on these issues throughout Western culture. And they are becoming increasingly attentive to it.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Survivors: Block Yad Vashem

Racheli Gai of Jewish Peace News introduces an article appearing in Haaretz today.

She writes: "Most Jews (and many others) have thoroughly internalized the idea that a major justification for the existence of a Jewish state was/is to provide a "safe haven" for diaspora Jews, especially Jewish victims of persecution. In this category - Holocaust survivors are most prominent, perhaps altogether in a class by themselves.

"Yet, the Holocaust has been used, once and again, as a political tool by all Israeli governments. The story below gives us a rather appalling example of that, by providing some details on the miserable economic conditions under which the majority of Holocaust survivors live, and the state's responsibility for that."

In short, the Holocaust, and it's core (undemonstrated) story that Germans used WMD at Auschwitz to exterminate the Jews of Europe, has been used to morally justify creating a Jewish State on Arab land in Palestine and so much of what has gone along with that, as well as the appalling U.S. alliance with the Israeli State against the Arabs of Palestine.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Holocaust denier's 'attack on justice'

My friend Fredrick Toben has been under assault for years now in Australia, an assault led primarily by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the intent of which is to censor revisionist arguments in Australia. Who would have thought it?


The Australian

06 August 2008

HOLOCAUST denier Fredrick Toben aggravated charges of criminal contempt of court by attacking federal judges and the judicial process, a court has heard.

Dr Toben yesterday pleaded not guilty to 28 charges alleging he breached orders made by the Federal Court in 2002, as well as an undertaking he made last year to remove offensive material [read: revisionist arguments] from his website. The former schoolteacher, who spent seven months in a German prison in 1999 for inciting racism [read: expressing revisionist arguments publicly in Germany], is facing a possible finding of criminal contempt in the Federal Court in Adelaide.

Jeremy Jones, former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has alleged Dr Toben failed to comply with orders made by judge Catherine Branson in 2002to remove material that breached the Racial Discrimination Act [read: that breached the censorship policies of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry]. The postings implied the Holocaust did not happen and doubted the existence of gas chambers [read: revisionist arguments must be censored and revisionists punished for thought crimes] at the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Dr Toben has also been banned from publishing material implying Jews who were offended or challenged by Holocaust denial were of limited intelligence [okay, a bad joke, but....] and that some Jewish people had exaggerated the number of Jews killed in World War II and the circumstances for financial gain [ref: Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry].

Robin Margo SC, representing Mr. Jones, said Dr Toben had aggravated the alleged breach of court orders by attacking the judiciary on his website. He said Dr Toben continued to cast aspersions against judicial officers and the legal process, promoting a view that the court was "merely a proxy" for Jews. Mr. Margo said such "public defiance" of the court's authority as well as personal attacks on Mr. Jones undermined the fabric of justice [read: censorship serves the fabric of justice in Australia when it protects the Australian public from revisionist arguments].

Melbourne barrister David Perkins, representing Dr Toben, unsuccessfully applied for a permanent stay of 11 of the charges.

Judge Bruce Lander, hearing the case, said any evidence tendered arguing that the Holocaust did not occur [in whole, or in part?] would be ruled irrelevant.

The hearing continues.


The U.N. General Assembly rejects ... either in full or part.

I’ve slowed down the past few weeks with a quietly growing fatigue. It’s new for me. I don’t know yet how to get around it. It interferes with the work. Luckily, I suppose, August is one of those months when the whole revisionist outreach enterprise slows down, particularly if you are working with any audience on campus.

A couple months back when I wrote Dr. Shapiro at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum asking if he could produce the name, with proof, of that one fantastical person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz, I was able to copy the letter to close to half a hundred of his associates at the Museum. I thought then to repeat the process at Yad Vashem. Why not? As it happens, Yad Vashem is not so easy to work with as the USHMM. The key players at Yad Vashem are not so easy to contact as they are in the American museum. From the Yad Vashem point of view, it’s the practical thing to do. I understand that. Still. . . .

One interesting Yad Vashem page is called

“The Holocaust and the United Nations Outreach Programme.”

Hadn’t occurred to me that YV would have an outreach program targeting the United Nations. Why would they not? Straight to the top of the budding, though stumbling, World Government. Headlined there I find Secretary-General-Designate Ban Ki-moon telling us (14 December 2006):

"Denying historical facts, especially on such an important subject as the Holocaust, is just not acceptable. [ … ] Again, it is a historical fact, and denying historical facts, especially such a very important historical fact as the Holocaust, is not acceptable. It is not acceptable.”

There we are. A new guy on the block, the main guy at the main world organization. Chinese. No difference. The recipient of three thousand years of elegant and intellectually sophisticated culture and Mr. Ki-moon doesn’t appear to be any wiser about the Jewish Holocaust scam than your average American pub crawler.

Looking around a bit I find the:

“Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the Holocaust Remembrance (A/RES/60/7, 1 November 2005)

The Resolution includes:

“Reaffirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, religion or other status [excepting Palestinians].

“Recalling article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person [except Palestinians].

“Recalling also article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which state that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion [except Holocaust revisionists].

“Bearing in mind that the founding principle of the Charter of the United Nations, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", is testimony to the indelible link between the United Nations and the unique tragedy of the Second World War [that is, while other holocausts are mentioned in passing, if you look into the money-trail you will find that it is the uniqueness of the “Jewish” holocaust that is featured, and profits, throughout the West].

“Recalling the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted in order to avoid repetition of genocides such as those committed by the Nazi regime [not the Soviet regime, not ever, which was significantly forwarded by Jews rather than against Jews].

“Recalling also the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind [except for Palestine].

“Taking note of the fact that the sixtieth session of the General Assembly is taking place during the sixtieth year of the defeat of the Nazi regime ….

“Recalling the twenty-eighth special session of the General Assembly, a unique event, held in commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps [no commemoration for the liberation of the Soviet camps. Slavs of course, not Jews.]

3. “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part….”


I know. This is all old stuff. But the last line quoted here, noting that the United Nations General Assembly (!) would put itself on the block to defend the idea of standing against “any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part . . .” is remarkable. Those representing the entire world! The United Nations General Assembly has not, to my knowledge, published a definition of what the Jewish Holocaust was. How do we know what we can and cannot question if we do not have before us the definition of the event/s we find questionable?

And then there is the silliest part of the equation. The United Nations General Assembly “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust … either in full or part…”

In part?

What does “in part” mean?

Who decides what it means?

If we question eyewitness testimony entered into the records at a War Crimes Trial that accuses Germans of having skinned the corpses of exterminated Jews to make hand gloves and riding breeches of their hides, and no proof of such happenings can be produced, are we in danger of “denying” the Jewish Holocaust “in part?”

Who decides? Someone represented in Norman Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry?

Who else would bother?

I’m just beginning to look into this, but I think it might be better to work with the United Nations folk than those at Yad Vashem. One advantage is that the UN, as opposed to Yad Vashem, is full of folk who already question the historical accuracy of the Jewish Holocaust story, question the moral justification of the U.S. alliance with Israel against the Palestinians, and question Jewish influence within the U.S. Congress and U.S. media. Granted, most of these doubters are Arabs and Muslims, but what can you do? When you can’t work with the “best” you are left to work with the others.

I don’t know. I’m going to poke around at it.

Monday, August 4, 2008

Not Quite the Dreyfus Affair

I appreciate your notes of condolence and sympathy, which I acknowledge privately, but will not publish here. Thanks.

Dreamed about the meeting place on a road outside of town. A board house or storefront with peeling gray paint, half-fallen down, windows. I go about sending additional stuff there to make it look even more cluttered. I want the place to appear stuffed with materials of some kind, maybe disorganized. Don’t know why, don’t know what. Third or forth time I have dreamed this.

Reading David Irving’s Radical Diary and see how he is set up by Max Blumenthal on video representing himself as a journalist for Nation, while working in this instance for Morris Dees’ Southern Poverty Law Center, a leading front for the Holocaust Industry. In this brief, casual interview, Irving makes one statement after another that is compromising in the eyes of media and most everywhere else.

For revisionists media is everything. There is no real conversation anywhere. I think about how it will be for me this time around, beginning in September. I will keep it very simple. “One person, with proof . . . ”


Paloma has just typed into the computer a story I call “Tools of Memory.” I have a number of stories that are ready to upload onto the Founder’s Page. Maybe this week. Maybe next. They are all work I did some time ago, but have yet to publish. We’ll see. I am reminded that in 1963, after the Henry Miller trial, after loosing interest in selling books and deciding over night to close down the bookstore, I put all my writing from Korea, from Mexico, New York City, South Central Los Angeles and Hollywood – everything from 1951 through that month in 1963 – in a couple boxes and carried them out to the alley behind the store and threw them in the dumpster there. Twelve, thirteen years’ work. It would be a new beginning.


I am getting a steady stream of suggestions from readers about where to look for specialized treatments for non-Hodgkins lymphoma, B-cell cancer. The literature appears to be endless. I don’t think there is any good reason for me to worry with it. I don’t have time. I can either spend my time researching treatment for the cancer, or working on a couple final revisionist projects. There is no guarantee with either, but I at least know a little about how I might forward the revisionist argument. With regard to the cancer, I would have to start from page one and devote all my time to it, with no guarantee. My inclination is to let it slide.

The VA hospital is going to use traditional methods to treat me, and they are going to be behind the curve. Only yesterday I was informed by the U.S. Navel Hospital in Balboa, where I was to get the Pet (full-body) scan, that their machine is out of order and the appointment will have to be put back another seven days. This is the final examination before Dr. Go begins treatment, so the beginning of treatment is set back yet another week. And so it goes.


In the New York Times (04 August) Roger Cohen reports that “France has gone off the deep end over a brief item in the country’s leading satirical magazine portraying the relationship between President Nicolas Sarkozy’s fast-rising son, Jean, and his Jewish fiancée.

“The offending piece in [the weekly] Charlie Hebdo, a pillar of the left-libertarian media establishment, was penned last month by a 79-year-old columnist-cartoonist who goes by the name of Bob Siné. He described the plans — since denied — of Jean Sarkozy, 21, to convert to Judaism before marrying Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, an heiress to the fortune of the Darty electrical goods retailing chain.

Philippe Val, editor of Charlie Hebdo, demanded that Siné apologise for what he wrote and the old cartoonist replied (perhaps inspired by Jessie Jackson’s response to Barrack Obama’s rhetoric re Blacks) that he would rather “cut off his nuts.”

Cohen writes: “In the land of Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards, the stage was now set for a great French drama, Internet-powered this time. The country, its blogs in overdrive, has split between defenders of the ousted Siné in the name of free speech and supporters of Val in the name of barring anti-Semitic hate speech.

“Several political bloggers have asked why Val, in the name of free speech and solidarity with a Danish newspaper under fire, bravely republished cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, but drew the line at Sine’s caricaturing of the purported relationship between Jews, money and an opportunistic young Sarkozy with a nascent political career in the department of Hauts-de-Seine, near Paris.”

In the Guardian it is reported: “At Liberation, editor Laurent Joffrin has attacked the anti-Semitism. 'Everything is there,' he said. 'The association of the Jew, money and power in one phrase ….'”

Norman Finkelstein addresses the association of “the Jew, money and power in one phrase” extensively in his The Holocaust Industry. I don’t know if he uses the word greed, but that’s what he’s talking about, and it angers him that the tragedy that befell his family and that of the European Jews generally is openly used to manufacture money, influence, and power for a greedy segment of organized Jews.

Revisionist arguments re Holocaust fraud and falsehood are especially dangerous to such people. The exploitation of the Holocaust story was used from its beginning and is used today to morally justify the conquest of Arab land in Palestine to benefit, primarily, the Jews of Europe. Put simply, since WWII how many Jewish villages in Palestine have been destroyed, and how many Arab villages? How many Jewish farms and orchards have been destroyed and how many Arab farms and orchards have been destroyed? How many Jewish families have lost everything in Israeli and/or occupied Palestine, and how many Arab families have lost everything there?

With regard to Jewish greed, it is reported on every day in the Israeli press. Jews take one more Arab orchard, one more Arab street, one more Arab hilltop, one more Arab farm. It never ends. Jews don’t make the equation of the endless “taking” of Arab property for themselves with the concept of greed. Jewish greed. They have a right to it. They were holocausted – by a different people, on a different continent, in a different age – but they were holocausted.

I am not arguing that greed does not exist in Arab or in Western cultures. Greed is deeply embedded in the species. Americans take it for granted that Arab culture by and large is despotic and ruled by greed. In America greed is part and parcel of market capitalism. Greed is good. But we do not condemn those who argue against greed in American culture, or argue against it elsewhere in Western culture. If you write about the expression of greed in Jewish culture, however, you are condemned for having commited a horrible breach of human civility. Jews were holocausted.

Thus the irony of Auschwitz. The heart of the Holocaust story. The greatest weapons of mass destruction ever conceived. Yet we don’t have the name of one person, with proof, who was “holocausted” in one of those satanic contraptions. Don’t worry about it. Take another house, another street, another hilltop. You deserve it. You were holocausted. The U.S. Congress will pay for it.

And thus the danger of revisionist arguments to what must be the most unattractive segment of the Jewish community worldwide.