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.