Friday, January 30, 2009

Youngstown State University

The following text was published as an “advertisement” in The Jambar at Youngstown State University yesterday, 29 January. The heavens have not yet fallen.



I have asked the Director of the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Dr. Paul Shapiro, if he can “provide, with proof, the name of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.” Dr. Shapiro does not respond. I copied my letter to Dr. Shapiro’s colleagues at the Museum. They do not respond. I have asked more than 2,000 American academics the same question. None has responded.

Following WWII the gas-chamber story was the primary instrument used to morally justify the Jewish conquest of Arab land in Palestine, and following that to morally justify the ruinous U.S. alliance with Israel against the Palestinians and whomever. After 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Gaza, we can all see what has come of that one, and perhaps what is yet to come.

I’m willing to be convinced that I am wrong to ask this question. If you believe I am wrong, or that no moral issue is involved, tell me why. I can be reached at

Bradley R. Smith, Founder


Thursday, January 29, 2009

Fresh (conventional if you read the literature) comments on Holocaust reignites controversy


A Father Floriano Abrahamowicz, head of the society in Treviso in northeast Italy, told a local paper "I know that gas chambers existed as a means to disinfect. But I cannot say for sure if they killed anyone, because I really haven't looked into it".

His remarks were widely reported in the Italian media. That is, that he has no opinion about that which he confesses he knows nothing. The height of sophistication and intellectual responsibility.

Father Abrahamowicz said that the fuss over Bishop Williamson's statements (saying that he believes the gas-chamber stories appear to be, in so many words, a load of crapola) “is being exploited against the Vatican. Williamson simply expressed his doubts. He did not deny the Holocaust, as the press has mistakenly said he did, he only gave a technical opinion on the gas chambers."

He added: "Had Monsignor Williamson denied the genocide of 1.2 million Armenians by the Turks I don't think the press would have reacted the same way".

This is pretty level-headed stuff.


She’s talking about Bishop Williamson here.

“ [ …. ] Williamson is speaking complete lies and nonsense and is making claims that are totally anti-historical. Simply put, this is not just an insult to Jews. It is an insult to truth and memory. It is an insult to intellect (something Pope Benedict values greatly). It is an insult to rational thought.”

This is the lady who can not give us the name of one person, with proof (one out of a million or so), who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. Yet she is absolutely committed to the proposition of the unique monstrosity of the Germans via their extermination of Jews in gas chambers.

Rational thought?


Elie Wiesel says that the Pope, by lifting the excommunication of the British-born cleric [Bishop Williamson], has given credence to "the most vulgar aspect of anti-Semitism".

"That a man who is a bishop and Holocaust denier - and today of course the most vulgar aspect of anti-Semitism is Holocaust denial - and for the Pope to go that far and do what he did, knowing what he knows, is disturbing," he told the Reuters news agency.

"One thing is clear: this move by the Pope surely will not help us fight anti-Semitism. Quite the opposite," he said.

Question: Does Elie Wiesel believe the recent assault on Gaza by Israeli Jews and their slaughter of hundreds of Arab children helped fight anti-Semitism, or helped promote it? We could do a poll throughout the Muslim world, and on the American campus.


German prosecutors are weighing whether to sue controversial reinstated Bishop Richard Williamson for hate crimes. If the German State is going to act with a good conscience, it must sue. How can it sue some who question the gas chambers and not all?

“Investigators are waiting for a full translation of Williamson's remarks from English into German before deciding how to proceed, Regensburg state Prosecutor Guenther Ruckdaeschel told JTA in a telephone interview Thursday.”

The full interview reportedly lasted six minutes. How long is this scholarly work going to take?

According to the JTA, Williamson's German attorney said the bishop is currently in his home country of Argentina. Argentina? Home country? First I’ve heard of it.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Revisionism, Baja, and Health


Swedish television airs an interview with traditionalist Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson in which he claims the Nazis did not use gas chambers.


He said: “I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against — is hugely against — 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.”

Where’s this guy coming from? A moment later he says:

“I believe there were no gas chambers.”

I believe Bishop Williamson represents the same wing of the Catholic Church that Mel Gibson and his father represent. It would be interesting to know what Mel and his father are thinking along about now. It probably won't happen, but if it did happen it would be interesting.


No one’s been murdered in or from our neighborhood in over a month now. That I know of. One fellow who was picked up down the coast about thirty miles in Mission, a small town where one of my family has a church, confessed on television with a quiet equanimity that over a ten-year period he had disposed of some 300 corpses supplied him by one narco gang. He would put them in tambos, metal drums filled with acids, and melt them away. When asked on camera how that work made him feel, he said: “I didn’t feel anything.”

My wife, watching the interview, said impulsively: “Kill him.” There’s no death penalty in Mexico. Not one that is State-run.

It was difficult for me to understand how one of us could do what this man, his name is “Meza,” would be willing to do, though the pay was pretty good. Six hundred dollars a week I believe. I didn’t know what to think. I couldn’t quite identify my reaction to Meza. It took a while. And then I understood. That’s who we are. That’s how Americans can devote themselves to intentionally burning alive hundreds of thousands of civilians for a greater good. It’s how Israelis can morally justify brutalizing and murdering Palestinians. It’s who we are. All of us. We have that violence inside us. Circumstances, ideals, memory bring it forth. More than a million Iraqis have been murdered during the last few years. That’s who we are, that’s who they are. When the moment comes.


I’m doing fine. Everything considered. The other night I went walking, which is part of the treatment in its own way, and while I was resting at a bus stop memory somehow recalled a time when my wife and I were alone in Hollywood. Sitting there on the wire bench, something interesting happened. I got an erection. What a surprise. When the docs are slamming you with chemo, that stuff fades away. Walking back to the house I had to put one hand in my pocket to not give myself away. And then that same night I discovered in the bathroom mirror that hair is beginning to grow on my head. What a day!

With regard to the cancer, we’ll find out the real story the second week in February, just in time for my 79th birthday.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Deborah Lipstadt: “We Won … Well Not Exactly"

Lipstadt writes on her blog, “One of the leading Holocaust deniers claims he has given up the fight to persuade people there was no Holocaust. Nobody would bite. So this is good news, right?” (Lipstadt is talking about Mark Weber and the article printed in The Jewish Daily Forward -- see yesterday’s post on this blog).

“Well not exactly. He is now going to focus his energies on fighting Jewish-Zionist power. This, of course, proves what I and others have been saying for years. Holocaust denial is naught but a form of antisemitism. [Mark] Weber could not spread antisemitism with Holocaust denial so he is going to try other methods.”

While a decision by one man to move from a focus on Holocaust revisionism to one on Jewish-Zionist power is evidence of something, it is proof of nothing. This is typical of the commonplace thinking of commonplace Holocaust scholars like Deborah Lipstadt. Any piece of evidence they find about gas chambers “proves” that Germans used gas chambers to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Still, not one Holocast scholar can provide the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.

They don’t even dare to try.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Is it really time to give up the fight to forward revisionist arguments?


Revisionist: It's Time To Quit Shoah Fight

By Nathaniel Popper

Thu. Jan 15, 2009

One of the primary leaders in the fight to question and delegitimize the Holocaust has proclaimed that fight to be a lost cause, sparking a furious debate among his cohorts.

Mark Weber, a telegenic Californian, has served for 15 years as director of the Institute for Historical Review, which was founded in the late 1970s as a center for people dedicated to doubting and criticizing mainstream histories of the Holocaust.

This month, however, Weber released an essay on the institute's Web site, questioning whether this work has ever had any relevance. Weber argued that Holocaust revisionists are unlikely to have any success in convincing large numbers of people.

"It's been almost 30 years, and Holocaust revisionism has gotten almost no support in academic circles or society at large," Weber told the Forward. "It's gotten some support in Iran, or places like that, but as far as I know, there is no history department supporting writing by these folks."

The argument in Weber's essay, "How Relevant Is Holocaust Revisionism?" might appear, at first glance, to be good news for the Jewish organizations that have fought against Holocaust revisionists. But in his essay, Weber calls for his movement to shift to a new mission, one more purely directed to fighting against "Jewish-Zionist power."

Michael Shermer, a columnist for Scientific American who wrote a book about Holocaust revisionists, said that "for Weber, the Holocaust is just a minor skirmish. The real war to be won is about the Zionists."

Though Weber, like most Holocaust revisionists, is not a fan of the Jewish community, his essay has not even gained him popularity among his fellow travelers. Bradley Smith, a former employee of Weber's institute who is a prominent online publisher of Holocaust revisionist material, told the Forward that he is putting together a whole issue of his newsletter with arguments against Weber.

"It's hard for me to think of Mark Weber as betraying me, because we're friends. And yet, there are those who feel he has betrayed the institute and that he has betrayed the revisionist movement such as it is," Smith said in a phone interview from Mexico.

Smith said that a number of prominent revisionists will be calling for Weber's resignation from the institute.

The world of Holocaust revisionists — inhabited by people who are, by nature, disputatious and unconcerned with social norms — is not one in which divisions and fights have been foreign. Weber took over the Institute for Historical Review after a prolonged and expensive legal fight with its founder, Willis Carto, who had built the institute into what both antagonists and protagonists acknowledge was the premier forum for Holocaust doubters and deniers.
Since taking over, Weber has continued to publish writing on the Holocaust and on World War II. But he came to the institute after working with the white supremacist National Alliance party, and he has pushed to broaden the institute's mandate. The Web site that Weber has built features such articles as "The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution" and "Israel at 60: A Grim Balance Sheet."

In his new essay, published January 9, Weber does try to position himself as a more moderate voice in the debate about the Holocaust. He acknowledges Jewish suffering, and notes that Joseph Goebbel's diaries speak about a concerted campaign to eliminate the Jews — a heretical view for many Holocaust doubters.

"Much of the predictable hostility toward my piece has come from people who are basically cultists — or fanatics on this issue," Weber told the Forward. "They view it with an almost religious fervor."

Already, this has appeared to cause some questioning on revisionist Web sites. One commenter, writing under the handle Carto's Cutlass Supreme, responded to Weber's use of Goebbel's diary by asking: "What would people say about that here? Do we know the diary couldn't have been tampered with?"

Weber's discussion of Jewish suffering, though, is a lead-in to the historian's broader point, which is that the Holocaust doubters have not been effective agents in the broader battle against Jewish power.

Michael Santomauro, who runs an e-mail list dedicated to questioning Jews and the Holocaust, said that Weber's shift is a strategic mistake.

"I think it is an unfortunate path he is taking, because the Holocaust is an effective weapon," he told the Forward. "When the Holocaust is used as a weapon, it explains a lot of the lopsided foreign policy."

But for Santomauro and many of his online friends, much of the problem with Weber is not his ideology, but his work output. Most prominent revisionists are prolific writers who will publish anywhere in order to have their views distributed. Under Weber, the institute has ceased publication of its journal and stopped hosting international conferences.

"He hasn't done any work," Smith said.

Aryeh Tuchman, director of the Anti-Defamation League's Library and Research Center, said that Weber's slowed production hurt the doubters and deniers of the Holocaust long before his new essay. "There is not a central Holocaust denial organization or body anymore," Tuchman said. "There's no one who can serve to motivate them anymore."

The Iranian government, under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tried to take up this mantle when it hosted a conference with Holocaust doubters last year. But even Weber said that the conference didn't do revisionists any favors.

"If the point of the conference was to be scholarly, the thing was a failure," Weber said. "The thing only strengthened and confirmed the views people already had about Iran, Ahmadinejad and Israel."

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Theater and the vulnerability of the viewer

One day last month I was surfing the television when I got in on the middle of Spiderman Two. I was surprised by the face of the actor playing Spiderman. I didn’t really know the story. I soon saw that he was well chosen. When the film finished, and it seemed to me that the story was finished several times before the movie ended, I understood why Spiderman will never become a myth, or Superman, Batman or any of that crew. Two much story. Too many details. It never ends. Myth rests solidly on a sparseness of detail, among other things.


It was a Sunday night and I was in Chula Vista on the other side on my way to stay in lodging at the VA hospital in La Jolla where I would take a chemotherapy infusion the next morning. I found myself at loose ends, unusually lonely. I wondered if I should see a movie. I went to the multi-plex in a shopping mall. The only film showing that I had heard of was the latest James Bond, “Quantum of Solace.” I didn’t want to see it. I walked around for the next hour, then went back to the box office and bought a ticket.

The actor who now has the Bond role plays it very well. It was a Saturday night, and there were seven people in the audience. The picture itself was a stew of violence, one violent, brutal, sadistic scene after another. There was no end to it. Scenes cut so fast you could not follow the action with precision but were left with the brutality of each. Leaving the theater I wondered how Hollywood had gotten to the place where it is with such films. It is widely acknowledged that Jews run Hollywood. That it is a significantly Jewish sensibility we see on screen. Jews ran Hollywood during the 1930s and the movies were very different. That was before the Holocaust and the gas-chamber invention. Is that possible? That once (Jewish) Israel came to be a centerpiece of Western culture and the focus of morally justified brutality against others, and it was “allowed,” it would only be natural for Hollywood to follow along?

Those of us who are not Jews encourage it all, with our money, and our acquiescence.


And then more recently, on the television, I came into the middle of a sentimental movie staring Jennifer Lopez. I can’t remember the name of the film, and though it was only about ten days ago, I can’t even remember what it was about. Now I recall that she was, I think, a uniformed police officer. But what I recall most consciously is that the film moved me. To tears. And at the same time I realized that over the past weeks I have been moved to tears by watching movies, watching the catastrophes reported on news broadcasts, most anything. I don’t break down sobbing, but I find myself getting a little weepy over the suffering of others. I have become more aware of my own vulnerability these past months, and I think that has caused me to become increasingly aware of the vulnerability of others. It isn’t a matter of whether the other is in a news reel, or in a melodrama on the big screen. It’s the story itself that affects me. It could be self-pity. I don’t think so. I think that with my own acknowledged vulnerability, I have become increasingly aware of the vulnerability of the other. I think. Maybe.


And then there was the PBS filmed stage production of Cyrano de Bergerac. I read it and saw it on stage 30, 40 years ago, but I was struck once again by the sophistication, the quality of the language. The modernity of the sensibilities expressed. The stand-up joking around. Somewhere during the production itself memory recalled the first time I read Aristophanes. It was 1954 and I was in Mexico City, 24years old, and had never read the Greeks. I don’t remember in the moment which play it was I first turned to, but I recall the moment that one character, speaking of his action with a lady friend, said,

“I squeezed her until she farted like a weasel.”

I was stunned. A guy would write like that more than 2,000 years ago? I had no idea. At that moment, I decided the Greeks were for me. But I got distracted by the Bulls and afterwards never really did the Greeks well.


Today is Sunday and usually I would be preparing to go to the other side for a chemo infusion tomorrow morning. Not this month. It’s behind me for the time being. I’m glad to have it behind me. The first of the week I began walking. The first day I did six minutes out, rested, did the six minutes back. The next day I did 16 minutes, eight out, a rest, eight back. The third day, Thursday, I did 12 out, rested, and 12 back. Twenty-four minutes. It exhausted me. Yesterday I was still exhausted. After a full night’s sleep Friday night, I napped for three hours in the afternoon, and another hour and a half in the evening. Last night I slept right on through until this morning at 9am. Today I’m over it. This coming week I will walk farther, but will not walk on consecutive days, but every other day.


I am being encouraged to comment on Mark Weber’s recent article “How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?” This isn’t the place. At least, not yet. But the next issue of Smith’s Report will address Mark’s article.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Bernard-Henri Levy and the perfect crime

Bernard-Henri Levy’s “Eternal Damnation of the Spotless Mind” is a wonderfully unique title for an article, a book, or anything else. The proposal encouraged by Levy, however, is the commonplace one that it is dangerous to “forget.” It is the standard and unimaginative tool used by your run-of-the-mill spokesperson for the Holocaust Marketing Industry.

Levy does not consider here the dangers of forever remembering what is false. Consider Gaza. Is it really all for the best that Jews “remember” that God gave the land of Palestine and Gaza to them? Wouldn’t it have been best following WWII if they, and everyone else, had forgotten it?

Levy is writing in “remembrance of the renowned Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, murdered two years ago, on Jan. 19, 2007, for his comments on the slaughter of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman forces during WWI.”

“This struggle will continue as long as there are no laws in place penalizing genocide denial -- and these laws are needed not only in Turkey, but around the world. Critics may say, ‘It is not for the law to write history.’ That is absurd. History has been written a hundred times over. The facts have been established, and new laws will protect them from being altered."

History has been written a hundred times over. I don’t understand what the fellow means. The history of 9/11? The history of the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. military? Levy probably means for me to understand that in the end he is talking about the one particular historical event that so many intellectuals and marketeers are obsessed with.

“The laws already in place in many countries regarding Holocaust denial do not touch historians -- for them the question of whether the slaughter of the Jews was or was not genocide is no longer at issue. What is at stake is preventing the erasure of such crimes from our society's memory.”

This expresses a kind of stupidity that is difficult for me to reconcile with the brilliance of a Bernard-Henri Levy. I am forced to consider the possibility that Levy—it is impossible for me to think him stupid—has been stupefied by his cultural environment where such thinking is the rule—of law. It resembles how perfectly bright school children in America are stupefied in their Government schools to grow up believing they should think the way Levy thinks. The gas-chamber stories and the “unique” monstrosity of the Germans cannot be questioned, either rationally or in good faith.

“Some may ask, ‘Can't the truth defend itself?’ No, I am afraid not. [….] Laws prohibiting Holocaust denial are expressions of the fact that genocide, a perfect crime, leaves no traces. In fact, the obliteration of those traces is genocide's final phase. Holocaust deniers are not merely expressing an opinion; they are perpetrating a crime.”

Genocide is the perfect crime, it leaves no traces, yet its history has been written a hundred times over. This is too obvious to belabor.

Bernard-Henri Levy may be blown away by the quality of his own prose--The Eternal Damnation of the Spotless Mind—-but then so am I. Yet Levy’s own mind is not spotless at all. It is soiled on every side by his immoral appeal to suppress the free flow of ideas about historical questions. Such an appeal can only be enforced through the initiation of force by the State, or the threat of it. Arrest, prison, perhaps someday execution. If we can okay the State slaughter of Iraqi civilians, and Palestinian civilians, it only follows that many of us, particularly the most idealistic among us—-such as the Bernard-Henri Levys--would be willing to go along for the ride.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Herman Rosenblat, Deborah Lipstadt, and Michael Berenbaum—a nice introduction to Holocaust fraud, and frauds

While Professor Lipstadt tells us that “facts” about the Holocaust should be checked (beginning when?), Professor Michael Berenbaum tells us “... I have to read [Holocaust] books more skeptically…”

Who is Michael Berenbaum?

Dr. Michael Berenbaum is the former director of the United States Holocaust Museum Research Institute and President of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation. He lectures widely throughout the United States and four continents. He is the author and editor of twelve books and scores of articles and scholarly essays, his work has been translated into Japanese, Spanish, Ukrainian, Polish and Russian.

Berenbaum is also the head of The Berenbaum Group, a consulting company that specializes in the conceptual design of museums and the development of historical films, specifically those relating to the Jewish experience and histories of persecution and genocide. He is also currently involved in scholarly research, the production of interactive materials, and strategic advising of project and institutional development.

The very impressive Dr. Michael Berenbaum, having been asked to read the manuscript for a film based on Herman (The Liar) Rosenblat’s book Angel at the Fence defended the book. He told the Associated Press, "Crazier things have happened."

Berenbaum now says he saw factual errors, including Rosenblat's description of Theresienstadt, the camp from which he was eventually liberated, but didn't think of challenging the love story.

That is he saw “factual errors” in the manuscript but defended The Liar’s book anyhow.

"I was burned," he added. "And I have to read books more skeptically because I was burned."

Again—you think?

But here’s the story. Holocaust scholars such as Professors Deborah Lipstadt and Michael Berenbaum are willing to allow fraudulent Holocaust survivor testimonies to go by the board if they are not caught out at it.

Example: when I Google either of these frauds—and I believe I understand the significance of naming Berenbaum and Lipstadt as frauds here—when I Google Lipstadt and Berenbaum with reference to Yankel Wiernik, the author of A Year at Treblinka, to see where they have criticized the “eyewitness” testimony of this Holocaust Survivor-liar, I am unable to find where either of these frauds have checked the “facts” of Wiernik’s eyewitness testimony, or where either has read Wiernik’s testimony “skeptically.”

Here are a handful of claims made be Yankel Wiernik in A Year in Treblinka.

"All looked yellow from the gas..."

"As many as 30,000 people were gassed in one day...."

"The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn" … [so] the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires"

"10,000 to 12,000 corpses were cremated at one time. The result was one huge inferno, which from the distance looked like a volcano breaking through the earth's crust to belch forth fire and lava"

Wiernik claimed he saw a naked Jewish girl leap over a three-meter (9 ft.) high barbed wire fence, wrench the rifle out of the hands of a pursuing guard, and shoot two other guards before she was overpowered.

He stated that 900,000 Jews were murdered, buried, exhumed, then cremated at Treblinka & all traces disappeared. He claimed that up to 1200 people could fit into an area 7 X 7 m, in other words more than 20 people per sq. meter.

So there you are. I do not find where either of these frauds, either Lipstadt or Berenbaum, have critically questioned Wiernik's testimony, the primary testimony with regard to Treblinka.


I have to add that I have just surprised myself a bit. I have never before thought of your top-of-the-line Holocaust scholars as frauds. I saw them as being wrong about a lot of stuff, as being four-square behind the suppression of revisionist arguments, but somehow I did not see them as “frauds.”

But here I am.

If the Lipstadts and Berenbaums will not check the facts of an obviously dishonest and even crazy “eyewitness” to the Treblinka gas chambers, will not read Wiernik “skeptically,” they are frauds. Not in the sense that they write fraudulently, but that by omission they allow successful fraud to go uncriticized. In effect, they lie by omission where it forwards what they want to be forwarded, by carefully choosing to not question the “facts,” by carefully choosing to not read “skeptically.”

What they want forwarded is the “unique” monstrosity of the Germans, which is the instrument that morally justifies the operations of the Holocaust Marketing Industry, a multi-billion-dollar success story.

Note: if you can take me to page where Holocaust scholars Deborah Lipstadt or Michael Berenbaum have read Yankel Wiernik critically, in the manner that academics are supposed to read such material, I will be willing to confess that this post is wrong-headed, and just wrong. And I will apologize.

And then there is the question of why the professorial class, as a class, follows the lead of such frauds.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

What’s Hamas got to do with it?

Those who support the Israeli attack on Gaza are right, in the sense that no government can permit the indiscriminate shelling of its territory.

I do not understand what the Hamas leadership believes it has been accomplishing by shelling Israeli territory when the Israeli military has such overwhelming power. I don’t understand Hamas tactics, and do not understand Hamas strategy.

I do believe I understand what lies behind it all, what Hamas and so many other Arabs and Muslims cannot digest. Jewish greed for Arab land in Palestine. This greed expressed itself most clearly following WWII, morally justified by the alleged extermination of Europe’s Jews in German gas chambers, a story that is a fraud. This expression of Jewish greed based in fraud continues to this day, morally justified by the German gas chambers, with Arab homes demolished, Arab orchards cut down, Arab land settled by Israeli Jews, Israeli military occupying Arab land and the Arabs living on it.

Jewish greed for Arab land is morally justified in a second way, via the fraudulent claim that Jews are God’s chosen people (you think?) and that the Arab land that Jews conquered and now occupy was given them by their god in perpetuity a few thousand years ago. This ancient tribal perspective is taken seriously by Jews and Christians, and by both houses of the U.S. Congress and one U.S. administration after another.

Jewish greed, Jewish monomaniacal self-regard, joined with the self-defeating and degenerate acquiescence of both by non-Jews throughout the American political system, media, and academic worlds, ensure that the taboo against questioning any of this murderous nonsense is enforced.

Taboo belongs in the same historical world as tribal gods and a god-chosen people but we, those of us who are not Jews, have acquiesced in the program of making a contemporary taboo out of the Jewish Holocaust story. We did it originally to distract ourselves from our own crimes against humanity during WWII, and we have pursued it since out of our own greed to morally justify the growing of the American Empire.

Revisionist arguments undercut the status of the Holocaust Marketing Industry, which is the one instrument that forwards the moral justification for all of it. This is why revisionist arguments are held to be so dangerous.

God, Jews, and gas chambers, a magical and tremendous trio.

What’s Hamas got to do with it?

Saturday, January 3, 2009

For the Deborah Lipstadts, marketing is everything

The press is full of the story about how Herman Rosenblat, Holocaust survivor and author of a memoir he calls “Angel at the Fence” is a fraud and a liar. With regard to any number of Holocaust survivors—what’s new? It’s so old that it is not even particularly interesting to a revisionist. Another Holocaust survivor fraud. Ho hum.

In an article for The Forward Professor Deborah Lipstadt appears to be particularly upset that this story has come to light. With admirable character, she writes that there are a number of lessons to be learned from the Rosenblat fraud. One of them is that:

“Facts about the Holocaust must be checked.”

After fronting for the Holocaust Marketing Industry the last 20 years or so, Ms. Lipstadt has come around to deciding that “facts” about the Holocaust must be checked. Better late than never.

The truth is, from the beginning, Professor Lipstadt has been a Bystander with regard to checking facts about the Holocaust, and particularly facts about Holocaust survivor frauds such as Elie Wiesel, Filip Mueller, and Yankel Wiernik—to mention three out of an ark full. Google Elie Wiesel by name, followed by the word “fraud,” and see for yourself.

Deborah has had a couple decades to check the facts about some of Elie Wiesel’s claims—see where he forwards the stupidity that at Babi Yar dead Jews spouted geysers of blood from their grave for months after they were buried. She will never do it (surprise me, Deborah) because Wiesel’s fraud forwards the business of the Holocaust Marketing Industry, while those of Herman Rosenblat no longer will.

So Herman Rosenblat is a dead duck, while Elie Wiesel remains a shining peacock of Holocaust survivor authenticity. For ladies like Lipstadt facts, in truth, have nothing to do with it. Marketing is everything.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Understanding the "tragic ease" of . . . .

Tony and Angie, old friends from Mexico City and Hollywood, were with us overnight for New Year's Eve. Tony has been selling nutritional supplements in Mexico City and Tijuana for 40 years. Last night he and I were at El Nido drinking beer while the ladies were at church and I asked him about the Cuban “blue scorpion” treatment for cancer and as a buffer against chemotherapy. He said it has a good reputation.

This evening when our guests had left my wife told me she had brought up the blue scorpion matter to Tony herself. He told her yes, that it has a good reputation and that another good treatment that is not widely known is to eat dog shit that’s white. Irene was rather set back. So was I when she told me about it. Even after several beers Tony had not mentioned the white-dog-shit cure to me.

And then for some reason that I cannot recall Irene began telling me that when we were in Visalia in the 90s and she had breast cancer, that while she did the chemotherapy process she was also taking capsules filled with a powder made from the toe nails of Peruvian cats. She said she didn’t tell me because I would have had a negative attitude about it. I probably would have. It does not appear to have harmed her, however, as she has been in remission for 13 years.

It only occurs to me now to wonder how the white shit of a dog is packaged for consumption. I think I had been imagining that you just winged it. That couldn't be right.


I have learned that there is a conference to be held in Germany the last week in January called “Perpetrator Research in a Global Context.” On the homepage I read where the conference is organized in tandem with the Holocaust Research Centre at the Royal Holloway, University of London and the Essen Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, the German Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb).

I read where: “From both an academic and a civic education perspective, it is imperative that we develop a framework for understanding what Germaine Tillion described as the 'tragic ease' with which people become murderers or mass murderers.”

I think Ms. Tillion put that very nicely. All we have to do is agree on what it means to murder, and what it means to murder en masse. We would then be able to begin to rewrite the history of the 20th Century, an effort in which revisionist arguments about the Holocaust would play a major role.