Tuesday, March 31, 2009

One standard of justice for Germans, a different lower one for Americans

The Daily Cougar at the University of Houston regrets, and even apologies, for having published an ad that asks for the name of one person, “with proof,” who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. The Cougar argues that to ask such a question is “misleading,” “flawed,” “calculating,” “manipulative,” anti-semitic” and is addressed to a “vulnerable audience.” Does that include the academics at U Houston? Poor babies.

Here is a second question we can put to the U Houston professors about the Jewish “Holocaust.”

During WWII – speaking of the German and American states only -- there was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party on the one hand, and the bi-partisan alliance of the Democrat/Republican parties on the other.

The German State is accused of using WMD (gas chambers) to murder innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and it is considered uniquely monstrous because of that. At the same time the existence of the German WMD is being questioned in almost every country in the West and throughout the Muslim world.

The American State, governed by a by-partisan Democrat/Republican alliance, used WMD (great fleets of heavy bombers) to intentionally murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in all the major cities in Germany and Japan, ending with the nuclear Holocausts of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

No one – no one anywhere in the world -- questions the use of WMD for the mass murder of civilians in WWII by Americans.

Yet those who served the German State are uniquely monstrous, while those who served the American State in that war came to be called “the Greatest Generation.” Do the editors of The Daily Cougar understand the implications of this simple observation? Do their professors?

Should we hold Germans to one standard of morality, while we hold ourselves to a different, lower one?

To those of you who work on The Daily Cougar who plan on becoming serious journalists, I would encourage you to encourage a free exchange of ideas everywhere, even on the Holocaust question. A free exchange of ideas is either there for all of us, or it is not there.

That does not mean that you have to publish what is not civil. The most radical ideas can be presented in a civil manner, unlike some of those presented here.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

A nice juxtoposition: Comic Books in America and Holocaust survivor Simone Veil

Last Tuesday after having the port in my chest irrigated we drove back south to Chula Vista to take care of some errands. At Wal-Mart, while my wife was picking up food for the children and the dogs and buying this and that, I got a magazine and sat at the counter in the Wal-Mart McDonald’s to pass the time. The magazine was Gentleman’s Quarterly—my Bible as Jay Leno would have it.

Anyhow, in this edition of GQ there was an article on comic books and what a splash they are making around the edges of American culture. I didn’t see much there that interested me, but the story itself was interesting. People are reading comic books? Young people? Maybe college kids? Is this something I should ignore? One of my friends in Baja is a very talented artist and cartoonist. I could do something with this.

I have been thinking about setting up The CODOH Writer’s Group to produce brief opinion articles to submit to the campus and off-campus press via the Internet. It occurs to me that I can do the same with political cartoons. The columns and cartoons would be free of charge, the only requirement being that CODOH would be informed and credited for publication. In the moment I was very enthusiastic about the cartoon project. I made a note in the scratch pad I carry in my shirt picket, along with my driving glasses and a black and a red ball point pen.

The note, in red ink, reads: “GQ. Review comics. Verdette can do drawings for me.” I make these notes because I am always having ideas and then forgetting what they are. In this instance there is a second note below the first on the same page of the scratch pad. It reads:

“Earlier today. The Journal idea.”

That’s all. Five words. No reference to anything. I like to keep track of my ideas, such as they are, and I am especially keen on noting the moment, or the circumstance, in which the idea comes to me. In this instance there is nothing. Sometime during the day, driving to the VA hospital, while I was sitting in the green plastic recliner, or afterwards driving south to Chula Vista and our favorite Wal-Mart, the idea for publishing a scholarly—for that’s what I mean with the word—journal. But the moment was gone. Not a hint. A blank. And that’s the way it has remained. I have just torn that sheet from the scratch pad and typed out the words written on it.

I wrote the five words six days ago. I have been out of town for two days. It’s amazing to discover how far five words can take you in five days.



A new Web site aimed at curbing Holocaust denial will include a history of Muslim-Jewish relations in English, French, Arabic and Farsi, the project's organizers said before the project's launch on Friday by prominent figures from Europe and the Muslim world. [….] Auschwitz survivor Simone Veil, one of France's most influential woman politicians, will also speak at the event.

For an introductory insight to how Simone Veil works with this stuff you can read Robert Faurisson here. Scroll down to “2. The Thesis of Simone Veil.”

Friday, March 27, 2009

Are You a Student? I have a research project I need help with.

We were late in getting the new version of "The Ad" onto the CODOH page. If you want to see the new text it is uploaded now. The headline reads: "Are You a Student? I have a research project I need help with."

The ad you find there now ran in The Daily Cougar at U Houston, and today at U Connecticut in The Daily Campus. Or so I understand.

I'll be away from my desk through Sunday night, so I would appreciate any updates.

The Daily Cougar at University of Houston bows down to The Great Taboo

Printing ad was unfortunate mistake, oversight by editors

Staff editorial

Published: Friday, March 27, 2009
Updated: Friday, March 27, 2009

Newspapers have long been considered the guardians of free speech, but they also act as gatekeepers. For instance, when an editor chooses one story over another, the editor uses his or her best discretion to decide which is the most relevant. Also, when a writer investigates a story, he or she uses only the most credible sources to inform. In the end, some opinions and viewpoints go unpublished. Some would call this a violation of free speech, but gatekeeping — or controlling access to information — is an unavoidable reality of journalism.

And at times, there is a place for it.

We at The Daily Cougar deeply regret and apologize for the publication of an advertisement in Wednesday’s edition (Issue 116, Volume 74). The ad, sponsored by the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, subtly suggests the possibility that the Holocaust did not occur.

The information intimated in this ad is misleading and the argument is flawed. It was not our intention to legitimize this opinion.

This incident was an unfortunate oversight. It was printed accidentally when our advertising manager, who screens out ads of this nature as a rule, fell ill.The ad was calculating, manipulative and specifically designed to target a vulnerable audience and to fly under the radar of proofreaders.

We refuse to recognize this so-called “debate” as such by responding to it, except to say that Holocaust denial is recognized by many, including the editors of The Daily Cougar, as a form of anti-Semitism.

We apologize to anyone who was offended by the ad. We will continue to work hard and be diligent in maintaining the credibility of The Daily Cougar. Our first steps will be to investigate ad revenue policies and return any funds received from this organization.

Let it be clear: this isn’t an issue of free speech. Holocaust deniers often conflate the right to make an argument with the right to be judged for it. We at The Daily Cougar believe that while they have the right to their opinions, they do not have the right to have them validated — even tacitly — in the printing of our newspaper.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Youngstown State U and playing the clown

John Ellis is Professor Emeritus of German Literature at UC Santa Cruz. FrontPage has published an article about the president of Youngstown State University, Dr. David C. Sweet (without mentioning him), titled “Why Students Flee the Humanities.”

Ellis writes: […] civic and historical knowledge of American history and institutions is at a low ebb precisely because that knowledge does not mesh with the dominant politically correct [Holocaust marketing] ... ethos of the professoriate ethical reasoning in the humanities is now often reduced to a compulsory buying into the obsession with group [Jewish] grievance that has been central to humanities teaching for some time […] the experience of far too many students, genuinely independent, critical thinking is scarcely inspired by teachers themselves in the grip of a shallow, one-sided critique of their own society--a dogma that may not be questioned [Holocaust orthodoxy]

I’m surprised that Professor Ellis is even reading The Jambar, (do a search on Bradley Smith) but the fact that he is referencing such folk as President Sweet and Poly-Sci professor Keith J. Lepak is unmistakable.


Had an appointment at the VA hospital in La Jolla to have the port in my chest irrigated. My wife went with me. The port in question was surgically implanted in the upper right-hand part of the chest. It’s a small affair, the width of a quarter, and rises up under the skin in a mound-like shape. I didn’t know what a “port” was. It’s used to inject the necessary drugs used during chemotherapy. There is a tube that goes from the port directly north to the juggler so that the drugs are dispersed more efficiently than needles in the arm. After the chemo was ended I had a choice to have the port removed, or leave it in on the chance that the cancer would return and it would be needed. I chose to leave it in.

Anyhow, I’m there in the lab in the green, plastic-covered reclining chair, while Irene is sitting in a chair nearby facing me. I unbutton my shirt and pull it down to reveal the port so that the nurse can inject the irrigating solutions. First she draws a little blood from the port to make certain that it’s open. Then she injects a saline solution. It takes only a moment. Then there is a second solution and when she puts that needle into me I cry out in agony and twist in the chair. I thought I was being funny. But when I looked at my wife her face was distraught. I like to say that she has the fastest tongue in Baja, I expected her to ridicule me for being a sissy, but her face looked like a ruin.

“Oh, come on,” I said. “Estoy bromando. No me duele nada.”

“I’m just horsing around. It doesn’t hurt at all.”

The nurse thought my display was mildly amusing, but my wife was stricken. It wasn’t until we had left the hospital and I was apologizing out in the parking lot that I discovered that Irene was dismayed to see the port at all. It hadn’t occurred to me that she had never seen it. It was put in there a couple, three months ago. But it’s been some time since, how shall phrase this, it’s been some time since we have been holding hands, and there in the lab was the first time she had seen the bump in my chest. She didn’t like seeing it at all, and then when I let out my fake cry of pain and writhed around in the chair she thought it was real.

It amuses me again thinking about it now, but it wasn’t so funny at the time when I saw how it made her feel. There are moments, I know it, when I choose to play the clown that are not really appropriate.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Ordinary days in Baja

Walking up the Boulevard in the dark tonight toward El Cigart when I passed the junior high school called Thirty Two. Memory recalled the sunny afternoon eight years before when I stopped there in the car to wait for our younger daughter, Pretty. She had bolted from a private, bi-lingual school in the neighborhood here because the Mexican girls were making fun of her Spanish and she didn’t want to take it anymore. So we said okay, and enrolled her in Thirty Two, a public school.

That afternoon when I first saw Pretty walking out of the school yard and up the street with two new girl friends, all of them laughing, when I saw how happy she was I told myself it would be a new beginning for her. It was. Within a couple months Pretty had become a drug addict, hooked on meth and committed to a circle of bad girls and boys. Tonight thought mulls about on all the new beginnings we have, all the new endings.


I’m parked at the curbing before the feed store where our friend Pepe was murdered last December. My wife is inside buying al pista for our parakeets. I have the radio on and there is a commercial where a lady begins abruptly by telling us how her baby is struggling to stay alive . . . . I don’t usually listen to commercials on radio and I turned it off.

In that moment memory recalled the morning in the little wood house in South Central Los Angeles when I was sitting in the big overstuffed chair in the front room looking through the door into the bedroom. My mother was sitting in a wood chair beneath the one window there sobbing, one hand covering her face. My aunt Grace was sitting in a wood chair beside her, comforting her. I didn’t really understand what was going on, but I did hear aunt Grace say, “You still have one son.” I didn’t understand it quite, but watching my mother cry, after awhile I began to cry. I was six years old.

That morning was a new beginning for my mother. I doubt that in the moment she saw it that way. She was too torn by the obligatory new ending.


I’ve been giving an interview to a reporter based on the east coast who writes for major publications. It’s difficult to get across the notion that I am not intellectually trained, that I do not do history, that I have no original ideas, that I am simply arguing that it is better to encourage intellectual freedom than it is to discourage it. There is nothing original here. Still, it appears to be a difficult concept for academics to understand.

While I focus on the Holocaust story that is only because it is a primary story of our culture in this age. It is our primary taboo, so it should be a primary target in the struggle for intellectual freedom. The irony is, I cannot demonstrate that it is better to encourage intellectual freedom than to discourage it.

It can be argued that intellectual freedom was integral to the development of classic Greek culture, thus Western civilization. At the same time we can, looking through all the beauty and achievement, see what a horror it has been for countless people for more than twenty centuries. And the horrors that almost certainly await us all.

If I cannot demonstrate that it is better to encourage intellectual freedom than it is to discourage it, I have to ask myself why I do it. Intellectual freedom is something I want for myself. My argument in its favor then is based in my own wanting. Maybe the next question should be why some of us would want it, while others would not.

But that’s too easy. It, intellectual freedom, would interfere with what those others want. With regard to those who exploit the Holocaust story, it’s only too obvious that’s the case.

So. Where are we?

Sunday, March 22, 2009

The Latest News on Bradley Smith from the ADL

From the Anti-Defamation League.

Bradley Smith: Latest News

In January 2009, Bradley Smith embarked on a new campaign to place Holocaust denial ads in college newspapers. His ads suggest that scholars cannot provide the name of even one Holocaust victim along with proof that s/he was killed in a gas chamber. Youngstown State University's The Jambar published his ad on January 29, 2009.


It is also hard to imagine that any standard of “proof” would be acceptable to Smith, who has already rejected eyewitness testimony, Nazi confessions, period documentation, and scholarly studies.


The ADL suggests that I have rejected “all” eyewitness testimony, "all" Nazi confessions, "all" period documentation, and "all" scholarly studies. The suggestion is a little stupid, but then we are dealing a marketing entity and do not expect much from them. The ADL, speaking to True Believers, does not think it necessary to quote where I have rejected any specific text by anyone.

I did examine a few important eyewitness testimonies. Google what I did with Abraham Bomba, for example, or Yankiel Wiernik. Their eyewitness testimonies are among the most important in the field used to support the concept of the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans, and they are idiotic. Is there anyone at the ADL, or any professor, who would want to discuss the "eyewitness" testimoney of either of these two important Holocaust "survivors?" Publicly?


This came across my desk only today. I have never before seen it.


Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!

Robert Burns (1759–96)

Thursday, March 19, 2009

The Jambar, a question that cannot be answered

Professor Lepak writes (19 March) that Bradley R. Smith poses a question that cannot be answered. My question reads: “Can you provide, with proof, the name of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.”

The professor writes that the question cannot be answered because it is not my “objective” [to have it answered], a non sequitur even for a professor. He then suggests, without committing himself concretely to the fact of the matter, that the question can indeed be answered by searching the German Federal Archives in Koblenz and the International Tracing Center at Bad Arolsen.

So Lepak wants it both ways. On the one hand the question cannot really be answered, while on the other if I were not a “coward” I would go to Germany where the records exist that would answer the question. Which is it, Prof?

Lepak writes that my question is “sophistic”, not a real rhetorical trick but a “kind” of rhetorical trick. My inquiry is so “narrow” that it obscures something “more important.” What is this thing that is more important? One, I don’t include the word “please” in the question. Two: the question demonstrates a “skepticism of authority.” To be skeptical of authority is something most of us probably wish would have been the norm in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and Hitler’s Germany, to mention a few places during my own lifetime where skepticism of authority was, shall we say, seriously frowned upon by the authorities.

And three: Lepak writes, with a stunning disregard for language, that when I ask for the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz that I am asking for “anecdotal” evidence. It is obvious in my language I am not, and he cannot demonstrate that I am. The fact of the matter is in the question itself: I am asking for “proof,” not anecdotal evidence. There it is in the question itself. “Proof.”

Professor Lepak and I appear to have opposing agendas. Mine is to encourage a free exchange of ideas on the gas-chamber question. Lepak’s agenda appears to be to discourage a free exchange of ideas on the matter. That is probably one reason why he uses an irrational vocabulary that includes such unnecessary terms as “coward,” “sophist,” “cynic,” “dishonest,” and that I am looking for a “jaded and lazy audience.”

To the contrary. Try me. I’m with those who are frowned upon for questioning authority.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009


Youngstown State History Club roundtable to be held 19 March.

The roundtable will address issues raised by my ad, including those of “historical revisionism, provocative rhetoric, editorial prerogative, prejudice, and apathy.”

I wonder if YSU president Dr. David Sweet’s forwarding charges that I am a systematic liar will be addressed as "provocative rhetoric" by those present. I look forward to seeing how the charge is demonstrated to be true. Anyhow. . . .

You can address your own suggestions for questions to be asked at the roundtable to Gary Davenport, president of the YSU History Club, at gldavenport@my.ysu.edu


Are YSU professors familiar with significant revisionist work published by such men as Carlo Mattogno, Robert Faurisson, Samuel Crowell, Serge Thion, Juergen Graf, Arthur Butz and others? Are any of these authors used in any classes at YSU?

Are any of these authors shelved in any Library at YSU? Which titles? Where?

Is there any evidence that Youngstown President David Sweet is familiar with those who produce significant revisionist arguments?

Does the YSU department of Judaic and Holocaust Studies include a significant consideration of revisionist arguments during any part of the academic year?

If revisionist books are not shelved in YSU libraries, if revisionist arguments re gas chambers are not discussed seriously in YSU classrooms, how is the YSU student able to judge the value of revisionist arguments?

Is it right, either intellectually or morally, that American academics should cooperate with the German State, as “bystanders” and without protest, in allowing revisionist writers such as Germar Rudolf to be extradited from America to Germany to be imprisoned for thought crimes (i.e. questioning the gas-chamber and other Holocaust stories)?

Northwestern professor Arthur Butz published The Hoax of the 20th Century in 1977. His Hoax is the cornerstone of revisionism in the U.S. For 30 years the book has been condemned by American academics, yet not one academic paper has been published in one peer reviewed journal demonstrating where Butz is wrong about anything. In 30 years! Why do you think that is?

With regard to the question of “evil” raised recently in The Jambar by Poly-Sci professor Keith J. Lepak:

The unique monstrosity of the Germans is commonly taken to be that they used weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers) for the intentional mass-murder of innocent, unarmed civilians. For the sake of this discussion, let’s say that this accusation is true (I doubt it—just so we are straight on the matter), but for the sake of argument.

During WWII Americans had the distinction, along with the British, of using weapons of mass destruction (great fleets of heavy bombers and in the end nuclear warheads) for the intentional mass-murder of innocent, unarmed Japanese and German civilians.

What was the primary difference between the WMD that were used by the Germans on the one side and the Americans on the other? The German WMD are being questioned throughout the Western and Muslim worlds, while no one (no one!) questions that the American State used WMD for the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians, including babies, children, their mothers and the aged.

Does it make a difference that the Germans murdered Jews because they were Jews?

Does it matter that Americans and Brits murdered Germans and Japanese because they were Germans and Japanese? Example: when the Americans burned alive a couple hundred thousand Japanese civilians in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima did we not burn them because they were Japanese? Was there some other reason to burn the babies? They were there, that’s all, in their Japanese homes, so we murdered them. Not complicated. Does anyone argue that we did not?

Again, is it not true that while the German use of WMD for the mass murder of civilians is being question throughout half the world, the American use of WMD for mass murder is not being questioned anywhere in the world? Why?

Have your professors talked to you about this?

What are the implications here for Professor Lepak’s ruminations on the question of “evil?” If it was wrong for Germans (for the same of argument) to use WMD for the mass murder of innocent, unarmed civilians, was it not wrong for Americans to use WMD to intentionally burn alive masses of civilians?

I could go on. But I will end with noting that while the purpose of the ad I ran in The Jambar and at other campuses is to encourage a free exchange of ideas re the Holocaust question, each academic who has responded has done so to discourage a free exchange of ideas on that question. Why is that? And particularly on a university campus—why is that?

Maybe at this “round table,” things will turn ‘round.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Student newspapers debate the cost of controversial advertising

This article originally published by The Student Press Law Center came across my desk today via a Google alert. While it was not something I had specifically Googled, it does contain relevant arguments. You can find the full article here.


The Price of Paid Speech

The decision to run controversial political ads is a matter of ethics but not of law. Political advertising is afforded even more First Amendment protection than ads for commercial products because it is selling an idea rather than a product or service. But those First Amendment rights belong to student newspaper staff members, who have the right to reject any ad they choose.

That does not make it any easier for editors trying to decide whether to publish a potentially controversial ad, however. And there does not seem to be much consensus among professionals or students on how that decision should be made.


Tom Rolnicki, executive director of the National Scholastic Press Association and the Associated Collegiate Press, suggests students formulate an advertising policy that is flexible enough to deal with unexpected situations.

"There should be some leeway so an ad that may be unusual could be reviewed for acceptance even if it may not conform to existing guidelines," Rolnicki said. "The acceptance or rejection of an ad should be based on legal concerns foremost, and secondarily upon the standards of the student community as perceived by the student staff and the paper's own goals and mission."


Student editors should be prepared to deal with controversial advertising, said Ron Spielberger, executive director of College Media Advisers. Spielberger, who has spent 20 years as the advertising adviser for the University of Memphis' student newspaper, The Daily Helmsman, said newspaper staffs should formulate specific advertising guidelines and put them in writing. Included in those guidelines should be a procedure for dealing with ads that are controversial or not covered by the guidelines.

This case-by-case determination is exactly what Charles Davis, an at-large campus adviser for the Society of Professional Journalists, advocates. He said establishing written advertising policy can sometimes be dangerous.

"I'm not a big fan of establishing written policy that then may be used to beat you about the head," Davis said. "We have an untrammeled First Amendment right to run what we want to run."

According to Davis, who is also a journalism professor at the University of Missouri, there is no clear line that student editors can draw to determine what is and is not appropriate.

"That's what makes policy so difficult-policies are based on clear lines," he said. "That's not the way the world works, and it's particularly not the way the world works in editorial or advertising content. I can see all kinds of nice, politically correct, happy reasons for having a policy, but I don't like any of them."


Tom Rolnicki, executive director of the National Scholastic Press Association and the Associated Collegiate Press, suggests students formulate an advertising policy that is flexible enough to deal with unexpected situations.

Davis said he is uncomfortable with the idea of journalists apologizing for running something that ends up offending someone. He suggests newspapers promote open discussion and publish counter-commentary and opposing editorials, instead of apologizing.


"Open debate and open discourse should never be sacrificed for comfort," said Greg Pessin, editor of Duke University's daily, The Chronicle. In addition to publishing the anti-reparations ad, Pessin said The Chronicle printed an anti-abortion ad this year and a Holocaust revisionist ad in 1991.

But when Bradley Smith, who paid for many of the Holocaust revisionist ads, wanted to place one that claimed evidence of the Holocaust had been falsified, The Chronicle refused. The ad was not accurate and offered only unsubstantiated evidence [no evidence for inaccurate or unsubstantiated evidence in my ad is reported by The Student Press Law Center], which is why the newspaper said no, Pessin said.

He said he believes the university setting should be open to alternative views on sensitive subjects.

"At a university, especially, we should value the free exchange of ideas," Pessin said. "Academic freedom cannot be realized until everyone is heard."


Saturday, March 14, 2009

Where the President of Youngstown State uses name-calling to respond to a question about history

Following is the letter that Dr. David Sweet, President of Youngstown State University sent to The Jambar, the student newspaper on that campus, in response to my ad titled A Question for the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. I do not see Dr. Sweet's letter as showing his better side, which I am certain is in there somewhere.


Dr. David C. Sweet
Office of the President
Youngstown State University
One University Plaza
Youngstown, Ohio 44555

14 March 2009

Dear Dr. Sweet:

On 17 February The Jambar published a letter from you addressing the fact that the editorial board had decided to publish an advertisement written by myself titled “A Question for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.”

You quote Dr. John Silber who was President of Boston University when I ran an ad in the student newspaper there in 2000 titled “Holocaust Studies: An Appointment with Hate?” In responding to the text of my ad Dr. Silver wrote:

“Anyone who cares about the truth is under the obligation to think twice before offering a platform to those who systematically lie by denying the Holocaust. Those lies are at the heart of the advertisement submitted by Mr. Smith."

In your own letter to The Jambar you quote Dr. Silber’s defamatory accusations against me as if they were true. At the same time you do not even attempt to demonstrate that I am in fact a “systematic” liar (I am not), or that there is one lie in the advertisement Dr. Silber attacked (there is not).

You quote President John Silber: “The advertisement begins by misunderstanding the idea of the university. It is not merely to promote intellectual freedom, but also to promote intellectual responsibility in the pursuit of truth. It is contrary to the ideal of the university to promote deliberate lies.”

If you read the text of that ad—and I suggest that it is good policy for university presidents and even regular faculty to read those texts they quote from—you will find that is not what I wrote. I wrote that “one” ideal of the university is to promote intellectual freedom. “One.” It’s there in black and white. So not only have you used Dr. Silber’s words to unjustly defame me, but you have carelessly used his words where he misquotes me.

That the president of Boston University should misquote me, and the president of Youngstown State University should repeat this misquote in the context of identifying me as a “systematic” liar, would be a small affair (who am I?) if the effective purpose of these slurs were not exploited to forward the taboo against all critical observations made regarding gas chambers and other stories included in the Holocaust canon.

You then write about going to the movies with your wife where you saw a motion picture about the Holocaust based on a novel. I hope you had a pleasant evening. Such a story, recounted in this context, suggests that because you watch motion pictures made in Hollywood about the Holocaust you can, without shame, participate in defaming as systematic liars those of us who have questions about gas chambers and other conventional Holocaust stories.

In this same letter to The Jambar you write: “I encourage the editors of The Jambar to join with our Center for Judaic and Holocaust Studies to sponsor a forum exploring the range of issues covered in your editorial, as the concept of "promoting intellectual responsibility" while protecting freedom of speech.

A sound idea. I will be pleased to attend, and to participate, in the forum you suggest. If I see you there, maybe we can get together, have a beer.


Bradley R. Smith

NOTE: I will copy this letter to colleagues and others.


Today I copied this reply to Dr. Sweet to 150-plus Youngstown academics and student organizations. I'm thinking that a couple students who attend the upcoming "round table" set for the 19th might find herein a could hints for recognizing how the central question being addressed -- is not addressed, but evaded. Perhaps it will occur to a couple students to ask why this should be. I do not expect such questions to issue from the mouths of any academic who shows up at the round table. But then, I've been wrong before.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Youngstown State University

The publication of my ad, "A Question for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum" has led to scheduling a round table discussion. The title of the ad is not mentioned.


Holocaust ad is topic of History Club discussion

Youngstown State University’s History Club will host a roundtable discussion about advertisements that ran recently in The Jambar questioning the Holocaust at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, March 19, in the Presidential Suites in Kilcawley Center.

The ad, sponsored by Bradley R. Smith, brought into question records of victims at Auschwitz and, by extension, the validity of the Holocaust itself. The ad ran twice in the YSU student newspaper, The Jambar, earlier this semester and evoked a large volume of letters to the editor.

Gary Davenport, president of the YSU History Club, said the roundtable event will offer students a forum to discuss the issues raised by the ad, including the is-sues of historical revisionism, provocative rhetoric, editorial prerogative, preju-dice, and apathy.

YSU faculty, staff and community members are also welcome to attend.

Students are invited to submit their questions regarding the ad before the event to gldavenport@my.ysu.edu. Shearle Furnish, dean of the YSU College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, will moderate.

For more information, contact Davenport at gldavenport@my.ysu.edu


If you live anywhere between Pittsburgh and Akron, you could pop in and send me a report.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

THE JAMBAR Mr. Smith is still waiting for an answer

I have been remiss in not following up with The Jambar at Youngstown State University. I think it worthwhile to begin to do it now, even though I am a couple weeks behind the curve. What the editorial staff has done here could be an example for student newspapers at American universities everywhere.

You will note when you go to the relevant pages at The Jambar that the paper does not agree that all revisionist arguments are right, or that any of them are right. It does not argue that my take on the significance of the Holocaust with regard to some matters in the Middle East are right or wrong. It only allows that the point of view of the ad is one that, while it is a minority point of view, it is not beyond the pale to make it.

And then there is the fact that when you look at the letters to the editor you will find that, while they exhibit a mix of views, some of those written by students are more independent and more thoughtful, in the real sense of that word, that those written by Youngstown faculty. One example is this one.


Letter to the editor: Feb. 17
Issue date: 2/17/09

Might I commend The Jambar for courageously standing up to outside pressure and going ahead with publishing Bradley Smith's ad. In today's politically correct world, defending a free market of ideas is increasingly becoming a revolutionary act. Both the Feb. 10 letters from Regional ADL Director Kochman and YSU's own Judaic & Holocaust Studies Advisory Committee call for self-imposed press restrictions in debate and speech on campus. Are these not two of the founding principles of higher education?

Both of their letters also engage in ad hominem attacks, repeatedly throwing around words like "Holocaust Denier" and "anti-Semite" without really proving either one. No where does Smith deny Jewish suffering under the Nazi regime. He merely asks for a name, with proof, of a person gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Though calling Smith's point 'manifestly' and 'demonstrably' false, no name was provided in their letters' combined count of 500 words.

Mr. Smith is still waiting for an answer.

But instead of having a free debate as we can here, globally many people are being jailed for holding controversial beliefs and for questioning the 'Holocaust' story that we are so dogmati-cally taught. Such is the case of Germar Rudolf, a PhD-level educated chemist who now sits in a German prison for challenging the gassing claims at Auschwitz. What would make a highly edu-cated chemist doubt these gassings? The fact that there is no significant cyanide residue on the remains of the gas chambers, despite its presence around other buildings, and similar weathering conditions.

Say what? No poison gas touched the alleged gas chamber walls?

Even in the U.S., such groups as Ms. Kochman's ADL have engaged in a witch-hunt of gas chamber builder and expert Fred Leuchter. Ever since he publicly expressed doubt of the Auschwitz gassing claim, his career has been ruined by these ravenous organizations. Neither Mr. Smith nor I claim to have all the answers, and you should be suspect of anyone who claims to. But why is this the one issue not open for critical discussion? Can no one freely wonder why no documented person has been found to be gassed at Auschwitz? Why can no one be skeptical of the six million figure, when it was first announced six months before the end of WWII in Europe, without proper demographic study, and before Auschwitz was even liberated?

It is high time we study these issues.

Sean Patacky [Student]


Monday, March 9, 2009

Technical glitch

If you find this page empty, click on the March entries in the right-hand column and the last two posts will come up. I don't know what the %*&#** happened. I'll fix it later today.


The ADL and a question of cynicism

"Bradley Smith: Ideology/Motivations"


“Bradley Smith is a Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, and anti-Israel propagandist. To audiences of college students, who are the primary targets of his activities, he presents himself as a crusading advocate for free speech and free debate. Despite this public claim that he aims merely to awaken students to the value of “dissident history” and free speech, in extremist forums Smith candidly and cynically explains that arguing for freedom of academic inquiry into the Holocaust enables him to introduce Holocaust denial to skeptical audiences.”

Why is it “cynical” to argue for freedom of academic inquiry on a university campus? Academic freedom does not make any promise to me that it does not make to academics and to students.

The ADL apparently feels differently. The ADL feels that academic freedom, a free exchange of ideas, gives Holocaust revisionists an advantage over those who front for the Holocaust Marketing Industry. As a matter of fact, it does. That’s why the ADL is foursquare against it.

But again, how am I being “cynical”? I’m forthright about my position. I argue that academics should encourage a free exchange of ideas generally, and with regard to the Holocaust specifically. Where is the cynicism?

I have tried to link the above ADL text to the relevant ADL page but I can't. It's as if I am being denied access to secondary pages on the ADL site. That doesn't make sense technologically. It's probably something in my own program.


Now that the chemo is over, I feel pretty good, all things considered. I’m walking better, and I’m looking for a way to get into a routine for working with weights. Light weights. Irene is talking about taking the couch out of the sala to make room for our exercise bike and my weights. We haven’t found anyone yet to carry the sofa upstairs. Maybe this next week.

The other night I decided to try my first couple pushups. I’m very weak compared to where I was a couple years ago. I was on the bed, I didn’t try to lift my knees off it, and I did one pushup, a second, and with the third, which was very difficult, I pulled a muscle in my left shoulder. Our Las Vegas daughter, Marisol, was here visiting and this morning in the kitchen when I told her what had happened she said:

“You pulled a muscle doing sissy pushups?”

It was worth a laugh for both of us. She had already made the coffee. She had put broken cinnamon sticks in it. A nice Mexican touch. The shoulder still hurts.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

A Question for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

Following is the text of a display advertisement I will begin running in a number of campus newspapers around the country beginning 05 and 06 March and continuing on through April. When printed the headline will be strong, and the whole in a box.



British Bishop Richard Williamson is being condemned by the Vatican and Jewish organizations for saying he does not believe the Germans killed Jews and others in execution gas chambers during WWII. Is he wrong? Is he right? How can we know?

I have asked the Director of the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Dr. Paul Shapiro, “to provide, with proof, the name of one (one) person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.” I copied his colleagues at the Museum. Dr. Shapiro does not respond. His colleagues do not respond. I have asked more than 2,000 American academics the same question. None has responded. What reason could they have for not responding to the question?

Is there one person at the USHMM, or the Vatican, or one professor among the Holocaust scholars on this campus, who is able to answer my question? Am I wrong to ask this question? Tell me why. I can be reached at bradley1930@yahoo.com

Bradley R. Smith, Founder
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust www.codoh.com


The ad will run tomorrow -- if all goes well, in

The Red and the Black at U Georgia
The Maneater at U Missouri-Columbia

There is always a fly in the ointment, but I think these are good to go. Any help in monitoring these papers for a story will be appreciated.