Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The Eisenhower ad, Seeing things, and the question of blah-blah evidence

As of today the Eisenhower ad is running in three student newspapers. El Lobo at University of New Mexico, the University Chronicle at St Cloud University, and The Helmsman at University of Memphis. I’d like to keep track of any editorials or letters to the editor or any relevant news that might be published. If you can help monitor one or more of the papers I would appreciate it.

***

I’ll be to the other side today to see my primary care doctor, so pretty much out of touch. I have come to realize, it took me six weeks, to understand that I am being treated for serious pain issues and no one knows what’s wrong with me (not a straight line). In the first professional oversight that I am aware of with the VA the past year, I have found that while a cat-scan was taken of my pelvis and back, no report is available. So the cat-scan has been useless. Anyhow, something has to give. It can’t be me.

An additional downside to having an excruciating pain in the ass, not to mention the leg, is that I can’t sit on my wallet. So I carry the wallet inside my shirt. Two things happen. As I move around, the wallet itself gradually moves around behind me inside the shirt and sometimes when I need it I can’t find it and I experience a small shock over the heart. The other downside is that when I take down my pants to sit on the toilet the wallet falls out on the floor. One day it’s going to fall into the toilet and then I’m going to be really annoyed. I’ve got to get the back fixed, the pain fixed. Whatever the hell it is. This afternoon I’ll explain the danger my wallet is in to my primary care doctor so she understands the seriousness of my situation. The pain thing itself doesn’t appear to particularly worry her. This is week seven!!!

***

One night a week ago while I was watching television I saw a rat run from left to right across the kitchen floor. Interesting. Three, four nights ago watching television I saw a rat run across the kitchen floor from left to right. It was smaller and its image not quite so clear as the first rat. Last night I was watching television when I saw a very big moth, with a wing span of eight, ten inches, fly—I want to say “fly softly”—over the kitchen floor from left to right. It was soft brown in color. I know. You’re going to say that I’m watching too much television. I watch it very little. Charlie Rose before I go to bed. Sometimes he has an interesting guest.

Professors, like my friend Mark Oppenheimer, might take such sightings as evidence that I should not bother professional scholars with my question about the name, with proof, of one person killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz. It is evidence, I admit that, but it is not proof. Which is the problem the professors have with the Auschwitz gas chambers. Mucho blah-blah evidence by “eyewitnesses,” no proof.

Monday, June 29, 2009

American Psychos: How James von Brunn, Mark Weber and Bradley Smith fit into the current state of American anti-Semitism

My version of the headline says it all, if we were to tell the story in brief. Mark Oppenheimer’s series of five articles on Mark Weber and me and anti-Semitism is the usual stuff, though it is better written than most, and it has some new personal information on Mark and me, something Mark must not be very happy with but is easy going for an ordinary autobiographer like me. But for the rest, without meaning to sound mean-spirited, it is more of the same by a Holocaust True Believer.

This isn’t to say that Oppenheimer is not a likeable guy. He is. I liked him within the first minute of meeting him, and I feel the same way toward him now as I did then. I would wish that we would live in the same neighborhood, drink at the same bar—or rather, eat lunch in the same diner—and be able to talk things over once in a while. I would try to teach him how sometimes, when it’s simple, it’s just as good as when it’s complicated. And of course, I would listen to him. I really would.

If you will, dear reader, I would like you to point out to me where Oppenheimer addresses any specific statement I have ever made (I think he does once or twice), what he says about it, and how close to the truth you think it might or might not be. It would help me begin to respond to what is, in the end, a somewhat interesting 9,000 (yeah, 9,000) words. Maybe when I read it more closely it will be more interesting. As a matter of fact, I am certain it will be. Meanwhile . . . .

I will say up front that Oppenheimer is more interested in Weber than he is in Smith. I think that only natural. Oppenheimer is an academic, a Yale Ph.D. in church history, and Weber is of an academic turn of mind, has an M.A. in history and has written and published on historical issues. I am none of the above. I think what I do is too simple for Oppenheimer to get his head around it. But we will see. Any suggestions you have—I’m all ears.

Bowling Green State University, Smith replies to Bortel

29 June 2009

Mr. Bortel:

I will try to be brief in my own response. It won’t be easy.

Re my mischaracterization our our conversation: you may well be right. It is only natural that I would recall the conversation one way and you another. Such is memory. For the rest I will address only what I see as the core of your letter. You write:

“Your ad, in our determination, is racist and discriminatory to Jewish people in that it asserts certain aspects of the Holocaust didn’t exist, based simply on the premise that Eisenhower didn’t mention that in his book. It is racist in that it attempts to discredit an important aspect of Jewish heritage. The body of published books and photos, survivor accounts and internal records of the Nazis (sic) Party, Gestapo and the SS, provide a more compelling argument that it did.”

I assert nothing in my ad. You are wrong to suggest I do. The ad asks a question.

When you write “our” determination I will only note that when we were dealing with students at the BG-News, the ad was going to be published. They accepted payment for the ad. The young man I dealt with was perfectly agreeable to running the ad. Only when you appeared on the scene was the ad suddenly, in a matter of minutes, censored.

You are wrong to argue that it is “racist” to attempt to discredit what appears to the author to be false. What difference does it make that it has become an important aspect of Jewish heritage—if it is false? Would it not be a good, a blessing in fact, for Jews everywhere to be relieved of a false heritage which, at the same time, corrupts the heritage of another, in this case that of Germans?

When we were on the telephone you had no response when I suggested to you that the Holocaust is not about Jews, which is the position of the professorial class, but about Germans and Jews alike. No Germans, no Holocaust. You follow the academic line in that no question can be asked that might question any aspect of Jewish heritage—the gas chambers—while no question can be asked that might question any aspect of what is asserted is “monstrous” in German heritage—gas chambers.

Irony, or “reverse” racism?

With regard to asking questions about history, and I understand that every question has implications that go beyond the question itself, accusations of racism are, with regard to Holocaust fraud and falsehood, the childish reaction of a professorial class to a subject that its members do not have the professional courage to address. You should try to get beyond it.

At this point you might pause to wonder who would have promoted such a taboo, and in our universities who would have institutionalized it? For my part, I would want to explain to BGSU students that they are living in a free society, not a cargo cult, where we are free to discuss what we want, how we want, for whatever reasons we want. It’s called a society where a free exchange of ideas is encouraged, not discouraged. It’s not complicated. It is taboo that complicates the question, not the question. Without taboo, it’s just another question. Can you provide, with proof, the name of one person killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz?

Read something. I suggest Sam Crowell and The Gas Chambers of Sherlock Holmes which you can find here. Crowell reveals the creation of a cultural milieu that would facilitate a WMD charge against the Germans based on “eyewitness” testimony (in spite of the evidence you mention above), and create a “Grand Illusion.” Try it. I do not believe you believe you know it all. Read something the professors should read but will not, “on principle.”

-- Bradley

Note: I will distribute this letter to others I believe might be interested.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Subject: Wacko Jacko

Eric Blair writes:
===============

Re Michael Jackson, you wrote:

“His private life was a mess but I just accepted that. What can I compare it to? If only we knew how the inner life of an Elie Wiesel functions, or a Charles Manson, would we find anything less strange? With Jackson, it just all hung out there.”

You’re onto something here. I’ve more than once read the near-identical news item in which some male judge will book a hotel suite, get glammed up in female attire, get drunk, and then meander down the hallways, startling the other hotel guests.

The 1972 film The Ruling Class and Genet’s play The Balcony explore this nether side of the judgeship, when one’s usual austere top-down persona is tossed aside for another one, for the sake of a degrading, masochistic ritual.

Did I mention that Jean Genet, like Monsieur Celine, was also a Holocaust revisionist? You're in good company!

Friday, June 26, 2009

Bowling Green State University, Bortel to Smith

Mr. Smith,

Thank you for your comments in your letter dated June 22, 2009. I will try to be brief in my response.

Yes, you mischaracterized our conversation. Your three-page letter attempting to capture our exchange parses and interprets my responses to make the issue seem to be about whether or not the gas chamber aspect of the Holocaust was a manufactured attempt by the Jews and the Western Allies to create a sense of moral equivocation for their military bombing tactics of the last few years of the war. Your selective recollection of my comments was also very disappointing. And you attempt to invalidate my responses by sensing my “discomfort” in having the conversation. That is another gross mischaracterization.

Our conversation is not the issue.

The issue is the advertising policy of The BG News and your ad. We have a policy designed to maximize the protection of commercial or political speech. The policy states, “All advertising is subject to approval by The BG News. No advertisement will be accepted that is discriminatory, degrading or insulting on the basis of race, creed, sex or national origin.” That’s it. It’s intentionally broad to protect the rights of commercial free speech. At our publications unit, full-time staff, not students, make the final decision on acceptance or rejection. That has been our policy for nearly 30 years. Other publications, under other advising and management models, have student advertising managers and/or a blend of editors and advertising student staff that make those decisions. Other publications mirror our model.

Your ad, in our determination, is racist and discriminatory to Jewish people in that it asserts certain aspects of the Holocaust didn’t exist, based simply on the premise that Eisenhower didn’t mention that in his book. It is racist in that it attempts to discredit an important aspect of Jewish heritage. The body of published books and photos, survivor accounts and internal records of the Nazis (sic) Party, Gestapo and the SS, provide a more compelling argument that it did.

You may want to schedule a series of campus panel discussions where you can debate either local historians on the merit of your argument, or find campuses to sponsor your own panel of experts, to fully vet your position. The campus newspapers, including The BG News, would cover it.

Is the issue here free speech and censorship, or what some may characterize as anti-Semitism cloaked in a broader argument of debating the Holocaust?

And for accuracy sake, please note that you referred to me as a professor, I am not. And you sent your original email to my son, not to me.

Thank you.

Bob Bortel
Robert W. Bortel
Director of Student Publications
214 West Hall
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, Ohio 43403

[Contact numbers deleted by Editor]

Michael Jackson tied to a post

I was in the car with my wife driving along the Boulevard to pick up the mail, hoping quietly that I would find a significant contribution, when I turned on the radio to see if I could catch a few minutes with Michael Savage. What I got was a news report announcing that Michael Jackson was dead. I was surprised by the depth of my reaction, my sense of loss, when I heard the news. I was not a fan of Jackson, in the sense that I did not collect his music, never thought to attend one of his concerts, did not follow his career and so on.

But there it was, a deep sense of regret that took me by surprise. Over the last couple days I had heard about the deaths of Ed McMahon and Farrah Fawcett, both personalities that I had spent “media” time with for many years. I accepted their passing with the usual equanimity with which we usually accept the deaths of media personalities. They are known to us, but we do not know them.

Michael Jackson being dead, all of a sudden and just like that, was another thing for me. He was a singular figure as an artist. Incomparable in the field in which he worked. His private life was a mess but I just accepted that. What can I compare it to? If only we knew how the inner life of an Elie Wiesel functions, or a Charles Manson, would we find anything less strange? With Jackson, it just all hung out there. And he could be very charming, in a pretty, boyish way, as I was reminded last night by an old television clip where his new wife, the former Ms. Presley, was being interviewed by Diane Sawyer and Jackson was horsing around with Presley like some kid and laughing beautifully.

But the image that memory returned to again and again was Jackson as a teenager playing the role, I don’t even recall the role specifically, but I think it was in a scene from the remake of the Wizard of Oz where he was tied to a post in some kind of climatic event and there, motionless, he begins to sing with a melodic purity and strength that was astonishing. It was as if a beautiful music were welling up from, from nothing. For the rest, because the television is full of it, I have seen again the old clips from his stage shows etc. and am again taken with his unique virtuosity.

***

Michael Hoffman has written an interesting account of Jackson and what he might represent as a contemporary American cultural icon

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Bowling Green State Universty, Smith to Bortel

Sent via email

Robert Bortel
Director of Student Publications,
BG News
Bowling Green State University

22 June 2009

Dear Professor Bortel:

You and I were on the telephone Monday morning (the 22nd) where we had a brief back and forth regarding my ad which was to run in the BG-News, but which you cancelled after it had been accepted by BG-News students.

I did not take notes, so I will paraphrase, to the best of my recollection, the main observations made during that conversation. I want to say up front that you were perfectly civil with me during our conversation. I especially appreciate that as I could clearly sense the discomfort you felt in having this particular exchange.

The headline to the censored ad reads: “Dwight D. Eisenhower.” The head is then followed by this text:

“Dwight D. Eisenhower published his Crusade in Europe in 1948. In 582 pages General Eisenhower did not mention the German gas chambers in which it was claimed that millions of Jews and others were ‘exterminated.’ We are asking ‘Why not?’”

You said a significant minority of the BG News readership would be “offended” by publication of the ad. You did not mention which significant minority. But you mentioned “offensive” and the word “offend” a number of times.

When I asked why anyone would be offended by asking why General Eisenhower would write a 582-page book about the Crusade in Europe, a military crusade which he directed on the Western front, and not mention gas chambers, you said you did not know why. I could understand that. I don’t know either. Nevertheless, you said it would be offensive if the question were to be published.

When I asked again why that would be, you said because asking that question “implies” that the Holocaust did not happen. I responded that the history of the Holocaust consists of a vast collection of individual stories, some of which are true, some false. This goes without question. And that even without the gas chambers, if they truly did not exist, it was clear that the Jews of Europe suffered a catastrophe during WWII.

There was a moment of confusion here. You hesitated, then you asked if I had said that the Jews of Europe had NOT suffered a catastrophe during WWII. No, I said. They had suffered a catastrophe, and it was clear that they had, along with a lot of other peoples.

At the beginning of our back and forth you told me that while you are not a historian (I said that I am not one either), you had made it your business to look into the literature of WWII with some care. As a matter of fact, you supplied details to some of your observations that illustrated that you do have more than a passing knowledge of that era. At the same time, from what I could tell, your understanding of the history of WWII is entirely orthodox.

I admitted that the question in question implies that I do not believe the gas-chamber stories. I added that if they did exist they would have been the greatest WMD ever known to man, more deadly than the great fleets of heavy bombers that were employed to holocaust hundreds of thousands of innocent German and Japanese civilians, culminating with the nuclear attack by the Americans on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I may have said that if the existence of the gas chambers could be called into question, that would suggest that the history of WWII would have to be rewritten.

I suggested that you consider the fact—the fact!—that the Holocaust is not about Jews. It is about Germans and Jews together, forever. No Germans, no Holocaust. Yet no one is asking anyone anywhere to be “sensitive” toward Germans. Are you? Have you ever? Here you are censoring an ad that leads with a question that could be read as being implicitly “sensitive” toward Germans in that the question implies, and this is the reason you pulled the ad, that Germans are not the “unique” monsters they have been made out to be. Yet you will not allow it to run.

You emphasized again and again that the ethnic cleansing of Jews by the German State was the attempt to murder all the Jews of Europe. You distinguished that from the mass slaughters by fire carried out by American WMD, those great fleets of heavy bombers and nuclear weapons. You claimed that the German and Japanese women, babies and children burned alive by American WMD were not direct targets but were, in effect, the unintended casualties in a great war. Upon even a little reflection, you must understand that this is not true. German and Japanese women, babies and children and the aged alike were intentionally massacred because—they were Germans and Japanese. As you said yourself—they were purposely killed en masse to break the will of the German and Japanese peoples to continue the war.

Essentially, you defended the mass murder of innocent German and Japanese civilians because it was done for what your Government argued was a “greater good.” Yet that was exactly the thinking that the German State exploited in its program for the ethnic cleansing of Jews—that it was to be carried out for a “greater good.” I don’t recall how you replied to this observation, but I want to tell you that I believe the bloody (literarily) hypocrisy of helping maintain such a teaching culture on the American campus is impossible to morally justify.

The problem for academics on the American campus is that my question “implies” that Germans are human beings of the same order as Jews and the rest of us.

What?

Germans, just maybe, did NOT use WMD (gas chambers) to try to “exterminate” the Jews of Europe? Your refusal to allow (and it was your decision—students were set to run the ad) this simple question to be asked in the BG-News is an example of your refusal, which is really your evasion, of your responsibility to view Germans as human beings in the same way you view Jews and others to be human beings.

The time is come for us to rise above the kind of bigotry that has been exhibited at the BG-News in this case. Tell me. What is wrong with helping to forward a free exchange of ideas about the gas-chamber story, the Holocaust story, in the BG-News, your newspaper?

If it is an honest question, why should you care that it will offend some? If you believe it is not an honest question, tell me why you believe it is not. I’m willing to be convinced that I am wrong to put the question.

--Bradley Smith

Copy to Mark Gallagher at gmark@bgsu.edu

Debbie Lipstadt's bulletin board

A reader writes:

I have been thinking it's not very safe for you to give so much detail about your daily round, unless you actually live in Maine, not Baja. What may save you, I figure, is the pain you describe in such detail.

Visualize Debbie Lipstadt's bulletin board with your blog pinned up on it, with all your pains and failed painkillers underlined in red. I like to think she has a swinging door between her kitchen and dining room where she pins up your stories, but it could be on a cork bulletin board, next to the grocery list, by the telephone. Or there could be a manila folder that she reads, as a special treat, over a glass of Mogen David.

Visualize some kind of backroom staff trying to decide when to send the chainsaw guys, delicately balancing their skilled pain-making capabilities against your current condition.

So I thought, maybe, you should chronicle the voyage of a guinea worm tunneling through the muscles of your thigh. Something like that. You could string that one along for a few weeks, then introduce something else. Segue into it. So, a while before you got the guinea worm under control, you could, say, notice a sudden small blurring of your vision which might, we later find out, be caused by some kind of a fluke snacking on your retina. You could spin these stories out.

I can supply a good number of ideas for interesting diseases. Let me know what you think.

Bowling Green State University

When I was at the VA hosptital on Monday morning (the 22nd) I received a call from the BG-News at in Ohio. It was from a cheerful young man named Mark Gallagher in advertising telling me that the News was going to run my Eisenhower ad. I was in the waiting room of the musculoskeletal clinic at the time waiting my turn to see the doctor. I was very happy to have the news. All that was needed was my payment via credit card. We took care of that, Gallagher thanked me for my business, and there we were. I returned to trying to find a comfortable way to sit in the wheelchair I was using to navigate the long Hospital corridors where, get this, there are no chairs where you can stop to rest the leg, or whatever is hurting most at the moment. Once you start walking, you’re on your own.

Anyhow, about ten minutes after Gallagher and I had completed our business deal to take sensible revisionist arguments to students and faculty at BGSU, the young man called me back. He said the News was not going to run the ad after all. I asked why. He said that the faculty advisor had happened by, looked at the ad, and cancelled publication. I was assured my Visa debit card would not be charged. When I asked what there was about the ad that caused the faculty advisor to cancel publication, Gallagher said the fellow was still there and I could speak to him if I wished. I did wish, and Professor Robert Bortel and I had a civil and rather interesting exchange over the next ten, fifteen minutes.

Today I wrote Professor Bortel laying out what I thought made up the core of our conversation, what I recalled to be his arguments against running the ad, and my responses. I informed him that I would distribute the letter to those I believe would be interested parties, but not before Friday, the 26th. If he chose to reply to me I would publish any corrections he made to my recollection of his position on any particular issue. I copied Mark Gallagher.

I’m of two minds doing this work. On the one hand it is interesting because the fellow you are conversing with has no idea whatever about the relevance of revisionist arguments, or the concept that Germans are human beings much like Jews and the rest of us are human beings and it seems to me to a worthwhile matter to bring these things to his or her attention. At the same time, because the other person is always new, you are always saying the same thing over and over. Although the exchange itself can be interesting in the moment, a record of the back and forth endlessly follows the same pattern, with the same arguments. There is nothing new in the revisionist world when you are addressing the need for a free exchange of ideas.

Sometime this coming weekend I’ll publish my letter to Professor Bortel here. Apologies.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is Missing its idiot. . . .

Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is Missing its idiot. . . .

It’s the headline for a bumper sticker being sold by The Patriot Depot, a conservative action group of some kind. When I first saw the headline I didn’t get it. Then when I did get it I almost laughed. It’s not bad. The Patriot Depot argues that Obama can't prove he was born in America. “According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as he claims.”

I’m familiar with the story, but have not looked into it. It’s getting significant attention on the Internet. It would seem to me that if President Obama was born in Hawaii he would want to get rid of the story that he was born in Kenya in the simplest way possible.

***

I’m trapped between taking injections of Temgesic and B-complex vitamins which help the pain, which I like, and the fact that they put me need of so much sleep I feel drugged, which I don't like. Sometimes my naps last four hours. The rest of the time I can’t come awake. I have finally realized that my primary care VA doctor is not taking care of the injury in the lower back, but treating the pain cause by the pinched sciatic nerve in the lower back. Two, three weeks ago when I was at the VA for a cat-scan of the knees I was smart enough to have the lower back scanned. My primary care doctor let it sit there. She saw in on her computer, but gave me more pain-meds. Tomorrow night I’m going to the VA again to get both knees shot up so I can walk. So the knees will be fine, but the pain radiating down from the back will be the same. I’m going to talk to them.

***

After a four-hour nap this afternoon I went to bed at 8.30 and slept two hours more. Dreamed that I, or someone, just got out of the hospital. I’ve dreamed it before. In the dream I meet an old friend. I don’t know who it is. I take him to lunch and ask what he’s doing, what he’s been doing. I can’t remember what he said. The name of a young lady-friend comes up, as usual. I can’t recall who she is. What’s she doing now. He tells me. The same as last time. I can’t remember what he tells me. Her name, maybe it was Mary. Memory recalls Mary Lusitano from grade school some 70 years ago. Homely with a big nose. She was the same in junior high. Then I lost track of her, then I ran into her in Huntington Park working in an ice cream shop. Maybe. Or bagging groceries. We were both teenagers.

This is real life now. Mary was still pretty homely, her nose was still too big, but it wasn’t so big proportionately as when she was in grammar school, and she wasn’t so homely either. The primary difference, however, was that now she had very big, what I imagined to be, very beautiful breasts. It was exciting to see her. Them. I was smitten. I tried some small talk. She didn’t go for it. The breasts were really something. I was a good looking young man. I tried some more small talk. Didn’t matter. She wouldn’t bite. It was as if she understood that I wasn’t really interested in her, that I really wanted to talk to her breasts. This evening, recalling that afternoon so many years ago, so many decades ago, I feel it yet again. The sense of loss.

***

Irene spent a couple hours this afternoon folding, stuffing, sealing and stamping 120 Eisenhower-ad insertion requests to the advertising managers of 120 campus newspapers. I’ll take them with me to the other side tomorrow on my way to the VA hospital where I will stay overnight. To date the ad has run in the Ohio State Daily. As of now we are booked to run in two more papers this coming week, but these ads are not run until they’re run.

***

A couple kids from the frac, the neighborhood, or who used to be from the neighborhood before they moved to a different one a couple years ago, have been run down by the Federales and the Mexican army. The two boys are now 23 and 24 years old. They were nice boys. It looks like they hooked up with a group that has a reputation for brutality and are suspected of being connected with maybe 14 murders and various kidnappings for ransom. Their photos are in the newspapers. During the arrest the soldiers seized 17 high-caliber weapons and 14, 660 rounds of ammunition. The last fellow they kidnapped, and who was released yesterday, says that he was beaten, tied up, had one finger on his left hand cut off, and his family threatened.

Meanwhile, I have just heard that in the incident up at the corner where the young son of the cantina owner was kidnapped a couple, three weeks back, where the unarmed guardia tried to protect the boy from his assailants and who was beheaded for his gesture of responsibility and courage—that the kidnappers beheaded him while he was alive using a chainsaw.

I do not think I noted here that the boy himself was released unharmed perhaps two weeks ago.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Too much of this stuff

June 14, 2009

"If too much of this stuff takes away our empathy and understanding that this is a tragedy – albeit not worse than someone being shot anywhere else, then that perhaps is a problem of revisionism.

"That was the sentence from Bradley Smith’s reaction to the shooting at D.C’s Holocaust Museum I found most interesting. It reminds me of the debate over desensitizing violent video games some years back. I believe the same arguments were made about pornography before my time. From what I’ve heard evidence (compiled by liberal academics who hate America, families and children in particular) does not support those theories. My own opinion is that weirdos are more likely to be drawn to holocaust denial in the first place, and Von Brunn in particular was a producer rather than a mere consumer of such literature.

[....]

"Being the awful Hansonian reductionist that I am, I wish that Smith & co would “break it down” when it comes to their heretical thoughts. There is a constant conflation of holocaust denial (or revisionism, if you prefer) with matters pertaining to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, U.S foreign policy, whether the Nazis were worse than the Soviets and the related matter of whether racism/bigotry is more dangerous than blank-slatism along with a host of other things. Political ideologues group many seemingly unrelated issues together into one world view. If holocaust revisionists really want to be treated like intellectually honest historians it would help if they acted more like scientists seeking the truth regarding specific matters."

The Story of a Press Release

On 14 June I decided to send a press release to media re the Von Brunn story and the killing of the guard at the USHMM. I messed around with it and the next day I sent a draft of the release to three men who I count as primary advisors. Here is the draft of the release.
===============

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Bradley R. Smith
Desk: 209 682 5327
Email: bsmith@prodigy.net.mx


15 June 2009

James W. Von Brunn, the man who shot and killed a guard at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is reported to be a Holocaust “denier.”

If we are to keep score, American Holocaust “deniers” are responsible for the killing of one innocent civilian in this century.

At the same time, if we are to keep score, American Holocaust “believers” are responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in this century.

It can be argued that American Holocaust “believers” did their killing – in Iraq and Afghanistan -- for what they believe to be a “greater good.” According to stories in the American press it appears clear that Von Brunn did his killing for what he, too, believed was a “greater good.”

If it is wrong for a Holocaust “denier” to kill an innocent civilian for what he sincerely believes is a “greater good,” and it is, why is it not wrong for Holocaust “believers” to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians for what they sincerely believe is a “greater good?”

THE BIG QUESTION: What is the primary difference between an American Holocaust “denier” and an American Holocaust “believer?”


Bradley R. Smith
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327
Cell: 619 203 3151
Email: bsmith@prodigy.net.mx
Web: www.codoh.com
===============

Advisor One replied: I understand the rhetorical intent, but you would make a massive concession to the other side if this were to go out ("Leading Holocaust denier admits deniers responsible for Holocaust Museum murder").


Advisor Two wrote: I think the biggest problem is that your release suggests that we accept von Brunn and are somehow associated with him. I never heard of him until the news story. While this guy may have read revisionism, his own revisionism was “cut and paste” from the works of others. We don’t want to be associated with him in anyway.


Advisor One wrote: While I doubt that the specifics of the crime will figure in the shaping of any eventual hate crime law, I fear that by your associating yourself and other revisionists with Von Brunn will not be counterbalanced in the media by invoking the fire-bombing of Tokyo or the post-WWII hunger blockade.

It would be better to stress the irenic and open-minded nature of revisionism (Von Brunn's act and the unbalanced attack on Elie Wiesel a couple of years ago are the only such acts that I can think of by persons calling themselves revisionists), contrasting that with the (far more relevant to the issue than Hiroshima etc.) physical attacks on revisionists and revisionist centers, as well as state repression of revisionist research and speech elsewhere.

From what I've read in Von Brunn's magnum opus, he is a pretty much an anti-Jewish cutter and paster who has added revisionism to a standard list of grievances, expounded in catechical style. In any case, his actions Wednesday harmed revisionism as grievously as anything that's happened in years.

I think Von Brunn's act needs to condemned in an explicit way, without cloying apologies, of course. I would contrast Von Brunn's crazy Custerism (good lefty word) with the revisionist way, say, Faurisson confronting Berenbaum and sundry revisionists studying the USHMM's exhibited evidence with gimlet eye, including SR's and your preoccupation with the delousing chamber door, etc. It's that kind of revisionism that the USHMM and Holocaust industry fear--much more than the Von Brunns and all their weaponry.


Advisor Three wrote: I too am inclined to not touch this matter except perhaps in the sense of condemnation of von Brunn. Here are a few observations.

"If we are to keep score, American Holocaust ‘deniers’ are responsible for the killing of one innocent civilian in this century."

If we read this literally things start to get complicated. If an American H denier murdered his wife to avoid the financial ruin of a divorce, then the literal content of the statement is false. Moreover, Timothy McVeigh and a few other murderers may or may not have been considered H deniers; I don’t know.

My main point is that motivation is central to the question you are dealing with. Before I proceed on the question of motivation let me note that the restriction to “American” seems arbitrary.

How would a H denying motivation explain what von Brunn did at the USHMM? I simply can’t figure that out. It seems dangerous to me to concede, implicitly, that H denial provides a motivation for the murder at the USHMM in the sense that impending financial ruin provides a motivation for the wife-killer.

In your attachment you ask:

“If it is wrong for a Holocaust ‘denier’ to kill an innocent civilian for what he sincerely believes is a ‘greater good,’ and it is, why is it not wrong for Holocaust ‘believers’ to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians for what they sincerely believe is a ‘greater good?’”

Alas that could be read by a future von Brunn as providing justification for a murderous rampage!
===============

It’s odd, but we were in some kind of disconnect. Intellectuals vs. the artist. My inclination was to jump on my horse and ride out into the middle of the media fray, a writer on the loose as it were, and keep a record of what went down. My advisors, being serious men and more sober of character than myself, had in mind to keep the boundaries of revisionism safe from the marauding media hoards and the Holocaust Marketing Industry.

I couldn’t ignore them. I decided yesterday to rewrite the press release. I went over and over it until the text was one hundred words longer and the whole too pedestrian to show to the world. When Hernandez came in this morning I did show it to him. He liked it. But I wasn’t convinced. While I am publishing the original draft here in this post, it will not go to the press. When you are aware of the fact that your advisors are smarter than you are, you can’t just ignore them.

I can’t.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Me and the Jewish-Holocaust-Memorial-Museum story

I’m really late with this one. The story about how the White guy shot the Black guard at the Jewish United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It’s all because of the pain meds. My being late that is. When I first started taking them about 30 days ago I was using 100 mgs of Gabapentin three times a day. It wasn’t helping so on my own I put it up to 300 mgs three times a day. Wasn’t helping so I complained to my primary care doctor via telephone. She is the VA clinic on the other side, in Chula Vista. She said she would up the dose and send me the medicine. She did.

I was then taking 900 mgs three times a day and it wasn’t helping so a couple three days ago I upped the dose to 1,200 mgs three times a day and by coincidence I began to feel better. That is, the pain was the same when it was there, a piercing affair which makes me swear in both English and Spanish but mostly English, but it was not there all the time. I could walk around the house without doubling over, and so on and so forth. But it made me so groggy I didn’t know what I was doing, and when I did know, I didn’t care. A couple times I fell asleep at the computer. Last night Pretty came in and found me sitting here with my hands on the keyboard, the head hanging down, asleep.

Again, and so on. You get the picture. I have just about decided that 2,700 mgs of Gabapentin a day is about all that I can handle and that I will have to live with the pain for another week or two. Won’t kill me. I think I will be okay, I am going to stop swearing when it tears at me because my wife doesn’t like the words I use, and I’m going to stop whining about it here. And elsewhere.

Anyhow, this was my reaction to the bad White guy killing the innocent Black guard at the Jewish United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I must have written it on the 12th. I will follow with two succinct critiques of the text by Richard Widmann, the editor of CODOHWeb, and of our new journal, Inconvenient History. You will observe the sobriety of Mr. Widmann.

First, me.
==============

On 10 June, a couple days ago, a man named Wenneker Von Brunn walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., shot a black security officer, then shot himself [this last appears to be an error of fact]. The Security officer died. Von Brunn is still hanging on in a hospital bed. Within hours I was aware that this had become a national story. A tragedy perhaps for his family, but come on. . . . a Black guy gets offed in Washington D.C?

I didn’t see the national significance of a Washington D.C. Black man being murdered in a Washington D.C. museum dedicated to exploiting a fraudulent view of history, raising hundreds of millions of dollars, and forwarding the concept of the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans. As has been pointed out by an associate—I might as well say it—by Widmann, I was wrong.

This is exactly the story that all those from the radical left to the radical right to President Obama can, and will, use to attack folk who question what the USHMM uses to sustain and promote itself. Last night I was watching the last half of the Glen Beck show (my excuse? I was lying on the bed waiting for the pain meds to kick in) when he brought up the Von Brunn story and tied it into Obama’s preacher, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who had just said publicly about Obama: “Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me. . . .” These two incidents together demonstrated a rising tide of anti-Semitism in America which will be used by all the folk at Fox to ignore the genocidal (in the original meaning of the word) Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

Now I feel as if I were behaving badly in not having the proper empathy for the murder of one Black man when it was brought to my attention. In a perfect world, I would feel empathy for any and every individual murdered by—anyone. Maybe I’m suffering from a surplus of information about the wounded and murdered folk in Gaza and the West Bank, so much so that it has deadened my humanity. But then, ho hum.

I am reminded that I kinda like this Jeremiah Wright guy. He said in church, “They (Americans) nuked Hiroshima and never looked back.” That’s right. We never looked back. At the time I was hoping that Obama would acknowledge his Minister’s observation. Not a chance. It might have harmed Obama’s chances for being nominated and elected. That was the first moment when I began to question Obama.

At the same time, my original feeling that it might be good that he win because he might be inclined to think of Arabs as human beings remains. That would be a major change in American/Muslim relations. Empathy for Arabs as human beings, and the refusal to support Arab tyrants who have no empathy for their own people. There’s no end to this business so long as the American State sets different standards, one standard for good tyrants, another for bad tyrants.
===============

Okay. It’s not much of a post, but that was my first drug-crazed reaction to the story. I sent it along with my cover letter for issue 162 of Smith’s Report. Meanwhile, Widmann had written me asking what I thought of the story. He thought I might have something interesting to say. I sent him the above text.
==============

Widmann wrote:

Well – not what I had in mind. First there are several incorrect “facts.”

Assailants name is “James W. Von Brunn”

He did not shoot himself. In fact guards pumped 10 rounds into him including hitting him in the face.

I would not take up issue with him being Black.

You don’t seem to grasp this one at all – perhaps nothing is better to say than this.

What has happened is exactly what everyone is supposed to fear. There is a problem that lunatics reading holocaust revisionist material go ahead and kill people. This is the very thing that the SPLC and the SWC etc etc have been warning about.

To say that it doesn’t matter that a black guy got shot is not right at all. More to come.
==============

A few minutes later Widmann wrote again:

You write, “I suppose I am too close to this stuff…”

Perhaps. I felt that way following 9-11. It led to my taking a year or two off. I spent the time barely reading revisionism and working my way through the entire Bible from beginning to end. If too much of “this stuff” takes away our empathy and understanding that this is a tragedy – albeit not worse than someone being shot anywhere else, then that perhaps is a problem of revisionism.

Was Von Brunn so close to it that it appeared like a good idea to go down there with a rifle?

Sure “we nuked Hiroshima” and we should make people understand the tragic nature of that – but the key is not just saying how you feel – which you seem apt to do in this case – but rather to counter the MASSIVELY NEGATIVE image that the media is now painting all revisionists with.

There are calls for curtailing freedom of speech on blogs I have visited.

We need to separate ourselves from any lunatic violent fringes and refocus on history and getting the facts straight. We should continue to remind people that revisionism is a peace movement.
===============

These are clearly sober and mature reactions to a story that will be used against us, we revisionists, by the Holocaust Marketing Industry. Nothing for it. That’s what will happen. Meanwhile, we’ll continue with our work, the real work of exposing the HMI and its products, and the work will grow increasingly well-known and understood all over the world.

Speaking of “all over the world”: our last send to our internet mailing list of some 5,000-plus names, people from 51 (fifty-one) countries around the world opened the message.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Cat scans and the play of memory

Yesterday to the VA where they did a bone marrow biopsy, a Cat-scan of the throat where they did the surgery a few months back, and a visit with the dermatologist. A young Asian women who acted as if she liked her work, unlike the old White guy I saw last time who acted as if his work bored him. Makes me think Sotomajor may have had it right. No nap yesterday. Last night typing the journal with my eyes closed, literally, a good trick when you can do it, yet when I went to bed at 11pm I couldn’t sleep. It felt good to be there, aside from the pain, but at 2am I had to take a sleeping pill.

Today we’re submitting the first Eisenhower ads to campus papers for the summer session.

Widmann reminds me that we published a good article on the Santa denial some years ago in The Revisionist.

A lady from the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to talk to me about the Mark
Weber/IHR story but I don’t trust the SPLC to be square with me or anyone else who does this work. I would not trust anyone so committed to discussing "HATE" in American culture who does not include significant links to discussions of the Jewish Talmud.

Yesterday when I was inside the Cat-scan machine with my eyes closed, wondering how long I would be able to stay motionless with the pain, I opened the eyes for just a moment and when I did memory recalled--completely out of the blue--lying under a poncho on the backside of a ridgeline in Korea 57 years ago! It was blistering hot, humid, and the bottom of the poncho was thick with flies. A couple of us had put it up on sticks for a little shade. It was just high enough to put our faces and shoulders under it.

I think I’ve written about this before. But after a bit one of our guys spied a Chinese soldier walking the ridgeline across the draw. He was maybe 400, 500 yards away. A couple guys decided to take him out with their M-1s. The Chinese didn’t even break stride. He turned and walked back the other way, paused for a moment, then turned and walked back the way he had come. It was clear. He was having a little fun with us. The 57mm re-coilless rifle team was brought up. They fired and we saw the dirt kick up a few yards below the Chinese. He kept walking the ridgeline. The guys with the recoilless rifle fired again, and then again. Twice the dirt kicked up below but near the Chinese. Once it must have shot above the ridgeline into space. The Chinese didn’t even break stride. The rest of us started laughing at our recoilless rifle guys. Then some of us started cheering the Chinese. He was putting on a hell of a show. We were laughing and shouting across the gorge, applauding the Chinese with our shouts for his courage and his style. He made our day for us.

Yesterday when I was inside the Cat-scan machine and opened my eyes for only a mo-ment, that’s what memory took the trouble to recall. I notice that memory is taking the trouble to recall that old stuff much more than is necessary. At the same time I am aware that the act of recollection is usually always a pleasure. Almost always.

Today I'm aware of making a lot of typos. If I have left a bunch of them in this post, we'll have to live with it.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Ziopedia outs Jacob Cohen and Santa Revisionism

This article is a take-off on the language used by Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). It's very well done. No use talking about it. All I can say is: Read it.
===============

Santa Denial: An online Guide to Exposing and Combating Anti-Gentile Propaganda

Santa denial, which its propagandists misrepresent as "Santa revisionism," has become one of the most important vehicles for contemporary anti-Gentile hatred. It is the invention of a collection of long-time Jewish supremacists and apologists for Talmudic hatred towards non-Jews.

During the fall semester of 1997, Jacob Cohen, "director" of the self-styled "Committee for Open Debate on Santa," (CODOS) launched a new salvo in his continuing propaganda campaign to deny the reality of Santa. He is attempting to place an ad in college newspapers around the country that promises $50,000 to anyone "convincing a national television network to air" a ninety minute video that attempts to show the universally accepted account of Santa is false. The ad is clearly a ploy. Cohen must know his money is safe because no TV network would broadcast such a video.So why does he go to the trouble? The answer can be found at the bottom of the ad. "If you are interested in earning $50,000 . . . you will find the details of this offer on the World Wide Web" at the CODOS web site. It's the old bait and switch. Cohen, who has announced that he is "taking my show to the Internet" is trying to entice college students and others to his web site where he peddles his barely disguised anti-Gentile hatred.








Pain meds, and no, it wasn't Simon Wiesenthal

I have been doubling up on the pain meds. The primary drug now is Gabapentin. My VA doctor ordered it for me on the basis of a telephone call when I told her nothing else was working. Nothing. She put me on 300 mgs of Gabapentin a day. On my calling her three days ago and telling her nothing was working she said I could take 900 mgs a day, 300 morning, noon, and night. Okay. It didn’t affect the pain. I can live with this order of pain for awhile, but it's been going on for weeks now and it’s not just the pain but that I’m getting really bored with it. I can’t walk more than a few feet, it’s a challenge to be able to stand up long enough to fix coffee in the morning.

This morning on waking, sitting on the edge of the bed, it was like I was sitting on a couple swords. Images of Japanese movies swirled through the brain where flying swordsmen clad in beautifull costumes are slicing each other apart with extraordinary verve and style. I took the 300 mgs of Gabapentin and went about my day. By noon I’d had enough. Rather than the 300 mgs my VA doctor had okayed, I took another 600. Hernandez, my new guy here in the office, flunked out of medical school in Tijuana ten years ago. He told me I could take up to 3,600 mgs of Gabapentin a day. Who am I to trust?

About two in the afternoon I lay down on the bed for a nap. I set the alarm for 3.30. I don’t want to sleep too much because it might interfere with my sleeping at night. When the alarm rang at 3.30 I set it for 4.00 and went back to sleep. In the end I kept resetting the alarm, waking up and resetting the alarm until it was about 7.pm. I was still groggy but I got up, ate some things laying around on the kitchen counter, then heated up a bowl of stew, lay down on the couch because I coulden't sit on it, and turned on the television. It seemed to me that the pain was a little less. I wasn’t certain.

Clicking around with the changer I found the Exocist. It had already begun but most of it was left. I had watched the movie when it came out in the early 1970s when Jenny and I were still together. I recalled it being a disturbing experience. Tonight I had no interest in watching the entire movie, but I was interested in seeing how the exotic religious scenes were handled. How the Church was handled. Watching, not beguiled by the film itself, I found the Catholic business to be handled with respect and good sense. I had no wish to suspend disbelief this time around, I was looking at it as a piece of work, so there was no real drama. I found it well directed, well acted. A job well done. And then there was the moment when the face of detective Kinderman first appeared in a car window. For a moment I thought it was Simon Wiesenthal. I'm not crazy. I knew it wasn't him. But I had to see the figure two or three times before I recognized him. Lee J. Cobb.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Buchenwald: Legend and Reality

Buchenwald: Legend and Reality by Mark Weber

Editor's Note:

Mark Weber's article "Buchenwald: Legend and Reality" is a useful and timely corrective made more so by President Obama's visit on June 5, 2009 to the site of the former Nazi concentration camp at Buchenwald.

Obama who was accompanied on his tour by German Chancellor Merkel and Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel used the moment to denounce revisionists using typical false and slanderous rhetoric: "To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened -- a denial of fact and truth that is baseless and ignorant and hateful. This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts; a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history."

Revisionists of course do not say "the Holocaust never happened." Such a loaded phrase suggests to an unknowing public that revisionists don't believe that the concentration camps existed. It suggests that revisionists don't believe Jews died in large numbers. It suggests that revisionists don't believe in the crematory ovens, the guard towers, the barbed wire. It suggests either a complete ignorance of history or as is often charged a nefarious ulterior motive with the desire to see brown-shirted legions again marching across Europe.

Revisionists do demand evidence and proof of the principle definitional pillars that are commonly used to explain what is meant by "Holocaust." Revisionists do not accept that six million Jews were murdered during this time. Revisionists do not accept that there was a Hitler order to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Finally revisionists do not accept the charge that the Nazis murdered Jews primarily in gas chambers designed for mass extermination.

Since revisionists began questioning these key elements of the Holocaust story, they have witnessed massive official reductions in the number of victims at Auschwitz and Majdanek. They have seen a massive retreat with regard to gassing claims within the German Reich. They have seen historian after historian admit that no Hitler order for the extermination of the Jews has ever been found. They have created their own expert reports to analyze cyanide content in the bricks and mortar of the rooms claimed to have been used for mass murder only to find such researchers incarcerated and persecuted for their efforts.

Buchenwald is no rebuke to the revisionists. While notorious in the west due to its liberation by American forces, Buchenwald is not identified as an "extermination camp" in the literature. Inmates died due to poor conditions and disease largely brought about by a complete collapse of German infrastructure during the final months of World War II. The camp was overcrowded due to the evacuation of inmates from camps in the East. The death toll climbed to its highest levels in the weeks leading up to the American liberation. The conditions witnessed by American troops, however horrific were not the result of an extermination plan.

As author Thomas Dalton so profoundly put it, "if we can never forget, then we should at least get the story straight."

R.A. Widmann, June 6, 2009

Thursday, June 4, 2009

John Carradine, patting down the bad guy

On Yahoo news today I see that actor David Carradine, star of the 1970s TV series "Kung Fu," has been found dead in Bangkok. The report says he was found hanged in his hotel room with a cord used with the room's curtains. His body was found by a hotel maid. It is believed he committed suicide. He was 72 years old. The news report tells us that Carradine was a leading member of a venerable Hollywood acting family that included his father, character actor John Carradine.

Reading the story I feel a peculiar sensation in my breast that I cannot describe. It has something of anxiety about it, but that doesn’t seem to nail it. But there’s something there, over the heart. I understand immediately that the sensation I feel is related to the memory I have of the father, John Carradine. He played the role of a bad-guy in the Australian outback, probably in the early or mid-1940s. He was a bad guy, but I identified with him. The only scene in the movie that I can still recall is what I imagine to be the last one. There he meets his death with a soft voice, a laconic smile and maybe a wisecrack. There was something about that scene that stayed with me for years. I don't know exactly what it is, but from the sensation that hovers over my heart it looks like it's still there.

In 1953 when I was 23 years old I was a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles Country. I was working in the booking office in the county jail downtown when one night John Carradine was brought into the holding tank on some kind of public drunk charge. There he was, dressed in loose-fitting dark clothes, his hair a little long, he little more than skin and bones, his hands in his pockets smiling and looking around, aware that anyone who saw him would know who he was. And then there I was, telling him to spread his legs and put his hands on the counter, patting him down to make certain he had no weapon on him, my hands moving around and across the body of the Australian outbacker and gunman who when I was a kid had met his death, and who was willing to meet it, with a wonderfully ironic smile and no ill will.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Jews strolling to the gas chambers with picnics and rest stops

The following images are all from The Auschwitz Album which was supposedly “discovered” (read: “stolen”) by a self-styled “concentration camp survivor” Lili Meier. The complete collection of 192 photographs from this one book can be seen at the USHMM website where it is a major feature of their collection. The same album and pictures are also a major feature of the Yad Vashem archives in Israel with similar, but not exactly the same, captions as those given by the USHMM. The images below with their captions are simply samples from the actual collection as they appear at the USHMM archive website. Few people will ever bother to examine the album photographs carefully unless they are somehow prodded by essays like this one. What the images reveal on careful examination is totally different from what the holocaust hoax promoters suggest. Judge for yourself.

The world's most well-known photo document of the holocaust

It's the world's most well-known document of the holocaust, and this essay explains why it's a fraud. Everyone has seen the photo of the little boy with his hands raised. But few know that the photo is one of 53 photos from the Stroop Report, a book supposedly created by SS General Jürgen Stroop commemorating the defeat of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The Stroop Report has a written section, a daily report section, and a photo section. The little boy photo is from the photo section. That we get this photo from the Nazis themselves is a surprise to most people. The truth, however, is that we get it from the wartime Jewish Underground. It's just meant to appear like it's from the Nazis. The photo is a real Warsaw photo but outside the ghetto. The photographer, George Kadish, was a member of the Zionist Underground. Thus it's no mistake that the photo engenders sympathy for the Jews and anger toward the Nazis.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Daniel Goldhagen on Atheists and Jews

This took place during the Los Angeles Holocaust Remembrance
commemoration last month at the Los Angeles Holocaust
Memorial in Pan Pacific Park in Los Angeles . The writer,
Zan Overall, is an 82-year-old revisionist activist.
===============

FEATURED GUEST SPEAKER, DANIEL GOLDHAGEN, Ph.D.

(Born in 1959, Daniel Goldhagen is Harvard educated. Taught there till he became an author full time. In 1996 he wrote “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” about the Germans. He has a book coming out about holocausts in the modern era.)

Here I paraphrase Goldhagen from my notes:

This is a solemn day. We are People of the Book. We must learn and understand. We must tell the Truth. The survivors want the Truth told, the truth about the suffering and who caused the suffering.

There are many myths about the Holocaust, all barriers to the Truth.

I: The Jews went to the slaughter like sheep. Goldhagen mentioned those who did resist but excused others who did not resist on the basis of the unexpected and unprecedented nature of the onslaught, comparing it to a hurricane.

II: We are told the killers were Nazis. The dominant majority of the killers were ordinary Germans.

III: We are told the killers were coerced. On the contrary, none were coerced. None refused to take part.

IV: Germans were opposed to Hitler’s policies regarding Jews. By and large they supported those policies.

V: Only Germans did the Holocaust. The Dutch, the French, the Austrians, the Poles and Lithuanians also participated.

VI: Gas chambers and other high tech methods killed the Jews. The gas chambers have become “the Star” but actually most Jews were killed by low tech methods. Most were shot, starved to death, or beaten to death. (I wonder. Is this a new tack? As the “gas chamber hoax” idea gains power are the Holocaustanites making a strategic withdrawal? Advancing to the rear? As they did retreating to Poland when the gas chambers in Germany position became untenable?)

VII: You can’t compare the Holocaust with other “holocausts.” People say genocides happen everywhere. What’s the big deal? If you study the event you will see its singularity, in that it was the only genocide where a group was slated for murder in the whole world. (What a crock, even for a Harvard man! Hitler wanted to murder every Jew in the world? Even when he couldn’t or didn’t want to invade Britain?)

Goldhagen mentions that he traveled to the sites of other genocides. He graciously states that they should all be honored.

His main point re genocides seems to be that blaming genocides on propaganda is wrong. People kill other people because of a “culture of hatred,” as gentiles kill Jews because of anti-semitism. He gave some interesting descriptions of individual victims and killers in Rwanda.

In closing, Goldhagen urged the audience to be on guard on behalf of all victims of anti-semitism. This would include all the Jews of the world, he said.

(Let me interject: Jews invoke Hate Crime laws to punish people who hurt them or attack them only with words. Are there no German groups in the world (outside of Germany where such a group would land in jail very quickly) who will raise a cry of “Anti-Germanism” and point out the hurt Germans suffer from those who lie about Germans and accuse them wrongfully?)

The event closed with a candle-lighting by survivors and a Kaddish. After the event, I went up to the dais where Dr. Goldhagen was interacting with members of the audience. When my turn came I said:

“Do you consider the killing of Christian Russians and Ukrainians by the Bolsheviks genocide? Many of the Bolsheviks were Jews. What guilt do Jews bear for those killings?”

Smilingly, Goldhagen replied (to the best of my memory), “I cover those events in my new book but those Bolsheviks were not Jews. They were atheists.”

I felt as though I were in Alice in Wonderland conversing with the Red Queen*, but managed to reply incredulously:

“A Jew may be racially and by family ties a Jew but when he becomes an atheist he is no longer a Jew?”

Goldhagen agreed that an atheist cannot be a Jew and the colloquy was over.

I regret that I did not turn to those gathered around and ask if they agreed that (Jewish) atheists are not Jews. Could have turned into a beautiful delicatessen wrangle.

*When I compared Goldhagen to the Red Queen I was not intimating that Goldhagen is a communist or homosexual.