“CODOH” – Where everything is.
SMITH’S TALK IN TEHRAN at Iranian Holocaust Conference in 2008
Friday, December 30, 2011
I haven't read it (just received it - I HAVE read the aforementioned falsehoods themselves), but it looks quite like engagement - 571 pages of it! Even if it is itself a load of falsehoods, it is clearly a very large body of them, assembled with care and even skill by the Others who care about the things we care about.
There are today so few with the awareness involved in appreciating the importance of our issues that I feel we rather owe it to our adversaries to accord their efforts the (considerable) attention involved in evaluating their work - and cheer the spirit of engagement that their massive oeuvre bespeaks!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
This grudging recognition of their opponents by the previously dominant warmist movement came about only after the devastating revelations of "Climategate" (and recently, Climategate II) provided sufficient impetus for admitting the validity of the "deniers'" case. Until that time, such people as Gro Brundtland, Special Envoy of the United Nations for Climate Change, pronounced people who expressed skepticism at the warmist assertions "immoral."
Sound familiar? As yet, no respectable historian has placed his or her career at the mercy of those many (historians and otherwise) who assert the exterminationist understanding of what they have trademarked "The Holocaust," and it may be a long time before any does, despite the many and devastating exposes that have been published of the mendacity of most members of the dominant party to the dispute.
But as the heretofore-dominant case continues to crumble under the relentless and growing attacks it sustains every day from revisionists, the situation at historical conferences may one day come to resemble the description in the article. After all, "Hologate" has already occurred, many times over.
And it will continue to occur, over and over, and worse and worse.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Objection to this bill is coming from . . . Turkey! The concern expressed by Turkish leaders has everything to do with the reputation of Turks and Turkey and nothing to do with freedom of expression, never a hallmark of Turkish governance to begin with.
This development portends curious future events in French politics. What if, for example, some latter-day Gayssot gets it legislated that it is a crime to deny the postwar genocides against Germans that occurred in Poland and Czechoslovakia? Would fingering Germans as merciless butchers of innocent Jews run one afoul of one of that law's subclauses?
When in France, just keep your mouth shut.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Holocaust Denial and Anti-Semitism
Richard A. Widmann
The terms “Holocaust denial” and “anti-Semitism” are hopelessly bound together in the public consciousness. In an article published this November on a blog page of the Chicago Sun-Times, it was reported that the US State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, would pay particular attention to a growing level of Holocaust denial. The article goes on to report that Rosenthal, the daughter of a survivor of the Buchenwald camp, conducted a group of seven American imams and Muslim community leaders to the sites of the former concentration camps of “Dachau and Auschwitz where millions were systematically murdered by Nazi Germany.” The article concludes with the statement that Rosenthal managed to get from the imams bearing witness to the tragedy of the Holocaust.
It all sounds neat and tidy, except of course that anyone who has bothered to look into the Holocaust story at all understands that millions were not systematically murdered at Dachau and Auschwitz. No historians of the revisionist or orthodox schools have made this claim for decades. Ultimately it is exactly such distortions and anti-German statements that motivate many who seek to revise the history of the Holocaust in light of the facts. And make no mistake about it, assertions that the Germans committed crimes in exaggerated numbers or with false macabre details amounts to anti-Germanism. Would there not be wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone asserted that even thousands of Palestinians were killed in Israeli-run refugee camps? In today’s hyper-sensitive, some might say Orwellian, society, which has exponentially multiplied the political correctness of the 1990s it is impossible to correct such outrageous claims about Dachau and Auschwitz without first being charged with Holocaust denial and then along with it anti-Semitism. It is demanded that everyone accept all claims about the Holocaust no matter how fantastic or improbable.
Plato established in his Gorgias, that when engaging in an argument it is most important to initially define your terms in a precise manner. While the general public unconsciously assumes they understand the terms "Holocaust denial" and "anti-Semitism" and their relationship, the truth is likely far from those carefully planted assumptions.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
In the September issue of SR (no. 185) I wrote that Rudolf Vrba was a cousin of Vera Atkins, the World War II British intelligence agent. Wikipedia based this claim on the 2007 (I erroneously wrote 2011) book Spymistress by William Stevenson. I confirmed via Google Books that Stevenson had written thus on his p. 3. Stevenson being a well-known popular biographer, I assumed he passed along a fact.
I later got the book from the library and looked for Stevenson's account of Atkins' encounter with Rudolf Höss, which he described on p. 310. The meeting is presented as occurring at the Soviet occupied Auschwitz camp in fall 1945. Received history, e.g. the earlier (2005) Atkins biography A Life In Secrets, by Sarah Helm, places the meeting in British-occupied Germany in March 1946.
I wrote to Stevenson c/o his New York publisher on 11 Oct. 2011 to ask for his comment on this discrepancy and as of 25 Nov. 2011 I had received no reply. Thus I assume Stevenson's version of the meeting is wrong.
Now I have found that Stevenson's book got reviews that made very negative judgments on grounds of factual content (e.g. Nigel West in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, vol. 21, no. 3, 2008, pp. 594-608). This calls into question the veracity of Stevenson's claim of the Vrba-Atkins relationship. I have thus far been unable to verify the relationship because all relevant web pages I have found are based on Stevenson, the Wikipedia article referencing Stevenson, or in some cases on my September article.
My hunch is that Stevenson got that point, at least, right, but the reader is belatedly warned. I hope that the only factual error I passed along was the publication date of Stevenson's book.
Arthur R. Butz
25 November 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
First published in
The end of YouTube ....?
Amazing! Almost 500,000 signers from across the globe in just one day -- sign below and forward this email to grow our call
Dear friends across the US,
Under the new law, our government could force Internet providers to block any website on suspicion of violating copyright or trademark legislation, or even failing to sufficiently police their users' activities. And, because so much of the Internet's hosts and hardware are located here in the US, their blacklist would clamp down on the free web for all of us in America and millions across the world.
We only have days before the vote but we can help stop this -- champions in Congress want to preserve free speech and tell us that a global outcry would strengthen their hand. Let's urgently raise our voices from every corner of America and join Avaaz members across the world to build a massive call urging our decision makers to reject the bill and stop Internet censorship. Click below to sign and then forward as widely as possible -- our message will be delivered directly to key members of the US Congress ahead of the crucial vote:vote here
For years, our government has condemned countries like China and Iran for their clampdown on Internet use. But now, the impact of these new censorship laws could be far worse -- effectively blocking sites not only in the US but also to every Internet user across the globe.
Last year, a similar Internet censorship bill was killed before reaching the Senate floor, but it's now back in a different form. Copyright laws already exist and are enforced by courts. But this new law goes much further -- granting the government and big corporations enormous powers to force service providers and search engines to block websites based just on allegations of violations -- without a trial or being found guilty of any crime!
Free speech advocates have already raised the alarm, and some key Senators are trying to gather enough support to stop this dangerous bill. We have no time to lose. Let's stand with them to ensure our lawmakers preserve the right to a free and open Internet as an essential way for people in the US and around the world to exchange ideas, share communication and work collectively to build the world we want. Sign below to stop censorship, and save the Internet as we know it:
In the past months, from the Arab Spring to the global Occupy Movement, we've seen firsthand how the Internet can galvanize, unify and change society. Now, if we stand together, we can stop this new attack on Internet freedom. We've done it before -- in Brazil and Italy, Avaaz members have won major victories in the fight for a free Internet. Let's mobilize here in the US to defeat the most powerful censorship threat that the Internet has ever seen.
Luis, Dalia, Diego, Emma, Ricken, Aaron, Antonia, Benjamin and the rest of the Avaaz team
Thursday, November 10, 2011
CODOH Urges President of Humboldt University, Berlin, to Cancel Use of Humboldt Facilities for a Conference on “Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech
San Diego, CA, November 9 2011
Prof. Dr. Jan-Hendrik Olbertz, President
Dear Prof.-Dr. Olbertz:
Through its law school,
The title is deceptively abstract. In fact, it takes little imagination to see, the subject is “Using the Force of Law to Discourage Open Debate of the Holocaust on the Internet,” an agenda antithetical to the freedom of discourse upon which both universities and the development of knowledge depend.
Now, I know that in today’s
Just because a pesticide firm concerns itself with poisonous gases, or a law school with the administration of laws, is no excuse for the firm, or school, to knowingly abet inhuman conspiracies. Your relying on the innocuous styling of the conference’s title will be rejected just as were Tesch & Stabenow’s claims that Zyklon-B was for killing lice.
It is time for Humboldt to uphold humanitarian ideals that always have, and always will, transcend the state. Cancel the use of your facilities. Withdraw your speakers from the program. And take a stand for freedom of speech that even today remains so sadly lacking in the heart of European civilization.
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016San Ysidro, CA 92143
Telephone: 209 682 5327
NOTE: This release is being distributed to academics and students at Humboldt University, Berlin, and to journalists and associations in Europe and North America with a strong interest in a free press.
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, founded in 1989, argues that the Holocaust story should not be the preserve of some at the expense of others, but should be open to a free exchange of ideas for all.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
CODOH Challenges The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists to Work for Intellectual Freedom Rather than Censorship
Monday, November 7, 2011
David C. Drummond, Senior Vice President,
Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043
Phone: +1 650-253-0000
Fax: +1 650-253-0001
04 November 2011
Dear Mr. Drummond:
Google’s recent decision not to impair access to sites promoting history displeasing to certain Jewish-aligned groups was not only a blow in defense of freedom of expression, but also, I suspect, in the long run a good business decision. I presume the scope of the decision was Google’s United States market, and that Google subsidiaries in other jurisdictions remain free to comply with local requirements in whatever manner least impairs the freedom of expression of users of the Internet and—more at issue—access to information on the part of Google users.
Your European areas of operation remain in some countries subject to laws concerning “hate speech” and “Holocaust denial” that undoubtedly lead you to abridge your compliance with Article I (Serve Our Users), Item 3 (Privacy and Freedom of Expression) of Google’s Code of Conduct.
Compliance with legal requirements, I am sure you well know, is one thing. Complicity in undertakings contrary to Google’s Code of Conduct is something else. And it is the possibility of such abetment that concerns me regarding a speech scheduled for November 16 in Berlin by Arnd Haller, Legal Director for Northern Germany and Central Europe of Google Germany GmbH at a conference of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists headed “Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech in the Internet Era.”
Dr. Haller’s talk is an untitled “Greeting,” in which his role might be somewhat that of a host (there are three other “Greeters,” all with German institutional loci). The next day, a session titled “The Recent Google Case in Argentina” is scheduled to be given by a judge and a lawyer from that country.
Of course, while I’m able to infer the necessary latitude allowed remote operators such as Google Germany GmbH, I’m in no position to appreciate any parallel latitude they might enjoy in quasi-official speaking engagements such as this. It is a gray area in which coordination across a far-flung enterprise such as the global Google is difficult to maintain and requires both vigilance and judgment.
And it is for this reason that I seek to notify you of Dr. Haller’s scheduled speech, in the hope that you will direct attention to it sufficient to ensure that his speech adheres to the letter and the spirit of the Google Code of Conduct I cited above, which I feel sure applies to him as well as to every other Googler.
I should heartily welcome your assurances that Dr. Haller’s remarks, and for that matter, the practices of Google in Germany and elsewhere adhere to the Google Code of Conduct in as punctilious a manner as Google’s recent related decision in the United States exemplifies.
Bradley Smith, Founder
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California
Telephone: 209 682 5327
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:11 AM
Ambassador Peter Ammon
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany
2300 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Ambassador Ammon:
We are writing to call attention to the worrisome activities of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). It is holding a promotional event in Berlin entitled Holocaust Denial and Freedom of Speech in the Internet Era November 15-19 2011.
The agenda of the IAJLJ is presented in a string of policy statements posted at http://tinyurl.com/3j6fzp9
the tenor of which can be seen in the following quote:
“The Hamas so-called Charter is a cruder and more action-oriented version of Mein Kampf, calling explicitly for the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of all Jews. The release of the Hamas prisoners by the Palestine Authority constitutes an invitation to these artisans of death to resume their terrorist bombing campaign in Israel's population centres, for the consequences of which the Palestinian leadership will be held directly responsible.”
IAJLJ policies include a defense of Sharon’s infamous 2000 "Strut through the Mosques," a demand for the release of convicted spy Pollack, a call for the revocation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, a denunciation of the Durban World Conference Against Racism, and a demand that a human rights conference be canceled because it "will have prominently on its agenda allegations of violations of the human rights of the inhabitants of the Palestinian territories." No mention is made of thousands of deaths of Palestinians. In short, the IAJLJ does little more than promote the reactionary, racist, and repressive agenda of the extremist right-wing. The IAJLJ is noteworthy only for its brazen hypocrisy of masquerading as a human rights organization and its notorious stand against free speech.
Unfortunately, this group solicits governmental officials of good will to participate in its pseudo-educational promotional events by touting itself as "a membership organization whose object is to advance human rights everywhere." In fact the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists now has the sinister distinction of being the most militant anti-free speech group in the world.
We are a group of historians, scholars and concerned laymen who feel that the up-coming conference in Berlin will only serve as a propaganda tool for restricting free speech and open discussion.
The IAJLJ regularly defames Revisionists as “anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is only Jewish propaganda.” That is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of the history we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. There is considerable research that supports this point of view and it should be inconceivable that anyone be threatened with prison for stating in public that they doubt what they believe they have good reason to doubt.
The one-sided presentation of anti-Revisionist Conferences like this one have led to Draconian laws in a number of European nations against “Denial,” laws that go against fundamental Western ideals of free speech and open discussion. We respectfully request that the government of the Federal Republic of Germany reconsider its participation in the IAJL show.
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California
Telephone: 209 682 5327
Thursday, October 27, 2011
First Published in
Elie Wiesel Cons the World
Is Elie Wiesel
"the world's most famous hypocrite" ...
By Carolyn Yeager
Just one year ago, Elie Wiesel gave a speech in Connecticut, while a jury was in session just miles away, calling for the death penalty to NOT be given to two men who had committed an appalling crime against a family of four. Wrapping himself in self-righteousness, he intoned "Death is not the answer" to the man, William Petit, who had lost his wife and two beautiful young daughters to a couple of amoral monsters, and to Petit's supporters.
The crime committed was so brutal and horrible, and senseless too, that for this writer the death penalty is too good for these perpetrators. You can read about it here and here.
Did Elie Wiesel have the right to barge into this family's tragedy as some sort of "spiritual advisor", for which he was not asked? Of course not. Did he have any right to bring his "holocaust experience" into their personal grief as some kind of Jewish lesson in humanity?
No, and it's in the worst of taste but he is used to flaunting his imaginary suffering to audiences who have been indoctrinated and conditioned to respond like Pavlov's dogs to his trite phrases.
Friday, October 21, 2011
That a country's populace should remain peevish two generations after its suffering a genocidal bombing campaign, invasion from both sides, losing a third of its territory and being kept split in two by occupying powers for 45 years after the Unconditional Surrender would seem a bit churlish to anyone whose own country hadn't undergone anything similar, I suppose.
Interestingly, the author bio at the bottom of the article indicates that Mounk will soon release a book on German-Jewish relations since 1945.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Did he also claim that Hollywood and TV are controlled by Zionist and Israel-promoting interests (he's half-Jewish himself)? Anyway, whatever he said, he retracted it with an apology, as noted back then in a blog post of mine here.
Anyone seen or heard of "The Secret History of America?" My inquiry today of Showtime, whose project it is (was?) garnered this response:
Response Via Email(KatieG) - 10/19/2011 04:25 PM Thank you for writing to us. No announcement has been made regarding a premiere date for this series. All scheduling and programming information is posted at SHO.com as it becomes available. Keep checking back for updates to the schedule, and thanks for watching!
The Secret History of America. I wonder if it has anything in it about who controls Hollywood (and always has, as long as there's been a Hollywood).
Remember: you never saw it here! Or anywhere!
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Habitues of this blog recognize the always-implicit, and here explicit hatred mongered by the producers of the Holocaust propaganda of which this book is a prime example. The review would appear to be, as well, except possibly for the caption on the picture mentioned above, which could be interpreted as tongue-in-cheek by anyone actually viewing the picture itself.
The Comments section on this article has for some reason been shut down. I wonder what people had to say about it? Of course, the Comments section on this post is wide-open, as always.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Any friend of Israel is a friend of Elie Wiesel
By Carolyn Yeager
Elie Wiesel joins Israeli Settlers and Intelligence Chiefs to Celebrate Theft from Palestinians
One of the leading land-grabbers in East Jerusalem is a settler non- governmental organization by the name of Elad. Elad’s goal is to rid Jerusalem of Arabs. One of its tactics has been to have Palestinian homes declared archaeological sites, whereby the homes can be taken over and the owners/residents evicted. It will do so by hook or by crook, says a left-leaning Jewish website Tikun Olam.
Joining these settlers at their commemoration service on behalf of this enterprise is Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Not only that, he’s the chair of Elad’s Advisory Board. Also attending the commemoration as friends of Elad were two former Israeli intelligence chiefs, Shabtai Shavit and Amos Yadlin, and a number of prominent officials.
To Wiesel, anyone who is a friend of Israel is a friend of his.
Another friend is John Hagee. In 2009, after reportedly losing a large sum of money he had invested with Bernie Madoff, Wiesel made a cool half million for one speech to Hagee’sChristians United for Israel (CUFI) benefit. During the celebration of the Feast of the Tabernacles at Hagee’s San Antonio TX mega-church, Wiesel was keynote speaker on the “Night to Honor Israel.” CUFI gave $9 million to Israel charities that night, of which $500,000 went to Wiesel’s Foundation for Humanity.
Monday, October 10, 2011
by Carolyn Yeager
Discovered! The newspaper photograph in which Hilda Wiesel recognized her brother Elie at the OSE home near Paris.
At the end of her video-taped Shoah Foundation testimony in 1995 (the same year Wiesel’s memoir All Rivers Run to the Sea came out), Hilda shows some family pictures: her mother, her father, her sister and brother, and lastly the one above.
Hilda says (translated from French): With the cap, that’s him. My brother with the cap. That is this picture that I saw in Paris and thanks to this picture we met. I was for several months in Paris, as he was too; and we didn’t know we were both alive—and thanks to this picture we met.
Hilda may have been on the look-out for her brother when she saw this photo and thought or hoped it might be him. By contacting that OSE home that was mentioned in the story, and asking about Eliezer Wiesel, they located him there and the brother and sister were reunited. A heartwarming story, but it’s clear to me that the boy in this picture is not Elie Wiesel. Compare the known Elie in the picture below taken at the same time.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The thrust of Kamiya's post is that race can't be openly, frankly discussed on (most) campuses.
I wanted to add a comment to the effect that race wasn't the only verboten subject on campus, nor even the most verboten. But I was unable to access comments on the post, of which there were said to be 48 at the time I tried. And I was unable to post my comment, either.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Michael K. Smith
Legalienation News Bureau
Moses parted the Red Sea. Jesus walked on water. And now Benjamin Netanyahu has healed the partisan divide in Washington D.C., the greatest miracle of all time, according to this morning's editorial in the New York Times.
In a forty-five minute address before a Joint Session of Congress the tough-talking Israeli Prime Minister convinced a heretofore bitterly divided U.S. political class to lay aside its budget battles and concentrate on America's transcendent purpose: to resettle Palestinian Arabs in outer Mongolia so Israel need no longer face the Arab "demographic threat" to Jewish democracy.
The nuance-laden speech, entitled "They Must Go!" was interrupted 637 times by standing ovations, which left many Congress members afflicted with repetitive motion disorders. "He makes it all so clear," gushed California Senator Barbara Boxer, rubbing an elbow dislocated by continuous applause. "Why should we be at each others' throats over budget matters when Israel faces extinction at the hands of HAMAS (Horrible Arab Mothers Affirming Sexuality)?"
"If they are not stopped from having babies on Jewish land," said California's other Senator Diane Feinstein, Jews will soon be a minority in their own country. In other words, it will be the Holocaust all over again."
"And that would undermine the free market," added Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, "because God gave the land to the Jews, and no one has the right to tell a landlord what to do with his land."
"It would also be a defeat for immigrants' rights," said Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) a leading spokesman for comprehensive immigration reform, "because Israel is a nation of immigrants continually made subject to terrorist attacks by Arab nativists refusing to recognize that unlimited immigration is good for everyone. They'll find that out once we relocate them to Mongolia."
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) agreed that violent expulsion was the best solution, but added that Fidel Castro should be included in the forced march to Mongolia. "The Arabs are radical Communists like Fidel. I mean, what's more Communist than one person, one vote? They're birds of a feather that should flock together."
Michele Bachmann (D-Minn.) offered to switch her party affiliation to Likud " if that would help God win in 2012." President Obama praised her spirit of conciliation and said he would consider her as a running mate if she didn't get the GOP nomination.
"She's on my short list," said Obama. "It's either her or Palin or Joe Lieberman," he added." "Bibi has promised to let me know soon."
The president pooh-poohed talk of Bachmann lacking qualifications to serve as president. "She loves God and Israel, and what other qualifications are there?"
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sat, 24 Sep 2011
Dear Mr. Rucker,
Re: The Trojan protects you from what?
I support intellectual inquiry and healthy debate. But though you claim to be making the case for both, I don't see you using either. To discuss the unfortunate plight of Palestinians in Israel (who despite their mistreatment, generally live in better conditions than Palestinians in Arab-majority countries) is reasonable. But to dismiss the suffering and/or brutal murder of millions of innocent Jews through central and eastern Europe is derangement.
The ADL / Hillel manual for action is not a Zionist script to stifle free speech, as you may make it out to be. It's a simple defense against hate speech, such as yours; against overgeneralized, misinformed statements that people like you make with your "minimalist" ads. I am especially disgusted by your following comments:
1."invader in an area previously populated by Muslim Arabs" - are you saying that Jews never lived in Israel, for example, in the time of the Bible? And regardless, Muslim Arabs are still allowed to live, to earn a living, to vote, and to serve in elected positions in Israel.
2. "upon which Israel excuses not only the bloody process by which it established itself in Palestine"- do you mean the UN Mandate establishing the State of Israel? Or the 1948 War in which Israel was attacked by 3 countries simultaneously? Or is that history also fabricated.
3. "under the guns of its American-supplied military supremacy"- if you're lamenting the unfortunate circumstance in which a country under constant threat from extremist terrorists has to have soldiers providing security at shopping malls, I agree with you on that. And yes, Israel receives financial support from America. As do scores of other countries; probably most of the developing world, in fact, receives direct or indirect support from America. Israel also provides America with technological innovation. Ever read Startup Nation?
4. "the plight of Palestinians displaced (or slaughtered) by the Zionist project in Israel"- again, Palestinians are allowed to live in Israel. And, yes, there are bound to be unintended casualties when fighting against terrorists that use civilians for protection. Israel tries to minimize such casualties. In fact, Israel's ratio of civilians killed to armed enemies killed is the envy of American generals in Iraq for its lowness. Again, if there weren't terrorists attacking Israel, then the Israeli army could completely avoid killing civilians.
5. "soil of Palestine"- I understand that by using this name for a strip of land bounded by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea, you are trying to establish that the land belongs to Palestinians. I agree that they have a right to live there. They have a right to economic opportunity there. They have more there than they have available in most Arab countries. But Jews have a right to live there, too. To deny the latter fact is as cruel and inhumane as to deny the former.
6. "Their schooling... force of arms."- are you lamenting that young people are prejudiced against Nazis? That does not require any schooling. A heart and a history book are sufficient for that. Even if you can't have the former, you should try to access the latter.Prejudice against Germans is inappropriate. For the most part, as is true for most peoples, they are respectable. But prejudice against Nazis is actually support for human rights, for equal opportunity, and against discrimination.
7."Steven Spielberg's monument to retributive hatred"- I dare you to find a single scrap related to the Shoah Foundation that promotes retribution or hate. On the contrary, the Shoah Foundation states as its goal "to overcome prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry through visual history testimonies." It is a shame that you have so obviously not watched any of their videos, which cover not only Jewish suffering, but the suffering of others, such as a survivor of Rwandan genocide, too.
An attack on ADL and Hillel is one thing. But I cannot stand the casual dismissal of the suffering of my friends' grandparents. It is indicative of uneducated and misinformed hate, which you are very good at displaying. Your flippant remark about sending the young off to war equally displays ignorance in your over-generalization of a situation that is already unfortunate. The less wealthy in our society are more likely to end up dodging bullets in foreign countries. That is a tragedy. But that is not related to the main thrust of your ignorant remarks about the Holocaust, so I'd rather not venture into that discussion.
I hope this gives you and Mr. Bradley Smith pause before the next time you try to spread your hate.
Master of Planning, 2012
University of Southern California
Herman's choice of time frame enables him to include a genocide of Palestinians that he marks as having begun in 1948 and continuing to the present day. It also enables him to exclude what people on both sides of the debate might call the "mother of all genocides," that in Europe from 1939 to 1945. In this 2007 blog post, Herman dismisses Paul Rassinier and Arthur Butz as "cranks," perhaps to mollify the terrible forces massed in defense of the Holocaust legend, but to my reading leaving open the possibility that with that word, he expresses not his own verdict, but rather the comparative impotence of these writers vis-à-vis popular opinion.
Despite his ducking the seminal instance of his subject, Herman's study and commentary are of great relevance also to people who do not regard Rassinier and Butz as cranks.
Monday, September 26, 2011
"Any expression of racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust have no place in our movement."
Notice how "intolerance" and "deny or minimize the Holocaust" are put in the same sentence, in this case without quite saying that they are the same thing. Clever.
Affiliated with the PSC? Run afoul of this proscription, and those two unrelated things may come crashing together - with your name right in the space between them.
The Nakba, of course, remains fair game - deny and minimize all you like.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
By Jeffrey Goldberg
Sep 23 2011,
Gilad Atzmon is a jazz saxophonist who lives in London and who has a side gig disseminating the wildest sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He is an ex-Israeli and a self-proclaimed "self-hater" who traffics in Holocaust denial and all sorts of grotesque, medieval anti-Jewish calumnies. Here is a small sample of his lunatic thoughts:
I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.
Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents' plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity...
...The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Gregory Yee, Editor in Chief
The New University
26 September 2011
To the Editor:
Responding politely to our applications to buy a small ad in your newspaper, New U’s Advertising Manager Natasha Monnereau wrote, “We are unable to accept requests having any association with Bradley Smith.” In another, she included a full copy of New U’s advertising policy, which emphasizes your right to reject any advertisement that doesn’t suit you, but leaves unmentioned your right to accept advertising that might not suit other powers holding sway over your publication.
Powers, for example, like the Anti-Defamation League and the Hillel Foundation. Perhaps Natasha, or even your entire staff, have already received a friendly warning from a representative of your campus chapter of the Hillel Foundation, in accordance with the instructions on Page 16 of the ADL/Hillel publication “Preventing Holocaust Denial on Campus: A Manual for Action.” Those instructions include marching orders for keeping ads from my Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH) out of your paper, and in the event one slips through, how to punish those who have allowed it to happen.
The Manual is a remarkable document. You can inspect it at http://tinyurl.com/3s5czz7 to see what fate you have been spared. You are, for whatever reason, punctilious about complying with the censorship imposed by the terms of this Manual, and to my mind this raises the question as to whether you comply with it when you make editorial decisions as well. That question will be answered, of course, if you fail to carry this letter in your pages as a letter to the editor.
In any case, New U continues to support the interests of
The Great Seal of UC Irvine displays the uplifting motto, “Let There Be Light.” I regret that your paper does not better uphold it.
Bradley R Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA. 92143
Desk: 209 682 5327
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
The Daily Trojan
University of Southern California
17 September 2011
To the Editor
The Daily Trojan does indeed provide protection. Its General Ad Policies recite the goal of “safeguarding USC’s Principles of Community,” in the copy kindly provided to the Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH) in rejecting the paid advertisement we sought to place in its pages.
In providing this protection, it also provided (unsought) protection to the student body from Open Debate of a body of history much called upon by the only nuclear power in the Middle East to claim over $3 billion per year of American taxpayers’ money, plus the additional billions paid to repressive client regimes in neighboring countries to bribe them to protect this invader in an area previously populated by Muslim Arabs.
And thus, it protects the USC community from the MTD (Mentally-Transmitted Disease) of an accurate understanding of the history upon which Israel excuses not only the bloody process by which it established itself in Palestine, but of the still-bloodier process by which it expands and tightens its hold on peoples (Jews and Arabs alike) under the guns of its American-supplied military supremacy.
Principles of Community? USC is home to students from Israel. It is home to students from Palestine and other Arab countries whose citizens appear to sympathize with the plight of Palestinians displaced (or slaughtered) by the Zionist project in Israel. USC is home to thousands of American students, many Jewish, most not, thoroughly schooled in the sanctity of this very “controversial” novelty on the soil of Palestine. Their schooling likewise, pursuant to the law in many of their states, instructed them prejudicially on Germans before and during World War II and Germany’s National Socialist regime that America and its allies “changed” through devastating force of arms. And it is home to Steven Spielberg’s monument to retributive hatred, the Shoah Foundation.
What Principle of Community, then, might it be that the Trojan is protecting by rejecting a text link that reads, “The Holocaust. The Power of Taboo” The link, of course, goes to the Web site of CODOH. Below you will find the link to the ADL/Hillel Manual For Action detailing how to prevent or punish college student newspapers for carrying ads from -- CODOH
I trust USC would—if it were aware of it—be grateful for the protection its Daily Trojan affords it. The young need protection. So they’ll march off to war when we tell them to.
On Principles of Community, of course.
Jett Rucker (American veteran, age 68)
THE ADL/HILLEL MANUAL FOR ACTION
CODOH’S FREE SPEECH RESPONSE
Thursday, September 15, 2011
by Jett Rucker
It’s a Plan. What to do if you care about Israel above anything else (über alles), and Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH), manages to get the student newspaper on your campus to carry one of his minimalist ads.
The Plan is disseminated through those outposts of subservience to Israel on American campuses, the chapters of the Hillel Foundation, and its goal is to prevent those few inquiring (young) minds on American campuses from prying into the factual basis of the story of the Holocaust (the Martyrdom of the Jews). Bradley Smith’s CODOH engages in the annoying practice of placing advertisements in campus newspapers that tempt respondents to be exposed to alternative views of the Story and the findings of (some, proscribed) investigators who have looked into the matter.
The investigators CODOH favors, undeniably, are those who attend primarily to “forensic” evidence—archaeology and documents from the period, much of it recorded by those (Germans) who are held to have perpetrated that Holocaust. Indeed, many of the investigators, though by no means all of them, are themselves Germans—all too young, of course, to have numbered among the perpetrators themselves.
Back to the campus newspapers. Hillel and its “big brother” in the larger society beyond the campus, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), somehow, react to such initiatives in a way that clashes conspicuously with the ostensible spirit of enlightenment at institutions of higher learning—that ideas are to be considered on their merits, and in particular, that allegations as to historical fact are to be considered on the basis of the evidence for or against them, with quality of evidence taking precedence over quantity, popularity, or the weight of coercion employed for their defense or enforcement. Examples such as that of Galileo are sometimes called upon to depict the dynamics in play in such cases.
Hillel and ADL, then, undertake to oppose these insidious little ads from CODOH not with rejoinders of facts, but rather with that essential tool of the Inquisition, charges of blasphemy (or, more recently, “hatred” of the victims or of those who today claim to be descended from them, or to run a country that “protects” them). Their Manual for Action encourages—in chilling detail—a confrontation of fact with “force” that would make Torquemada cheer. That is, the Manual at no point even admits any possibility of engaging Bradley Smith’s side with argumentation, fact-based, morality-based, or otherwise. It instructs in the methods of marshalling the force of institutionalized opinion against his invitation to partake of the fruit of knowledge—a modern-day reincarnation of the hoary sin of Blasphemy, resplendent in all the reeking Medieval rags of superstition and persecution for Wrong Thought.
Far be it from what any Jewish organization besides the Jewish Defense League would recommend to entail violence: the Manual even suggests that activists refrain from confiscating or destroying existing copies of a campus newspaper carrying an offending ad—leave this to the contrite perpetrators themselves as they come to grips with the enormity of the offense they have committed in light of the “firestorm” of official and popular rebuke, igniting which is the main focus of the instructions in the Manual. Let Jewish hands always remain clean, at least insofar as visible physical acts are concerned.
Meantime, those acts that are not necessarily visible to all remain at center stage: complain and threaten, and do it where it counts: with the Administration. This issue of visibility illuminates an interesting attribute of the Manual as it has thus far been distributed. It is, in all its repressive glory, visible to all on the Web site of the ADL. One might think, in view of its reason-phobic character, that it might have been distributed to its adherents as at least a semi-secret communiqué—something short of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, for example, but nonetheless discreet to at least some extent.
But no. It’s There for All to See on the ADL Web site, at least for now. And in the thoughtful, such as your correspondent is pleased to see himself, this raises a question: why so public about all this? Two possibilities come to the mind of your thoughtful, but cynical, correspondent: first, that the instigators of the Manual are so filled with a self-impression of such unimpeachable, universal righteousness that they have no inkling of the crime against thought (not to be confused with thought-crime) they are committing; and second, that they are so grossly overfunded for their obsolete mission of combating anti-Semitism that they must contrive even this improbable project as a means of creating the impression that they are putting their surfeit of pelf to good use despite the paucity of targets against which they could direct it. Take your pick. Maybe it’s both, but in either case, it’s grotesque, when you step back to contemplate it.
The treatment it advocates for Bradley Smith’s invitations to inquiry does, indeed, imply some sort of criminal intent in the advertiser, despite the fact that there is as yet in the United States no official thought-crime on the books such as stops the mouths, if not the minds, of Germans, Austrians, Swiss, French, and people in a growing list of countries headed, of course, by Israel.
The matter at issue in the case of CODOH’s paid advertisements in student newspapers is a slight twist of the standard issue of freedom of speech for students (and faculty) on campus. It has, rather, to do with freedom of hearing or, more broadly, freedom of information (including “lies,” notwithstanding the protestations of Hillel/ADL). Censorship by the university administration is still censorship even when it is inspired by the righteous indignation of Hillel and ADL, and just as well for a paid advertisement as for any other part of the newspaper.
Wrapping itself in sheep’s clothing, the Manual cleverly couches its assault on students’ informational rights in terms of those very rights, diverting attention by urging its executors to remind student editors that they have the right to reject any advertisement that agents provocateurs like ADL/Hillel may make it too uncomfortable for them to carry. And they certainly do, but naturally ADL/Hillel make every exertion to avoid the obvious implication that rejection of a free-information-proffering ad such as CODOH’s itself limits the rights of the readership to receive information, not to mention the newspaper’s right to collect the admittedly minor fees that CODOH always pays up front. Propaganda is always about controlling the subject.
The Manual at no point discloses the ulterior motive of its campaign, which is, ever and always, suppressing criticism of the actions of the state that excuses its very existence on a sort of restitution for the “Holocaust” visited upon Jews and other enemies of Nazism in
The “profound impact” referred to in this passage not only includes dissemination of a thorough whitewash of Israel and its actions in the real world, but suppression of any inquiry into those portions of history that happen to bear on its founding mythology and the basis of ongoing excusal of the depredations it continues to commit on those peoples and countries with which it shares the world.
Inevitably and vociferously, it conflates CODOH’s opposition to suppression of free expression into hatred of a people and/or a religious group. This shrill calumny, long the stock in trade of parties who have no substantive argument to mount in their own defense, is wearing thin.
Just how thin can be tellingly gauged from the laundry list of repressive, vengeful, fearsome list of measures detailed in the forty pages of the ADL/Hillel Manual for Action.