Thursday, September 12, 2013

Abraham Foxman and the Syrian Gassings

Abraham Foxman, National Director
Anti-Defamation League
605 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10158-3560
(212) 885-7700,

12 September 2013

Dear Mr. Foxman:

With regard to the recent killings by chemical weapon s in Syria, either by the Syrian State or others, you have been quoted as saying: “Our people have been exterminated by the use of gas. We cannot stand by without a reaction when we see gas being used to kill others.”

I am going to take it as a given that you would argue that it is wrong to “exterminate” others, no matter what weapon is used to accomplish the deed.

This suggests a question of some significance that, so far as I know, you have not addressed.

Each year during Passover, while the rescue of the Jews from Egypt is celebrated, the other half of the story is routinely ignored. The half that tells us how God “exterminated” all the first-born of the Egyptians on that dreadful night when he “passed over” the doors of the Jews. Countless thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of first-born Egyptian babies, children, youths, mothers—all the first-born of all the mothers and fathers throughout the land of Egypt--murdered.

While Passover has been celebrated for some 3,000 years, as it was this year, I am unaware that you, Mr. Foxman, have ever expressed any note of sympathy, or expressed any other reaction, to the horrors of what the Egyptian mothers and their first-born, who in almost all cases were innocent of all wrong-doing, suffered on that terrible night of mass extermination. Am I wrong about this?

Does it make all the difference to you, Mr. Foxman, that the “weapon” used to exterminate the Egyptian first-born was not “gas?” Please tell me what I’m missing here.

Thank you,

Bradley Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
POB 439016
San Ysidro, California  92413


Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Letter to the Chairperson of the HETI

Peter Cassells, Chairperson
Holocaust Education Trust Ireland
Clifton House
Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin 2
Tel: +353 1 6690593

29 August 2013

Dear Chairperson Cassells-

First, congratulations on your election as new Chairperson of HETI.

In November 2010 the Holocaust Education Trust held a conference entitled International Conference on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Since I am what you refer to as a “denier," I wanted to attend.  So did several other people with, what is correctly called, Revisionist views. I thought I might contribute a small bit to people's understanding of Revisionism if I spoke in support of the necessity, in a free society, of an open exchange of ideas in an environment of good will from that perspective. I noted that as it stood, the program would be the standard "one-sided presentation of anti-Revisionist Conferences." Unfortunately, I was correct.  Not much new at the Conference, let alone allowing a Revisionist to speak!  However, there is always a chance for understanding and dialogue to be opened between people of good faith.  That is why I am writing to you and to HETI trustees.

There are only a handful of Revisionist scholars around the world so it is rather amazing that expressing Revisionist ideas is a felony in many countries.  Revisionists are regularly censored, black-listed, physically attacked and harassed. Our views are regularly distorted, our goals regularly misrepresented. Unfortunately, HETI played its own part in this ugly story during its 2010 conference.

HETI announces that it wants to promote "a positive understanding of tolerance and diversity." With that welcome concept it occurs to me that you might be willing to start with HETI itself and turn away from the outright censorship of the 2010 HETI conference.  HETI could sponsor a lecture on Revisionism which actually allowed a Revisionist to speak. Or HETI could post a statement about Revisionism and Intellectual Freedom on its website allowing us to present our view of some of the many issues that should be addressed with regard to the orthodox history of the Holocaust.  I believe many at the conference would find it interesting and informative to hear such questions aired and to follow the discussion that would follow. Why would they not?

Because the only information you might have about "deniers" (a simple “slur”) is from the 2010 HETI conference, I would like to clarify what Revisionism is.  In 2010 I wrote, "Although it is standard practice to defame Revisionists as “anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda,” that is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of that history that 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. It can be argued that there is considerable research that supports this point of view."

The enemies of tolerance and diversity are not always the same. Nor are their targets. Surely, however, one certain sign of bigotry expresses itself in the unwillingness to listen to the other, or to even allow the other to speak. I hope to hear back from HETI on a small plan to allow Revisionists to present information and a perspective that were censored at the 2010 HETI conference.

Yours for tolerance and diversity,

David Merlin
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California
Tel:  209 682 5327


With the above letter to Chairperson Cassells, which we will have circulated to press in Ireland and throughout Great Britain, as well as to Holocaust Museums and centers nationwide in the U.S., we offer to improve the future image of HETI.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Scrutinizing Gas

Something about gas is . . . creepy. Often, you can't see it. Supposedly, you can't run from it (not so, but it can be hard to tell which way to run). If it "gets" you, it doesn't leave visible marks, whether it kills you or not (again, effectively not true, but particularly on survivors, the outward signs disappear pretty quickly).

In this article in the National Review, the writer scrutinizes pictorial and other published evidence connected with the recent deaths of women, children, and old people in Syria, and his analysis is informative and persuasive. If scrutiny of this kind had been allowed during and immediately after the times when the Germans are said to have gassed millions of Jews during World War II, the stories about gas chambers would never have gotten off the ground.

But the victims in Syria were Arabs, so we can talk about it without fear of having our books banned and getting thrown into jail.

It makes all the difference in the world.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

100 Years of Selective Agitation

If the Anti-Defamation League now celebrating its hundredth anniversary were true to its sweeping name, it would long since have joined Paul Rassinier, Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson and a host of others in opposing the Calumny of the Century against Germans. Hundreds of its victims were, like Leo Frank of the famous case that launched the ADL, hanged by lynch mobs wearing US, British, French and Soviet uniforms.

But slanders that serve agendas like Israel's and that of a powerful cabal of a minority of international Jewry live on, and on, and on. Thus, at the beginning of only the second century of ADL's eternal life, the organization "reinvents itself."

Wonder if they'll ever switch to a new victim, such as Muslims. Even if they do, they'll still hound Germans and Germany until neither exists anymore. But the ADL? It'll still exist.

Friday, August 23, 2013


Peter Black
Senior Historian
Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Tel: 202.479.9728

August 23, 2013

Dear Mr. Black:

On July 3, 2013 Mr. Bradley Smith wrote your office at the USHMM regarding the Rosenberg papers, asking, "Why do you not simply scan and post the documents publicly so that everyone who is interested in the matter can view and analyze them for themselves? Once that is completed, the papers can then be returned to the Rosenberg family, who appear to be the legal owners."

Because of the importance of the papers, it seemed a reasonable question. I note that the USHMM has not yet posted the documents but did add a webpage on the matter:
Your page claims that "The Museum is racing to rescue the evidence of the Holocaust."

Ok. That’s good. Now why don't you simply share that evidence with the public?

Unfortunately, the new webpage does not give any additional information on the relevant papers. Instead, its purpose appears to be to whitewash the actions of the man who filched the evidence from the Court, Robert Kempner. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's webpage on the Rosenberg Papers states,

"Dr. Robert M.W. Kempner was a German lawyer who fled Germany for the United States during the war. At the conclusion of the war, Kempner served as the deputy chief counsel and was the chief prosecutor in the ‘Ministries Case’ at the Nuremberg Trials. In this role, Kempner had access to seized Nazi documents in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. government. At the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, Kempner returned to the United States and lived in Lansdowne, Pa. Contrary to law and proper procedure, Kempner removed various documents, including the Rosenberg Diary, from U.S. government facilities in Nuremberg and retained them until his death in 1993.”

Your website says, "Kempner received permission from the Office of the Chief of Counsel of War Crimes to retain unclassified documents 'for purposes of writing, lecturing and study.’ “This appears to be contrary to all protocol regarding evidence collected in a criminal prosecution, and it is contradicted by the comments of the ICE itself. But the use of quotation marks implies that there was a written document authorizing Mr. Kempner's removal of documents. Was there? Please respond to this question. Was the Museum, or was it not, quoting a particular document?

If this document exists, it could also provide an insight into what other evidence Mr. Kempner took from the Court files. Your webpage admits: "He returned home with an unknown number of documents in his possession." We believe we know that Kempner destroyed evidence favorable to the defendants, specifically the important Schlegelberg Memo of March 1942. What other evidence did Kempner take? Why did he take it? The other "unknown number of documents" could be of even greater importance than the papers written by Rosenberg!

We at CODOH thank those at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's branch, Homeland Security Investigations, for saving the Rosenberg papers. We encourage them to continue with this important investigation of other stolen and destroyed evidence; not only the evidence taken by Mr. Kempner, but all documents and records improperly taken from the Court files.

In the meantime, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum should expeditiously scan and post the entire collection of the Rosenberg Papers and break the miasma of obscurity which has haunted these Papers for 70 years.


David Merlin,
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
Post Office Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA 92143

Telephone:  209 682 5327

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Interview with Chip Smith on Revisionism

First Published in Counter-Currents Publishing

by Greg Johnson

My interview with Chip Smith of Nine-Banded Books continues with a discussion on historical revisionism, particularly Holocaust revisionism, and the works of three of his authors, Bradley Smith, L. A. Rollins, and Samuel Crowell. 

What is your take on revisionism?

In an important sense, I think revisionism simply refers to the ongoing process of investigating and interpreting history. It’s like when we were kids and we learned that Pluto was the ninth planet from the sun. Now it’s just a rock, or a proto-planet, or whatever. Only I just read where they've discovered that Pluto has moons. Does that mean it will be promoted to planet status again? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Notwithstanding a few matters of seismically politicized controversy, where science is concerned most of us live with a tacit understanding that correction, or even upheaval, is part of the process, that new discoveries can supplement or overturn a given theoretical framework that’s been rehearsed in textbooks for decades or more. Once in a while this will manifest in a full-on paradigm shift, and most of us layfolk are yet resigned to adjust our understanding perforce, even if it takes a while. I still have fun arguing with people who believe that peptic ulcers are caused by stress.

When it comes to history, however, people feel a kind of personal investment in the fixed narrative. This fealty can be intensely partisan, and it often comes with deep cultural and emotional moorings, as was evidenced by the recent row over the discovery of the skeletal remains of King Richard III. Such sentiments may be understandable, but they are often at odds with the scholarly enterprise of history, which, like a proper scientific discipline, favors continual revision.

Of course, when most people think of historical revisionism, they have in mind something different. Rather than being rooted in disinterested investigation and interpretation, the kind of revisionism that typically arouses suspicion or hostility has a dissident character that tends—or seeks—not to merely supplement a standing historical narrative but to uproot and replace it with a radically different historical counter-narrative.

This has always been the sticking point with Zinn’s labor-centric alternative history of the United States, to cite one well-known and acceptably controversial example. There are countless other examples of “dissident” revisionism that we could mention without being kicked off the reservation: Windschuttle’s study of the Tasmanian genocide, Michelle Malkin’s defense of Japanese internment during the Second World War, David Graeber’s contrarian study of the roots of money and debt, as well in their general drift as works by Tom Woods, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and the granddaddy of American revisionism, Harry Elmer Barnes.

I think there’s also a meta-revisionist cast to the neoreactionary cultural critique that Mencius Moldbug keeps annotating, and I would say the same regarding Errol Morris’s investigative studies of iconic photojournalism.

In a similar sense, I would say that a nascent strain of dissident revisionism can be detected in a spate of recent books that question aspects of the “Good War” and the corresponding mythos of the “Greatest Generation.” Here I would mention Mary Louise Roberts’ What Soldiers Do, Charles Glass’s The Deserters, and, tracking back a bit further, Nicholson Baker’s Human Smoke (which I reviewed for Inconvenient History).

Properly understood, Holocaust revisionism—which I suspect is really what you’re asking about—draws on elements of positivist (or disinterested) historical revisionism along with more motivated (or dissident) currents. I find the subject fascinating not least because of the unique aura of taboo—and the very real threat of prosecution (and persecution)—that surrounds it, but also because it is one of very few areas I can think of where the intellectual substance of a body of scholarship exists at such stark remove from public understanding. I’m loath to even discuss the controversy on interpersonal terms because there are vast swaths of misapprehension and bad faith to be overcome before you even get to the point of rational disagreement. And there’s a very real possibility that you'll lose friends in the process.

So, with that much as backmatter, I guess I might offer my take on Holocaust revisionism in the following way.

First, I think it is well to note that the subject comes with a long pedigree; that is, for as long as the “court narrative” of Nazi atrocity has been codified, there have been scholars who have professed skepticism about certain elements of the orthodox account. ...

Friday, August 9, 2013

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

First Published in
Radical Press

The Trial of Guenter Deckert 

by Sylvia Stolz 

(English translation by Christine B. Miller)  

"A prison sentence will not force me into believing." 
~ Guenter Deckert

"When I have doubts I demand the right to express them ...They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition.  ... The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason."

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. 

We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Letter to Senior Historian Peter Black, USHMM

Peter Black
Senior Historian
Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Tel: 202.479.9728

01 August 2013

Dear Mr. Black:

Mr. Johannes Pfaeffle forwarded to CODOH your answer to his request for the name, with proof, of one person gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. You gave the name Else Ury and wrote,

"We know that Else Ury went to Auschwitz-Birkenau, because her name appears on a transport list with more than 1100 others deported from Berlin to Auschwitz-Birkenau on January 12, 1943. We know that she did not survive selection upon arrival because her name does not appear in the prisoner registry."

You also wrote, "Else Ury was one of 1,196 German Jews deported from Berlin to Auschwitz on January 13, 1943.”

We at CODOH understand that you receive a great number of inquires ranging from simple to complex. We also believe that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has a duty to provide accurate information to the public. We would respectfully share our concerns with your answer regarding the fate of Else Ury.

The Yad Vashem lists Else Ury five times in their Central Database of Shoah Victims' names. Quote: "Else Ury was born in 1877. Prior to WWII she lived in Berlin, Germany. Else was murdered/perished in Auschwitz, Poland. This information is based on a List of murdered Jews from Germany found in Gedenkbuch - Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945, Bundesarchiv (German National Archives), Koblenz 1986."

First, we note a conflict between your statement that “1196 German Jews (were) deported from Berlin to Auschwitz-Birkenau on January 12, 1943" and the report of Danuta Czech in Auschwitz Chronicle that a transport from Berlin arrived at Auschwitz on January 13, 1943 with one thousand (1,000) men, women and children on it. This suggests that 196 persons may have been taken off of the Auschwitz transport.

We also note that there were numerous transports of Jewish deportees from Berlin to Theresienstadt in 1943. These transports carried thousands of people and oftentimes included prominent older German Jews, like Else Ury. One such transport from Berlin went to Theresienstadt on January 12, 1943, the day that Else Ury was deported. It was transport I/80 and carried 105 people.

On another level, it appears that your claim that all people arriving at Auschwitz-Birkenau who were not entered into the Camp Registry were gassed has been shown to be incorrect. Specific examples are Anne Frank, her mother Edith, and sister Margot. They all arrived at Birkenau on September 5, 1944, were not registered into the camp and were not murdered. Instead, Anne and Margot lived in Birkenau and then were moved to Bergen-Belsen Camp, probably on October 28, 1944. Edith Frank was never registered at Auschwitz but died there in January 1945. This was not an uncommon pattern. There were clearly large numbers of unregistered detainees at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Danuta Czech writes, "The separate section of Camp B-IIe for unregistered male and female Jews, Camp B-IIc, and Section B-III (Mexico) are referred to in camp documents as the so-called 'Auschwitz II Transit Camp.' Female Jews without numbers are referred to in the camp records as "transit Jews." See: Auschwitz Chronicle, pg. 565

We also know that, starting in February 1943, Camp B-IIe became a Family camp, mainly for Roma but seemingly for other unregistered detainees. Danuta Czech writes: "By the end of 1943 a total of 18,736 men, women, and children are imprisoned here” [Camp B-IIe] Ibid. pg. 295. We also know that tens of thousands of detainees left Auschwitz. The Auschwitz State Museum website states: "About 135,000 Jews were transferred to other camps as part of the distribution of labor resources and the final liquidation of the camp." In fact, the figure of people who were transferred to other camps from Auschwitz may well be closer to 250,000.

These figures seem to eliminate any certainty that arrival at Auschwitz meant death, or that being unregistered meant being gassed. Also relative to your claim that Else Ury was murdered by gas at Auschwitz, it is worth noting that the crematorium buildings at Birkenau (which are alleged to have been gas chambers) were not completed until March 22, 1943—at the earliest.

Else Ury was a prominent and talented writer. It appears certain that she did not survive World War II and it appears she was deported from Berlin on January 12, 1943. For the reasons given above, we feel that it is improper for you to cite her as a "victim of the gas chambers."


David Merlin, CODOH
Post Office Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA  92143
209 682 5327

Swiss Court Sentences Frank Brunner to Jail for Revisionist Thought Crimes

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thanks for your mail.

On July 31, 2013, I was sentenced to 6 months prison with suspended sentence for 3 years. This means that during 3 years, if I do something wrong again, I’ll go to jail for those 6 months. And, according to the court, I shall not write anything about Israel, the Jewish lobby or the Jews, until the federal court of Switzerland has judged the case. After one and half months in jail, I was set free by the court at the end of the trial.

I was sentenced for discrimination (critics of the Jews and denial of the holocaust), calumny (my lawyer hadn't produced for the court any of the documentary evidence I wanted to show about the true nature of my reports, therefore I had nothing to support my plea and this was a kind of betrayal), obstruction of an official act (I had spit on the face of a prosecutor after she had ordered policemen to search me nude, without reason).

At court I said that I was sure that the revisionists are right about the holocaust and the gas chambers. I wanted to produce, among other evidence, the two headstones of Auschwitz, one that read 4 million victims and the other about 1,5 million victims. I also wished to provide reproductions of newspaper reports about the 6 million Jews between 1905 and 1938. I was unable to provide anything, thanks to my lawyer.

Another blunder of a previous lawyer had serious consequences for me. This lawyer told me that some of my writings about the Jews were unlawful because when someone writes "the Jews are this, the Jews do that", it means that you point to all Jews indiscriminately. This is discrimination according to the Swiss law. The lawyer told me that I should write instead "a big part of the Jews", and then my writings would be lawful. The point is to show that you don't throw all Jews into the same dump.

Therefore, I quickly imagined a "magic paragraph" in which I noticed the small minority of Jews who stand up against Israel and the Jewish lobby and themselves endure persecutions because of that. According to my previous lawyer, with this "magic paragraph" at the end of it, any of my writings would become lawful. Therefore I added this "magic paragraph" to all my writings and then I sent those corrected writings to my lawyer. He had to check them and, if he was satisfied, he had then to send them to the court. But it seems that he forgot to do it. My last lawyer said that when he checked the file at the court, my corrected writings weren't there and he had to bring them himself.

If this is confirmed, it means that neither the judge or the prosecutor had received a copy of my corrected writings when I believed that they had gotten them. I took for granted that my previous lawyer had sent those writings shortly after having gotten them from me. Therefore, since there was no reaction from the judge or the prosecutor about my corrected writings, I became confident that they were satisfied with my corrections and that the problem was over. If they had been unsatisfied, they would have written me and explained to me what was still wrong, or I would have thought so.

So, imagine my astonishment at court when the prosecutor and the judge said that my corrected writings were still unlawful, that I should have made additional corrections, and so on. If they had explained that to me a few months earlier, I could have fixed the issue before the trial. Instead, I was stigmatized as the guy who does not care about the law, who spit on the face of a prosecutor, who did only "cosmetic" changes to his unlawful writings. I was the nazi on duty willing to cause a new genocide. Fortunately, the prosecutor was there to protect the Jews from people like me.

The fact that I had been jailed just a month and half before the trial didn't help me either. There in prison I did not have even a copy of my file, and I did not have one in the court either. I had to work just with my memory. The case involved about 60 of my writings, so you can imagine.

Since English isn't my mother language, please correct the mistakes I have done in my report.



(Note: the language in Mr. Brunner’s letter has been lightly edited.)

Web Site (French Language):

Sunday, August 4, 2013

The Two Sides of Dershowitz's Mouth

Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has amassed for himself a formidable reputation as a pronouncer of learned views on legal matters, but his reputation for objectivity may not hold up so well under scrutiny.

He recently declaimed, as he seems to roughly annually, on the unlikelihood of Israeli atomic spy Jonathan Pollard's being able to repeat his crime if he is released from the life sentence he is currently serving for his crime. This hard-to-counter observation, he then deftly converts into an argument for Pollard's release from prison.

As for other persons accused of crimes that were not crimes in the places and at the times they were allegedly committed - say, a putative guard at a German concentration camp such as John Demjanjuk, Dershowitz displays no interest in the accused's ability to revisit his crimes upon a defenseless world. At the time Dershowitz lamented the portions of John Demjanjuk's life that he did not spend in jail for a "crime" in which he neither killed nor hurt anyone, Demjanjuk was 92 years old, and in possession of no capacity whatsoever to take part in any "Holocaust" real or imagined. But no mercy from the eminent oracle of justice for any person so charged, regardless of the quality of the evidence or the antiquity of the offenses.

Demjanjuk was accused - and acquitted - of guarding a camp in which Germany detained criminals, enemy agents, and perhaps racial undesirables during a war for its existence, some 70 years ago. Pollard willingly and under no duress conveyed secret information to a country other than the one (the US) he was employed by and was a citizen of, enabling this other country to develop weapons of mass destruction that have threatened its region in all the time since, up to and including now.

Dershowitz may see the cases as different, as indeed the charges and the quality and quantity of the proofs of them truly are. But the sides he comes down on between them are far better explained by his tribal loyalties than they are by any principles of law or justice.

Monday, July 29, 2013

New at Elie Wiesel Cons The World: Adventures in Buchenland

Elie’s Adventures in Buchenland

By Carolyn Yeager

“How puzzling all these changes are! I’m never sure what I’m going to be, from one minute to another.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

Introduction: In Elie Wiesel’s book Night, we find the scenario and characters changing often, and in many cases, with little rhyme or reason that is apparent to the reader. One easily concludes that, like Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, it is a work of absurdity.

In Lewis Carroll’s classic, nothing makes sense because nothing has to make sense – the intention was to be a “childish” type of foolishness or make-believe from the start. It is an example of literary nonsense (1) genre. Interestingly, we find similar examples of nonsense and absurdity in many of the stories and writings of self-proclaimed “holocaust survivors” – and we put Elie Wiesel into this category. This is why Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is such a good fit for a parody of Elie Wiesel’s Night.

Cast of Characters:

Elie = Elie Wiesel
White Rabbit = Ken Waltzer
Father = no such person has been found
The King and Queen of Hearts = SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV)
The Duchess = Hilda Wiesel
The Cheshire Cat =Carolyn Yeager
The March Hare = Antonin Kalina, Czech communist block leader
The (Mad) Hatter = Gustav Schiller, Polish Jew block leader
Elie is quite bored one warm afternoon at the Jewish orphan’s mansion in France where he lives. This is not unusual for Elie, who has absolutely nothing to do all day but play chess or study the Talmud and other holy texts of which he is known to be almost fanatically fond.  Today, though, no one was around the chess table that had been set up outdoors under a large tree, and Elie becomes a bit dreamy, maybe even sleepy. His is suddenly brought wide-awake again when he sees a White Rabbit run by, looking at his pocket watch and muttering “Oh dear, oh dear, I’m going to be late!”

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The Jerusalem branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center plans to unveil posters in three German cities to trace the last surviving Nazi death camp guards

NOTE: The current spectacle of a man-hunt for war veterans in their nineties for alleged crimes against humanity (i.e. crimes against Jews), never established but only vaguely outlined by hearsay (see the Demjanjuk case), highlights the disappearance of our value of justice, sucked into the black hole of "the Holocaust", and on into oblivion. A practice unimaginable a mere generation ago is fully accepted today thanks to general re-education, permitted without the least resistance on the part of those in responsible positions.

Such persons, instead of allowing an honest discussion of what happened to Europe's Jews during that now distant war before letting the now omnipresent Holocaustic perversion of society take root, without fail put respect for a noxious taboo above all else and so have left Talmudic law free to rule, in their own countries and in others. An abominable dereliction of duty! Thus former camp guards, members of "a criminal organization" (as the SS was defined by criminals calling themselves "the Allies"), have to be tracked down to the ends of the Earth till the end of time. Thus Captain Erich Priebke will turn 100 on July 29) in home imprisonment in Rome, although in 1996 Italian justice, ruling in a new trial for the German anti-terrorism reprisals carried out in the Ardeatine caves in 1944, ordered his release.

Respect for a soldier's duty to obey his superiors? Not for the goyim, not even in wartime! Not when Wiesenthal & Co. do not approve. Statute of limitations? Not for the goyim, not any longer. Incidentally, how many former Israeli soldiers have been troubled by the courts for their past killings of unarmed Arabs?

People who do nothing, who look on with indifference in the face of this barbarity have no right to complain about society's degeneration, about our ongoing backward evolution under Holocaustic authority.

Poster search for last Nazi guards in Germany

The Jerusalem branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center plans to unveil posters in three German cities to trace the last surviving Nazi death camp guards. Rewards are to be offered for leads from the public.

The Jerusalem-based director of the Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center, Efraim Zuroff, told the German newspaper WAZ on Saturday that he believed that about 60 former Nazi death camp guards were still alive, "the majority in Germany."
The Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ), published in the Ruhr District city of Essen, quoted Zuroff as saying 6,000 guards worked 70 years ago at camps where Hitler's regime murdered six million Jews across Europe.

The posters, carrying the words "late, but not too late", will be displayed in Berlin, Hamburg and Cologne and show in black and white the rail entrance to the notorious Birkenau camp, near Auschwitz, in formerly occupied Poland.

Rewards worth up to 25,000 euros ($32,800) would be offered to informants.

Zuhoff told the news agency Reuters that the center had been encouraged by the arrest in Germany in May of Hans Lipschis, a 93-year-old suspected former Auschwitz guard.

Another boost was the war crimes case brought recently against 98-year-old former Nazi-era police officer Laszlo Csatary in his native Hungary.
Csatary, who fled to Canada after the war, ran a transit camp, from where 12,000 Jews were sent to their deaths, in Kosice in present-day Slovakia.

Demjanjuk case set new criteria

Impetus for new investigations in Germany came in 2011 when a Munich court convicted the Ukrainian-born former Sobibor death camp guard John Demjanjuk. He died in March last year, aged 91.       DW.DE

Posted by “N”

New Film tries to wash away the myth that Germans made soap out of Jews. Why?

An Israeli film maker who is admittedly "obsessed" with the Holocaust is finally putting to rest the urban myth that the Germans used the remains of Jewish bodies to create bars of soap.

“Soaps,” a new film by director Eyal Ballas, 43, finds that the soap myth originated in World War I, when Germans were rumored to be turning bodies into a cleaning product. Of course, Ballas blames the Germans for reviving the ugly story, claiming that "SS guards would harass concentration camp members by threatening to kill them and turn them into soap."

In fact, The Crazy Soap Myth was promoted at the Nuremberg Trials. L. N. Smirnov, Chief Counselor of Justice for the USSR, declared to the Tribunal:

"... The same base, rationalized SS technical minds which created gas chambers and murder vans, began devising such methods of complete annihilation of human bodies, which would not only conceal the traces of their crimes, but also to serve in the manufacturing of certain products. In the Danzig Anatomical Institute, semi-industrial experiments in the production of soap from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for industrial purposes were carried out."

The focus of the tale was the Dazing Anatomical Institute. The Institute was the major source of skeletons for universities and schools. It appears that 100 to 200 bodies were used for that purpose yearly. Bodies were de-fleshed in large vats. Soviet investigators took the fatty mixture of human material left in the vats and presented it to the Tribunal as "soap.”

A picture of the gray disgusting material referred to as “soap.” (See exhibit USSR-393). It is totally unsuitable for cleaning anything. In fact, it would be a source of contamination wherever and upon whatever it was used.

The Soviets also claimed to have found a "human soap recipe" pinned to the wall of a German office. The True-Believer Nizkor (We will remember!) Web site, with one of the most remarkably crazy tales of the Holocaust story, quotes from a movie allegedly presented at Nuremberg.

"That day the blinding artificial lights were turned off in the courtroom, plunging it almost into darkness. In the wavering dim light the witness box was occupied by corpses…. The art of the courageous Soviet documentary film makers (some of whom are no longer alive) resurrected these corpses and brought them into the courtroom. It was as if they had risen from the grave and were hurling indisputable evidence in the defendant's faces. .. “

Ya think?

Friday, July 19, 2013

USHMM Does Revisionism - VERY Cautiously

It seems that some revisionists are able to get the USHMM to revise their story - or, in this case, to defrock a former saint of theirs. This New York Times article reports USHMM's and other Holocaust shrines' actions in the evolving case of "Italy's Schindler," Giovanni Palatucci, heretofore enshrined for his wartime efforts in saving Jews in the Italian entrepot of Fiume.

The words at the very end of the article of Natalia Idrimi, director of the Primo Levi Center, on this occasion are truly haunting:
What matters is that this data can no longer be ignored.
One wonders just how far they and the rest of the Holocaust lobby might eventually be moved to go with such a sentiment ...

Monday, July 8, 2013

Police State: MY, How You've Grown

Yesterday's op ed by Daniel Ellsberg (of 1971 Pentagon Papers fame) provided a stunning retrospective on what Ellsberg calls the "different America" that dealt with him 40 years ago vis-a-vis the America that NSA Leaker Edward Snowden faces today for having committed "crimes" very similar to those committed by Ellsberg. The effect of the comparison on me, already adult by 1971, was stunning. Those not yet of age by that time face a greater challenge in being so stunned, but I strongly recommend the out-of-body effort to every such person concerned with our shrinking latitude to express our views.

There is one sad corrective that must be made to the impression created by Ellsberg's invaluable article: the erosions of freedom of speech are in no way limited to America: they are world-wide. One needs only to consider that in 1971, none of the laws criminalizing Holocaust revisionism now defiling the societies of France, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria and Germany were in existence, other than the German laws punishing glorification of the National Socialist government of 1933-1945, which is still in effect.

Come to think of it, the Swiss Jürgen Graf, persecuted in his home country for "Holocaust denial," has had to exile himself to Russia, the very country in which Edward Snowden was holed up at last report. Russia, land of the free?

Friday, July 5, 2013

An Open Letter to the President of Georgetown University re The Jan Karski Institute

President John J. DeGioia

Office of the President

Georgetown University
204 Healy Hall
37th & "O" Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20057-1789
Fax: (202) 687-6660

Chief of Staff: Joseph A. Ferrara

05 July 2013

Dear President DeGioia:

It has occurred to me to wonder if you are unaware of at least some of the compromising realities underlying the Georgetown University’s Jan Karski Institute. If you are, the following missive might serve as an introduction to the matter for you and those in your office. I believe we would all agree that ideally the university is about things other than fundraising, no matter what guise it comes in.

By July 1943 then, America had been shipping its treasure and treasured youth away to death and destruction toward both east and west for over a year and a half in torrents never before witnessed in the annals of war. At that moment, Jan Karski first set foot on our beleaguered shores with a message dire with horror and hurry: those Nazis are killing Europe’s Jews by the millions using methods so calculatedly cruel as to be unbelievable! America must immediately redouble its already Herculean efforts to drive the Germans out of the countries they had conquered (Karski’s own first among them).

In fact, when he buttonholed leading Jewish American Felix Frankfurter with his tales of mass torture and slaughter, the famous jurist, a long-time witness from his bench to impassioned pleas of every stripe imaginable, concluded “I do not believe you.” And in this case, as in so many other cases in judgment of which he sat, he was correct: the witness, in his deceitful campaign to pour oil on the fire already then consuming America’s lifeblood, was exaggerating well past the point of perjury.

In the name of this adjudged false witness, now, Georgetown University’s Jan Karski Institute for Holocaust Education proudly reprises his beating of the war drums with a talk by acquitted libeler Deborah Lipstadt titled “The Eichmann Trial,” after the 1961 show trial in Israel attendant to the illegal kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina and his subsequent hanging at the hands of his abductors. It promises to be a celebration of the bloody vengeance wreaked on Germans and Germany for lo, these 68 years so far, with no end to the gore-worshipping festivities yet in sight.

This educational institute named after an outside agitator who during his histrionic career switched between anti-Communist and anti-anti-Semite as the winds of fortune happened to dictate throughout its five decades, served, like Elie Wiesel at Boston University, as a money magnet for Georgetown University during his tenured life, and continues after death to serve this function while at the same time perpetuating the calumny that has dogged the German people ever since the jaws of the Soviet-American vise closed on their country in 1945. Featured Speaker Deborah Lipstadt bears her own crushing burdens of mendacity and avarice as she mounts the podium of defamation this month at the Catholic institution of higher learning in our nation’s capitol.

Would that somehow, the Mossad of some young, faraway theocracy might capture her before then, bundle her off in the night to its waiting aircraft at a secret airstrip, from there to fly her to its homeland, and there to “try” her, before the media of the world, for her own crimes of deceit, defamation and incitement, and as well the manifold crimes committed by her comrades-in-arms, starting with the Courier of Hate, Jan Kozielewski, today feted under his alias, Jan Karski.

Bradley Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Letter to USHMM re Rosenberg Diary

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW
Washington, DC 20024-2126

03 July 2013

Attention: Senior Advisor on Archives, Henry Mayer

Dear Senior Advisor Mayer-

I am writing with regard to documents that were taken from the Nuremberg International War Crimes Tribunal by the American Prosecutor Robert Kempner. It has been reported that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum "senior archivist," Henry Mayer, believes these writings could be the most revealing Nazi documents ever found.

Since Robert Kempner is suspected of the spoliation of evidence favorable to the Nuremberg defendants, since the documents have been reported as having been illegally taken by a Mr. Herbert Warren Richardson, and since earlier press releases describe the "diary as various pages, some not in Mr. Rosenberg's handwriting. Most entries are written in Rosenberg’s looping cursive, some on paper torn from a ledger book and others on the back of official Nazi stationary." Many people will be confused as to what papers were recovered by the government, what documents might not have been recovered, and what the relationship is between the various pages.

It is also being reported that "Mayer explained to this reporter that he was not given enough time to read any diary entry from beginning to end, but that he peeked into them and "arranged" them. He is convinced that scholars will find them "very important" and that the papers will open new avenues of research. He suggested that the documents will offer revelations. But, Mayer noted to the press, it may take a long time, possibly years, for scholars to complete their analyses of the diaries."

Given the years of manipulation, dishonesty, and secrecy surrounding these important papers, I respectfully suggest that we do not need you to "arrange" them before all else. What would be most open and honest would be for you to scan and post all the pages you have obtained so that all who are interested can read them. The documents will speak for themselves. We do not need you to control the documents and to keep them secret while "scholars complete their analysis."

Weeks have already passed since possession of the documents was gained. Press conferences have been held. Why do you not simply scan and post the documents publicly so that everyone who is interested in the matter can view and analyze them for themselves? Once that is completed, the papers can then be returned to the Rosenberg family, who appear to be the legal owners.

For Open discussion,

Bradley Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

NOTE: This letter was copied to 16 offices of the USHMM around the country.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Filched Rosenberg Diaries Recovered

Filched Rosenberg Diaries Recovered

The U.S. Government has announced the recovery of 400 pages from the long-lost diary of Alfred Rosenberg, a Reich minister who was convicted at Nuremberg and hanged in 1946. The announcement was accompanied by a cryptic statement prepared by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

"A cursory content analysis indicates that the material sheds new light on a number of important issues relating to the Third Reich's policy. The diary will be an important source of information to historians that compliments, and in part contradicts, already known documentation."

How the writings of Rosenberg might contradict already known documentation is unclear. Further details about the diary's contents could not be learned, and a U.S. government official stressed that the museum's analysis remains preliminary.

The Diaries had been held by the Nuremberg prosecution team. It now appears that they were swiped by US prosecutor Robert Kempner. Ironically, Rosenberg was charged with stealing cultural artifacts. There is also no mention of returning Mr. Rosenberg's papers to his family

David Irving blew the whistle on Kempner years ago.  "Well it was pretty clear (and he did not deny) that he had stolen the entire diary of Alfred Rosenberg from the Nuremberg archives and was retaining it as his private property. The Rosenberg Diaries are a fund of true information on Hitler and the Holocaust; they are of enormous importance -- but where are they now? We await an early answer from the Holocaust Memorial Museum." 

American prosecutor Robert Kempner
about the time he stole the documents. 1946
Kempner died in 1993 at age 93 and legal disputes about "his" papers raged for nearly a decade between his children, his former secretary, a local debris removal contractor and the Holocaust museum. Why a debris removal contractor was involved was not explained.

The Diaries consist of various papers written on the back of official stationary and on paper torn from a ledger book. The announcement also read, "Most entries are written in Rosenberg's looping cursive...,.No mention of who might have made additional entries and what they said was given.  How the various pages are connected chronologically was not revealed. It was not disclosed if there are any missing pages.

Why Kempner stashed Rosenberg's papers away for years was not disclosed either, but Kempner is credited as the "discoverer" of the draft memo presented at Nuremberg as the Wannsee Protocol.  More information may be announced this week at a news conference held jointly by officials from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Justice and Holocaust museum.

 Kempner was almost certainly responsible for the attempt to conceal the Schlegelberger document from posterity the March 1942 Schlegelberger Document, in which a hard-pressed Adolf Hitler ordered the postponement of the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem until after the war. (The document was missing from the five-item folder of photocopies, ND: 4025-PS, after he returned it to the Nuremberg Trial archives; fortunately the original folder was found intact thirty years later in the Federal Archives). Since Mr. Irving first published the document in Hitler's War, 1977, conformist historians have had a hard time explaining it away."

Monday, June 17, 2013

Now You See It, Now You Don’t. Maybe.

Jewish “eyewitnesses” to German monstrosity during WWII are oftentimes demonstrable liars and/or psychologically impaired in ways too obvious to deny. Other Jewish eyewitnesses tell stories that are largely true though in a context of German monstrosity that oftentimes cannot be shown to be true. There are old and very old Jewish women and men, oftentimes older than me, who go about the country talking to high school students and synagogue audiences remembering things sometimes the way it happened and sometimes in ways that it could not have happened.

When I read what these folk are saying, sometimes there is the suggestion that while what they are testifying to might be untrue, that they are not lying, that they have come to actually believe what they are saying. In short, they are “innocents” basing their stories on lies they heard years ago or on real memory that is not dependable. To that point, below are the opening sentences from my first book, Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist. They refer to an incident that took place one night in 1979 on the mezzanine of a Los Angeles Hotel during a convention being held by the Libertarian Party.

I PAUSED TO ACCEPT a photocopy of a newspaper article he was handing out when he quickly started telling me that the stories that six million Jews had been exterminated during World War II are not true.
I felt stunned, as if Buck Rogers had somehow come down from the 21st century and zapped me with a beam from his ray gun. I had heard about people like the little man who was confronting me, who deny that the Holocaust happened, but I had never actually seen one.

 He was a small, thin, middle-aged man with a white pointy beard, clear blue eyes and a ruddy complexion. The picture of health. He talked fast (though in a well-mannered, articulate way) as if he were afraid he would lose me.

In the first instant I didn’t truly grasp what he was saying; then I understood that he was telling me that there had been no Nazi gas chambers — none – that the stories I had heard all my life about the gas chambers were meant to gain sympathy for Jews at the expense of Germans. I felt my heart change its beat and pick up speed. I felt sweat appear on the palms of my hands.

Most of that story is true. One part is almost certainly not. The man who handed me the newspaper clipping was not a small man with a white pointy beard, clear blue eyes and a ruddy complexion. When David McCalden read what I had written he corrected me. He explained that the two men who handed out the Le Monde article by Robert Faurisson that afternoon and evening was himself and his friend John Bennett, an Australian. He said John Bennett didn’t look anything like the man I had described. I protested. I was certain about what the man looked like. He had stood there before me. I had seen him. I could still see him in my mind’s eye. McCalden laughed at me, insisted that it had to have been either himself or Bennett.

Sometime later, maybe a couple years, I met John Bennett at an IHR conference. He told me what McCalden had told me earlier. It was McCalden and he, Bennett, who had passed out that Faurisson article that day at the Libertarian convention. I was shaking my head “no.” We were both laughing. I was certain about what I had seen—the white pointy beard, bright blue eyes, the ruddy complexion. Nothing like the John Bennett who was there before me now. Later on I was to record an interview with Bennett while driving him someplace and we went over the story again. It was he, not a man with a white pointy beard and the rest of it.

The story had gotten to the place where I was forced to understand that in all likelihood my memory of my encounter with the man in question was not accurate. That it was false. But how could that be? I had nothing to gain from this false memory. Yet to this day, when I recall the incident, now accepting the fact that the man who gave me the Le Monde article was John Bennett, in my mind’s eye I still see the man with the white pointy beard, the clear blue eyes and the ruddy complexion. I accept the fact that it is an instance of false memory. I have no idea why the brain produced that false image in the first place, what possible reason there could be for memory to persist with it.

With this one example of false memory, I place myself in the company of those Holocaust survivors who themselves are plagued with false memory. Filip Mueller might truly have “seen” buckets of human flesh jump about on the floor of German hospitals. Yankiel Wiernik may have truly seen, in his mind’s eye, the fetuses of Jewish ladies burning like torches in their exploded wombs. How could they ever forget such sights? How could they ever be convinced, once they had “seen” such sights, that they did not “see” them? If I could see a man with a white pointy beard who did not exist, in place of the man who did and was there before me, could not Mueller and Wiernik and a boatload of other such Holocaust eyewitness crazies have actually seen what they claim to have seen?

What I am getting at here is that human memory sometimes recalls what truly happened, even about Germans, and sometimes it recalls something else. That being so, it is of some import for me to keep in mind that I share with even the craziest Holocaust survivor eyewitnesses a faculty that is imperfect, one that sometimes recalls with great clarity something that happened, and other times with great clarity something that did not happen. Another suggestion to the effect that we are all in this together, revisionists and True Believers alike.