Dedicated to Ernst Zündel - Prisoner of Conscience
The concepts expressed in this document are protected by the basic human right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as applying to the Internet content on June 26, 1997.
|News Archive||Printer Version||August 11, 2007|
Revisionist Theater - Preparing to Take the Show on the Road
One of the best essays on Revisionism I have ever read!
By Bradley Smith
The first order of business was to create the "show" and get it exhibited. The show was a 30-minute intro by Smith, a 32-minute cut from El Gran Tabu, and a 30-minute Q&A. Ninety minutes. Just right. Easy, direct, focused on free speech and intellectual freedom, with an innately scandalous subject matter-writers and scholars being imprisoned for thought crimes, with the American professorial class acting out the role of "bystanders."
And the double whammy of this traveling show being only a preamble, its purpose to create an audience for the full-length film which will reach into the world of mass media-where theater is everything!
When I introduced El Gran Tabu at the Corto Creativo film festival in June, the trick for me was to prepare a Mexican mainstream academic and student film audience for what they were going to see. Americans would be in the audience, but even the largest percentage of those would be Hispanic.
I took it as a given that for the most part they would have no particular background in the Holocaust story, and even less about revisionist arguments that question the heart of the story. They would be largely unaware that in America revisionists risk financial and social ruin, while in Europe they risk those things and imprisonment on top of them. And I had to get the message out that I am not a historian but am arguing, and why I am arguing, against suppression, censorship, and taboo regarding this one historical event. As it happened, it looks like I did it rather well. The audience understood.
I delivered the talk in Spanish, from the first word to the last. I began with a small "ice breaker." It worked. It got a good, and I think appreciative, laugh from the audience.
The text of my intro follows.
Good afternoon to all of you. I am very pleased to have been invited to attend this festival, to exhibit my work-in-progress, El Gran Tabu, and very pleased that you are here with us.
In this first moment-and please forgive me for this interruption-but I have been told that I am obligated to deliver a short message to you about my use of the Spanish language. The person who told me to deliver this message is my wife. My wife is from a village in Nayarit, and she wants you to know that she knows how to speak Spanish correctly. She wants you to know that she has spent the last 30 years doing everything she can to teach me how to speak Spanish correctly. My wife wants me to explain to you that the lenguaje I will use this afternoon is completely my own and that she does not take responsibility for my words or how I pronounce them.
No responsibility whatever. For my part, I am very happy to pass this message on to you. Thank you. And thanks to my dear wife as well. I think.
Well, let's get on with it.
Theater, like all art-and cinema is certainly theater-is dangerous to the culture in which it comes to life because it is oftentimes a revolt against the good-against what is held to be morally right by those who rule, and what has been accepted as being morally right by those who are being ruled. Cinema-as-art can be, and in some cases must be, a rebellion against what culture holds to be morally right.
We call our documentary The Great Taboo. The great taboo is meant to suppress, censor, and punish those of us who express doubt that during World War II the Germans used weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers) to murder millions of innocent, unarmed civilians.
It is considered morally right to believe in the unique monstrosity of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazis), and morally wrong to suggest that they were fully human in the same way that, in America, Democrats and Republicans are fully human, no matter how many people they kill, or how they kill them.
It is well known all over the world that during World War II the Americans used weapons of mass destruction-great fleets of heavy bombers and nuclear bombs-to intentionally murder masses of innocent, unarmed civilians in all the cities of Germany and Japan.
The great taboo is meant to suppress the fact that German Nazis are held to one standard of justice and morality, while American Democrats and Republicans are held to a different one. The great taboo argues that while German Nazis were monsters for intentionally killing innocent, unarmed civilians for a "greater good," American Democrats and Republicans who did the same are heroes-indeed, we speak of them as "the greatest generation."
And finally, the great taboo is exploited to suppress, censor, and imprison writers and film makers who argue that it cannot be demonstrated that the Germans actually had weapons of mass destruction, unlike the Americans who clearly did, and who no one claims did not.
At this moment it might be well to consider a more recent weapons of mass destruction fraud. Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction? Where are they? Maybe they are in hiding someplace in the center of the earth, holding hands as it were, with those old German weapons of mass destruction which have not yet been proven to have existed.
What difference does any of this make? It makes a difference because it goes to the heart of what is morally right, and what is not.
The first weapons of mass destruction fraud morally legitimated the creation of a Jewish State on Arab land in Palestine. We all know what has come of that one.
The second weapons of mass destruction fraud was used to morally legitimate the invasion of Iraq by the United States. We all know what has come of that one.
And now, of course, there are the weapons of mass destruction being planned by the Iranian Government. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. Are we going to trust the United States Government to tell us the truth about Iranian weapons of mass destruction?
The truth is, the only State in the Middle East that actually has weapons of mass destruction is Israel. But in the United States, that is never talked about. Never. It too is part of the great taboo.
This afternoon we are going to watch 32 minutes of a documentary that I have been working on for three years. These particular 32 minutes are very simple. They are comprised primarily of interviews with two German writers who immigrated to America to find a place where they could write as free men, in a nation that prides itself on being a bastion of intellectual freedom and a free press.
What happened to these two German writers in America? The American government cooperated with the German State in sending them back to Germany where, today, at this very moment, they are being held in prison for thought crimes. They have been condemned to prison for having an opinion about history.
What is the American professorial class doing about this? Nothing. The professors are in thrall to the State, and to the special interest organizations that assure their careers.
Six months ago, in December, I went to Tehran, the capital of Iran, to give a talk on the Holocaust story and the attempt in Europe and America to suppress, censor and imprison those of us who have found it necessary, on the basis of the evidence, to revise-not to deny but to revise-the orthodox account of those events.
The title of my talk was: "The Irrational Vocabulary of the American Professorial Class with Regard to the Holocaust Question."
My argument was that the American professorial class uses an irrational vocabulary to respond to revisionist arguments questioning the orthodox Holocaust story.
That the decision of the American professorial class to exploit this irrational vocabulary is a deliberate decision to avoid communication. To avoid communication! Professors! In the university itself!
That the purpose in choosing to not communicate as scholars to either students or colleagues is, effectively, to nurture and protect an academic environment in which it is taboo to question the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans during World War II.
That to question the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans during World War II would necessarily suggest that the history of the 20th century would have to be rewritten, and the nature of the role of the United States in that war, and in world affairs since that war, would have to be reevaluated. Here I will demonstrate a prime example of the irrational vocabulary of the American professorial class with regard to the Holocaust question.
First, let me say this. The State cannot imprison its writers without the overwhelming cooperation of the professorial class. And when things get tough, the professorial class, as a class, will always side with the State against the people-the writer who rebels against what the State has pronounced to be good, to be morally correct.
We have only to consider how the professorial class, as a class, acted during the Hitlerian regime. How it acted in Stalinist Russia, in Maoist China. Even in a pipsqueak State like Fidel Castro's Cuba, the professorial class will cooperate with the suppression and condemnation of any who stand against what the State claims is the "greater good."
As it goes in Cuba, so it goes in the United States on the issue of weapons of mass destruction and their use.
My apologies to any American professor who might be here with us today. I am certain that you, yourself, are an exception to this rule.
During the 1990s I published essay advertisements in student newspapers at universities around America. My first full-page revisionist essay-advertisement ran in The Daily Northwestern, the student newspaper at Northwestern University near Chicago. It appeared on 04 April 1991. It was titled "The Holocaust: How Much is False?" The text was some 2,700 words. The text of this essay is online.
For the first time on an American university campus, core revisionist arguments challenging the orthodox Holocaust story were outlined in a university publication. Every observation we made reflected a commonplace revisionist argument. [*] Among them were these.
Of course, maybe they didn't want to embarrass Mr. Hitler.
Anyhow, there it was. For the whole world to see. Standard Holocaust revisionist arguments. Nothing original.
One week after my ad appeared in The Daily Northwestern, the student paper printed a letter from a professor of history and German on that campus. His name was Peter Hayes. He taught a course on Holocaust studies. He still teaches it. If anyone at Northwestern University was capable of disputing any claim made in the text of our ad, Professor Hayes was that man.
This was a milestone for revisionism. The first time a real Holocaust revisionist text was printed in a university publication, and the first time that professional scholars had the opportunity to demonstrate in public where at least one revisionist argument was wrong and why it was wrong.
Professor Hayes, however, ignored the published text and-he did not address one assertion made in the text-not one. Rather in one modest column in a student newspaper, this Holocaust studies professor charged me with:
Listen to this:
"manipulation," "deception," "distortion," "ignorance," "intimidation," "nastiness," "dishonesty," "duplicity," "maliciousness," "tastelessness," "browbeating" academics like himself, "conspiracy mongering," "implausibilities" and "disinformation."
Not one word addressed any specific statement in the text of the ad.
If Professor Hayes letter were to have proven to be an exception to the rule, his language in the Daily Northwestern would not have been noteworthy. But that was not the case. He demonstrated at Northwestern what was to become the rule all over America.
Throughout the 1990s I ran essay-advertisements in student newspapers at hundreds of university and college campuses from one end of America to the other. Typically, each academic year I would write a new text. The response by the professorial class to these texts, year after year, was substantially the same as that of Professor Hayes. The text would be ignored, while its author would be attacked with an irrational vocabulary of insult, hysteria, and innuendo. For ten years. It was remarkable.
The few exceptions to this rule were typically written by student editors at student newspapers. None argued that any particular revisionist argument was sound, but a good number did argue that the Holocaust question should be open to a free exchange of ideas, just like any other historical question.
That was all I was asking. An open debate.
Fifteen years have passed since the Professor Peter Hayes incident at Northwestern University. Now we come to 2006. The following texts will demonstrate that the American professorial class is still committed to a vocabulary of irrationality-that is, a deliberate decision to not communicate-with regard to the Holocaust question.
Once again, we will be at Northwestern University.
In February 2006 there was an international uproar in response to Iranian President Ahmadinejad's contention that the Holocaust is a "myth." The Iranian News Agency, Mehr, interviewed Arthur R. Butz, author of The Hoax of the 20th Century, which was published in 1976, 30 years earlier. Briefly, this is the core of what Professor Butz told the Mehr News Agency:
The alleged slaughter of millions of Jews by the Germans during World War II did not happen. The extermination allegation is properly termed a hoax, that is to say, a deliberately contrived falsehood. The hoax had a Zionist (OR JEWISH) provenance and motivation.
The Mehr interview with Professor Butz was reported all over the world. I thought, at last. Professor Butz and the President of Iran. Batman and Robin. A dynamic duo. There would be some academics, certainly one, among the professorial class in America, or at least at Northwestern University itself, who would take a sober look at Professor Butz and his The Hoax of the 20th Century. At the very least, they would argue that he had the right to express his skepticism about the German gas chambers.
Alas! I am a hopeless romantic.
The president of Northwestern University, Henry S. Bienen, issued a statement. President Bienen said nothing about any specific assertion of fact in anything Professor Butz had ever written or said, either in the Mehr interview, on his Web site, or in The Hoax of the 20th Century.
President Bienen, making a deliberate decision to not communicate, wrote only that Professor Butz's opinions are "reprehensible," and "a contemptible insult to all decent and feeling people."
The Religion Department at Northwestern University published a letter in which it did not address any assertion of fact in anything that Professor Butz has ever written. Rather, the Religion Department charged Professor Butz with
"fraud," "lying," "abuse," "hateful speech," "faking data," and "moral and intellectual failure."
Sixty-one faculty members of Northwestern University's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science-Professor Butz's own department-published a letter denouncing him.
Not one of these professional scholars addressed directly anything Professor Butz has ever written. His department colleagues wrote that they "utterly disavowed" and "condemned" Professor Butz. They charged that he is an "extreme embarrassment" to his colleagues, that his views are an "affront to their humanity" and beneath their "standards as scholars". They "repudiated" him and urged him "to leave" the Department. These were his own colleagues.
There are 1,800 professional scholars employed at Northwestern University. Not one of them stood up in public to argue that Professor Butz's The Hoax of the 20th Century should be examined before it is condemned, or that after 30 years one paper assessing Butz's writings should be published in one peer reviewed journal where Professor Butz would have the right of reply.
Not a chance. These academics, men and women, religious and secular alike, Jew and Gentile alike, are in a moral crises over this issue and do not have enough character to be willing to understand what it is.
The vocabulary used by the American professorial class with regard to revisionist scholarship is irrational because it deliberately does not respond to the materials it allegedly addresses, and because it deliberately ignores the findings of published revisionist work in order to keep those findings from becoming widely familiar.
So-with regard to the use of weapons of mass destruction to kill innocent, unarmed civilians, we are to continue to judge the actions of German National Socialists-los Nazis-by one standard of morality and justice, while we judge American Democrats and Republicans by a different one. A double standard of justice, and a double standard of morality.
You may be wondering: What difference does any of this make in the real world? I am going to suggest what difference it does make. In the real world. Today.
If the Germans did not have weapons of mass destruction, the Jews of Europe were not "holocausted." The story would be a fraud.
If the Jews of Europe were not "holocausted," it would be a fraud to use that non-event to morally justify their conquest and occupation of Arab land in Palestine to create a Jewish state there.
If the United States Congress had not bought and paid for Israel for the last 60 years, using a fraud to morally justify it, Arab fanatics would not be able to morally justify-in their own eyes-their attack against America on 9/11.
If Arab fanatics had not attacked New York City and Washington on 9/11, the Americans would not be able to use a weapons-of-mass-destruction fraud to morally justify their conquest and occupation of Iraq.
And there we are. A red, bloody thread that reaches from the German gas-chamber fraud to the Iraqi gas-chamber fraud and to the horror of the American campaign in Iraq where more than half a million-more than half a million-Iraqi civilians have been maimed, crippled and killed for what the American Government tells us is a "greater good."
Ask yourself: how many enemies did America have in the Middle East before Israel? How many enemies do we have now? And all of it morally justified because of a demonstrable fraud?
Now it is time to view a segment of the documentary we are working on. Again, these 32 minutes are very simple. For the most part they record interviews with two German writers who came to America to continue their research and to publish their findings. They were sent back to Germany, with the cooperation of the U.S. Government, to be thrown into prison as thought criminals, without a single bleep of protest from the American professorial class.
This is a moment when cinema becomes quietly dangerous, when it becomes a studied revolt against the good-that is, against what we are told is morally right for us to believe, and that we must believe because-it is morally right.
This is a moment when the quiet testimony of two writers imprisoned for thought crimes illustrates the moral decadence of those in government, and those in the American university, who fear a free exchange of ideas on a public stage, in an environment of good will.
This is a moment where I begin, using cinema as art, to open up this story for all to see.
Ingrid's comment: Let me just add here that the two writers Bradley speaks of are, of course, Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf. In 1988, Ernst Zundel sent an investigative team to Auschwitz whose forensic findings resulted in the best-selling Leuchter Report. A few years later, Germar Rudolf, then a young doctoral student in Germany, verified and refined the findings of the Leuchter Report with his own scientific study, published as The Rudolf Report. The scientific evidence is there, for the asking, that the so-called "Holocaust" is, as one pundit put it, "the Easter Bunny for adults."