Carlos Porter on Nuremberg (PDF ONLY)
Ernst Zündel (extensive bio)
Copyright (c) 1999 - Ingrid A. Rimland
Bradley Smith is the proud owner of CODOH, the most extensive Revisionist website in the world. He is also the bane of the ADL because he keeps poking his nose into college campuses with ever-so-provocative ads.
This morning I saw a new one I thought I would share with you. It is titled "Holocaust Studies: Appointment with Hate?"
Let's agree that one ideal of the university is to promote intellectual freedom, and one ideal of the professorial class is to teach students to honor it. Yet this is not true in Holocaust Studies. There, if students express doubt about "eye witness" testimony, for example, even if it is demonstrably false, dishonorable, or both, they understand they run the danger of being accused of being "hateful."
Consider eyewitness testimony given by Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel:
Elie Wiesel as an "eyewitness" authority
EW claims he was "liberated" from Dachau (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 11 April 1983), "liberated" from Buchenwald (NYT, 2 Nov. 1986), and "liberated" from Auschwitz (NY Post, 23 Oct. 1986 and NYT, 4 Jan. 1987). One of these claims may be true. The others are false. Do the professors believe it matters?
EW claims in All Rivers Run to the Sea (NY, 1995): "I read (Immanuel Kant's) The Critique of Pure Reason in Yiddish." Kant's Critique has not been translated into Yiddish. Here, again, EW did not tell the truth. Does it matter?
EW claims that after Jews were executed at Babi Yar in the Ukraine, "geysers of blood" spurted from their grave for "months" afterward (See Paroles d'etranger, 1982, p. 86). Impossible? Yes, it is. Do the professors believe it matters?
When Holocaust Studies professors are too fearful to condemn such claims, and those who make them, what are their students to do?
Elie Wiesel as an authority on "hate"
Elie Wiesel has won the hearts and minds of Holocaust Studies professors with his counsel on how to perpetuate a loathing of Germans:
"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German." (Legends of Our Time, "Appointment with Hate, NY, Avon, 1968, pp. 177-178).
Students understand the implications of this statement when brought to their attention, while their professors appear not to. Perhaps if we change (two words) in Elie Wiesel's sage advice, it will focus their attention: "Every Palestinian, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the Jew personifies and for what persists in the Jew." Does this help?
How is EW perceived in Holocaust Studies? He is esteemed as a moral authority. Chairs are created in his honor. Students are taught to emulate him.
Holocaust Studies and the exploitation of Hate
In Holocaust Studies, hate is all the rage. To merely note that Stephen Spielberg based his "factual" movie Schindler's List on a cheap novel - is hate. To suggest that the "Diary" of Anne Frank is not an authentic personal diary (and should not be taught as such), but a "literary production" crafted by Anne, and after the war by others, from a cache of miscellaneous writings and inventions - that's hate. Exposing false eyewitness testimony is hate. Exposing forged Nuremberg documents is hate. Exposing faked photographs and the use of torture by the Allies to produce confessions by Germans is hate. Asking for proof that one (one!) Jew was gassed in any German camp as part of a program of "genocide" is hate. Asking what "crimes against humanity" National Socialists committed during World War II that Republicans and Democrats did not commit is hate. To note that the story is immensely profitable for those who administer it is hate. Arguing for intellectual freedom regarding any of this - that's hate, too. That is, commenting on the record is hate. Telling the truth about the record is hate. Having an open mind is hate.
The unspoken ethical and intellectual scandal in Holocaust Studies is that key material used in these programs are soaked through with fraud and falsehood - led by the use of false and ignoble eyewitness testimony. Here we have highlighted the hapless Elie Wiesel, but the literature is full of "eyewitnesses" who gave false testimony about gas chambers and a great many other matters.
For more information on Elie Wiesel and other problematic eyewitnesses - such as Simon Wiesenthal, Dr. Hadassah Bimko (Rosensaft) Filip Mueller, Rudolf Vrba, Kurt Gerstein, Mel Mermelstein, go to our side on the Web and follow "revisionism." For background on myself, follow my name.
Bradley R. Smith, Director
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) Fax 858 309 4385
San Diego, CA 92143
Here's what I'd like to add: Is there a mainstream paper in all of America who would dare to run this ad? No? And this is a democracy?
Thought for the Day:
"World War II was a Zionist plot to make way for the foundation of the Jewish State in Palestine."
(Joseph Burg, an anti-Zionist Jew and witness for the defense in the Zundel Trials).