Academic Freedom: Are there Limits to Inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust
Academic Freedom: Are there Limits to Inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust
by Jim Fetzer
An unprecedented conference entitled, “Academic Freedom: Are there Limits to Inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”, was held at the University of Illinois UC, Illini Union, Room 314A, from 9 AM-6 PM/CT on 26 April 2014.The idea for this conference originated with Stephen Francis, who also organized The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, which was held at the Urbana Free Library on 22 September 2013, featuring as speakers Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer and Wayne Madsen. See “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference” on Veterans Today.
While there have been many conferences on JFK and 9/11, including the Holocaust in this one was adopting an original approach to a subject that has typically been regarded as “taboo”.
Registration was held from 9 AM-10 AM/CT, with Kevin Barrett presenting the first lecture from 10 AM-11:00 AM/CT, followed by David W. Robinson from 11 AM to Noon/CT. The lunch break from Noon-1 PM/CT was followed by a presentation by Nicholas Kollerstrom from 1-2 PM/CT. Since Nick resides in London, he joined us via Skype. Stephen Francis then spoke from 2-3 PM/CT, followed by Winfield Abbe from 3-4 PM/CT. Jim Fetzer was the final speaker from 4-5 PM/CT, with a informal discussion and questions and debate from 5-6 PM/CT.
Three of the speakers–Barrett, Kollerstrom, and Fetzer–have had experience as faculty with complex and controversial issues, while three of us–Robinson, Abbe and Francis–have long been involved with academic freedom issues in relation to both faculty and the public. By focusing on three “hot” topics, JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust, their presentations aim at sharpening public understanding of what should be expected of colleges and university. In particular, they addressed the question, “Are there limits to what faculty can research?”, and “Are there limits to what they can teach?”, where these speakers appear to be especially well-positioned to address these extremely important but themselves sensitive subjects.
THE PRESENTATIONS
Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. In the early 1990s, Barrett received master’s degrees in both English literature and French from San Francisco State University. He received a Ph.D. in African languages and literature with a minor in folklore from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 2004.He has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. He is co-editor of 9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out (2007) and the author of Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and of Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). Among his recent articles is “Holocaust History Denial: A Clear and Present Danger”.
Click here: Kevin Barrett, “Facts, Insults and Academic Freedom”
Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other
broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Tribune,
and other leading publications. He ran for Congress in 2008. He
currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.
His web sites include VeteransToday/Barrett, TruthJihad, TruthJihadRadio and MUJCA (Muslim Christian Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth).Kevin Barrett on the 9-11-2001 Attack
David W. Robinson, Ed.D.
David W. Robinson, Ed.D., received a B.A. from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, went on to an M.A. in Teaching (Social Studies) from Lewis and Clark College, and an Ed.D. in Educational Foundations and Leadership from George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon. He has taught courses in history, the humanities, and the social sciences at both the undergraduate and graduate level, as well as graduate courses in higher educational teaching, course design, assessment, and administration. Additionally, he has served as Department Chair, Program Chair, Vice President of Information Technology, and Vice President of Academic Affairs at several colleges. This has made him well acquainted with the practical and complex issues of academic freedom in action.Currently, he serves as an adjunct professor on three different university faculties, teaching graduate courses in education, information technology and e-commerce, and doctoral course work in educational foundations and leadership. His scholarly writing includes books and articles on the history of higher education, specializing in academic industrialization in America, as well as Protestantism’s role in the history of universities and schools.
Click here: David W. Robinson, “The Strange Case of Edward A. Ross and the Incredible Shrinking Faculty”
As a long-time student of American history, David has a strong
interest in academic freedom, liberty of conscience, open access to
historical evidence, and the implications of America’s loss of free
inquiry in national discourse. It is his conviction that our current
national-security state civilization is the main by-product of the loss
of the checking-and-balancing power of reasoned dialogue in academic
life. David is looking forward to further exploration of these themes at
the conference.Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D.
Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., has two history of science degrees, one from Cambridge 1968, plus a PhD from London, 1995. He was an honorary member of staff of UCL for 11 years. He co-organized the Belgrano Inquiry in 1986, publishing The Unnecessary War (1998) as its proceedings and co-edited The Case Against War (Spokesman, 2004) comprising the CND legal arguments against the Iraq war).In 2008 he received widespread publicity and ethical damnation for his interest in studies of the residual cyanide levels found in walls of the WWII labor-camps. Articles about the violations of his academic freedom have appeared elsewhere, including “ISIS trips, stumbles and falls” and “The War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can end your career”.
Click here: Nicholas Kollerstrom, “Research on the Holocaust can be hazardous to your career”
His recent book, Terror on the Tube (3rd
ed., 2011) is the most comprehensive account of the 2005 London
bombings. It supports the conclusion that this was a “false flag”
attack.Stephen Francis
Stephen Francis was born and raised in Fresno, CA, and volunteered for the draft in 1969. At the time, he was a conventional youth who supported the main stream’s political views. These opinions dramatically reversed after entering the service; and he was jailed for various antiwar activities, including disobeying direct orders to get on a bus during antiwar protests at Fort Ord, CA.Due to stockade overcrowding, he was released and spent the next one-and-a-half-years as a fugitive in Canada, eventually receiving an Other-than-Honorable Discharge, of which he remains proud to this day. He returned to college when he was 34 years old, earning an AA degree in Business Administration at Parkland College in Champaign, IL, and a BA in Sociology from the University of Illinois UC. He spent the next 12 years or so employed by a number of different companies, including a multi-national, mid-level accounting-consulting firm as a network administrator/accounting-software specialist.
Click here: Stephen Francis, “Getting history right: There should be no limits to inquiry”
Stephen was able to semi-retire in 2000 because of successful
investments during the stock-market boom of the late nineties. For over
thirty years, he was also a semi-professional musician playing the
electric-violin and keyboards. He has since reinitiated his efforts as
an antiwar activist out of concern for world events surrounding the
invasion of Iraq. From 2002 to the present, he has continued pursuing
his activist efforts, including editing NewsFollowUp.com, in the hope that he might make an ever-so-slight positive impact on the future course of civilization.Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D.
Winfield Abbe received an A.B. degree in physics from the University of California Berkeley, M.S. in physics from California State University at Los Angeles and Ph.D. in physics from the University of California Riverside. His main areas of research are low temperature solid state physics and theoretical elementary particle physics.He has also spent some time working on the long standing problem of Fermat’s Last Theorem which was recently solved, but the esoteric solution is known and understood by only a handful of people in the world. Dr. Abbe was a faculty member at the University of Georgia, Athens and an Institute of Science and Technology Fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Click here: Winfield Abbe, “Violations of Academic Freedom at the University of Georgia”
During his career in academe, he has observed gross abuses senior
faculty have administered to junior and the deterioration of the
practice of academic freedom, including at the University of Georgia,
which he looks forward to addressing at the conference. He was recently
interviewed by Jim Fetzer on “The Real Deal” on such issues.James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone. Among his recent articles is “Anti-anti-Semitism and the Search for Historical Truth”.
Click here: Jim Fetzer, “Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”
The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science
(2010). Since his 2006 retirement, he has devoted himself to dealing
with the most complex and controversial events of recent history on “The Real Deal” and in his articles on Veterans Today.Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=304985
The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science
The Holocaust Narrative: Politics Trumps Science
by Jim Fetzer
“The fastest way to get expelled from a British
university is by saying you are looking at chemical evidence for how
Zyklon was used in World War II, with a discussion of how delousing
technology functioned in the German World War II labour camps”—Nicholas Kollerstrom
The author of this refreshing scientific study of the Holocaust, Nicholas Kollerstrom, may be the most honorable man whom I have ever had the pleasure to know.
In response to PM David Cameron’s denunciation of 7/7 and 9/11 skeptics as on a par with ISIS, he went to Scotland Yard with a copy of Terror on the Tube (3rd ed., 2011) and turned himself in.
Scotland Yard declined the honor, but this act–which symbolically castrated the PM’s outrageous stance–was a striking illustration of his ability to tackle a problem by going right at it.
A distinguished historian of science with multiple degrees, including from Cambridge, he has published on 9/11 and especially 7/7, about which he appears to be the world’s leading expert.
When his attention turned to research on the use of Zykon B as a delousing agent in the labor camps run by the Germans during World War II, however, he was treated as an outcast.
He lost his position at University College London, which he had held for 15 years, where university officials did not bother to extend the opportunity of a rebuttal before they sacked him.
He and I both spoke at the recent conference, “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”, where this book reports the results of the research for which he was banned. The book, a stunning historic expose, has just appeared. I endorse it with my highest recommendation.
The Holocaust – Myth and Reality
The situation is completely absurd. No subject generates
responses as extreme and irrational as what has come to be known as “the
Holocaust”. Unlike any other event in human history, including even the
most sacred religious beliefs, for anyone to question, dispute or deny
its occurrence qualifies as “a hate crime,” where Holocaust denial is
even a prosecutable offense in certain jurisdictions. Unlike any other,
this crime involves the expression of forbidden thoughts about a subject
that has become taboo.
The underlying desideratum is whether history is supposed to be accurate and true or, as Voltaire has put it, be merely “a pack of lies the living play upon the dead”. Just so we know what we are talking about: In its broadest outlines, “the Holocaust” can be defined by means of its three primary elements, which I shall designate here as hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3):
(h1) that Hitler was attempting to exterminate the Jews and succeeded by putting around 6,000,000 to death;
(h2) that many of those deaths were brought about by the use of cyanide gas in chambers for that purpose; and,
(h3) that the chemical agent that brought about those deaths was Zykon B, to which the victims were subjected.
The science of the Holocaust does not leave any room for
doubt about (h2) and (h3), since laws of biochemistry and of materials
science—laws which cannot be violated and cannot be changed—entail that
the bodies of those who are put to death using cyanide turn pink, while the walls of chambers used for that purpose would turn blue. But none of the bodies from those camps has been reported to have been pink; and examination of the “gas chambers” has determined that none of them turned blue. Which means that (h2) and (h3) are not simply false but have been scientifically refuted.
Holocaust science “cut and dried”
As Nicholas Kollerstrom documents in this astonishing and
brilliant book, the science of the Holocaust is this “cut and dried”. To
the extent to which the Holocaust narrative depends on (h2) and (h3),
therefore, it cannot be sustained. The questions that remain about (h1)
are a bit more complex but appear to be equally contrived. There are
more than 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews who are either in acute
distress or about to be assailed in the newspapers of the world prior to the Nuremberg Tribunal—
the first of which appeared in 1890. The number seems to have no basis
in fact but to have theological origins—from a disputed passage in Leviticus—as to how many Jews must perish before they can return to “The Promised Land”.
To
the extent to which the number of Jews who died in the camps can be
objectively determined, the most reliable numbers appear to come from
the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which
visited the camps and kept meticulous records of the identities of those
who died and their cause of death. Not one is reported to have been put
to death in gas chambers, and the total it reported in 1993 for all of
the camps was 296,081 combined. Even rounding up to an even 600,000
victims—gypsies, Jews and the mentally and physically infirm—the
empirical evidence thus contradicts the contention that 6,000,000 Jews
were put to death and thereby falsifies hypothesis (h1).
Counting deaths attributed to the Holocaust—apart from the
records of the International Committee of the Red Cross—turns out to be
an exercise in “fuzzy math”, because none of them add up. As Faurisson
observed during an interview on 13 December 2006, the Yad Vashem
database was built up by “simple unverified declarations emanating from
unverified sources and processed in such a way that one and the same
person can be recorded as having died several times, even, it seems, as
many as ten times”.[1] And even the most
complete archives are not collated to make total numbers accessible but
only individual cases—which appears an obvious measure to preserve the
untestability of (h1), the hypothesis that 6,000,000 Jews had perished.
Holocaust story falsified
So, insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and laws
of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be
sustained. The question that therefore arises is how the Nuremberg
Tribunal—widely cited as a paragon of intellectual integrity and of the
application of moral principles to historical events—could possibly have
produced such a highly misleading account of crucial events at the
conclusion of World War II. The answer to this, I believe, has been
provided by Robert Faurisson in his paper “Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism,”
who explains the daunting task confronting the Allies to conceal or
justify war crimes that they had committed in winning the war.[2]
The Allies’ systematic and massive destruction of German
cities not only brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
German civilians but also interdicted the railroad lines that would have
re-supplied those camps, which were located near major industrial
plants and whose inmates were providing labor to run them. It would have
been poor business practice to exterminate the work force, but the
large number of deaths from starvation because the Third Reich could not
re-supply them provided an opportunity to deflect responsibility from
the Allies onto Germany, which the Allies seized. A Hollywood director
was brought in and shot 80,000 feet of film at the camps, where 6,000
feet (7.5% of the total) was used to shift the blame for those deaths
onto Nazi Germany, which was an easy sell, all things considered.
As Kollerstrom explains, Zyklon B was used at the
labor camps, not as a method of extermination but for the sake of
maintaining hygiene among the inmates. Typhus and dysentery were
omnipresent problems, where Zyklon B was applied in copious
quantities—but as a disinfestant, not as an agent for bringing about the
deaths of millions of inmates. And in response to the color pink-and-blue findings,
an alternative explanation has been given that they were killed using
diesel exhaust fumes, but unlike carbon monoxide, diesel exhaust fumes
bring about nausea and severe headaches but usually do not bring about
death by asphyxiation.
Classified British documents
Among the most valuable contributions of this study
derives from Nick’s use of classified records acquired by British
authorities, who were skeptical of claims that mass gassings were being
carried out and had reports in hand of the use of Zyklon for the purpose
of delousing the inmates, where infestations had become alarming. Many
tons of Zyklon were consumed at Auschwitz-Birkenau from the summer of
1942 on, as Kollerstrom reports, which is easy to confirm because it soaked into the walls of the disinfestation chambers and is still there. His essays on the subject—“The Walls of Auschwitz”, “Leuchter Twenty Years On” and “The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Illusion”[3]—would become the cause of his removal from a post-doctoral post he had held for 15 years!
As a professional philosopher of science, I appreciate Nick’s references to Sir Karl Popper, who advocated the method of falsificationism,
whereby the truth of theories in science and in history can be tested
by attempts to falsify them. When they resist our best efforts to refute
them, then we have good reason to believe they might be true. But
equally applicable here are the reflections of Imre Lakatos, who
discussed research programs with hard cores of claims,[4] such
as Newton’s laws of motion or, in the case we are considering, the
above-mentioned hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3). When the defenders of
these hypotheses are confronted by the risk of refutation, they can
appeal to auxiliary hypotheses in an attempt to deflect the refuting data and thereby preserve their theory.
A stellar example arises in the context of the attempt to
explain away why the number of those who died as substantiated by the
meticulous records of the Red Cross supports the inference that less than 10% of the 6,000,000 claimed actually died from all causes—and none from death in gas chambers. To
cope with that finding, the claim has been made that the records are
incomplete because large numbers of Jews were taken directly to the gas
chambers and never registered—not even by name. Not only are contentions
of this kind unfalsifiable, untestable and hence unscientific, but they
reflect the degenerating character of the Holocaust paradigm, which has
spawned no new data or research that could possibly overcome the
mountain of evidence against it.
Excluding falsifying data
Another method for immunizing a hypothesis from refutation is by the exclusion of falsifying data.[5] The
defenders of hypotheses (h1)-(h3) have committed a mind-boggling
example of fallacious science, which further manifests their commitment
to a degenerating research program. When the Auschwitz museum was
confronted with the fact that the innocuous delousing chambers at
Auschwitz have blue walls—due to being saturated with blue iron cyanide
compounds—but the alleged homicidal gas chambers have not, they
commissioned their own chemical research. Instead of testing wall
samples for the chemicals that had caused the blue stains, the
researchers they commissioned simply excluded those chemicals from their analysis by employing a procedure that could not detect them.[6]
They justified this measure with the claim that they did
not understand exactly how these compounds could form and that they
might therefore be mere artifacts. Researchers who don’t understand what
they are investigating have no business becoming involved. In this
case, however, it appears to be deliberate. They have deliberately
ignored an obvious explanation—that Zyklon B was only used for
delousing—which would have remedied their lack of comprehension.[7] As
a result of this failure to adhere to the principles of science, they
produced a report of no scientific value, which they used to arrive at a
predetermined conclusion.[8]
That Nicholas Kollerstrom was booted from his post at
University College, London—and without any hearing or opportunity to
present his defense, where the truth of his observations, one might have thought, would have made a difference—is one of a large number of indications that even
our best academic institutions and societies are not capable of dealing
objectively with the history of World War II. Indeed, it struck me like
a bolt of lightning out of the blue when, during a talk by Gilad Atzmon
in Madison, Wisconsin, about Jewish identity politics, I realized that the
Holocaust mythology benefits Zionism and the government of Israel by
playing, in the promotion of its political agenda, upon a Western sense
of guilt for the death of 6,000,000 Jews during World War II.
The claim that someone is “anti-Semitic” or a “Holocaust
denier” is taken to be the most severe form of ethical damnation
possible in this time and age. But distinctions must be drawn between criticism of the acts and policies of the Israeli government and discounting the worth or value of human beings on the basis of their ethnic origins or religious orientation. Condemning the Israeli government for its vicious and unwarranted onslaught of the people of Gaza,
for example, is not “anti-Semitic”. And if exposing the Holocaust
narrative as political propaganda makes one a “Holocaust denier,” all of
us who put truth before politics ought to wear that label as a badge of
honor.
The ISIS fiasco
As an illustration of the depths of depravity of those who
would uphold the myth, consider that, as an historian of science,
Kollerstrom was invited to contribute three entries—including that on
Sir Isaac Newton, which is the most important—to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (2007),
which has more than 1550 entries by some 400 authors from 40 countries.
Yet Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, a reviewer for Isis, the journal of America’s History of Science Society, recommended that the book be sent back to the publisher and pulped because Kollerstrom had been involved in research on the Holocaust! This was such an outrage that I wrote to the editorial board of Isis, which allowed a Letter to the Editor to appear.
Something is terribly wrong, when the world’s leading
society on the history of science does no more to correct a grotesque
abuse by one of its reviewers on a book that involved so many
contributors and an enormous investment in time and money, where the
moral issues are so blatant and obvious. It is ironic that the Nuremberg
Tribunal would declare “collective punishment” a war crime. The Allies
were responsible for the collective punishment of German civilians by
their systematic bombing of German cities. Isis has committed a
comparable intellectual crime by tolerating collective punishment of 400
scholars for the purported offenses of one. By acquiescing to its
reviewer’s abuse, Isis has committed the fallacy of guilt by association and has displayed an appalling lack of journalistic ethics.
Nick Kollerstrom is the only party here who has displayed a
commitment to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths. His defense is
very simple: the hypotheses on which the Holocaust narrative has been based are provably false and not even scientifically possible. I have written about this in my articles “The War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can end your career,”[9] “ISIS trips, stumbles and falls,”[10] and discussed it during my presentation at the 2014 conference “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust,” at which Nick and I both spoke.[11]
But far better than reviewing them, read this brilliant
study by the world’s leading iconoclast, Nick Kollerstrom, my dear
friend, whom I admire beyond words as a splendid example of what
historians should be doing in their professional work by getting history straight—lest Voltaire’s admonition continue to apply—including about the atrocities of World War II. There were real atrocities committed by all sides, just not the ones about which we have been told.
References
[1] “Interview with Professor
Robert Faurisson at the Guest House of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” www.robertfaurisson.blogspot.com, December 13, 2006.
[2] Ibid., February 3, 2012.
[3] See Nick’s online papers at www.codoh.com/library/authors/1580/
[4] Imre Lakatos, Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1970.
[5] Sir Karl Popper systematically investigated the diverse methods of immunizing theories in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co., London 1968, pp. 82-97.
[6] Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech
Gubala, Jerzy Łabędź, “A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the
Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau
Concentration Camps,” Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Vol. XXX (1994) pp. 17-27 (www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report).
[7] They quoted but ignored a book which had exposed their fallacious approach (Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993; Engl.: G. Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2010).
[8] See Germar Rudolf, “Polish Pseudo-Scientists,” in: G. Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz-Lies, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 45-67.
[9] Veterans Today, February 4, 2012; www.veteranstoday.com.
[10] On my blog at www.jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, June 13, 2011.
[11] April 26, 2014; for details see www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/05/
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has
published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific
knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science,
and evolution and mentality. McKnight Professor Emeritus at the
University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research
into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash
that killed US Sen. Paul Wellstone. The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).
Click for larger image.
Note
Subscribers to The Barnes Review receive a 10% discount on all book and video purchases placed over the phone. Call us toll-free at 1-877-773-9077 (or ++1-951-587-6936 from abroad) to place your order charged to your Visa, Master, AmEx or Discover Card. If shopping online, please leave a note in the box "Special Instructions or Comments About Your Order" on checkout page 2 (Delivery Information), and we will give you a 10% credit for your next purchase with us. (For security reasons we do not store any information about our subscribers on our server, so this discount service cannot be calculated automatically.)No subscriber yet?
Click here to subscribe.
Subscribers to The Barnes Review receive a 10% discount on all book and video purchases placed over the phone. Call us toll-free at 1-877-773-9077 (or ++1-951-587-6936 from abroad) to place your order charged to your Visa, Master, AmEx or Discover Card. If shopping online, please leave a note in the box "Special Instructions or Comments About Your Order" on checkout page 2 (Delivery Information), and we will give you a 10% credit for your next purchase with us. (For security reasons we do not store any information about our subscribers on our server, so this discount service cannot be calculated automatically.)No subscriber yet?
Click here to subscribe.
Breaking the Spell—The Holocaust: Myth and Reality.
$25.00
In 1941,
British Intelligence analysts cracked the German "Enigma" code. This
undermined the German war effort—but also threw new light on day-by-day
events in the Nazi concentration camp system.
Between January 1942 and January 1943, encrypted radio communications between those camps and the Berlin headquarters were intercepted and decrypted. Oddly enough, historians have largely ignored the information furnished in these intercepts relating to "arrivals," "departures," recorded deaths and other events at these camps.
The only reasonable explanation for this embarrassing omission is that the intercepted data seriously contradicts, even refutes, the orthodox "Holocaust" narrative. The revealed information does not expose a program of mass murder and racial genocide.
Quite the opposite: it reveals that the Germans were determined, desperate even, to reduce the death rate in their work camps, which was caused by catastrophic typhus epidemics.
Were the British here hoodwinked by the Nazis, as some historians to this day try to claim-or is the truth both simpler and more shocking? In 1988 and 1991 forensic studies threw light on the question of whether or not the claimed gas chambers at Auschwitz had served as slaughter houses for hundreds of thousands of people.
Both studies had concluded that the only facilities where Zyklon B gas had been used were hygienic rather than homicidal, killing bugs rather than Jews. Needless to say that these iconoclastic studies were ignored or in some countries even outlawed, and that their authors were ostracized and even imprisoned.
Dr. Kollerstrom, a science historian, has taken these studies, which are in obvious, stark contrast to the widely accepted narrative, as a starting point for his own endeavour into the land of taboo.
After he had published a brief paper summarizing what he thought the data forced him to conclude, he was thrown out of his College where he had been a member of staff for eleven years. In his new book "Breaking the Spell," Dr. Kollerstrom shows that "witness statements" supporting the human gas chamber narrative clearly clash with the available scientific data.
He juxtaposes the commonly accepted ideas about a Nazi extermination policy toward the Jews with a wide array of mostly unchallenged, but usually unmentioned evidence pointing in a quite different direction:
Zyklon B is a buzz word for the claimed Nazi mass murder, but all non-anecdotal evidence proves that this chemical was merely used as a pesticide in order to improve the inmates' health and reduce, not increase, camp mortality.
- The Auschwitz camp authorities kept meticulous records of who died in the camp and why. A statistical analysis of the data does not match the kind of data to be expected, if the widespread view of what transpired in that camp were true.
- The UK's intelligence decrypts prove that the German camp authorities were desperately trying to save their inmates' lives.
- Zyklon B applied in delousing chambers formed chemical compounds detectable to this day. No such compounds can be found, but ought to be expected, in the claimed homicidal gas chambers.
- "Six Million Jews threatened or killed": read 167 quotes from newspapers with that "news" spanning from 1900 to 1945, with a peak after World War ONE! Yes, one, not two!
- A British archaeological team looked for traces of the claimed 800,000 victims of the Treblinka camp-and came back empty-handed.
Dr. Kollerstrom concludes that the history of the Nazi "Holocaust" has been written by the victors with ulterior motives and that this history is distorted, exaggerated and largely wrong.
He asserts that this history is, in truth, a great lie that distorts our common perceived reality and misdirects human history to this very day.
Between January 1942 and January 1943, encrypted radio communications between those camps and the Berlin headquarters were intercepted and decrypted. Oddly enough, historians have largely ignored the information furnished in these intercepts relating to "arrivals," "departures," recorded deaths and other events at these camps.
The only reasonable explanation for this embarrassing omission is that the intercepted data seriously contradicts, even refutes, the orthodox "Holocaust" narrative. The revealed information does not expose a program of mass murder and racial genocide.
Quite the opposite: it reveals that the Germans were determined, desperate even, to reduce the death rate in their work camps, which was caused by catastrophic typhus epidemics.
Were the British here hoodwinked by the Nazis, as some historians to this day try to claim-or is the truth both simpler and more shocking? In 1988 and 1991 forensic studies threw light on the question of whether or not the claimed gas chambers at Auschwitz had served as slaughter houses for hundreds of thousands of people.
Both studies had concluded that the only facilities where Zyklon B gas had been used were hygienic rather than homicidal, killing bugs rather than Jews. Needless to say that these iconoclastic studies were ignored or in some countries even outlawed, and that their authors were ostracized and even imprisoned.
Dr. Kollerstrom, a science historian, has taken these studies, which are in obvious, stark contrast to the widely accepted narrative, as a starting point for his own endeavour into the land of taboo.
After he had published a brief paper summarizing what he thought the data forced him to conclude, he was thrown out of his College where he had been a member of staff for eleven years. In his new book "Breaking the Spell," Dr. Kollerstrom shows that "witness statements" supporting the human gas chamber narrative clearly clash with the available scientific data.
He juxtaposes the commonly accepted ideas about a Nazi extermination policy toward the Jews with a wide array of mostly unchallenged, but usually unmentioned evidence pointing in a quite different direction:
Zyklon B is a buzz word for the claimed Nazi mass murder, but all non-anecdotal evidence proves that this chemical was merely used as a pesticide in order to improve the inmates' health and reduce, not increase, camp mortality.
- The Auschwitz camp authorities kept meticulous records of who died in the camp and why. A statistical analysis of the data does not match the kind of data to be expected, if the widespread view of what transpired in that camp were true.
- The UK's intelligence decrypts prove that the German camp authorities were desperately trying to save their inmates' lives.
- Zyklon B applied in delousing chambers formed chemical compounds detectable to this day. No such compounds can be found, but ought to be expected, in the claimed homicidal gas chambers.
- "Six Million Jews threatened or killed": read 167 quotes from newspapers with that "news" spanning from 1900 to 1945, with a peak after World War ONE! Yes, one, not two!
- A British archaeological team looked for traces of the claimed 800,000 victims of the Treblinka camp-and came back empty-handed.
Dr. Kollerstrom concludes that the history of the Nazi "Holocaust" has been written by the victors with ulterior motives and that this history is distorted, exaggerated and largely wrong.
He asserts that this history is, in truth, a great lie that distorts our common perceived reality and misdirects human history to this very day.
With a foreword by Prof. em. Dr. James H. Fetzer.
Is The Holocaust A New 'Religion'
w/10 Commandments?Db.com
10-29-9- Jerusalem -- According to the Israeli philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz (photo), the 'Holocaust' is a new religion. Leibowitz' countrymen Shraga Elam, Gilad Atzmon, Yoshua Shalev and others have further developed this concept, reasoning like this: Most Jews today are either atheists or shun the religion of Judaism. Therefore, the Jewish people had to adopt belief in the 'Holocaust' as their new religion. They have spread this religion all over the world. 'Holocaust' museums are the new houses of worship and are present in most major cities. The new religion has its commandments, its decrees, its prophets, its high priests, its circle of saints, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It knows neither mercy, nor forgiveness, nor clemency but only the duty of vengeance. If you question the 'Holocaust Religion', you will go to prison.
- The 'Ten Commandments' of this 'Holocaust Religion' may be enunciated as follows:
- 1. Remember what Amalek (the Non-Jews) has done to thee.
- 2. Thou shalt never compare THE HOLOCAUST with any other Genocide.
- 3. Thou shalt never compare the Nazi crimes with those of Israel.
- 4. Thou shalt never doubt the number of 6 million Jewish victims.
- 5. Thou shalt never doubt that the majority of them died in gas chambers.
- 6. Thou shalt not doubt the central role of SATAN Hitler in the extermination of the Jews.
- 7. Thou shalt never doubt the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state.
- 8. Thou shalt not criticize the leading Jewish organizations and the Israeli government.
- 9. Thou must never criticize Jewish organizations and the Zionist leadership for abandoning the European Jewry in the Nazi era
- 10. Thou shalt take these commandments literally and never shew mercy to them that doubt!
- LEIBOWITZ, YESHAYAHU (19031994)
- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_12084.html
- Gilad Atzmon: I am - too - a Holocaust Survivor (2009-10-27)
- http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=35290
- The Holocaust as a new catholic dogma:
- http://truthisbeauty.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/the-holocaust-is-now-catholic-dogma/
- http://www.dullophob.com/
The Killing of Reason: How the Dreadful Few Rape Europe and America
…by Jonas E. Alexis
People who do not have a serious argument are sometimes funny. On many occasions, those people would deliberately insert a silly argument into an issue and argue against that argument. In logic, this is commonly known as straw man and it is demonstrably fallacious.
I was somewhat stunned when ideologue Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times did exactly that with respect to illegal immigration. I was stunned precisely because no one was brave enough to douse him with a bucket water. Why?
Because one needn’t be a genius to figure out that the man feasts on double standard. As a faithful member of the Dreadful Few, he seems to have no other choice.
In his desperate and Zionist zeal to evade the illegal immigration issue, Kristof has recently written,
“A BOOK, ‘The Christian Examiner,’ warns that ‘ill-clad and destitute” immigrants are “repulsive to our habits and our tastes.’
“A former mayor of New York City cautions that they bring disease, ‘wretchedness and want’ to America. And Harper’s Weekly despairs that these immigrants are ‘steeped in ignorance’ and account for a disproportionate share of criminals.”[1]
He moves on to declare,
“Immigration has hugely enriched our country. For starters, unless you are a full-blooded American Indian, we have you.
“Nations, like carpets, benefit from multiple kinds of threads, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, was right: ‘It is a good rule of thumb to ask of a country: Are people trying to get into it or out of it?’
“Look, people aren’t legal or illegal, behaviors are. If an investment banker is convicted of insider trading, he doesn’t become an illegal. So let’s refer not to ‘illegal immigrants’ but to ‘undocumented immigrants.’”[2]
Why doesn’t this man apply the same logic to Israel or any other country on the planet? Why does this dumb argument only work in the United States and nowhere else? How about South Korea, where this writer currently resides?
Israel in particular has strict immigration laws, yet in America, the Dreadful Few paved the way for illegal immigration laws. Historian Hugh Davis Graham said:
“Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform.
“To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative [Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York.
“Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.”[3]
It must be pointed out that the illegal immigration movement is largely Jewish in its political and ideological orientation.[4] Last year, the Jewish Daily Forward announced that “Eric Cantor, top GOP Jew, changes tune on immigration.”[5]
The illegal immigration movement has a long history of support from many Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders,[6] going back to the 1920s, when many Jewish organizations fought tooth and nail to change the immigration policy in the United States (such as the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe).[7]
Historian Hugh Davis Graham maintains that in the 1920s, some of the pressure employed by those organizations was “ineffective,” but they never gave up. Jewish governor Herbert Lehman picked up those themes in the 1940s, and after World War II, “Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform.”[8]
The methodology was quite strategic. When many Jews left the Soviet Union and much of Europe and moved to the United States, there was a fear among them that there could be a revival of anti-Semitism in America.
At the same time, many in America were well aware of Jewish revolutionary activity and, in the process, used caution when hiring Jewish professors and intellectuals.
For example, Ronald Radosh tells us in his memoir that many Jews like himself were sent from New York to Wisconsin to take over the universities and turn them into revolutionary cells. Jewish psychologist Joseph Jastrow seemed to have done just that when he turned the academic ambiance of the University of Wisconsin into an essentially Talmudic disputation. Jewish scholar Andrew R. Heinze entitles this chapter in America “Jewish psychological evangelism.”[9]Since Jews have always been a minority group, they made alliances in order to combat what they perceived to be as anti-Semitism.[10]
In the process of time, many Jewish organizations and ideologues began to adopt “multiculturalism” as a way to promote a far more harmful agenda. In a widely televised program in Sweden, Jewish ideologue Barbara Lerner Spectre made this stunning declaration:
Europe will not survive without “multiculturalism”? How did it thrive for more than a thousand years without the help of Spectre? And isn’t Spectre implicitly saying here that she and other Jewish ideologues are responsible for anti-Jewish reactions?
Hasn’t “multiculturalism” been responsible for sexual rape in places like Australia, New Zealand, Belgium and even Sweden itself?[11] Didn’t we receive the memo about mass sexual abuse in Rotherham and other cities and towns in Britain?
Didn’t “multiculturalism” contribute to sexual atrocities such as gang rape and torture of at least 1,400 children in places like Rotherham, Rochdale, and Doncaster?[12]
Didn’t Home Secretary Theresa May declare that this sexual assault on children—most specifically “poor and vulnerable white girls”—happened because no one wants to “rock the multicultural boat”?[13] Weren’t the victims themselves “raped, beaten and doused in petrol if they threatened to tell”?[14] As philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, the best way to refute all those reports is to
“sweep it under the carpet, find ways of accusing the victims or their parents or the surrounding culture of institutionalised racism, and attending to more urgent matters such as the housing needs of recent immigrants, or the traffic offences committed by those racist middle classes.”[15]
What is so sad is that “In some cases, parents who tried to rescue their children from abusers were themselves arrested. Police officers even dismissed the rape of children by saying that sex had been consensual.”[16]Rochdale, Greater Manchester, had a group of British Pakistanis known as the “Rochdale sex trafficking gang” that kidnapped and raped young British girls. This was called “an uncomfortable issue”[17] largely because the police were scared of being called racists for investigating the situation.
Two journalists for the British newspaper the Guardian noted, “Political correctness and fear of appearing racist had trumped child protection.”[18] But some of the perpetrators were eventually found guilty.[19]
News reporters were more than happy or willing to quickly blame Islam or “Muslims” for the sexual rape. But I sincerely doubt that those men were following the teachings of their traditional values. Didn’t Iranians for example burn down a movie theater in Iran because they saw that Hollywood in America was literally sexualizing the country? Didn’t the Supreme Leader in Iran explicitly resent how the CIA was literally changing the Iranian culture through sex?
Those “Muslim” rapists indeed are abetting the Zionist cause, but again, who is really behind the political sexualization? Shouldn’t Spectre take some blame?
Now listen to the International Business Times:
“Sweden has the highest rate of rape in Europe, with the UN reporting 69 rape cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011, according to author and advocate of power feminism Naomi Wolf on opinion website Project Syndicate.
In 2010, Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences – about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants – of any force in Europe.
“According to rape crisis advocates in Sweden, one-third of Swedish women have been sexually assaulted by the time they leave their teens. According to a study published in 2003, and other later studies through 2009, Sweden has the highest sexual assault rate in Europe, and among the lowest conviction rates…In short, Spectre, as member of the Dreadful Few, knows pretty well how to create chaos. She knows that “multiculturalism” only exists in the minds of the Dreadful Few and does not exist anywhere else. She also knows that “multiculturalism” can be used as a weapon in the ideological war. Kristof is just continuing that tradition.
“A 2010 Amnesty report said: ‘In Sweden, according to official crime statistics, the number of reported rapes has quadrupled during the past 20 years. In 2008, there were just over 4,000 rapes of people over 15, the great majority of them girls and women.’”[20]
This issue came into sharper focus in 2010 when Arizona passed a law against illegal immigration. An article published in Haaretz reported then that that Israel was fighting tooth and nail against illegal immigration.
Yet the same article detailed how many rabbis in America were fighting against the Arizona law that opposed illegal immigration. In a letter sent to Governor Jan Brewer, a group of reform rabbis declare:
“This inhumane and retrogressive bill threatens the rights of all Arizona residents by making the failure to carry identification into a crime and leaving the entire population vulnerable to police questioning.
“Granting local police the power to determine what constitutes suspicious legal status is an affront to American values of justice and our historic status as a nation of immigrants.
“The bill places law enforcement in an untenable situation, while having an adverse impact on the state’s economy. We do not question your intention to protect people from racial profiling.
“However, we know from our own historical experience, that this is a slippery slope, to say the least…
“This bill moves us in the wrong direction, violating the principles of justice on which our nation was founded. We should, instead, focus our energy on comprehensive reform of our immigration system.”[21]
The Jewish groups that attacked the illegal immigration law included the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.[22]
Jewish groups went so far as to say that the law “mandates racial profiling.”[23] Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, changed the whole issue into being about race in order to gain the support of the masses.
“Allowing an individual’s accent or skin color to precipitate an investigation into his or her legal status is an anathema to American values of justice and our historic status as a nation of immigrants.”[24]
Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center was of the same opinion:
“This law makes no sense—it guarantees and stigmatizes people of color as second-class citizens and exposes them to intimidation and the use of racial profiling as a weapon of bias.”[25]
Nothing could be further from the truth. How is the law on par with racial profiling when it is only asking whether a person is legal or illegal? Does it state anywhere in the law that a person’s “color” is to be of concern? Why does America suddenly become a “racist” nation when it only asks for reasonable laws and the application of those laws?
Benjamin Netanyahu declared in 2011 that illegal immigration is a “national calamity in all fields—the economy, the state security” in Israel.[26] Every single country in the world applies immigration laws and enforces them. But the Dreadful Few want a Talmudic standard in America.
Once again, the Dreadful Few push illegal immigration only in America, not in Israel. Many Palestinians who dare to illegally cross the border to find work in Israel are likely to be treated harshly by the government (in some instances some of those people were sent to research facilities to be used as guinea pigs).[27]
Even in 2010, Netanyahu does not tolerate Africans who cross his borders illegally and tries to build a specific place for these people, separated from the main Israeli population.[28]
Avigdor Lieberman, deputy prime minister for strategic threats in 2006,
“has made it clear that he favors expulsion [of Israeli Arabs], so as to make Israel ‘as much as possible’ a homogeneous Jewish state.”[29]
In 1991, Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University wrote that Israel
“not only bans the return of Palestinian Gentiles to their homelands, but also restricts its Christian and Muslim citizens to specified living areas and limits their access to resources which are monopolized and confiscated by the State (such as education, water, and land).”[30]
In addition, in 2011, many migrant workers who become pregnant in Israel were required to “leave the country within three months after giving birth or, alternatively, send their children abroad if they wish to retain their work visas.”[31]
By the summer of 2011, some in Israel were even proposing that African migrants must be sent to Australia.[32]
Even in January 2012, laws that portray racist and ethnic discrimination in Israel were still vibrant.[33] For example, an Israeli-born college graduate can earn twice as much as an Ethiopian counterpart—studies show that an Ethiopian graduate can work 48 hours per week and earn an average of NIS 47 per hour.
However, an Israeli graduate can work for 47 hours and earn an average of NIS 85 per hour.[34] That kind of inequality would create a huge uproar in the U.S., and it is hypocritical for Jewish organizations like the ADL to stay silent on the issue. Abraham Foxman and Rabbi Schmuley Boteach write frequently for the Jerusalem Post, yet we hear not a single word from them about this issue. Palestinian Christians face similar discrimination.[35]
Foxman talks about the “demographic challenge” that Israel is facing. He writes,
“Even if one takes seriously those who argue that the number of Palestinians living in the West Bank has been exaggerated (and most Israeli demographers disagree with that assessment), the ratio of Jews to Arabs in one-state would be near the 50 percent mark and would make the concept of a Jewish and democratic state, the hallmark of Israel through its history, a practical impossibility.
“A truly Jewish state can exist, as it does now, only with an overwhelming Jewish majority.”[36]How can Foxman in good conscience defend this position while simultaneously denouncing Pat Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower as racist?[37] How can the ADL call Buchanan an “unrepentant bigot”[38] when they are doing the same thing?
Right after the publication of Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower, the ADL published an article asking MSNBC to dismiss Buchanan,[39] and Buchanan was eventually fired.
Shortly thereafter, Buchanan had the courage to say that the ideologies that people like Abraham Foxman espouse are un-American.[40]
Perhaps what pushed the ADL over the edge is the way Buchanan described the death of the WASP era in the Supreme Court. Buchanan cites Harvard Law Jewish professor Noah Feldman bragging about how Elena Kagan’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is a sign that the WASP’s rule over the Supreme Court has finally come to an end.[41]
What the ADL considers bigotry is the same thing that has been said over and over by Jewish scholars and in Jewish publications. Buchanan cites Jewish Princeton professor Fred Greenstein saying that in the name of “diversity,” even the guard has been slowing changing.[42]
But again it is Buchanan who is the bigot. Menachem Z. Rosensaft of The Jewish Week declared that the firing of Buchanan “was long overdue.”[43] Ben Shapiro of Front Page Magazine, a neoconservative publication, also declared that Buchanan is an anti-Semite.[44]
Ultimately this is where “multiculturalism” and “diversity” have led us. The Dreadful Few promote diversity, but their agenda cannot allow for any conflicting interpretations. In May 2012, Netanyahu declared,
“The phenomenon of illegal infiltrators from Africa is extremely serious and threatens Israel’s social fabric and national security.
“If we don’t stop the problem, 60,000 infiltrators are liable to become 600,000, and cause the negation of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”[45]
Likud MK Miri Regev declared that “the Sundanese are like a cancer in our body.”[46] Though Regev apologized later for this comment, she got to keep her prestigious job.
Although the ADL is pretty quick to see anti-Semitism all over Europe and America, deporting illegal immigrants in Israel does not concern the organization, even though they fight tooth and nail to support illegal immigrants in the United States.
This double standard has become so obvious to many Jews that some are beginning to distance themselves from those ideologies. Emily L. Hauser is an Israeli Jew who left Israel and now lives in the United States because she didn’t want to raise her children where they are “being lied to daily by leaders who mouth platitudes about peace, even as their actions do nothing but undermine the possibility of peace.”[47] Hauser made a reference to a 2010 poll revealing that half of Israeli high school students opposed equal rights for Palestinians.[48]
If you think that the Dreadful Few do not play by Talmudic mores, think again.
“The Israel Democracy Institute reported in May 2003 that 57 percent of Israel’s Jews ‘think that the Arabs should be encouraged to emigrate. A 2004 survey conducted by Haifa University’s Center for the Study of National Security found that the number had increased 63.7 percent.”
John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard respond,
“If 40 percent or more of white Americans declared that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians ‘should be encouraged’ to leave the United States, it would surely prompt vehement criticism.”[49]
A 2007 poll indicated that
“55 percent of Israeli Jews wanted segregated entertainment facilities, while more than 75 percent said they would not live in the same building as an Israeli Arab.
“More than half of the respondents said that for a Jewish woman to marry an Arab is equal to national treason, and 50 percent said that they would refuse employment if their immediate supervisor was an Arab.
“The Israel Democracy Institute reported in May 2003 that 53 percent of Israeli Jews ‘are against full equality for the Arabs,’ while 77 percent…believe that ‘there should be a Jewish majority on crucial political decisions.’”[50]
At the end of 2010, a number of leading rabbis “initiated a call urging Jews to refrain from renting or selling apartments to non-Jews.”[51] One of the rabbis, Scheinen Yoseph, even declared that “racism originated in the Torah.”[52]
Rabbi Shmuel Eliahu and other rabbis in Safed, Israel, believed it was a religious issue “forbidding residents to rent apartments to Israeli Arab students from the local community college.”[53]
To fight this,
“Several days later, a building that houses Arab students was attacked by a group of young Jews, and an elderly Holocaust survivor renting a room to students received threats.”[54]
Moreover, “In a city park next to a college building on a recent afternoon, ‘Death to Arabs’ was scrawled on a gatepost.”[55]
There is a complete contradiction here that cannot be reconciled, and pointing this contradiction out can hardly amount to anti-Semitism. Yet when confronted with this kind of double standard, Abraham Foxman declares,
“Well, in terms of size and dimension Israel is nowhere near the U.S.”Having set the parameters this way, he then goes on to debunk the Arizona law:
“This law is biased, bigoted and unconstitutional. It’s a hysterical and politically motivated response to a problem that the U.S. ignored for too long, and it’s not the way to deal with it.
“But this bigoted response might traumatize the country and force it to finally deal with this issue. However, comparisons of Arizona to Hitler and Nazi Germany, made by some good people who are angry, are inappropriate.”[56]
But the irony is that black rights aren’t a priority in Israel. Journalist Jonathan Cook reports that
“health officials in Israel are subjecting many female Ethiopian immigrants to a controversial long-term birth control drug… known as Depo Provera…
“Use of the contraceptive by Israeli doctors has risen threefold over the past few years. Figures show that 57 percent of Depo Provera users in Israel are Ethiopian, even though the community accounts for less than two percent of the total population…
“Ethiopians are reported to face widespread discrimination in jobs, housing and education and it recently emerged that their blood donations were routinely discarded.”[57]
Schools for Ethiopians are largely segregated,[58] a process that has been going on since 1967.[59] Thomas Friedman of the New York Times writes that fifty-five segregated buses were in operation in Israel in 2009. He also reaffirmed the fact that the Israel Lobby largely dominates foreign policy in America.[60]
Not a single Jewish organization in America complains about the school bus issue. Yet David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, declares that many of Friedman’s comments with respect to the Israel Lobby “conjures up the ugliest anti-Semitic stereotypes.”[61] The Anti-Defamation League, the most visible Jewish organization in the U.S., does not even have an article on this.
Have the Dreadful Few provided serious reasons showing that they are really compassionate and care about the well-being of other people? Well, until they can cure the Zionist cancer in Israel, we should never pay attention to them in America.
[1] Nicholas Kristof, “Immigration Enriches You and Me,” NY Times, November 21, 2014.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Graham, Collision Course, 56-57.
[4] For a recent development, see for example Nathan Guttman, “Jewish Immigration Advocates Push Eric Cantor to Support Broad Reforms,” Jewish Daily Forward, February 21, 2014; Rex Weiner, “Jews Unite Behind Push for Immigration Reform,” Jewish Daily Forward, June 26, 2013; Gideon Aronoff, “Immigration Reform Is Our Jewish Responsibility,” Jewish Daily Forward, May 17, 2011; Morris J. Vogel, “For Jews, a Permanent Stake in the Immigration Debate,” Jewish Daily Forward, October 20, 2010; Nathan Guttman, “Immigration Debate Prompts Growing Jewish-Latino Ties,” Jewish Daily Forward, January 27, 2010.
[5] “Eric Cantor, Top GOP Jew, Changes Tune on Immigration,” Jewish Daily Forward, February 10, 2013.
[6] See Kevin McDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Lincoln, NE: 1st Books Library, 2002), chapter 7.
[7] Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 56-57.
[8] Ibid., 57.
[9] For a study on Jastrow’s work, see for example Andrew R. Heinze, Jews and the American Soul: Human Nature in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), chapter 6.
[10] See for example Murray Friedman, What Went Wrong?: The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance (New York: Free Press, 2007); Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 2004).
[11] See for example Natasha Wallace, “Gang Rapist Claims Right to Assault,” Sydney Morning Herald, December 10, 2095; Ludovica Laccino, “Top 5 Countries with the Highest Rates of Rape,” International Business Times, January 29, 2014.
[12] Helen Pidd, “Failures in Rotherham Led to Sexual Abuse of 1,400 Children,” Guardian, August 27, 2014; Randeep Ramesh, “Rotherham Child Sexual Abuse Scandal Is Tip of Iceberg, Says Police Chief,” Guardian, October 15, 2014.
[13] Sarfraz Manzoor, “The England That Is Forever Pakistan: Multiculturalism and Rape in Rotherham,” NY Times, September 15, 2014; see also Allison Pearson, “Rotherham: In the Face of Such Evil, Who Is the Racist Now?,” Telegraph, August 27, 2014.
[14] Martin Evans and Gordon Rayner, “Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation: Victims, Raped, Beaten and Doused in Petrol If They Threatened to Tell,” Telegraph, August 26, 2014.
[15] Roger Scruton, “Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness,” Forbes, August 30, 2014.
[16] Martin Evans, “Rotherham sex abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited by Asian gangs while authorities turned a blind eye,” Telegraph, August 26, 2014.
[17] Nigel Bunyan, “Rochdale Grooming Trial, Asian Grooming Gangs, The Uncomfortable Issue,” Telegraph, May 8, 2012.
[18] Ella Cockbain and Helen Brayley, “The Truth about ‘Asian Sex Gangs,’” Guardian, May 8, 2012; also Nigel Bunyan, “Rochdale Grooming Trial: Police Knew about Sex Abuse in 2002 but Failed to Act,” Telegraph, May 9, 2012.
[19] Helen Carter, “Rochdale Gang Found Guilty of Sexually Exploiting Girls,” Guardian, May 8, 2012.
[20] Ludovica Laccino, “Top 5 Countries with the Highest Rates of Rape,” International Business Times, January 29, 2014.
[21] Natasha Mozgovaya, “Focus U.SA./Reminders of Israel in the Arizona Immigration Debate,” Haaretz, May 12, 2010.
[22] Melissa Apter, “New Arizona Law Brings Renewed Attention to Immigration Reform,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 26, 2010.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] “Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu: Illegal Immigration ‘a National Calamity,’” Fox News, December 11, 2011.
[27] See Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda (New York: HarperCollins,
1995).
[28] See Mark Weiss, “Israel Approves African Migrant Detention Camp,” Irish Times, November 29, 2010.
[29] Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby, 90.
[30] Sizer, Christian Zionism, 210.
[31] Dana Weiler-Polak, “UN Reports Slams Israel’s Treatment of Pregnant Migrant Workers,” Haaretz, February 13, 2011.
[32] Lahav Harkov, “Danny Danon: Send African Migrants to Australia,” Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2011.
[33] Leonard Fein, “Echoes of U.S. Racism in Israel,” Jewish Daily Forward, January 29, 2012; “Ethiopians Rally Against Racism in Israel,” Jewish Daily Forward, January 10, 2012; Merav Michaeli, “In Israel, Some are More Equal than Others,” Haaretz, January 16, 2012; “5,000 Ethiopians Protest Racism in Israel,” Jewish Daily Forward, January 18, 2012.
[34] Revital Blumenfeld, “Study: Israeli-Born College Graduates Earn Twice as Much as their Ethiopian Counterparts,” Haaretz, January 24, 2012.
[35] Fida Jiryis, “The Myth of Israel’s Favorable Treatment of Palestinian Christians,” Mondoweiss.net, March 15, 2012; Jason Ditz, “Israeli Officials: 60 Minutes Report on Treatment of Christians a Strategic Threat,” Antiwar.com, April 23, 2012.
[36] Abraham Foxman, “Peter Beinart is Right, But for the Wrong Reasons,” Jerusalem Post, March 20, 2012.
[37] http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Di-RaB_41/6153_41.htm.
[38] http://www.adl.org/special_reports/Patrick_Buchanan2/default.asp.
[39] http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Di-RaB_41/6153_41.htm.
[40] Patrick J. Buchanan, “Blacklisted, but Not Beaten,” American Conservative, Feb. 16, 2012.
[41] Noah Feldman, “The Triumphant Decline of the WASP,” NY Times, June 27, 2010.
[42] Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower, 252-254.
[43] Menachem Z. Rosensaft, “The Sins of Pat Buchanan,” Jewish Week, Feb. 21, 2012.
[44] Ben Shapiro, “Pat Buchanan: Anti-Semite,” FrontPageMag.com, March 2, 2012.
[45] Talila Nesher, “Netanyahu: Israel Could Be Overrun by African Infiltrators,” Haaretz, May 21, 2012.
[46] “Israeli MK: I Didn’t Mean to Shame Holocaust by Calling African Migrants ‘a Cancer,’” Haaretz, May 27, 2012.
[47] Emily L. Hauser, “Dear Israel, This Is Why I Left,” Daily Beast, April 6, 2012.
[48] Or Kashti, “Poll: Half of Israeli High Schoolers Oppose Equal Rights for Arabs,” Haaretz, March 11, 2010.
[49] Mearsheimer and Walt, Israel Lobby, 90.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Chaim Levinson, “Top Rabbis Moved to Forbid Renting Homes to Arabs, Say ‘israel Belongs to Jews,” Haaretz, December 7, 2010.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Joel Greenberg, “Allegations of Racism and Questions about an Israel Town’s Character,” Washington Post, November 14, 2010.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Mozgovaya, “Reminders of Israel in the Arizona Immigration Debate,” Haaretz.
[57] Jonathan Cook, “Israel’s Treatment of Europeans Seen as ‘Racist,’” Middle East Online, February 2, 2010.
[58] See Or Kashi, “A School of 290 Students, 289 of Them Black,” Haaretz, August 31, 2010.
[59] See Illan Pappe, The Forgotten Palestinian: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), chapter 3.
[60] Thomas L. Friedman, “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir,” NY Times, December 13, 2011.
[61] David Harris, “New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman Crossed the Line,” Jerusalem Post, December 19, 2011.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=332798
The New Issue of TBR
The Walls of Auschwitz
A Chemical Study
Published:
2008-10-10
Three main chemical investigations have been
performed concerning residual cyanide in the walls of alleged ‘gas
chambers’ at Auschwitz: by Leuchter, Rudolf and by Markiewicz. Over the
two decades since Leuchter first sampled, debates have raged concerning
where the samples were taken from, whether it was really ‘historic’
brickwork, how porous the brickwork was to the cyanide gas, and so
forth. And yet, it is here argued that some fairly definite conclusions
can be drawn from them. In particular, the Leuchter and Rudolf results
are seen to corroborate each other. There is a difficulty with the level
of accuracy claimed by Markiewicz.
I. The Leuchter Report, 1988
In February 1988, Fred Leuchter came to the Auschwitz crematoria ruins, with his wife and a team,[1] With his fur hat and small hammer, he chiselled out 32 samples from floor, walls and ceiling of the ‘gas chambers,’ and Howard Miller bagged and tagged them. His Report published in April of 1998[2] contained five maps as appendices which indicated where the samples had been taken from, and in addition a film was made of his sampling.[3] The locations are important, because some of the ‘gas chamber’ locations are postwar-reconstructed, and the obtaining of original brickwork was essential for his purpose.Leuchter in effect tested the hypothesis, as to whether or not certain large rooms, designated in the Auschwitz design-plans as either morgues or washrooms, had in fact been used for large-scale human cyanide gassing on a daily and lethal basis. As America’s foremost supplier of execution hardware, Leuchter was primarily concerned with whether it would have been feasible to perform such executions using the designated rooms; this however will not concern us here, our concern being solely with the wall samples he took.[4] These were analysed in March 1988 by Alpha Analytical Laboratories Ltd,[5] in ignorance of their source.
He managed to take one one sample of a ‘Disinfestation Chamber,’ by breaking and entering a locked building: but prowling guards and snowy blizzards prevented further sampling from a second such chamber at camp Majdanek.[6] His swiftly-published ‘Report’ in effect grouped his chemical data into two, that of the sample 32 which he called perhaps unfortunately his ‘control,’ and all the others, as the graph shows. The latter came from five ‘Crematoria’ sites in the Auschwitz complex.
Duality of the ‘Gas Chamber’ concept in Leuchter’s Report
The terms that will here be used, that are as far as possible non-judgemental, are AHGCs or alleged human gas chambers for what Leuchter called ‘Crematoria’ and DCs or disinfestation chambers for what in the German design-plans were called ‘gas chambers’ (gaskammers). The latter had been used in Germany since 1924, much as we would nowadays use DDT, for killing the flea that carried the typhus bacillus. They were operated using ‘Zyklon-B’ granules, composed of liquid hydrogen cyanide (boiling-point 27° C) that would evaporate over a couple of hours from its clay substrate. In the German labour-camps, clothing and bedding were repeatedly fumigated in such chambers. Prior to Leuchter’s work, pro – Holocaust books had not acknowledged such chambers, and had rather carried the message of the Nuremberg trials, whereby any use of Zyklon-B was merely presumed to have been for human extermination. After Leuchter, Pressac’s magnum opus reproducing design-plans of Auschwitz-Birkenau located and described the ‘Gaskammer’ or DCs.[7] These were quite a lot smaller than the AHGCs, and designed by the industrial-chemistry firm ‘Degesh.’ Pressac also observed that their walls tended to be blue: they had gradually developed that hue after the War, owing to their saturation with iron-cyanide.Fred Leuchter found one thousand-fold difference in residual cyanide levels between these two types of ‘gas chamber’ – that designated in German design-plans as gas chambers, but whose existence was ignored at Nuremberg, and the much larger rooms alleged to have functioned as gas chambers. Together with Pressac’s acknowledgement of the DCs, this meant that future pro-Holocaust books would have to work with a duality: that the very same cans of ‘Zyklon-B’ were used for two extremely different purposes on the same campsite: for taking lives via the extermination procedure, whereby millions died, in the extraordinary manner described at Nuremberg, and also for saving them by combating the typhus epidemic. This did not make a great deal of sense and some noted that one could more readily have not bothered and just let the typhus epidemic do its work.
Leuchter's Analysis of Brick and Mortar Samples taken at Auschwitz & Birkenau showing Total Cyanide (From The Leuchter Report) Click for full-size chart
Following Leuchter’s discovery, some suggested that the DCs had been more heavily used than the AHGCs, after all did not beetles or fleas take longer to kill than humans? And, were not the DCs heated in order to promote the release of the HCN, and would that not give a higher degree of wall-absorption? Others replied that, if half a million people had allegedly been gassed in ‘Krema II’[9] over a two-year or so period then that would have been a rather intensive use, and not easily reconcilable with Alpha Analytical Laboratory’s finding that all seven wall-samples taken therefrom had levels of total cyanide too low to be measurable. Should not all the moisture from the body sweat, plus body heat, have rather promoted HCN absorption?
Others had a different criticism, that the cyanide gas would have only been adsorbed onto the wall surface, and that the concentrations found would to a large extent merely reflect the extent to which surface material of the wall had been scraped off, while deeper samples would hardly contain any. We leave these questions for now and review the two further chemical investigations, performed in the wake of Leuchter.
II. The Rudolf Report, 1993
…fortunately it is precisely the one ‘gas chamber’ in
which the largest number of people was allegedly killed by poison gas
during the Third Reich which has remained almost entirely intact: morgue
1 of crematorium II.’—Germar Rudolf[10]
Germar Rudolf found that the Leuchter Report ‘embedded the
thorn of doubt in my heart’ while he was a PhD chemist at the
prestigious Max Planck Institute. In 1991 he visited Auschwitz and took
24 samples, analyzed by the Fresenius Institute using a comparable
procedure.[11]
He was later criticized for having used the Max Planck Institute
notepaper for having asked them to do this, without explaining where
they had been taken from. Both Leuchter and Rudolf used their
professional position to request the chemical analysis, and both had
their professional existence terminated by that act.Although Rudolf’s sample-taking was photographed, he was criticized for not having had enough by way of witnesses checking his sample-taking and how the containers were labeled for his thirty-odd samples. Both Leuchter and Rudolf took their samples without having obtained permission – which assuredly would not have been given, had they asked. The samples were boiled for an hour with hydrochloric acid to drive out the cyanide gas, collected by absorption with caustic potash, then assayed photometrically. The method gave cyanide levels down to 0.1 – 0.2 ppm in the mortar, obtaining measurable values for almost all of his samples, despite which Rudolf remained doubtful over the value and reproducibility of results below several parts per million.[12]
He sampled extensively both from the inside and outside of the blue-stained DCs at Birkenau, where his grouped results were:
Delousing room, inside: | 5830 ± 3700 ppm | (n=10) |
Delousing room, outside: | 3010 ± 3600 ppm | (n=5) |
The ‘Control’ samples of Germar Rudolf
Rudolf only took three samples from the AHGC walls (from what is called the Krema-II morgue), which was the weakness of his survey. Their wide divergences (7.2, 0.6 and 6.7 ppm) give little idea of this key parameter.[15] He took more samples from ‘controls’ – i.e., rooms where no-one had alleged that systematic cyanide gassing had taken place. His ‘control’ group is here subdivided into samples taken from the mortar between the bricks, and the rest\.AHGC walls: | 4.8 ± 3 ppm | (n=3) | His samples 1-3 of Table 19 |
Controls, plaster: | 1.1± 1.3 ppm | (n=6) | His samples 4,5,7,8, 10, 23 |
Controls, mortar: | 0.2± 0.1 ppm | (n=3) | His samples 6,21,24 |
The Ball Report 1993
It is hard to obtain copies of this Report, or to gain details of where the chemical analysis was performed.[16] J.C. Ball has a degree in geology, and worked as a mineral exploration geologist. Given the intensity of criticism to which anyone publishing in this area is exposed, one should perhaps refrain from criticism on this matter. Its six samples were:From a DC: | 3000 ppm | (n=2) |
From AHGC sites: | 0.5 ± 0.6 ppm | (n=4) |
III. The Markiewicz et. al. Polish Study of 1994
The director of the Auschwitz museum Franciszek Piper approached Dr Jan Markiewicz of the Jan Sehn Institute of Forensic Research at Cracow as to whether they would check over the residual cyanide levels, in the wake of the Leuchter Report. On 20 Feb 1990 Dr. Wojciech Gubala arrived and removed 22 samples, including two control samples. The team then decided that they would like to follow this up with a further study before publishing any results.This survey, published in 1994, differed from those of Leuchter and Rudolf in that it only looked at soluble cyanide in the brickwork.[17] Critics objected that it was precisely the soluble component of cyanide which one would not expect to provide a memory of the past, because it would clearly be affected by weathering. Their reason for using such a method was, apparently, that they did not want to get involved in debates over Prussian Blue formation: their approach ‘excludes the possibility of the decomposition of the relatively permanent Prussian blue, whose origin is unclear in many parts of the structures under investigation,’ and therefore ‘The real level of total cyanide compounds could therefore be higher than shown by our analysis.’ The samples were put in 10% sulphuric acid for 24 hours, thereby driving off the cyanide as before, except that cyanide bonded to iron was not liberated by the Polish method – the point of which has not been clear to a lot of people.
The soluble or non-bonded cyanide thereby measured was only present in low concentrations measured in parts per billion rather than parts per million. How were they able to attain this accuracy in measurement unattainable either by Alpha Analytical laboratories or the Fesenius Institute? The method they referenced for this analysis had been published in 1947, and could one expect this to attain these much higher levels of accuracy? From three ‘gas chambers’ they found:
AHGC walls, Krema I: | 0.07 ± 0.1 ppm | (n=7) |
Krema II: | 0.16 ± 0.2 ppm | (n=7) |
Krema III: | 0.03 ± 0.02 ppm | (n=7) |
This investigation gave DC wall-concentrations in its Table 4, finding a several-fold elevation in cyanide levels there. Eight values for ‘concentrations of cyanide ions in samples collected in the facilities for the fumigation of prisoners clothes, (Birkenau Bath-House Camp B1-A)’ gave a mean value of 273 ppb, thrice that of the ‘Kremas.’ Their conclusion omitted comment upon this highly significant elevation. This paper has been much cited by pro-Holocaust sources, as refuting the Leuchter Report, by demonstrating that the AHGCs (‘Kremas’) had raised cyanide as compared to ‘controls.’ The paper was entitled, ‘ A study of the cyanide compound contents in the walls of the gas chambers in the former Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps’ It thus used a Nuremberg-type terminology, where ‘gas chamber’ simply meant a place for human extermination. They could hardly have done otherwise, because doubt over ‘the Holocaust’ is a crime in Poland. The DCs were alluded to as ‘Facilities For the Fumigation of Prisoners' Clothes.’
The Polish team went to a lot of trouble, with some sixty measurements mostly measured thrice, and was the only study which obtained permission to take the samples. It omitted two things in its conclusions: any allusion to the Birkenau DC (‘facilities for the fumigation of prisoners clothes’) where it had found greatly-elevated cyanide levels over the AHGCs; and, the insoluble cyanide that was bound to iron. In regard to both of these it cited the Prussian blue ferric ferrocyanide complex, leaving open the possibility that is had some quite extraneous source and was therefore to be avoided.
The 1947 method used by Markiewicz et. al. was given by Joseph Epstein and published in a US chemistry journal.[19] It was a procedure whose limit of accuracy was given as 0.2 micrograms per ml. To expel the cyanide from brickwork and then dissolve it into a solution suitable for measuring it, involves an order-of-magnitude dilution at least, so that one would not expect to obtain an accuracy less then one ppm in the brickwork, using this method. Any claim that this decades-old titration and colorimetric method using thiocyanate can find parts per billion has to be spurious.
IV. Desjardin analyses Leuchter
Dan Desjardins, after carefully retracing the steps of Leuchter on a 1996 visit to Auschwitz,[20] and watching the film that had been made of Leuchter’s sampling,[21] divided the samples 1-31 into two groups: those which had been exposed and open to the elements over the decades (n=20) , and those which were more protected in sheltered, unexposed locations : ‘Leuchter's samples, numbered 25 through 31, extracted from Crematorium I… taken from a facility which was not destroyed and has remained intact since the end of the war, were not exposed to the elements. The same might be said for samples 4, 5 and 6 taken from Crematorium II. Leuchter removed these samples from a pillar, wall and ceiling which, though accessible, were nevertheless well protected against wind, rain and sun.’[22]Less then half (14 out of 35) of Leuchter’s samples had measurable levels of cyanide in them, where measurable means above one part per million. We have here assigned an arbitrary value of 0.5 ppm for those too low to measure, i.e below 1 ppm. This gave:
Sheltered | (n=10) | 1.88 ± 2.2 ppm |
Exposed | (n=20) | 1.31 ± 1.56 ppm |
Mr Desjardins further subdivided the Leuchter samples into those taken from AHGC walls, and those which were ‘controls’ i.e. taken from barracks, etc. The definition of the ‘control’ concept is critical here, and means brickwork where no one has been concerned to allege that is was part of a room where systematic cyanide gassing took place – whether of humans or of mattresses. Leuchter surmised that the ‘control’ sample had been exposed at some stage to a single fumigation by cyanide gas, by way of cleaning out any lice from cracks etc.
AHGCs | (n=19) | 1.63 ± 2.1 ppm |
Controls | (n=9) | 1.45 ± 1.2 ppm |
These two sets of data (using Desjardins’ divisions) co-vary somewhat, in that if we increase the ‘exposed’ samples by say 25%, to allow for leeching out of their cyanide over the decades, then the difference between the AHGC and ‘control’ groups disappears altogether. (As Mr Desjardins put it, five times as many of these [AHGC] samples came from locations protected from 40-years’ exposure to wind and rain.’) Mr Desjardins concluded, ‘Fred Leuchter’s broad sample gathering, despite flaws, establishes a reasonable basis for inferring that the presence of cyanide residue is due to benign rather than homicidal purposes.
What Desjardins meant by ‘flaws’ in Leuchter’s methodology was, he explained, that a not sufficiently constant ratio had been maintained between amount of surface wall or plaster included per sample, and overall volume. This he viewed as producing a variability in the data, but not as discrediting the investigation per se, as one finds claimed in certain quarters.[23]
Conclusions
- One might expect that the accuracy of cyanide-ion assay would have increased substantially over the last couple of decades, but this is not the case: any re-analysis of the brickwork would face the same frustrating situation, where differences between AHGCs and controls hover right next to the lowest detectable levels.
- The essential questions here reviewed may be best evaluated without arguments over whether or not Prussian blue colouration has formed. The latter involves a slow and complex sequence of reactions. We have here been primarily concerned with total cyanide in the brickwork.
- Plaster on the wall-surface may tend to have a higher cyanide level than brick or mortar underneath it, and the ferric-ferrocyanide does decrease as a function of depth. Samples should therefore aim to have a comparable breadth-to-depth ratio.
- The notion of a ‘control’ sample has developed from Rudolf’s sampling and also from Mr Desjardins evaluation of the Leuchter sample locations. This permitted an evaluation of whether measurement of authentic AHGC wall were significantly elevated over such. While there was a hint of this from Rudolf’s sampling, and while further investigation might confirm this, overall no statistically significant elevation was evident.
- The careful and extensive Polish data was analysed using a 1947 US titration procedure, which gave no indication of reaching the parts per billion accuracy claimed by that study. If Marciewicz et. al. chose to use a method which only analysed 1% or less of the cyanide, viz. the soluble component, for whatever reason, they should first have shown that their method was capable of detecting it.
- Both the Leuchter and Rudolf surveys obtained a three order-of-magnitude differential between the walls of DC and AHGC buildings; the simplest explanation of which is that the former was used on a regular basis for cyanide fumigation while the latter was not.
- The Leuchter data showed that there was no great diminution of cyanide levels due to weathering over half a century, and this accords with what is known about the insolubility and permanence of the ferric-ferrocyanide complex. The residual cyanide within those walls may therefore offer the most reliable memory which the human race now has, concerning what happened historically in German ‘gas chambers.’
Appendix:
Test Sample | Location (Leuchter) | Total cyanide, ppm | Sheltered/Exposed (Desjardins) | AHGC/Control (Desjardins) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Crema II, Morg. 1 | - | Exposed | AHGC |
2 | Crema II, Morg. 1 | - | Exposed | AHGC |
3 | Crema II, Morg. 1 | - | Exposed | AHGC |
4 | Crema II, Morg. 1 | - | Sheltered | AHGC |
5a | Crema II, Morg. 1 | - | Sheltered | AHGC |
5b | Crema II, Morg. 1 | - | Sheltered | AHGC |
6 | Crema II, Morg. 1 | - | Sheltered | AHGC |
7 | Crema II, Morg. 1 | - | Exposed | AHGC |
8a | Crema III, Morg. 1 | - | Exposed | AHGC |
8b | Crema III, Morg. 1 | 1.9 | Exposed | AHGC |
9 | Crema III, Morg. 1 | 6.7 | Exposed | AHGC |
10 | Crema III, Morg. 1 | - | Exposed | AHGC |
11 | Crema III, Morg. 1 | - | Exposed | AHGC |
13 | Crema IV | - | Exposed | |
14 | Crema IV | - | Exposed | |
15 | Crema IV | 2.3 | Exposed | Control |
16 | Crema IV | 1.4 | Exposed | Control |
17 | Crema IV | - | Exposed | Control |
18 | Crema IV | - | Exposed | Control |
19 | Crema IV | - | Exposed | Control |
20a | Crema IV | - | Exposed | AHGC |
20b | Crema IV | 1.4 | Exposed | AHGC |
21 | Crema V | 4.4 | Exposed | Control |
22 | Crema V | 1.7 | Exposed | Control |
23 | Crema V | - | Exposed | Control |
24 | Crema V | - | Exposed | AHGC |
25a | Crema I, Morgue | 3.8 | Sheltered | AHGC |
25b | Crema I, Morgue | 1.9 | Sheltered | AHGC |
26 | Crema I, Morgue | 1.3 | Sheltered | AHGC |
27 | Crema I, Morgue | 1.4 | Sheltered | AHGC |
28 | Crema I, Wash rm | 1.3 | Sheltered | Control |
29 | Crema I, Morgue | 7.9 | Sheltered | AHGC |
30a | Crema I, Morgue | 1.1 | Sheltered | AHGC |
30b | Crema I, Morgue | - | Sheltered | AHGC |
31 | Crema I, Morgue | - | Sheltered | AHGC |
32 | Disinfestation Rm | 1,050 |
Notes:
- [1]
- For details of who went with Leuchter, and helped with the samples, see: Stephen Trombley, The Execution Protocol: Inside America's Capital Punishment Industry, NY, 1993.
- [2]
- Fred Leuchter, An Engineering Report On The Alleged Execution Gas Chambers At Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek Poland, Samisdat Publishers, Ltd., 1988 (known as ‘The Leuchter Report’).
- [3]
- Film of Leuchter sampling "Leuchter in Poland," Samisdat Press, Ltd., Toronto.
- [4]
- Data-page from Alpha Laboratories: www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/graphics/append1.jpg
- [5]
- Dr. James Roth, Manager and Chief Chemist of Alpha Analytic Laboratories, Ashland, Massachusetts, testified concerning his analysis at the April 1988 trial of Ernst Zundel in Toronto.
- [6]
- www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p133_Leuchter.html
- [7]
- Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gaschambers’ NY 1989.
- [8]
- An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 12th edition, 1996, p. 683.
- [9]
- This is sometimes alluded to as “Birkenau Krema I”.
- [10]
- Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspect of the Gas chambers of Auschwitz, 2003 (1st Edn 1993), p. 146; cf ‘It was decided to transform morgue I of crematorium II into a gas chamber:’ Y. Gutman & M.Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auchwitz Death Camp 1994, pp 183-245 J.-C. Pressac & R.J. van Pelt, ‘The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz’, p. 223.
- [11]
- G. Rudolf, Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell, Press London 1993 (I haven’t seen this). The analytic method is given in DIN 38 405, section D13 (Deutsche Institute fur Normung).
- [12]
- The Rudolf Report , 8.3.3, Table 19; also Table 3 in ‘Dissecting the Holocaust’ Chapter by GR.
- [13]
- Dissecting the Holocaust 2003 http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html Table 3 of Rudolf Ch.
- [14]
- For his difficulties here, see: www.ihr.org/leaflets/inside.shtml
- [15]
- Table 19, p. 254 of The Rudolf Report 2001.
- [16]
- John Clive Ball, The Ball Report, Ball Resource Services Ltd., Canada 1993; The Rudolf Report, p.268.
- [17]
- Jan Markiewicz et. Al., Z Zagadnien Sqdowych z. XXX, 1994, 17-27. www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml
- [18]
- Richard Green 'A study of the Cyanide Compound Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps,' in John C. Zimmerman, Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies, U.P.Amer., 2000, pp.259-262. www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/
- [19]
- Joseph Epstein, ‘Estimation of Microquantities of Cyanide’, Industrial and engineering Chemistry 1947, 19, 272-274.
- [20]
- D. Desjardins: Kenneth Stern's Critique of The Leuchter Report: A Critical Analysis, March, 1997 www.codoh.com(info)/newrevoices/nddd/ndddstern.html
- [21]
- "Leuchter in Poland," ref. 3.
- [22]
- Desjardins www.codoh.com(info)/newrevoices/nddd/ndddleuchter.html, The Leuchter Report revisited
- [23]
- The criticism made by chemist Dr James Roth, interviewed in the 1999 film about Leuchter ‘Mr Death,’ was along these lines: the cyanide would penetrate a mere ten microns into a wall, he there averred.
Additional information about this document
Author(s) | Nicholas Kollerstrom |
Title | The Walls of Auschwitz, A Chemical Study |
Sources | n/a |
Contributions | n/a |
Dates | published: 2008-10-10, first posted on CODOH: Oct. 9, 2008, last revision: n/a |
Comments | n/a |
Appears In |
|
Occam’s Razor Destroys the Holocaust Industry
The British Intelligence
decrypts over 13 months 1942-3 give daily totals of people entering and
leaving the camps. There were messages directly intercepted because the
German codes had been broken, without them knowing this.
Alexis: There seems to be a double standard being played by the Holocaust industry. You have obviously been condemned for saying uncomfortable things about World War II and the “Holocaust.” You write:
“In today’s Britain, ‘The Holocaust’ is big business, with the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) receiving over two million pounds a year from the government and various other UK Holocaust groups now benefitting from taxpayer money.
“In 2013, the Beth Shalom Holocaust Educational Centre in Newark in the East Midlands got a million pounds, and the Holocaust Recalled Group in Swansea received 791,000 pounds, while the Lake District Holocaust Project and the Holocaust Survivors Friendship Association in Leeds have both been given around half a million.
“The HET has managed to get The Holocaust established as a central part of the National Curriculum, so every UK pupil between 11 and 14 has to learn about it: it is now a compulsory subject. Thereby London has become a major centre of Holocaust indoctrination.
“David Cameron…did not shirk from invoking ‘the Holocaust’ to justify military intervention in Syria (August 2013). Some five million has been pumped into the prestigious Institute of Education’s new Centre for Holocaust Education, with a network of Beacon Schools in Holocaust education set up across the country, offering them London seminars and trips abroad. The Anne Frank Trust currently has eight traveling exhibitions touring the country, government funded.
“More than half of Britain’s schools now take part in the HET’s ‘Lessons from Auschwitz’ programme, which has sent about 15,000 pupils on their pilgrimage to Auschwitz. The roots of the current boom go back to a 2000 conference in Stockholm when 31 nations agreed to subject their populations to mass compulsory Holocaust teaching—monitored by a body of government academics, bureaucrats and NGOs which call themselves the International Remembrance Alliance.”[1]
Obviously the Holocaust establishment would go completely ape if they happen to realize that those statements were written by a non-Jew, even though they are factual.[2] But many Jewish historians and scholars have said almost the same thing—and they still hold their academic posts. No one has accused them of anti-Semitism. For example, Jewish Holocaust historian Tim Cole of the University of Bristol begins his book Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler—How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold by saying,
“‘Shoah [Hebrew for Holocaust]
business’ is big business…[In] the twentieth century, the ‘Holocaust’ is
being bought and sold. $168 million was donated to pay for the building
of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on a plot of Federal
Land in Washington, DC. Millions of dollars have financed memorial
projects throughout the United States, ranging from the installation of
Holocaust memorials to the establishing of University chairs in
Holocaust studies. Steven Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List netted over
$221 million in foreign box offices and even Academy Awards.”[3]
Cole is also a fellow at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum! When Cole’s book came out, Kirkus magazine quickly reviewed it and praised for labeling the “Holocaust” a “sacrosanct myth.” Kirkus concluded the review by saying, “If the Holocaust has assumed our century’s moral crown, this book dares to challenge the emperor’s clothes.”So, Cole is praised and gets tenured for saying the same thing that you are saying. Isn’t that a double standard? If so, wouldn’t you say that people in the Holocaust establishment are not using logic and reason?
Kollerstrom: Indeed it is shameful the way huge sums of money are being used to promote the teaching of an event which did not even happen. Psychologists need to discuss why people enjoy and seem to revel in all the fictional horror and never-ending river of guilt. O God, what we did to God’s chosen People! How Americans have managed to involve themselves in this and also feel guilty, with big Holo-museums in various capital cities etc., I will never understand. They had nothing to do with it. If Americans want to feel guilty about the Holocaust, I suggest they re-define it as what was done to Native Americans over the centuries. Are they not America’s real holocaust survivors?
Sure, people in the Holocaust
establishment are using their reason – to con as much as they can out of
the gullible goyim. I presume the Washington DC Holocaust Museum has
got the usual pile of shoes, and also hair. Well excuse me they did have
recycling industries in the camps and yes these things were collected.
But so what?
We need to develop correct reasoning on these matters. America has
got a big Humanist-sceptic movement that is supposed to promote
rationalism and sceptical enquiry. Maybe they should be asked about the
Spielberg Schindler’s List which as you say netted over 221 million:
what of its images of human bodies burning in big funeral pyres, do they
condone the idea of human bodies as being inflammable?Every university with a Holo-course needs to be badgered about whether it permits divergent views amongst students on the subject, or will students automatically be failed if they express a revisionist view? Normally this is the one course on any college campus where a plurality of discourse is NOT permitted. If so, students should call for such courses to be closed down as violating the most sacred of American traditions, of free thought and open discourse.
Alexis: Excellent point. People in the Holocaust establishment certainly cannot wiggle out of Stalin’s extermination and Mao’s great famine, which ended up liquidating at least one hundred million lives. Whatever happened to the descendants of those people? Don’t they deserve some kind of reparation as well? Not even one Holocaust museum in the Western world? It is really hilarious to observe how Jewish legal scholars like Michael J. Bazyler cannot really deal with those issues without being inconsistent and incoherent. That’s one reason why they prefer to avoid the central issue altogether.[4]
Let’s move on. You write, “Insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and laws of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be sustained.”[5] You also say that you majored
“in the History and Philosophy of Science precisely because I believed that we are a science-based civilization, and that therefore controversial aspects of historic science and technology should be critiqued and studied…One day it dawned upon me that there was a chemical angle to ‘the Holocaust,’ because a simple chemical reaction had taken place in walls where cyanide gas had been used in World War II.”[6]
You add, “Clear, chemical logic drew me into this topic, and that remains the firm ground on which I stand.”[7]
You have alluded to some evidence earlier. Lay out for us some of the main logical and scientific arguments that convince you that this “Holocaust” system cannot be sustained in any meaningful or rational sense. You argue that if science historians do their job properly, they will inevitably come to the conclusion that the so-called gassing at Auschwitz is scientifically impossible. Provide some evidence here.
Kollerstrom: You’re quoting Jim Fetzer in the Intro to my book, that ‘Insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and the laws of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be sustained.’ That is to say, it asks us to believe things which cannot have happened.
The British Intelligence decrypts for example over 13 months 1942-3 give daily totals of people entering and leaving the camps. There were messages directly intercepted because the German codes had been broken, without them knowing this. These messages break the camp totals down into four groups of prisoners – Poles, Russians, Jews and German (political prisoners). That gives us a basic arithmetic which is fully compatible with other reliable sources, eg the Death-Books of Auschwitz as released by Gorbachov in the 1980s – we’ve put some graphs up showing a breakdown of these stats on our whatreallyhappened.info website.
The point is that these totals are
not remotely compatible with the numbers traditionally given. They were
not murder camps, period. Over that year of which we have the decrypts,
Jewish mortality is not any different from that of the other ethnic
groups in the camps. For the record, the Death Books have more Catholics
than Jews dying at Auschwitz, so I don’t know why Jews have somehow
appropriated that camp as if their ‘suffering’ were somehow unique.
The Exterminationist types will always argue here, Ah don’t you
realize, the Jews were gassed on arrival, and not counted in the
records. Their bodies were then quickly incinerated and the ashes thrown
into the Vistula. So in that case why would the Germans have bothered
to keep records? That sounds a bit like people explaining why there are
no German-built human gas chambers to be found in any German
labour-camps – why, the wicked Nazis destroyed them all as they
retreated. There comes a point where one needs to use Occam’s Razor, and
say that if no evidence can be found for the whole thing, ie no
physical-material or documentary evidence, then IT DID NOT HAPPEN.I’d like to see Holo-study course transferred into science departments, so that a critique of the evidence would be possible. If I may give just one example, we have a figure for Auschwitz of the total amount of coke used in the cremation ovens over a couple of years. Each oven took say a couple of hours to incinerate a body. Loads of these had to be installed once the big typhus epidemics broke out in the summer of 1942. It does sound macabre but the point is the ground was too damp to bury any bodies so they had to be cremated.
Now the quantity of coke needed per body under these circumstances is a fairly normal science-technology kind of question. It will give you numbers in accord with what we know of the typhus mortality in that camp. It absolutely rules out some huge extra number from a ‘human gassing’ fantasy, it gives a ceiling on mortality in that camp. In my experience Revisionists tend to be guided by material and rational argument and logic, whereas Holo-believers go more by stories, which they have been told.
Shermer also admitted that the Holocaust establishment hasn’t really looked at the serious problem of the so-called Holocaust itself in an audio transcript. He called Cole a racist in his magazine and then privately apologized to Cole, saying that it was one of the most deceptive ways to attack Holocaust revisionists. Listen to the interesting conversation and you will be surprised.
Shermer is the co-author of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, and this book is filled with red herring, straw man, and all kinds of logical errors and historical inaccuracies.[10]
Shermer has recently written Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye, but again the self-proclaimed “professional skeptic” would never be skeptical about outrageous claims made by apologists of the “Holocaust.” He even believes the now defunct claim that the Nazis used Jewish fat to make soap,[11] a myth that has been abandoned even by people like Deborah Lipstadt!
Shermer is not a serious scholar on these issues at all. As David Cole quickly found out, Shermer is an opportunist (or clown) chasing after popularity.
But in a chapter entitled “Skepticism as a Virtue,” he writes in his recent book Skeptic:
“We must always be on guard
against errors in our reasoning. Eternal vigilance is the watch-phrase
not just of freedom, but also of thinking. That is the nature of
skepticism.”[12]
I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Shermer also supports a historically malicious book called Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust
in which its author, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, perversely argues that
ordinary Germans were largely responsible for the so-called Holocaust.Goldhagen’s thesis was challenged by Jewish scholar Ruth Bettina Birn in the Cambridge Historical Journal. Goldhagen, instead of responding to the critique in a scholarly manner,
“enlisted a high-powered London law firm to sue Birn and Cambridge University Press for ‘many serious libels.’ Demanding an apology, a retraction, and a promise from Birn that she not repeat her criticisms, Goldhagen’s lawyers then threatened that ‘the generation of any publicity on your part as a result of this letter would amount to a further aggravation of damages.”[13]
Goldhagen, by this action, proved himself incapable of dealing with historical scholarship and shows that he was not interested in historical truth but merely in propagating his own ideology. People who are not of the truth will do whatever is necessary to suppress it.
Shermer was obviously aware that Goldhagen’s thesis was a fraud, for no rational person can maintain some of the statements he makes in Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Finkelstein and Burn responded to Goldhagen’s thesis in a book entitled A Nation on Trial, but instead of dealing with the arguments in that book, Shermer responded by saying that Finkelstein and Burn “responded with an emotionally charged volume…” Those are the only “arguments” Shermer presents against A Nation on Trial. But he and his co-athor Alex Grobman went on to postulate:
“Whether Goldhagen’s explanation
of the Holocaust is right or wrong is not our concern here….As a source
Goldhagen is reliable; he plays by the accepted rules of historical
scholarship; and he accounts for the observed phenomena while offering a
different explanation for them.”[14]
Even Raul Hilberg, one of Shermer’s most reliable sources, denounced
Goldhagen’s thesis as complete nonsense. Hilberg said that Goldhagen’s
“scholarly standard is at the level
of 1946… This is the only reason why Goldhagen could obtain a Ph.D. in
political science at Harvard. There was nobody on the faculty who could
have checked his work.”
Yehuda Bauer, another Jewish scholar who is part of the Holocaust
establishment, said similar things of Goldhagen. But Shermer would not
listen at all. And he is now writing books about skepticism?In Why People Believing Weird Things, he quotes Karl Sagan approvingly, saying:
“If you are only skeptical, then
no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You
become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the
world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.)
“On the other hand, if you are
open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical
sense in you, then you cannot distinguish useful ideas from the
worthless ones.”
But Shermer again takes all the premises of the Holocaust
establishment at face values without even examining them rationally. He
writes books saying the so-called Holocaust happened, but privately he
admits that there are numerous problems with the Holocaust narrative. It
just ain’t right!Any comment on any of those points?
Kollerstrom: The question of what Sceptics are allowed to be skeptical about is and has always been tightly controlled, ever since the movement was set up by Paul Kurtz in 1976. Basically they are here to promote godless atheistic materialism, and call it ‘science’.
I once tried enquiring to a Euro-Sceptics group, if I’d be able to join and give a paper on what brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11, as skeptical about the official story, and was advised in no uncertain terms that it would be outside their remit.
It’s interesting how you observe, that Michael Shermer edited his Sceptic magazine, but also published a book averring that those who did not accept the orthodox view on the H. topic were ‘denying history.’ One is reminded of the well-known British atheist Richard Dawkins, who is very ‘rationalist’ in terms of scoffing at anyone’s religion, but will totally believe in the H. with, dare I say it, religious fervor. It is an ersatz modern religion.
Sure, Jewish soap, Jewish lampshades, why not? Forget the analyses that have been done showing that these are pig’s skin and not human flesh.
I love the way you point out that Shermer witters on about ‘eternal vigilance’ in defence of freedom of thought, but then when a critique is published of the book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which he supports, endeavoring to load yet more guilt onto the Germans, then legal action is taken to suppress it! Yes even Cambridge University Press (my alma mater) is colluding in suppression of dissent! Rational debate has gone out of the window once legal action of this kind is allowed and perpetrated. Germans are not allowed to defend themselves – banned by the constitution the US/UK imposed upon them at the end of WW2 – so kudos to Ruth Bettina Birn for defending them.
I suggest your words ‘People who are not of the truth…’ is quite important. These are the people of the lie. This is a religion, a religion based upon horror and despair. I hope the human race chooses not to believe it much longer.
Raul Hilberg's Stunning Admission (censored from PBS)
[1] Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust—Myth & Reality (Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2014), 22.
[2] See for example “Holocaust Educational Trust gets £500,00 for Auschwitz visits,” BBC, May 2, 2013; Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
[3] Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler—How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold (New York: Routledge, 2000), 1.
[4] Michael J. Bazyler, Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts (New York: New York University Press, 2003).
[5] Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell, 10.
[6] Ibid., 17.
[7] Ibid., 20.
[8] See for example Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997).
[9] David Cole, Republican Party Animal: The “Bad Boy of Holocaust History” Blows the Lid Off Hollywood’s Secret Right-Wing Underground (Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2014).
[10] I corresponded with him on some of these issues back in 2012, and the interactions are on file.
[11] Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000 and 2002), 117.
[12] Michael Shermer, Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye (New York: Henry & Holt Company, 2016), 60.
[13] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000), 65. For a full discussion of Goldhagen’s fabrications, see Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1998).
[14] Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 253.
Related Posts:
Jasper’s Fitzhugh Newspaper Censors Monika Schaefer’s Reply to Editor’s Defamatory & Threatening News Article By Monika Schaefer
July 19, 2016 by 1 Comment
From: Monika Schaefer monika_schaefer@hotmail.com“I have always been a peace activist, and I am still a peace activist. What we have now is a world of war and turmoil, structured by lies and deception. I am standing up for a better world.”Monika Schaefer
Sent: July 19, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Paul Clarke
Cc: rdoull@aberdeenpublishing.com; lbolton@aberdeenpublishing.com
Subject: Censorship of Monika Schaefer at Jasper’s Fitzhugh Newspaper
Paul Clarke, Editor of The Fitzhugh
Jasper Alberta
July 19th, 2016
editor@fitzhugh.ca
Dear Paul,
Upon careful consideration I have decided that either you publish my whole letter, or not at all. If you cannot publish my entire response to your article of July 14th, 2016 “Video denying holocaust causes uproar”, then I will find other channels to do so. You may have noticed that this story is gathering attention around the world. Your refusal to publish more-than-half of my response to your smear piece will become part of the international story. Word is getting out that Canada is becoming a repressive society, and the Fitzhugh’s unfair censorship encapsulates this repression.
Here is how my friend and colleague in England sees it:
“Paul Clarke’s article is exactly 800 words long, including propaganda-spreading photo caption (775 without). The full text of your letter is 680 words. That says it all. He can’t publish an 800-word article that makes youa de facto leper in your hometown of 35 years, and not give you at least equal space to respond as a means to defend yourself and your position. For him to limit you to 253 words is: 1) cowardly and 2) morally reprehensible.”I agree with those words 100%.
Furthermore, the part of my letter you chose to cut provides evidence in support of my position. The part you were proposing to allow (the politically acceptable) is a lead-in to contextualize the evidence. You are demonstrating a technique of journalistic smear. You publish conclusions without allowing the supporting evidence to be presented.
This is not a game. Serious threats have been made against me. By censoring my response, you are contributing to the conditions that could make Jasper unsafe for me.Sincerely,
Monika Schaefer
cc to: Robert Doull, President Aberdeen Publishing
Linda Bolton, Managing Director Aberdeen Publishing
Below is my unabridged letter to the editor. Clarke stated he would only run the first five paragraphs:
**********************************************
**********************************************
18 July 2016 noon Mountain Time
Paul Clarke’s hit piece on me in the July 14th 2016 edition of The Fitzhugh requires a response. First, what is the story? The Fitzhugh
reports that the RCMP is not currently investigating the matter. It is
also reported that the Alberta Human Rights Commission neither confirms
nor denies receiving a complaint. What is the news?It appears that the only real substance to Paul Clarke’s smear is his detailed account of Ken Kuzminski’s antagonism towards my video. On the basis of his political judgement, Kuzminski seeks to criminalize me and evict me from my home. He declared on social media that I am not welcome in Jasper. From my perspective, my peaceful expression of disagreement with official orthodoxy is being met with a publicized incitement to hatred against me. Who is most in danger here?
I invite my friend Ken to consider the authoritarian implications of his draconian interventions. Do we have freedom of speech in Canada or not? How far does Ken wish to go in criminalizing dissent?
Ken Kuzminski’s announcement that I am banned from the Jasper Legion, of which he is president, raises the most profound issues. We were always told that Canadian soldiers fought for our freedoms, including freedom of speech and association. Shutting me out of the Legion demeans the values that our veterans supposedly fought to protect.
Kuzminski contacted the German Embassy. Why? Is he trying to get Canada to follow Germany’s even more repressive police-state censorship on the issue of what actually happened in WW2?
[The remainder of the letter is the portion that The Fitzhugh refused to print – MS]
The truth does not fear investigation. Only lies need protection by law.I will exercise my freedom of speech here. I insist on some reckoning with facts and evidence.
After the Toronto “Holocaust trials” of Ernst Zündel in 1985 and 1988, the curators of the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland reduced death statistics from 4 million to 1.5 million. Why did the 6 million number remain unchanged?
Evidence in those trials brought to light the fraud of the gas chamber story. The French Professor Robert Faurisson was a pioneer in this line of investigation. He has been repeatedly convicted in French courts and physically assaulted for persisting with his scientific inquiry. Faurisson was instrumental in bringing Fred Leuchter, America’s top gas chamber specialist, into the Toronto trials. Leuchter conducted a thorough scientific examination of the facilities at Auschwitz and concluded that there were no homicidal gas chambers.
Robert Faurisson’s trials and tribulations speak of the high stakes nature of genuine historical inquiry into the evidence of this subject. He has famously summarized, in a 60-word sentence, his conclusion from decades of research on the forbidden subject:
“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which made possible a gigantic financial-political fraud, the principal beneficiaries of which are the state of Israel and international Zionism, whose principal victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the entire Palestinian people.”Many people, including Jews, died in WW2. Most of the concentration camp deaths occurred in the final months of war because food was not reaching the camps. The Allies carpet-bombed Germany, in particular transportation corridors. Camp inmates died of starvation and disease. The International Red Cross figure for total deaths in all the concentration camps was 271,301. Look it up.
According to Clarke’s article, Martin Sampson, director of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, claims “it is the most well-documented genocide” and “the truth is the Holocaust was industrialized, state-sponsored murder committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people”. Yet, in the many thousands of government documents and archives that were seized by the Allies after the war, not a single item was found indicating a plan to exterminate the Jews. How could the mass murder of 6 million people take place without a plan?
I have always been a peace activist, and I am still a peace activist. What we have now is a world of war and turmoil, structured by lies and deception. I am standing up for a better world.
Monika Schaefer
The New Issue of TBR
The New Issue of TBR
The New Issue of TBR
The New Issue of TBR
The New Issue of TBR
Categories
Customers who bought this product also purchased...
Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence The War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can End your CareerBy Jim FetzerAs a student of the history and the philosophy of science, I have been dumbfounded to discover that ISIS, a prominent journal in the history of science, has published a review of a book on astronomers that was edited by T. Hockey, THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, by N. M. Swerdlow, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago (ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-8), in which he assails Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science and scholar whom I admire, on the alleged ground of anti-Semitism.
While Kollerstrom has conducted scientific research on the Holocaust
related to the use of zyklon gas to exterminate inmates, it has nothing
to do with his contributions to THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, where his
entries on John Couch Adams, John Flamsteed and even Issac Newton are
completely independent of research related to the Holocaust. The only
reason for introducing it at all, therefore, has to have been to fashion
an ad hominem attack on Kollerstrom, a gross abuse of
Swerdlow’s role as a the author of a review, which ISIS should not have
accepted for publication.
Even if he disagreed with Kollerstrom about the Holocaust, those
views ought not have been cited or used to attack him. They had nothing
to do with his research on the astronomers whose entries he authored,
which included one on Newton, which reflected great confidence by Hockey
in Nicholas. It is as if Swerdlow had intended to demonstrate to the
world his ruthless dedication to the extermination of any vestiges of
(what he considers to be) anti-Semitism. Astonishingly, he not only
adopts the extreme measure of discouraging any library from purchasing
the encyclopedia but outrageously suggests that the book itself should be pulped!
So Swerdlow not only commits the ad hominem fallacy by
discounting Kollerstrom’s research on astronomers because of his
interest in questions about the Holocaust, a point that should have been
apparent to ISIS, but he practices an extreme form of guilt by association
by condemning the entire contents of this volume on that basis, which
means that he compounds one fallacy by committing another—and it is one
that, from the perspective of intellectual history, actually appears to
be even more egregious as a form of group punishment for the sins of one
of its contributors.
Having spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of this
kind and having an extensive background as the founding editor of MINDS
AND MACHINES, of which I was the sole editor for ten years, and having
spent another decade as an associate editor of SYNTHESE, which is
devoted to methodology, epistemology and philosophy of science, I was
shocked that a journal of the stature of ISIS should have permitted this
offense to have occurred, which not only taints Kollerstrom but stains
the journal itself.
The charge of “anti-Semitism”, alas, has often been used to impugn
the character of anyone who conducts research on issues that may
adversely affect the interests of Israel and its Zionist allies, which
I, as the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, have repeatedly
encountered as a consequence of discoveries that implicate the Mossad as
having a role in 9/11. I have published about this myself, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” While Nick has made no such charge, the evidence supports it.
Significantly, Kollerstrom has conducted rather extensive research on
7/7, including publishing TERROR ON THE TUBE (revised and expanded,
2011), which exposes the role of government agents or of those acting on
its behalf to arrange for the terrorist acts that were attributed to four young Muslim men,
who appear to have been used as patsies, when the circumstances of the
case—including missing a train that would have brought them to
London—made it physically impossible for them to be present.
This case has been brilliantly exposed by John Anthony Hill, who is also known as “Muad’Dib”, in his DVD, “7/7 Ripple Effect”,
which I recommend to everyone who cares about 7/7. We live in a world,
alas, where governments lie more than they speak the truth and spend
much of the national treasury promoting initiatives, such as wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, that are inimical to the interests of their
citizens, squandering enormous resources both financial and personal for
the benefit of corporations and their profits.
Because it is extremely difficult to expose government complicity in
atrocities of this kind, I have greatly admired Muad’Dib and Nicholas
Kollerstrom for their dedication to exposing falsehoods and revealing
truths about these events, which has included featuring them both as
guests on “The Real Deal”, an internet radio program I host, where those
interviews can be found in its archives, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com and as the authors of or the subjects of blogs at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.
Swerdlow’s actions are so unwarranted by any reasonable
professional standard that I personally suspect that they were
deliberately contrived to punish Nick for research not only on the
Holocaust but on 7/7 as well. I therefore volunteered to compose a
letter to ISIS, in which I explained why I believed Swerdlow’s assault
was completely unjustifiable and deserved to be remedied. Nick and I
discussed my letter in some detail, which the journal accepted and
published in ISIS 102:1 (2011) as follows:
Re: ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-198
Dear Editor,
During a recent visit to the UK, I met the scholar, Nicholas
Kollerstrom, whom I have previously interviewed on “The Real Deal”, an
internet radio program I host, about 7/7, his book, TERROR ON THE TUBE
(2009), and aspects of 9/11 and other atrocities.
He has been a productive author with multiple books, including
ASTROCHEMISTRY (1984), THE EUREKA EFFECT (1996), and NEWTON’S FORGOTTEN
LUNAR THEORY (2000). For a fine collection of his articles, visit http://dioi.org/kn/index.htm.
Nick is one of the few academicians I know who has the courage,
the mentality, and the integrity to assume the role of a public
intellectual, not only relative to 7/7 and 9/11 but also by pursuing
scientific questions concerning the history of the Holocaust.
Reading N. M. Swerdlow’s revisew of Thomas Hockey, ed., THE
BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, I was taken aback to find a
discussion in ISIS that commits fallacies I spent 35 years teaching
freshmen and sophomores to avoid.
Nearly 30% of this review is devoted to a slashing “ad hominem”
attack on Nick Kollerstrom! After cursory remarks about Nick’s entries,
Swerdlow makes a variety of allegations that are either false or
completely irrelevant to the essays in question.
Nick, for example, is an historian of astrology, not an
astrologer. With N. Campion, he has co-edited GALILEO’S ASTROLOGY
(2003), perhaps the definitive work on the subject, which is relevant to
his essays but Swerdlow does not deign to acknowledge.
He also has a (perfectly legitimate) intellectual interest in
horoscopes, which he has pursued, as well as in the factual accuracy of
the (widely embraced) history of the Holocaust, both of which Swerdlow
either exaggerates or grossly distorts.
Neither these interests of his nor his conclusions that 9/11 and
7/7 were “false flag” ops in which elements of the US and UK governments
were complicit, however, has any place in a review of his essays in a
collection of biographical studies of astronomers!
Laws against expressing doubts about the Holocaust, in my view,
are simply absurd. If you believe in the Holocaust, as I do, then it
should be apparent that serious research will lead to its vindication
and, if it does not, we are all entitled to know. Truth is paramount.
Something that stuns me, moreover, is that, unless Swerdlow has
studied 9/11 and 7/7, he cannot possibly know that Nick is wrong! Having
done quite extensive study of 9/11 and considerable on 7/7 and it is
obvious to me that, on the contrary, about both, Nick is right.
The very idea that the reviewer should single out Kollerstrom
because of his research on matters unrelated to the essays he authored
and discourage other scholars and libraries from purchasing the book on
that basis “crosses the line”! It smacks of burning books.
Nick and I discussed the matter and agreed that it would be
preferable for me to speak on his behalf, since a letter from him might
be interpreted as self-serving. As another scholar who has devoted
himself to issues of this kind, I have been glad to address this matter.
Swerdlow has conducted an unprofessional and unwarranted vendetta
for which he owes the profession an apology. We should be standing in
support of those few among us who have the strength, integrity and
courage to investigate the controversial issues of our time.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
The editor of ISIS, Bernard Lightman, apparently felt that Swerdlow
deserved another opportunity to wield his axe, which he pursued with
relish. Swerdlow asserted that he saw no reason to modify his position,
suggesting that Nicholas regarded Auschwitz, for example, as a very
hospitable environment, where Zyclon-B was used as a disinfectant rather
than as a method of extermination. While he has concluded that there
were certain amenities at Auschwitz, which he has discussed, without
having studied the evidence, how can Swerdlow be so certain that he is
right and that Nick, who has actually been studying it, is wrong?
Strikingly, Swerdlow compounds his assault with a counterpart attack
on me for research I have done on the death of President John F. Kennedy
and for editing a collection of studies on 9/11, which he presents in
as unsympathetic a fashion as possible. This attack is even more
revealing than his assault on Kollerstrom, since I organized a research
group in 1992 consisting of the most highly qualified experts and
scholars to investigate the death of JFK, which, I am confident, he
himself has never studied.
These have included a world-authority on the human brain who was also
an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D.
and board certified in radiation oncology; a physician who was present
when JFK was brought to Parkland Hospital and, two days later, was
responsible for the care of his alleged assassin; a legendary photo and
film analyst; and another Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in
electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving
objects.
I have chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the
subject, published three books by experts on different aspects of the
case, and produced a 4.5 hour documentary about the assassination. I
have made hundreds and hundreds of presentations and interviews,
including lectures at Cambridge, Harvard and Yale. Indeed, my background
with respect to 9/11 is comparable, where I edited the first book from
Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized its first conference in Madison, Wisconsin, and produced its first DVD, “The Science and Politics of 9/11”.
In lieu of reasoned arguments, Swerdlow appeals to popular sentiments
by taking for granted that widely-held beliefs must be true and that
views at variance with them have to be mistaken. Thus, unless you have
actually studied the evidence, it might be difficult to appreciate that
there are more than fifteen indications that JFK was set up by the
Secret Service, where he appears to have been taken out by the
CIA/military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement, where the FBI
covered it up and LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover were principals with financing
from Texas oil men. For an overview, see my “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?”,
which I presented at a national conference featuring Theodore Sorenson
as the keynote speaker and was introduced by Judge John Tunheim, who had
served as the head of the ARRB.
Those familiar with the history of the UK, however, might be less
surprised than Americans, since Shakespeare would have had little to
write about were it not for plots against the kings of England. But
there were technical aspects to the cover up, where JFK’s X-rays were
altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of his head, another
brain was substituted for the original, and the home movies of the
assassination were revised to conceal that the driver brought the limo
to a halt to make sure that he was killed. See, for example, studies by
David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., John P. Costella, Ph.D., and me archived
at http://assassinationscience.com.
Others who would like some reassurance about the quality of our work should follow this link
to multiple reviews of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and to access the
Preface and the Prologue as well as endorsements by Michael Parenti,
Ph.D., Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael L. Kurtz, Ph.D., and from
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, among others. Of special importance is the review by George Costello, J.D.,
THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE
FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work
for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who
appear before federal courts.
Relying upon his correspondence with Bernard Lightman, the
Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, Nicholas had formed the rather strong
impression that he would be given the chance to respond to Swerdlow’s
reply to my letter. He therefore drafted a response that ran exactly the
same number of words as Swerdlow’s second bite of the apple, which was
470. It was therefore a bitter disappointment when Lightman declined him
the opportunity to set the record straight, a nice example of his
adding insult to injury.
On the basis of an article by Nicholas relating to the controversy
over the now-obligatory visits to Auschwitz by UK schoolchildren —
archived at http://www.codoh.com/incon/incontrip.html
— Swerdlow claims that Kollerstrom asserts “that Auschwitz was a
pleasant place for its guests”! But while he does report that there were
various amenities for the inmates, including a swimming pool and
orchestras, he restricts himself to features he has been able to
establish rather than the atmosphere. This suggests ISIS should have
refereed his review more vigorously. As Nick has remarked to me, the
accounts we have from Auschwitz tend to be fairly dire.
Suppose that Kollerstrom were wrong about his conclusions based upon
his research. Does an historian of science deserve to be ostracized for
advancing opinions that are at variance with prevailing views? Nick’s
article also cites significant differences on the question of how many
may have died there. Is that question also ruled out as a subject for
historical research? Shouldn’t we discover if popular views are more
than political myths? Surely Lightman ought to have published the
following letter, which Nick submitted to him, as the final word in this
nasty and unprofessional exchange:
Letters to the Editor, Isis WORD COUNT: 470
Dear Editor,
There is something deeply ironic about a journal devoted to the
history of science publishing an attack upon me for conducting
scientific research on one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th C. As
Professor Fetzer observed in his letter, what do we have to fear from
research on the Holocaust? If it was real, then its reality will be
confirmed; and if it was not, then surely we all deserve to know.
N. M. Swerdlow falsely asserts, ‘[Kollerstrom] defends Nazis and
condemns their victims and supports his claims by links to strident
Jew-hating websites’. If true, that would be a hate crime. For the sake
of the integrity of ISIS, if he cannot substantiate this allegation,
ISIS should demand an apology and retraction. Outrageous distortions not
only discredit him as a source but also tarnish your reputation for
accuracy and truth as a professional publication.
While I have authored TERROR ON THE TUBE about the July 7 London
bombings, currently in its 3d edition, anyone who reads it will know
that I make no such claim as that the event was “the work of
‘international Zionism’”. Swerdlow is advancing criticisms he cannot
sustain, which should never have appeared here–defaming both my book and
its publisher.
Swerdlow declares that, “a line has been crossed that should
never be crossed”. But how can that apply to scientific research about
an historical controversy without begging the question? I have an
interest in the several investigations of residual iron-cyanide in the
walls of Auschwitz labour-camp buildings, which carry residues of how
and where zyklon (granular cyanide) was used sixty years ago. But this
is a scientific question that can only be addressed by conducting
scientific research.
In his second attack, Swerdlow also asserts I have “nothing
original” to say. But I have actually established the ‘control’ values
for the normal background levels of ferro-cyanide found in kitchens,
dormitories and such, of the German labour-camps by synthesising the two
sets of Leuchter and Rudolf cyanide values on the basis of objective
measurements of insoluble iron cyanide.
Nothing could be less original than using the phrase, “Holocaust
denier”, to bash the reputation and standing of those of us who believe
controversial events are those we most need to address. He alleges I
contend “Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But who in the
world could believe so insane an idea? Only someone willing to distort
research could try to pin this on me.
Like Fetzer, I am an historical revisionist, who cares about the
truth and getting it right, especially concerning monumental events,
such as the death of JFK and reality of the Holocaust. But that is
precisely what the study of history is all about, where efforts like
ours to insure the record is factual rather than fictional deserve
praise, not condemnation.
Nicholas Kollerstrom
Perhaps most importantly in relation to this decision, Nicholas had
written to Bernie Lightman on May 27, 2011, “to request that you ask
Swerdlow [quite specifically] which are the ‘strident Jew-hating
websites’ which he reckons I link to: I believe this is hate-crime which
your Journal has accused me of, as defined by 2010 European Union
legislation.” And the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, replied to his request as
follows:
“I did not tell you that you would be able to reply to Swerdlow’s reply to Professor Fetzer. I told you that the journal’s policy was that there could be one reply to a review (you chose to have Fetzer reply for you) and then that the reviewer was given the opportunity to respond. The matter then comes to a close. That is the policy and I will not deviate from it. Regards, Bernie Lightman”
Since ISIS has facilitated the publication of what appears to qualify
as a hate-crime under European Union legislation, surely ISIS had an
obligation that justified going beyond its normal policies. In my
opinion, this decision by Bernard Lightman was an astounding affront to
every member of the profession, whose ability to respond to allegations
that should never have been allowed into print were thus circumvented.
Given the new venom injected by Swerdlow in his reply to my letter, even
if under ordinary conditions one reply would have been enough, a second
was justified here.
For the sake of comparison, the Editors-in-Chief of SYNTHESE
committed a blunder by adding a preface to a special issue of the
journal, “Evolution and Its Rivals”, as a consequence of pressure
imposed upon them by proponents of Intelligent Design, in which they
expressed concerns for “the tone” of one of the contributions. Their act
created an academic scandal that was discussed intensely across a broad
spectrum of forums, where nearly 500 scholars endorsed a boycott of the
journal or called for a formal apology and retraction of their preface,
many calling for their resignations.
Those who may stand in disbelief that a matter so relatively trivial
compared to the repeated abuse of an historian of science by a prominent
journal that is devoted to the history of science should visit some of
the blogs and other venues in which it has been discussed, which range
from Brian Leiter’s influential philosophy blog to The New York Times.
Since the offense that ISIS facilitated in the first instance was
compounded by the second, I am at a loss as to how a professional
society could accept these actions without a formal protest. Under these
circumstances, I believe that Bernard Lightman ought to resign.
THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, of course, is a
collaborative academic publication from Springer, one of the world’s
leading publishers of technical and scientific journals and books, which
has an enormous number of contributions from a very large number of
contributors, where its Table of Contents
is simply staggering. Swerdlow faults the volume for having a few
entries of which he does not approve. But that appears to be highly
selective on his part and a very cheap shot.
These are not issues about which the authors are remotely likely to
be unqualified. Swerdlow’s review—even apart from his attack on
Nick—appears to be suspect on its face. And how could anyone in their
right mind allow Swerdlow’s suggestions that libraries not purchase the
volume and that it ought to be pulped to stand without vigorous protest,
even if one of the contributors has an interest in research on subjects
that some—perhaps even most!—may disapprove? What kind of standard is
that? How is that being fair to the contributors, the editors, or the
publisher? That is a disgrace.
There are some 1,550 entries in the encyclopedia, which were authored
by 430 scholars, of whom Nick Kollerstrom is only one, under the
supervision of an Editor-in-Chief and a team of six associate editors. I
would be willing to conjecture that a significant proportion of them
may well have vices of their own, such as addictions to alcohol,
pornography, adultery, S&M, or who-knows-what other practices of
which public disapproval may be widespread. Should those authors be
ferreted out and have their entries abolished, too? No, let’s just pulp
the whole book!
I am reminded here of the occasion on which I first became involved
in serious research on the assassination of JFK. It was in mid-1993 and I
was lying in bed, drinking a cup of coffee and reading the paper, when
my wife came in and said, “You won’t believe this!”, while turning on
the TV. The image appeared of a distinguished man in standing behind a
lecture with the logo of the American Medical Association, who was
denigrating every serious student of the assassination from Mark Lane
and Robert Groden to David Lifton and Charles Crenshaw.
He was especially caustic in attacking Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, which
offers the most comprehensive, accurate, and complete depiction of what
actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 ever presented to
the American people through the mass media. The person turned out to be
George Lundberg, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the AMA. I was
stunned that someone of his stature would appear to be abusing the
journal for political purposes and citing interviews with the autopsy
pathologists as though they were science. That convinced me that perhaps
some of us with special backgrounds and abilities should become
involved.
Swerdlow’s abuse of his position has similarly convinced me that,
once again, if those in positions of authority are abusing them for
political purposes, some of us who might not otherwise have become
involved in questions of this kind also have an obligation to pursue
them. The issues involved are as important as they could be for the
defense of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, especially about
controversial historical events. If the Holocaust is a reality, as I
believe, then responsible research should confirm it; and if it is not,
we are all entitled to know.
Perhaps the ultimate irony concerns the ethics of Swerdlow’s review.
The essence of morality is treating other persons with respect. But by
recommending that the other contributors, the editors, and the press
should be punished for the perceived sins of one of the contributors, he
is promoting the practice of collective punishment, contrary to the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. It was even condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal
in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes. In his zeal to condemn
Kollerstrom for pursuing research on the Holocaust, therefore, Swerdlow
has gone off of the deep end and committed an intellectual offense that
is completely grotesque, which thereby exposes the immoral core of his
own position.
The Egyptian goddess, Isis, after whom the journal is named, was long
worshiped as the matron of nature and of magic. She has been described
as the friend of slaves and sinners, by some accounts, which makes her
name all the more appropriate here. In my opinion, Nicholas Kollerstrom
was savaged by N. M. Swerdlow, not for offenses against the history of
science, but for transgressing boundaries that are intended to protect
sacred myths from refutation. In Swerdlow’s view, Kollerstrom deserved
to be pilloried, not for his entries in an encyclopedia about
astronomers, but for doing something that is forbidden–conducting
scientific research on the Holocaust. And not even the Editor-in-Chief
of ISIS has been willing to grant him a fair shake.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Will Larry Silverstein ever be brought to justice for 9/11 insurance fraud? by Dr Kevin BarrettLarry Silverstein, who made a killing out of insurance payouts after 9/11, is to have his case for MORE payments reviewed in court today by — guess who? By Judge Alvin Hellerstein, his partner in crime.
Source: 9/11 could be insurance fraud as “trial” of conspiring duo begins in NY today
|
Yes, Putin did not refer to gas chambers or six million murdered Jews.
On the other hand, he used the term “death camps.”