*** Revisionist Theater *** - One of the best essays on Revisionism I have ever read!

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

-- 

REVISIONIST THEATER
Preparing to Take the Show on the Road
by Bradley Smith


The first order of business was to create the "show" and get it 
exhibited. The show was a 30-minute intro by Smith, a 32-minute cut 
from El Gran Tabu, and a 30-minute Q&A. Ninety minutes. Just right. 
Easy, direct, focused on free speech and intellectual freedom, with 
an innately scandalous subject matter-writers and scholars being 
imprisoned for thought crimes, with the American professorial class 
acting out the role of "bystanders."

And the double whammy of this traveling show being only a preamble, 
its purpose to create an audience for the full-length film which will 
reach into the world of mass media-where theater is everything!

When I introduced El Gran Tabu at the Corto Creativo film festival in 
June, the trick for me was to prepare a Mexican mainstream academic 
and student film audience for what they were going to see. Americans 
would be in the audience, but even the largest percentage of those 
would be Hispanic.

I took it as a given that for the most part they would have no 
particular background in the Holocaust story, and even less about 
revisionist arguments that question the heart of the story. They 
would be largely unaware that in America revisionists risk financial 
and social ruin, while in Europe they risk those things and 
imprisonment on top of them. And I had to get the message out that I 
am not a historian but am arguing, and why I am arguing, against 
suppression, censorship, and taboo regarding this one historical 
event. As it happened, it looks like I did it rather well. The 
audience understood.

I delivered the talk in Spanish, from the first word to the last. I 
began with a small "ice breaker." It worked. It got a good, and I 
think appreciative, laugh from the audience.

The text of my intro follows.

=====

Good afternoon to all of you. I am very pleased to have been invited 
to attend this festival, to exhibit my work-in-progress, El Gran 
Tabu, and very pleased that you are here with us.

In this first moment-and please forgive me for this interruption-but 
I have been told that I am obligated to deliver a short message to 
you about my use of the Spanish language. The person who told me to 
deliver this message is my wife. My wife is from a village in 
Nayarit, and she wants you to know that she knows how to speak 
Spanish correctly. She wants you to know that she has spent the last 
30 years doing everything she can to teach me how to speak Spanish 
correctly. My wife wants me to explain to you that the lenguaje I 
will use this afternoon is completely my own and that she does not 
take responsibility for my words or how I pronounce them.

No responsibility whatever. For my part, I am very happy to pass this 
message on to you. Thank you. And thanks to my dear wife as well.  I 
think.

Well, let's get on with it.

Theater, like all art-and cinema is certainly theater-is dangerous to 
the culture in which it comes to life because it is oftentimes a 
revolt against the good-against what is held to be morally right by 
those who rule, and what has been accepted as being morally right by 
those who are being ruled. Cinema-as-art can be, and in some cases 
must be, a rebellion against what culture holds to be morally right.

We call our documentary The Great Taboo. The great taboo is meant to 
suppress, censor, and punish those of us who express doubt that 
during World War II the Germans used weapons of mass destruction (gas 
chambers) to murder millions of innocent, unarmed civilians.

It is considered morally right to believe in the unique monstrosity 
of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazis), and morally 
wrong to suggest that they were fully human in the same way that, in 
America, Democrats and Republicans are fully human, no matter how 
many people they kill, or how they kill them.

It is well known all over the world that during World War II the 
Americans used weapons of mass destruction-great fleets of heavy 
bombers and nuclear bombs-to intentionally murder masses of innocent, 
unarmed civilians in all the cities of Germany and Japan.

The great taboo is meant to suppress the fact that German Nazis are 
held to one standard of justice and morality, while American 
Democrats and Republicans are held to a different one. The great 
taboo argues that while German Nazis were monsters for intentionally 
killing innocent, unarmed civilians for a "greater good," American 
Democrats and Republicans who did the same are heroes-indeed, we 
speak of them as "the greatest generation."

And finally, the great taboo is exploited to suppress, censor, and 
imprison writers and film makers who argue that it cannot be 
demonstrated that the Germans actually had weapons of mass 
destruction, unlike the Americans who clearly did, and who no one 
claims did not.

At this moment it might be well to consider a more recent weapons of 
mass destruction fraud. Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction? Where are 
they? Maybe they are in hiding someplace in the center of the earth, 
holding hands as it were, with those old German weapons of mass 
destruction which have not yet been proven to have existed.

What difference does any of this make? It makes a difference because 
it goes to the heart of what is morally right, and what is not.

The first weapons of mass destruction fraud morally legitimated the 
creation of a Jewish State on Arab land in Palestine. We all know 
what has come of that one.

The second weapons of mass destruction fraud was used to morally 
legitimate the invasion of Iraq by the United States. We all know 
what has come of that one.

And now, of course, there are the weapons of mass destruction being 
planned by the Iranian Government. Maybe they are, maybe they are 
not. Are we going to trust the United States Government to tell us 
the truth about Iranian weapons of mass destruction?

The truth is, the only State in the Middle East that actually has 
weapons of mass destruction is Israel. But in the United States, that 
is never talked about. Never. It too is part of the great taboo.

This afternoon we are going to watch 32 minutes of a documentary that 
I have been working on for three years. These particular 32 minutes 
are very simple. They are comprised primarily of interviews with two 
German writers who immigrated to America to find a place where they 
could write as free men, in a nation that prides itself on being a 
bastion of intellectual freedom and a free press.

What happened to these two German writers in America? The American 
government cooperated with the German State in sending them back to 
Germany where, today, at this very moment, they are being held in 
prison for thought crimes.  They have been condemned to prison for 
having an opinion about history.

What is the American professorial class doing about this? Nothing. 
The professors are in thrall to the State, and to the special 
interest organizations that assure their careers.

Six months ago, in December, I went to Tehran, the capital of Iran, 
to give a talk on the Holocaust story and the attempt in Europe and 
America to suppress, censor and imprison those of us who have found 
it necessary, on the basis of the evidence, to revise-not to deny but 
to revise-the orthodox account of those events.

The title of my talk was: "The Irrational Vocabulary of the American 
Professorial Class with Regard to the Holocaust Question."

My argument was that the American professorial class uses an 
irrational vocabulary to respond to revisionist arguments questioning 
the orthodox Holocaust story.

That the decision of the American professorial class to exploit this 
irrational vocabulary is a deliberate decision to avoid 
communication. To avoid communication! Professors! In the university 
itself!

That the purpose in choosing to not communicate as scholars to either 
students or colleagues is, effectively, to nurture and protect an 
academic environment in which it is taboo to question the "unique 
monstrosity" of the Germans during World War II.

That to question the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans during World 
War II would necessarily suggest that the history of the 20th century 
would have to be rewritten, and the nature of the role of the United 
States in that war, and in world affairs since that war, would have 
to be reevaluated.
Here I will demonstrate a prime example of the irrational vocabulary 
of the American professorial class with regard to the Holocaust 
question.

First, let me say this. The State cannot imprison its writers without 
the overwhelming cooperation of the professorial class. And when 
things get tough, the professorial class, as a class, will always 
side with the State against the people-the writer who rebels against 
what the State has pronounced to be good, to be morally correct.

We have only to consider how the professorial class, as a class, 
acted during the Hitlerian regime. How it acted in Stalinist Russia, 
in Maoist China. Even in a pipsqueak State like Fidel Castro's Cuba, 
the professorial class will cooperate with the suppression and 
condemnation of any who stand against what the State claims is the 
"greater good."

As it goes in Cuba, so it goes in the United States on the issue of 
weapons of mass destruction and their use.

My apologies to any American professor who might be here with us 
today. I am certain that you, yourself, are an exception to this rule.

During the 1990s I published essay advertisements in student 
newspapers at universities around America. My first full-page 
revisionist essay-advertisement ran in The Daily Northwestern, the 
student newspaper at Northwestern University near Chicago. It 
appeared on 04 April 1991. It was titled "The Holocaust: How Much is 
False?" The text was some 2,700 words. The text of this essay is 
online.

For the first time on an American university campus, core revisionist 
arguments challenging the orthodox Holocaust story were outlined in a 
university publication. Every observation we made reflected a 
commonplace revisionist argument. [ Š ] Among them were these.

It cannot be demonstrated that the German State had a policy to 
exterminate the Jews of Europe, or anyone else, by putting them to 
death in gas chambers or by killing them through abuse or neglect.

It cannot be demonstrated that 6 million Jews were "exterminated" during WWII.

It cannot be demonstrated that homicidal gas chambers existed in any 
camp in Europe which was under German control.

It cannot be demonstrated that the awful scenes of the dead and 
emaciated inmates captured on newsreel footage at Dachau, Buchenwald 
and Bergen-Belsen-were the victims of intentional killing or 
intentional starvation.

It cannot be demonstrated, as the Holocaust Industry claims, that 
there are "tons" of captured German documents which prove the mass 
murder of Jews and others in homicidal gas chambers.

It cannot be demonstrated that, as was claimed during war crimes 
trials, that Jews were cooked to make soap from their fat, or skinned 
to make lampshades from their hides.

It cannot be demonstrated that during the war the Red Cross, the 
Pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral 
governments, and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, 
Churchill, Eisenhower all knew about "gas chambers" but really did 
not want to talk about it.

Of course, maybe they didn't want to embarrass Mr. Hitler.

Anyhow, there it was. For the whole world to see. Standard Holocaust 
revisionist arguments. Nothing original.

One week after my ad appeared in The Daily Northwestern, the student 
paper printed a letter from a professor of history and German on that 
campus. His name was Peter Hayes. He taught a course on Holocaust 
studies. He still teaches it. If anyone at Northwestern University 
was capable of disputing any claim made in the text of our ad, 
Professor Hayes was that man.

This was a milestone for revisionism. The first time a real Holocaust 
revisionist text was printed in a university publication, and the 
first time that professional scholars had the opportunity to 
demonstrate in public where at least one revisionist argument was 
wrong and why it was wrong.

Professor Hayes, however, ignored the published text and-he did not 
address one assertion made in the text-not one. Rather in one modest 
column in a student newspaper, this Holocaust studies professor 
charged me with:

Listen to this:

"manipulation,"
"deception,"
"distortion,"
"ignorance,"
"intimidation,"
"nastiness,"
"dishonesty,"
"duplicity,"
"maliciousness,"
"tastelessness,"
"browbeating" academics like himself,
"conspiracy mongering,"
"implausibilities" and
"disinformation."

Not one word addressed any specific statement in the text of the ad.

If Professor Hayes letter were to have proven to be an exception to 
the rule, his language in the Daily Northwestern would not have been 
noteworthy. But that was not the case. He demonstrated at 
Northwestern what was to become the rule all over America.

Throughout the 1990s I ran essay-advertisements in student newspapers 
at hundreds of university and college campuses from one end of 
America to the other. Typically, each academic year I would write a 
new text. The response by the professorial class to these texts, year 
after year, was substantially the same as that of Professor Hayes. 
The text would be ignored, while its author would be attacked with an 
irrational vocabulary of insult, hysteria, and innuendo. For ten 
years. It was remarkable.

The few exceptions to this rule were typically written by student 
editors at student newspapers. None argued that any particular 
revisionist argument was sound, but a good number did argue that the 
Holocaust question should be open to a free exchange of ideas, just 
like any other historical question.

That was all I was asking. An open debate.

Fifteen years have passed since the Professor Peter Hayes incident at 
Northwestern University.
Now we come to 2006. The following texts will demonstrate that the 
American professorial class is still committed to a vocabulary of 
irrationality-that is, a deliberate decision to not communicate-with 
regard to the Holocaust question.

Once again, we will be at Northwestern University.

In February 2006 there was an international uproar in response to 
Iranian President Ahmadinejad's contention that the Holocaust is a 
"myth." The Iranian News Agency, Mehr, interviewed Arthur R. Butz, 
author of The Hoax of the 20th Century, which was published in 1976, 
30 years earlier.
Briefly, this is the core of what Professor Butz told the Mehr News Agency:


The alleged slaughter of millions of Jews by the Germans during World 
War II did not happen.
The extermination allegation is properly termed a hoax, that is to 
say, a deliberately contrived falsehood.  The hoax had a Zionist (OR 
JEWISH) provenance and motivation.


The Mehr interview with Professor Butz was reported all over the 
world. I thought, at last. Professor Butz and the President of Iran. 
Batman and Robin. A dynamic duo. There would be some academics, 
certainly one, among the professorial class in America, or at least 
at Northwestern University itself, who would take a sober look at 
Professor Butz and his The Hoax of the 20th Century. At the very 
least, they would argue that he had the right to express his 
skepticism about the German gas chambers.

Alas! I am a hopeless romantic.

The president of Northwestern University, Henry S. Bienen, issued a 
statement. President Bienen said nothing about any specific assertion 
of fact in anything Professor Butz had ever written or said, either 
in the Mehr interview, on his Web site, or in The Hoax of the 20th 
Century.

President Bienen, making a deliberate decision to not communicate, 
wrote only that Professor Butz's opinions are "reprehensible," and "a 
contemptible insult to all decent and feeling people."

The Religion Department at Northwestern University published a letter 
in which it did not address any assertion of fact in anything that 
Professor Butz has ever written. Rather, the Religion Department 
charged Professor Butz with

"fraud,"
"lying,"
"abuse,"
"hateful speech,"
"faking data," and
"moral and intellectual failure."

Sixty-one faculty members of Northwestern University's Department of 
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science-Professor Butz's own 
department-published a letter denouncing him.

Not one of these professional scholars addressed directly anything 
Professor Butz has ever written.
His department colleagues wrote that they "utterly disavowed" and 
"condemned" Professor Butz. They charged that he is an "extreme 
embarrassment" to his colleagues, that his views are an "affront to 
their humanity" and beneath their "standards as scholars". They 
"repudiated" him and urged him "to leave" the Department. These were 
his own colleagues.

There are 1,800 professional scholars employed at Northwestern 
University. Not one of them stood up in public to argue that 
Professor Butz's The Hoax of the 20th Century should be examined 
before it is condemned, or that after 30 years one paper assessing 
Butz's writings should be published in one peer reviewed journal 
where Professor Butz would have the right of reply.

Not a chance. These academics, men and women, religious and secular 
alike, Jew and Gentile alike, are in a moral crises over this issue 
and do not have enough character to be willing to understand what it 
is.

The vocabulary used by the American professorial class with regard to 
revisionist scholarship is irrational because it deliberately does 
not respond to the materials it allegedly addresses, and because it 
deliberately ignores the findings of published revisionist work in 
order to keep those findings from becoming widely familiar.

So-with regard to the use of weapons of mass destruction to kill 
innocent, unarmed civilians, we are to continue to judge the actions 
of German National Socialists-los Nazis-by one standard of morality 
and justice, while we judge American Democrats and Republicans by a 
different one. A double standard of justice, and a double standard of 
morality.

You may be wondering: What difference does any of this make in the 
real world? I am going to suggest what difference it does make. In 
the real world. Today.

If the Germans did not have weapons of mass destruction, the Jews of 
Europe were not "holocausted." The story would be a fraud.

If the Jews of Europe were not "holocausted," it would be a fraud to 
use that non-event to morally justify their conquest and occupation 
of Arab land in Palestine to create a Jewish state there.

If the United States Congress had not bought and paid for Israel for 
the last 60 years, using a fraud to morally justify it, Arab fanatics 
would not be able to morally justify-in their own eyes-their attack 
against America on 9/11.

If Arab fanatics had not attacked New York City and Washington on 
9/11, the Americans would not be able to use a 
weapons-of-mass-destruction fraud to morally justify their conquest 
and occupation of Iraq.

And there we are. A red, bloody thread that reaches from the German 
gas-chamber fraud to the Iraqi gas-chamber fraud and to the horror of 
the American campaign in Iraq where more than half a million-more 
than half a million-Iraqi civilians have been maimed, crippled and 
killed for what the American Government tells us is a "greater good."

Ask yourself:  how many enemies did America have in the Middle East 
before Israel? How many enemies do we have now? And all of it morally 
justified because of a demonstrable fraud?

Now it is time to view a segment of the documentary we are working 
on. Again, these 32 minutes are very simple. For the most part they 
record interviews with two German writers who came to America to 
continue their research and to publish their findings. They were sent 
back to Germany, with the cooperation of the U.S. Government, to be 
thrown into prison as thought criminals, without a single bleep of 
protest from the American professorial class.

This is a moment when cinema becomes quietly dangerous, when it 
becomes a studied revolt against the good-that is, against what we 
are told is morally right for us to believe, and that we must believe 
because-it is morally right.

This is a moment when the quiet testimony of two writers imprisoned 
for thought crimes illustrates the moral decadence of those in 
government, and those in the American university, who fear a free 
exchange of ideas on a public stage, in an environment of good will.

This is a moment where I begin, using cinema as art, to open up this 
story for all to see.

Thank you.

=====

[Ingrid's comment:  Let me just add here that the two writers Bradley 
speaks of are, of course, Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf.  In 1988, 
Ernst Zundel sent an investigative team to Auschwitz whose foresic 
findings resulted in the best-selling Leuchter Report.  A few years 
later, Germar Rudolf, then a young doctoral student in Germany, 
verified and refined the findings of the Leuchter Report with his own 
scientific study, published as The Rudolf Report.  The scientific 
evidence is there, for the asking, that the so-called "Holocaust" is, 
as one pundit put it, "the Easter Bunny for adults."]