If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Name that 9/11 command-and-control network!

Just what the bleep is PDAS (pronounced "Peed-Ass"): Pretty Damned Amazing Secret? Portable Disinformation Action Simulator? President's Death-to-America Synchronizer?

Whatever it is, it ain't pretty. According to Wayne Madsen:

"Multiple U.S. intelligence sources have reported to WMR that a super-classified network with only some 70 terminals in select U.S. government locations handled the parallel command-and-control activities that permitted the 9/11 terrorist attacks to be successful. The 'above top secret' network bears the acronym 'PDAS.' WMR has not yet discovered what the acronym stands for..."

We at TruthJihad.com think America needs to know. That's why we're announcing the Name that 9/11 Command-and-Control Network contest. To enter, just leave a comment with your guess as to what the acronym PDAS stands for. The best entry wins a package including autographed copies of my latest two books, plus a bunch of cool DVDs.

So guess away. But remember -- if you guess right, they're going to have to kill you.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Enough holocaust already! Time to move on

Now I know why nobody dares mention the holocaust debate. I've never seen such a swarm of comments and emails. Like Coleridge's ancient mariner, these people all seem to have a tale to tell. If you're in a hurry to a wedding, don't stop to listen to them. (If you're a history buff, though, you'll find plenty of food for thought.)

So let's move on. May 15th, Nakba Day, is only a few weeks away. The holocaust it commemorates, the annihilation of Palestine, is still happening. That's the holocaust I'm most concerned with, not just because our taxes are paying for it, but because it threatens to engulf the whole world. As the press release for Alan Hart's new book puts it:

"This is the second volume in the series, ZIONISM: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the inside, true story, monumental and moving, of Zionism’s colonial enterprise and the conflict it provoked in and over Palestine that became Israel; a conflict which shows no sign of ending and contains, some fear, the seeds of a doomsday catastrophe for the region and possibly the whole world."

My Nakba Day radio guest will be Gordon Duff, publisher of Veterans Today. Duff has published all kinds of great 9/11 truth stuff, including articles by David Ray Griffin;  broke the story of the underwear bomber's many Mossad connections; and his most recent piece is a trenchant warning of another Israeli "attack on America," based on leaks from extremely highly-placed sources, or so he tells me. Duff is one of those experienced analysts, along with Alan Hart (at the end of my interview with him), Alan Sabrosky, Jeff Gates, and Michael Andregg, who explicitly or implicitly point the finger at the Israeli Mossad as the main 9/11 culprit. Two other well-placed sources, ex-CIA analysts Ray McGovern and Bill Christison, seem to be saying pretty much the same thing in so many words. When you consider the evidence (including the material in Bollyn's book), then ask who had a motive worthy of such a huge gamble (Zionism has no future without the US at war with Israel's enemies), who gained (by a permanent war on Islam and Muslims), and who covered it up (starting with the Zionist-dominated mainstream AND pseudo-alternative media) it's hard to avoid the conclusion that these folks are right.

Anyway, here are my parting shots, for a good long while, on the holocaust debate: My own email about why I chose to host it, and Roberto Muehlenkamp's original response after doing the show.

* * *

Shakespeare & Cervantes meet holocaust revisionism

by Kevin Barrett, 4/23/2010

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

On this day in history, 394 years ago -- on April 23rd, 1616 to be exact -- the two greatest European writers of all time shuffled off this mortal coil. Both were famous for sidestepping or deflating the sacred narratives and windy generalities that often pass for wisdom, instead taking a tough but sympathetic look at the actual human condition.

The story of the Nazi Holocaust has become a sacred narrative underpinning a self-congratulatory American-Zionist narrative of World War II and its aftermath. Like other foundation myths (including Zelikow's pre-scripted events of 9/11/01), the Holocaust separates time into a "before" and an "after," justifying the "whole new world" created by the foundational event. For Americans, the "whole new world" is one in which the ultimate evil of the Nazis shows why the US must build the world's biggest military and remain perpetually at war; for the Zionists, it is a "whole new world" in which poor little Israel, endlessly threatened with annihilation, must use every available means, including mass murder and big lies, to preserve itself.

More than any other single story, the Holocaust is the foundation of the Zio-American empire's war against the world. It is the foundation of both the Palestinian holocaust, the Nakba, and the US military/CIA murder of millions that William Blum calls the American Holocaust.  Thus, if we are to end these holocausts, the original Holocaust story needs to be ripped out of its sacred setting and returned to ordinary, secular history. To achieve this, we must overcome the fear, horror and awe that has been drummed into us by the media and talk about the Nazi holocaust calmly, empirically, historically. Such fearless talk, whatever conclusions it may or may not reach, will help transfer the Holocaust story from the sacred to the secular sphere--a major step toward ending the ongoing genocides that are explicitly or implicitly justified by its sacredness. It will help U.S. Americans realize that the holocausts THEY committed and are still committing, whose body counts of tens of millions are protected by no laws and enshrined by few museums and whose "righteous victims" are unfinanced by reparations, are the ones that should get most of their attention...in order that the real lesson of all holocausts, "never again," can finally be achieved.

That's why, on today's Truth Jihad Radio, I'm shattering the taboo on discussing holocaust revisionism. I hope you'll agree that I'm doing it in the kind of fair and open-minded way that would be helpful to those who, like me, are new to the issue -- and to those who are not who can set aside their emotional prejudices and reflexive use of ad-hominems, and listen to three guests' well-informed yet wildly different perspectives on this fascinating and deeply repressed issue.

* * *

 Roberto Muehlenkamp's response, sent the day after the show:

Thank you too, Kevin. Your moderation was even-handed and your questions were very good.

Unfortunately the time was too short to address all the claims made by Mr. "Dalton" during the first hour. Therefore, and as you seem to have a genuine interest in the subject, I sent you some links via Skype for further information.

The first link, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/05/old-herrings-in-new-can-thomas-daltons.html , contains my overall assessment of the author's agenda based on the two chapters of his book that are available online. As I said during the interview, I don't think that Mr. "Dalton" entered as a neutral observer and came out as a "Revisionist". He was a "Revisionist" from the start and inevitably reached the conclusions predetermined by his "Revisionist" position. Reading further into his book during the weekend only reinforced this assessment.

The second link, http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2475, contains my translation of the Korherr Report, a 1943 progress report on the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" prepared by Himmler's own statistician Richard Korherr, which is not even mentioned in "Debating the Holocaust". Korherr's postwar claims that he didn't know what he was writing about are addressed in my blog under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/04/richard-i-didnt-know-korherr.html .

The first postwar demographic assessments pointing to a Jewish population loss in the order of 6 million, which I also mentioned, can be found under http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/nuremberg/documents/index.php?documentdate=1945-06-00&documentid=C107-6-1&studycollectionid=&pagenumber=1 and http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/angtoc.asp . Unless there is something in parts of DTH that I haven't read yet, "Dalton" ignored both of these assessments. (Population loss doesn't mean that all were murdered, of course. In the Soviet Union, for instance, there were about 300,000 Jews who died in the ranks of the Red Army or as civilians due to war-related causes.)

Goebbels' diary entry of 13 December 1941 regarding Hitler's meeting with the highest party officials on 12 December 1941 is quoted in an article by German historian Christian Gerlach that is transcribed under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2556 . Gerlach's translation of this entry is the following: 

Regarding the Jewish question, the Fuhrer is determined to clear the table. He warned
the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction.
Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of
the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is
not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews.We should have sympathy rather with our own
German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another
campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay
for it with their lives.

The same article also contains a partial translation of what Hans Frank, the governor of the Polish territories occupied by Germany, said in his speech of 16 December 1942:

As for the Jews, well, I can tell you quite frankly that one way or another we have to
put an end to them. The Fuhrer once put it this way: if the combined forces of Judaism
should again succeed in unleashing a world war, that would mean the end of the Jews
in Europe. . . . I urge you: Stand together with me . . . on this idea at least: Save your
sympathy for the German people alone. Dont waste it on anyone else in the world, . . .
As a veteran National Socialist I also have to say this: if the Jews in Europe should
survive this war, . . . then the war would be only a partial success. As far as the Jews
are concerned, I would therefore be guided by the basic expectation that they are going
to disappear. They have to be gotten rid of. At present I am involved in discussions
aimed at having them moved away to the east. In January there is going to be an important
meeting in Berlin to discuss this question. I am going to send State Secretary Dr.
Buhler to this meeting. It is scheduled to take place in the offices of the RSHA in
the presence of Obergruppenfuhrer Heydrich. Whatever its outcome, a great Jewish
emigration will commence.

But what is going to happen to these Jews? Do you imagine there will be settlement
villages for them in the Ostland? In Berlin we were told: Why are you making all this
trouble for us? There is nothing we can do with them here in the Ostland or in the
Reich Commissariat. Liquidate them yourselves! . . . For us too the Jews are incredibly
destructive eaters. . . . Here are 3.5 million Jews that we cant shoot, we cant poison.
But there are some things we can do, and one way or another these measures will successfully
lead to a liquidation. They are related to the measures under discussion with
the Reich. . . . Where and how this will all take place will be a matter for offices that
we will have to establish and operate here. I will report to you on their operation at the
appropriate time.

In a blog under http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_1/goebbels_on_the_jews.php, Mr. "Dalton" quoted only this part of Frank's speech:

What is to happen to the Jews [after evacuation]? … We have in the General Government an estimated 2.5 million Jews—perhaps with those closely related to Jews and what goes with it, now 3.5 million Jews. We can’t shoot these 3.5 million Jews, we can’t poison them…

and argued that Frank was "obviously" unaware of any program of genocide. As I said in the interview, he left out the interesting parts.

Gerlach's article further contains a translation of the passage from the protocol of the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942 that I mentioned in the interview:

In the course of the final solution, the Jews should be brought in an appropriate manner
and under appropriate direction to work in the east. In large detachments, with the sexes
separated, the Jews who are able to work will construct roads in these regions. It is to
be expected that a sizable number will disappear due to natural causes.
The Jews who survive, however many there may be, will no doubt be the hardiest. They
will have to be treated accordingly. Otherwise these select few, should they escape, could
form the basis for a new Jewish line of descent. (See the experience of history.)

Regarding Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942 I sent you the link http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/04/goebbels-on-liquidation.html , which links to a German clip about the Soviet Katyn massacre in which "liquidated" is also used in an unequivocally homicidal sense.

Regarding mobile killing operations by Einsatzgruppen and other units, I sent you the permalink http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/quick-links.html#whydenial, which leads to several articles discussing related issues including the accuracy of the Einsatzgruppen reports as concerns the numbers they reported. Also of interest in this context, as concerns the matching of Soviet reports with evidence independent of the Soviets, are the blogs http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/05/mass-graves-in-polesie.html and http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/07/neither-soviets-nor-poles-have-found.html .

I further sent you these links regarding physical evidence at the extermination camps Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka:




You may want to compare the translation from examining judge Lukakskiewicz' site investigation report of 13.11.1945 in the last of these blogs with the parts thereof that are quoted on page 118 of DTH. You will find that "Dalton" again left out the interesting parts.

The permalink leads to my long discussion with Carlo Mattogno about the Belzec mass graves and the logistical and issues of body disposal at Belzec. Needless to say, the conclusions reached there also apply to the Sobibor and Treblinka, and to Chelmno as well. Carlo Mattogno is arguably the most capable "Revisionist" writer, which is why rebutting him is one of our priorities at HC. Mr. "Dalton" is not so important as he essentially draws on the arguments of Mattogno and other "Revisionists". However, his somewhat-less-than-accurate references to some of my articles in DTH come in handy for a summary of the conclusions as concerns burial capacity and burning of corpses that I reached in my discussion with Mattogno.

We write a lot about mass graves on HC. If you click the label "graves" at the bottom of any of the articles under the above three links, you'll find all of our work that has been labeled accordingly under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/graves .

The Hungarian Jews murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau in the summer of 1944, another issue that Mr. "Dalton" talked about yesterday, are the subject of the blog http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/12/number-of-hungarian-jews-gassed-in.html . I haven't yet looked at the arguments regarding logistical feasibility in DTH, but logistical feasibility is addressed in the 1993 edition of Jean-Claude Pressac's Les Crematoires d'Auschwitz, of which I have the Portuguese translation. Pressac concludes that the SS at Auschwitz-Birkenau could within 70 days kill and dispose of up to 300,000 persons, using at four liquidation sites eight teams of Sonderkommando, four working during the day and four working at night, with a total of one thousand workers. Recent research shows that the number of Hungarian Jews killed at AB was closer to 300,000 than to 400,000, and they didn't have to gas and burn them all on the day of arrival because they had the holding camp known as "Mexiko" for keeping arrivals meant for the gas chambers until the existing capacities made it possible to "process" them. Mr. "Dalton"'s argument that Auschwitz-Birkenau killed below capacity before the summer of 1944 is defensible but irrelevant - after all the Nazis couldn't kill people at Auschwitz-Birkenau any faster than they managed to get them there, and organizing and carrying out the transports from various European countries, rather than the killing itself, was their big problem. Under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2541 you'll find a long list of transports to Auschwitz-Birkenau, put together by my fellow blogger Dr. Nick Terry, a British historian. 

The diesel issue that Mr. "Dalton" mentioned at the end of his hour is addressed in the blog http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-diesel-issue-is-irrelevant.html, which I also sent you per skye and which contains a discussion about this issue in the comments section between Mr. "Dalton" and me. The corpse discoloration issue, which is not as linear as Mr. "Dalton" presented it in his interview (even with gasoline exhaust the people in the gas chambers may simply have suffocated from lack of oxygen before they could die of carbon monoxide poisoning, which would explain the "blue" color mentioned by some eyewitnesses, the pink-red discoloration of fatal carbon monoxide poisoning only shows some time after death and thus not necessarily when eyewitnesses observed the corpses inside the gas chambers, and it doesn't occur at all or not very prominently when people are suffering from anemia or other conditions induced by malnutrition) have been amply discussed on the RODOH forum, last on the thead http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/10392?page=4 starting with my post http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/240673/t/DEMJANJUK-Scapegoat-for-Jewish-Madness.html#reply-240673. On that thread you'll have the pleasure of meeting one of the "Revisionists" eulogized by "Dalton" as writers of "serious, dedicated works", Mr. Friedrich Paul Berg. 

One of the issues that interests me most is the one that you brought up right at the beginning of your interview with Mr. "Dalton", that of non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murder. I have written several articles about this comparatively unknown issue, which you can reach under the link http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/non-Jewish%20victims. You may be particularly interested in my articles about the 5-million-figure, which you find under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/04/5-million-non-jewish-victims.html and http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/04/5-million-non-jewish-victims-part-2.html .

I hope you'll get something out of our articles. For any questions you may have please feel free to contact me.

All the best,


Monday, April 26, 2010

Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis

Thomas Dalton, Saturday's first hour guest, responds to the second hour guests, Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis:

Hi Kevin -- Just wanted to say thanks again for the show.  I thought it was well-executed and balanced.  Here are my comments in reply to Ricardo and Andrew:


(1)   First, I was happy to hear them say that they oppose anti-Holocaust denial laws, and that they support open and public debate.  This position is rare amongst traditionalists.  Nearly all prefer to stifle debate, harass revisionism, and use the law as a weapon.  This, of course, only furthers the suspicion that the orthodox view is weak and unsustainable.

(2)   Roberto admits that he is not a “main guy” when it comes to the standard Holocaust view.  This raises 2 questions:  since he has not published any work (other than blogs) on the topic, nor proven his ability to conduct serious research, why should accept his responses?  And furthermore, where are the real “main guys,” and why are they hiding from debate?

(3)   On the Korherr report, it is true that I do not address it in my book Debating the Holocaust.  This is because it is, in my estimation, an insignificant and inconclusive matter in the overall debate.  The report was not secret, and nothing in it points to mass killing of Jews.  It does, however, talk about mass evacuations, which were indeed occurring at that time (early 1943).  And there are internal contradictions, in that the conclusions do not follow from the statistics, which suggests either significant error or ulterior motives of some kind.  Finally, Korherr himself stated in 1977 that the “special treatment” cited in the report referred to “Jews who were to be resettled,” not killed.

(4)   Andrew said that the two dozen or so references to “6 million” suffering Jews, in the years prior to WWII, was a result of “cherry-picking”.  Of course, there are other references to fewer than 6 million, since different portions of that number were suffering in different places and times.  But the peak figure is almost always 6 million (occasionally, 5 million).  So he has a case only if there are many references to more than 6 million, i.e. 7 million, 8 million, 9 million, etc.  I doubt that they exist, but perhaps they do.  I suggest he undertake that research, in the New York Times, for the years 1900-1945, and let us know the results.  If they prove to be more numerous, then the ‘6 million’ would carry no special significance, and I would be happy to modify my text accordingly.

(5)   Of course, this would not affect the other main problem with the ‘6 million,’ namely, that we find no breakdown of this figure in any conventional source.  This strongly suggests that no one really understands this number, which is so vital to the entire story.  Hilberg is the only one to provide details for the 3 main categories—ghettos, shootings, and camps—but he finds only 5.1 million deaths, and even these are unsubstantiated.  Here is my proposal for the traditionalists:  ghettos 1.0 million, shootings 1.7 million, camps 3.3 million.  Do Roberto and Andrew wish to defend these numbers?  Or do they have others?  Once they decide, then we can begin a serious analysis.

(6)   Roberto says that Hilberg is too low on his Einsatzgruppen shootings number (1.4 million).  Andrew cites the recent Desbois book, Holocaust by Bullets, which claims 1.5 million.  What neither of them mentioned is that we have not nearly enough forensic evidence to support such numbers.  Desbois found (allegedly) 800 “mass graves” in the East, but have absolutely no useful data on these graves:  size, area, location, corpse count, ash quantity—nothing.  The Nazi reports that Roberto relies on add up to only about 450,000 (so where are the other 1 million?), but we can be sure there is significant error and exaggeration even in these, if only because have, again, no evidence of any such mass killings. 

(7)   On the lack of a Hitler order, it is rather amazing to believe that Hitler’s policy was, as Roberto says, that underlings should simply “feel free” to kill Jews at will.  Can anyone really believe that 6 million persons could be killed, and their remains made to vanish, by such an informal policy?  Isn’t it far more likely that no such policy was ever intended, or implemented?  And that perhaps the total number killed was far less than 6 million?

(8)   On the Goebbels diary, both guests make much of the March 27, 1942 entry in which 60% of the General Government Jews were to be “liquidated.”  Let me say, first off, that it does their case no good to bring up Goebbels!  I have analyzed the diaries in detail—all 29 volumes, available only in German—and found virtually no evidence of mass murder.  I would refer the reader to my article “Goebbels and the Jews” (www.inconvenienthistory.com – Part 1 posted now, Part 2 to follow in May).  Of 123 relevant entries on the Jews, I found only repeated reference to evacuation and deportation—no mass killing, no gas chambers, no genocide.  The usual reply by traditionalists is that Goebbels used euphemisms and a ‘code language’, but this makes absolutely no sense in a personal and private diary!  -- and for more than a decade, during which time Nazi policy was allegedly “evolving”  toward mass murder.

Specifically regarding “liquidation”, Goebbels used that word 8 times with respect to Jews, and at least 2 of these, without question, do not mean ‘killing’ (“liquidating the Jewish danger”, and “liquidating Jewish marriages”).  The literal meaning of liquidation is, of course, ‘to make fluid.’  And this was exactly Nazi policy:  to “make fluid” the entrenched Jewish population, and to cause them to flow out of the Reich.  This is not nit-picking!  I cite a newspaper of that time, which describes liquidation as either killing (based on then-current rumors) or “transportation eastward in cattle trucks to an unknown destination.”  And Auschwitz survivor Thomas Buergenthal describes his ghetto as being “liquidated”—meaning dissolved and evacuated.

Perhaps most striking is that Goebbels uses, only once, an explicit term for killing Jews—and not German Jews, but Allied Jews!  This was in a late entry (March 14, 1945), and only after 5 major Allied fire-bombings killed more than 125,000 German civilians.  He had no compunction about calling for Jewish deaths, when it was warranted.  I can only suggest that the reader check out my article, read the entries in full, in context, and then decide for himself.

(9)   Finally, an important point that did not come up is the alleged gassing and body disposal at the 3 Reinhardt camps (Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka).  This is a huge problem for traditionalism, and Roberto, in particular, has gone to outrageous lengths to construct explanations.  For example, he says that the carbon monoxide source was gasoline engines, not diesels (to get around the troubling fact that all experts today mention diesels, despite the fact that they produce far too little carbon monoxide gas!).  But this fails because (a) the leading witness for gasoline, Reder, explicitly stated that the exhaust gas was “evacuated…directly into the open air, not the gas chamber”!, (b) the Nazis would certainly have tried to use ‘producer gas’ systems, which are not engines at all, but rather small furnace units that produce high amounts of CO—but not a single witness mentions this, and (c) numerous witnesses describe the victims as ‘blue’, but CO poisoning results in a distinctive red or pink coloration, not blue;  it could not have been missed.

Roberto also holds to impossible figures like: average gas chamber densities of 28 persons per square meter (roughly, 3 feet by 3 feet!), and 15 corpses per cubic meter of grave space.  Most ridiculously, in discussing the burning of corpses on a metal grid, with wood, that as little as a 1-to-1 ratio (wood to corpse mass) would suffice to burn the bodies down to pure ash.  Imagine this:  that a 100-pound corpse, partially decomposed and perhaps frozen, could be burned to pure ash—with 100 pounds of wood!  In reality it would take perhaps 500-1000 pounds of wood, under ideal conditions, to approach this.  And yet we are to believe that 1.7 million bodies were disposed of this way, in a matter of a few months.  I think he loses all credibility with such claims.

Lastly, I find it extremely odd that many of the bloggers ‘solutions’ to revisionist challenges do not appear in published, authoritative sources on the Holocaust.  It is as if their fellow traditionalists are completely unconvinced.  There will soon be published the newest ‘authoritative’ book, The Holocaust, by Peter Longerich.  I am anxious to see how many, if any, of these issues he addresses.


Sunday, April 25, 2010

Everybody loves my holocaust revisionism show - what am I doing wrong?!

My "Springtime for Hitler" plan to stage a spectacular, catastrophic debacle lies in ruins! Mel Brooks, eat your heart out!
A couple is having a nasty fight. You step between them to make peace. What happens? They both turn on you and clobber you.

Everybody knows that "if you piss off both sides, you must be doing something right." By setting up a radio debate on holocaust revisionism, I thought I had a foolproof plan to be reviled by just about everybody and take a giant step toward being universally despised. The "six million Jews died and not a Jew less" crowd would pound the living crap out of me for even having a revisionist on my show, while the "Uncle Adolf was actually a really nice guy, and he hardly killed ANY Jews except for maybe a few hundred thousand" folks would stone me with swastikas for not endorsing their case. It was a perfect lose-lose situation.

Unfortunately, the best laid plans for abject failure sometimes fail to fail at all. Roberto Muehlenkamp, one of the world's best-known anti-revisionists (who did a very good job as my second hour guest) thanked me for doing the show and wrote "Your moderation was even-handed and your questions were very good." Thomas Dalton, his mostly-pro-revisionist opponent, also thanked me and said "I thought it was a good show.  They (anti-revisionists Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis) were very cordial!" A leading light of the 9/11 truth movement wrote "As always, Kevin, I admire your courage and truth seeking." A Jewish 9/11 truth activist colleague who had been giving me a hard time not long ago wrote "Glad to see you're still at it." Another truth activist wrote "You, sir, are simply awesome. With admiration and respect, (name deleted)." And on it goes. Everyone from my ardent anti-revisionist friends to a disquietingly pro-Nazi revisionist listener seems to think it was a good idea and a good show.

The only significant negative feedback so far just arrived while I was in the middle of writing this blog entry. It's from an excitable Canadian truther friend, who wrote: "Kevin, I can no longer support your radio show on American Freedom Radio  featuring holocaust revisionists on a 9/11 truth program. I've opted to turn this off for good.  Please with respect, remove me from your radio mailing list."

PHEW! Somebody finally hates me! I guess it wasn't a total wash-out after all ; - )

You can listen to my sweet, cute & cuddly show on Holocaust revisionism -- a show that seems to have made the whole world fall in love with me, except for my good friend Doug -- here.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Anti-revisionists agree to rebut Dalton on Saturday's Truth Jihad Radio!

While I have been unable to find any Holocaust Studies professors to rebut Thomas Dalton on Saturday's show, despite inviting dozens of them, an old acquaintance, Dr. Andrew Mathis, and the prominent anti-revisionist blogger Roberto Muehlenkamp have agreed to appear during the second hour of the show and respond to Dalton's arguments. Should be a great show! Details here.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Dear Angela Merkel: How much do Raul Hilberg and I owe you?

Thursday 4/22: This just in! Two notable anti-revisionists have agreed to join me to rebut Thomas Dalton. Details here.

[Note: I will be interviewing Thomas Dalton, author of Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides this Saturday, April 24th, 5-6 pm Central, on AmericanFreedomRadio (to be archived here for free on-demand listening).  I am still looking for a mainstream Holocaust expert to refute him during the second hour. Over the past few months I have invited Deborah Lipstadt, Michael Shermer, John Zimmerman--the three most prominent critics of the "Holocaust deniers" -- as well as many dozens of professors from several of the leading Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Jewish Studies programs. While I have received a few cordial refusals, notably from Shermer and Lipstadt, the vast majority of the academic "experts" have refused to respond...as has anti-revisionist blogger Muehlenkamp. I will be publishing my email to these experts in a later blog. Meanwhile, I am worrying about how to fill the second hour of the show. If you know any Holocaust experts who dare to defend the conventional wisdom, please have them contact me: kbarrett*AT*merr.com. Otherwise I will just have to keep Dalton on for the second hour to respond to callers, many of whom, I hope, will critique his interpretations.  Anyway...as a free speech absolutist and a card-carrying non-coward, I am disgusted by the fear that surrounds this topic--not to mention the criminal sanctions. Below is my letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel offering to turn myself in for beginning to doubt the standard six-million-Jewish-victim figure.]

Dear Andrea Merkel,

I read in the news that your German government has fined Bishop Richard Williamson 10,000 Euros for "partial Holocaust denial."  According to reports, the 10,000 Euros fine reflects Williamson's public statement that he believes that "200,000 to 300,000 Jews died in Nazi concentration camps" rather than the widely touted figure of six million.

According to the dw-world.de report, you stated that the pope must "'clarify unambiguously that there can be no denying' that the Nazis killed six million Jews." So I am writing to tell you that as a Muslim and a nonbeliever in both papal infallibility and Zionist historiography, I am not going to endorse the six million figure even if the Pope threatens me with hellfire and damnation. After reading three books on the issue--Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust, Shermer's Denying History, and Dalton's Debating the Holocaust--I am now prepared to state that I find pre-eminent Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg's estimate of 5.1 million Jewish Holocaust victims a more reasonable estimate.

Since it is against the law in Germany to state ones belief that fewer than six million Jews died in the Holocaust, Hilberg and I are apparently partners in crime. The question is, precisely what penalties should Hilberg and I face? Since Bishop Williamson was fined 10,000 euros for underestimating the six-million-Holocaust by 5.75 million people, that means that underestimating the six-million-Holocaust by roughly one million, as Hilberg and I do, should be penalized by a fine of $1,739.13 Euros. Please let me know where I should go to turn myself in -- the nearest German consulate is in Chicago -- and whether you would like that in the form of cash, check, or credit card. Or should I just send it straight to Israel and bypass the middleman? (Hilberg, fortunately for him, passed away a couple of years ago, and will thus never have to feel the fiscal jackboot of German justice.)

But seriously, Ms. Merkel, you may ask why I side with Hilberg's estimate of 5.1 Holocaust deaths rather than the well-known figure of six million. My answer is that Thomas Dalton, in his book Debating the Holocaust, presents evidence that the figure of six million European Jewish victims threatened with destruction repeatedly occurs long before anyone could possibly have known the real figure. For example, the February 23rd, 1938 New York Times describes six million European Jews as "slowly dying of starvation, all hope gone." Yet at that time the Holocaust, much less its precise body count, was still several years away. A few decades earlier, the May 7, 1920 New York Times cited "Jewish war sufferers in Central and Eastern Europe, where six millions face horrifying conditions of famine, disease and death..."

These two cases are not isolated instances. All told, Dalton cites seven such references to the six million Jews threatened/killed figure during World War II but before accurate body counts were possible; two such references from the 1930s; eight from the period during and after World War I; five between 1900 and 1914; and even four from the 19th century, the first occurring in 1869! He also states that when the official death toll at Auschwitz was revised downward from 4 million to 1.1 million in 1989, the official consensus held that the previously-believed-in 2.9 million Holocaust victims who suddenly turned out never to have existed were all non-Jewish Poles, thus preserving the apparently magical six million Jewish victims figure...while the anti-revisionist Shermer, as I recall, claims that the overall Holocaust total didn't change, despite the sudden evaporation of 2.9 million previously assumed death camp victims, because about that number could be added to the previously-accepted figures for victims killed on the Eastern front, mainly by firing squads. Either way, it seems very strange that the well-known six million figure (and the less-known 11 million figure that includes non-Jewish victims) could survive the sudden disappearance of almost three million previously-assumed deaths.

The arguments cited above, along with others too lengthy to elaborate here, suggest that the magic figure of six million is some sort of tribal shibboleth, rather than an empirically-verified, historically-accurate body count. Hilberg's estimate of 5.1 million Jewish Holocaust deaths thus seems far more probable.

Honestly, Ms. Merkel, I do not understand why the six-million-Holocaust, if it is really a well-verified historical fact, needs to be protected by criminal prosecutions, fines, prison sentences, ad-hominem vilification, the destruction of careers and reputations, and all the other trappings of the Orwellian police state. Some African-Americans and Native Americans argue that their holocausts involved up to one hundred million deaths, while other historians claim that the real figures are only a small fraction of that...and yet I have never heard of anybody being fined, imprisoned, or driven out of polite society for the all-too-common "crime" of "underestimating" these holocausts by millions or even tens of millions. Why should underestimations of the Jewish body count from the Nazi Holocaust be treated differently? Isn't this a case of racist double-standards, in which the "inferior races" (Native Americans and Africans) are neglected, while superior "white" Jewish suffering is lionized? And isn't it the case that if denying the Palestinian holocaust, the Nakba, were criminalized, virtually the entire population of the USA, Europe, and Israel would have to be prosecuted?

Truth does not need the support of criminal sanctions, Ms. Merkel. By prosecuting Holocaust revisionists for thoughtcrime, you are announcing that you believe they are right. That makes you a Holocaust revisionist yourself. Please turn yourself in to your nearest Gestapo Thoughtcrime unit immediately. Who knows, maybe you'll end up sharing a cell with me and the ghost of Raul Hilberg.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Hidden in plain sight: The Washington Post's "devastating" admission that 9/11 was an inside job

Washington Post: CIA admits destroying tapes of KSM "confessions" under torture; main 9/11 Commission Report pseudo-evidence permanently erased from historical record because it would be "devastating" to CIA.

"The 2005 destruction of 92 videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects at secret CIA prisons immediately prompted concern at agency headquarters that the decision was not adequately cleared and may have been improper, according to newly released documents....Jose Rodriguez Jr., head of the directorate of operations at the CIA from 2004 to 2007, sent a cable authorizing the destruction of the tapes.

"Foggo's deputy wrote that Rodriguez thought 'the heat from destroying is nothing compared to what it would be if the tapes ever got into public domain -- he said that out of context they would make us look terrible; it would be "devastating" to us.' " (full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505854.html?sub=AR )

Why would the CIA think destroying the only alleged evidence for the 9/11 Commission's version of events would bring down LESS heat than releasing this evidence?  Clearly, if KSM and the 9/11 patsies were shown to be guilty, videos of them being tortured would hardly be "devastating" for the CIA. Unfortunately, the majority of the American public would probably applaud the torture. The only conceivable reason these tapes would be "devastating" is that they would show that KSM (or the feeble-minded impostor they claim is KSM) and the other patsies were innocent and tortured into false confessions, and perhaps brainwashed into believing the script drilled into them during the torture sessions. The only conceivable reason the release of these tapes would be "devastating" is that they would have made it clear that it wasn't Arabs who brought down the three  skyscrapers with advanced nanothermite explosives.

The Post's story is a "devastating" admission that 9/11 was an inside job.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Amy Goodman has never done anything wrong?!

Below is today's email to my friend and colleague Jonathan Elinoff, in answer to his defense of Amy Goodman, who had been attacked in a We Are Change Colorado video. (My own confrontation with Amy Goodman)

Hi Jonathan,

Always great to hear from you!

I can't judge the Amy G video without a url -- checked the first couple pages of wearechangecolorado.org and didn't see it.

>I wouldn't care so much but, Amy Goodman has never done anything wrong to us.

She witnessed the controlled demolition of WTC-7 and, despite being an alleged "alternative journalist," never reported on it, or on the rest of the story of the century. She then accepted a large grant from the CIA appendage Ford Foundation to "report on the aftermath of 9/11" which may explain her continuing failure to do her job.  I believe she has only broached the subject of 9/11 truth twice on her show, in both cases setting up the truth advocates for ambushes by skilled professional liars. She repeatedly references the grotesquely absurd official fairy tale of 9/11 as if it were unquestioned truth, thereby reinforcing the big lie and promoting its murderous effects. Her rare, utterly ineffectual bleats of "I support a new investigation" hardly excuse her failure to do her job, which (along with a few other journalists doing their job) would have prevented millions of deaths.

Since 9/11 was among other things an incitement to genocide, and more than a million Muslims have already been exterminated as part of the continuing slow-motion long-term genocide, I believe journalists who should reasonably have been expected to report honestly on 9/11 and failed to do so ought to be tried for crimes against humanity following the Nuremburg precedent. These journalists and their bosses should be held personally responsible for the deaths of more than one million people, and the likely future deaths of tens if not hundreds of millions more. (It will be a miracle if we emerge from the 9/11-triggered "war of civilizations" without hundreds of millions of casualties.) So if there is a reason why Amy "I ran from the WTC-7 demolition" Goodman should not join thousands of other journalists and media moguls in the docket, I would like to hear it.


Saturday, April 10, 2010

Questioning the War on Terror 2nd edition sells out early on book tour!

My wife Fatna and I recently returned from a very successful Northern California tour premiering the new edition of  Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters. The people we met were extraordinary, the books sold out early, and the overall experience was so positive that Fatna has become a strong 9/11 truth movement supporter! A huge thank-you to event organizers Maureen O'Flaherty, Larry White, David Kimball, Tom King, and the others who pitched in and made this possible. And another big thank-you to Carol Brouillet, Ken Jenkins, and the rest of the Bay Area 9/11 Truth Alliance, where we were invited to a very enjoyable potluck and Q&A session.

My only regret about this trip is that we weren't able to meet with Janette McKinlay, who is suffering severe health problems related to her exposure to the very World Trade Center dust she provided to Steven Jones and other scientists--with historic results. Janette is a talented artist and extraordinary human being. Please join us in praying for her.  http://www.janettemackinlay.com  

Video of my Northern California book tour:

Questioning the War on Terror
Sacramento, California - April 2, 2010


Peace Jihad: Islam and the Quest for a World Without War  

"Peace Pyramid" Fair Oaks, CA - April 3, 2010 
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5944431  7:00 PM
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5945793   8:41
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5947517   9:27
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5949362  10:56