Bradley Smith – katana17

Jan 27 – Anniversary of Auschwitz “Liberation” and Our Enslavement

admin — Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:55:13 +0000

Jan 27

Anniversary of Auschwitz “Liberation” and

Our Enslavement

January 27, 2020, is the 75th anniversary of the arrival of Soviet troops at Auschwitz, after the Germans had long fled, having given the inmates of that complex of labor camps the choice of either remaining or fleeing the Soviet terror machine. Most chose to flee west with their “Nazi” captors, including Eli Wiesel and his father, if his tall story-telling is to be believed.

Jan 27, 1945 could also be seen as a date that began our enslavement to “Holocaustianity”, the every increasing worship of the “Holocaust” as the non-historic event, the myth, the “Hoax of the Century”, that is being used as a shield by Organized jewry (orgjew) against any criticism whatsoever of jews and Israel, and as a sword used to cut down any form of rights for White countries to remain White, to resist the invasion of non-Whites into their countries throughout the West, engineered by orgjew.

For the vast overwhelming majority of people the “Holocaust” is essentially real, in that they believe that the Germans had a plan to exterminate jews, and among their methods used gas chambers, to kill about six million of them.

This is what I believed for most of my life. Yet after daring to take the emotionally painful steps to look into the subject, in depth, I now know that it is a diabolical lie.

That emotional process is wonderfully and humorously described by Bradley Smith, the founder of CODOH (Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust) in his “Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist” booklet. (see below)

Please also take a look at the many articles, linked below, from a revisionist perspective. You will be challenged, and if you are the type of person who is interested in knowing what really happened you will be compelled to dig deeper. Otherwise remain a “Holohoax denier”.

— KATANA

“Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist”

This episode is wonderfully, beautifully and even amusingly retold in Bradley Smith’s “Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist“, Chapter 1.

I PAUSED TO ACCEPT a photocopy of a newspaper article he was handing out when he quickly started telling me that the stories that six million Jews had been exterminated during World War II are not true.

I felt stunned, as if Buck Rogers had somehow come down from the 21st century and zapped me with a beam from his ray gun. I had heard about people like the little man who was confronting me, who deny that the Holocaust happened, but I had never actually seen one.

He was a small, thin, middle-aged man with a white pointy beard, clear blue eyes and a ruddy complexion.

The picture of health. He talked fast (though in a well-mannered, articulate way) as if he were afraid he would lose me.

In the first instant I didn’t truly grasp what he was saying; then I understood that he was telling me that there had been no Nazi gas chambers — none – that the stories I had heard all my life about the gas chambers were meant to gain sympathy for Jews at the expense of Germans. I felt my heart change its beat and pick up speed.

I felt sweat appear on the palms of my hands.

The first thing I wanted to do was to get away. We were on the mezzanine of the Bonaventure Hotel in downtown Los Angeles; there were a lot of people standing around and I supposed that he had proselytized the others before I had arrived. The others then had already heard what I was hearing now, and in my imagination each of them had one eye on me, waiting to see what my first move would be, waiting to judge me.

I felt ashamed listening to the man talk about Jews. I felt ashamed holding the photocopied articles in my hand. I could not have repeated anything he had said after his first few words; my brain had closed itself down in self-defense and yet: I was aware that he sounded knowledgeable and sincere.

I felt trapped between his sincerity and my shame. I wanted to get away from him, to hand back his flyers and turn away so that those who were watching would see that I rejected out of hand everything he was saying. At the same time, because of his honest and open manner, I didn’t want to cause him embarrassment by publicly rejecting him. I had never looked into the history of the Holocaust, had never examined any of the primary documents used to support the literature, so in my ignorance I felt I had no right, really, to believe or disbelieve any statement about it whatever. I didn’t feel I had the right to embarrass another man simply because he doubted what I believed. If sincerity isn’t to be taken seriously in human relationship, what is?

In the end the little man with the white devil’s beard and the very blue eyes made my decision for me when he turned to a new arrival and began his spiel all over again from the beginning.

Feeling defiled somehow by the flyers in my hand, I walked toward a large trash can. Even at that moment I knew that the problem wasn’t so much that I was holding the flyers as that I was being observed by others to be holding them. I had accepted the flyers innocently in deference to another’s sincerity. The shame I felt, the defilement, did not come from inside me but from the others, from what I understood to be the standards of my peers.

As I approached the trash can I glanced down at the lead article in one flyer. It was titled, “The Problem of the Gas Chambers, or The Rumor of Auschwitz.”

What Rumor?, I thought. What problem? There wasn’t anything that rang a bell for me. The author of the article was a certain Professor Robert Faurisson. I’d never heard of him. Then I noticed that the article had originally been published in Le Monde, the Paris daily. It was confusing. I had no idea at all what the problem of the gas chambers might be, or what the rumor of Auschwitz referred to. It sounded crazy. And I’d never heard of Faurisson. But I did know about Le Monde. My understanding was that Le Monde was one of a handful of world-class newspapers.

What, then, was Le Monde doing publishing an article critical of the Holocaust, or the gas chambers, or whatever? A moment before I had intended to drop the flyers into the trash on principle. In my circle you did not read material that might make Jews feel uncomfortable. It was a principle. It was necessary in my circle to maintain principles about some few things. Not many, but some. At the last moment I folded the flyers and put them in my back pocket. All that day I went about my business, the flyers folded up secretly in my pocket.

That night, alone in my room, like a thief, I took them out and read them, all the while conscious of the fearfulness in my behavior, the lack of self-respect. I was aware that I was reading something that everyone I knew, and all the people I liked best, would think bigoted and dirty, and that I was doing it at a time and in a place where they could not find me out. I had spent years learning to accept the weaknesses in my character, and to stand aside from them, yet there I was, 49 years old, hiding in my room with a newspaper article, fearful and ashamed.

In Chapter 3, Bradley continues, …

HOW CAN I EXPLAIN what happened to me in my apartment that night? I read a newspaper article written by a professor I had never heard of which had been translated from French by who knows who, given to me on a hotel mezzanine by a stranger who was probably a crank, maintaining a thesis that was outrageous and dangerous because – of what? I didn’t know, but a sense of tension and danger enveloped the thing. I sensed immediately into the reading that if I didn’t reject everything Faurisson was saying that I would be in danger of suffering great losses, though that night I would not have been able to identify what they would be.

Why was I willing to read the Faurisson piece with an open mind? I’ll never know, but the source of its original publication was given, along with the date, so the accuracy of the translation could be checked.

Key statements in the text were referenced; anyone willing to spend an hour or so in a good library could discover for himself if Faurisson was being honest in those instances. I was impressed by the simplicity of his claims and the objectivity of his tone, treating as he did a matter of tremendous significance from such a radical perspective.

Another probably reason was ignorance. Until that time I had not read a history of the Holocaust and hadn’t paid much attention to the stories of Holocaust “survivors.” I don’t know why. There were no heroes in the Holocaust stories I had heard – maybe that was it. Masses of sheep-like people being herded to the slaughter. Helplessness, passivity, pathos, no heroes to create tragedy from catastrophe. Maybe that was it. Ignorance then, a disinterest in suffering unredeemed by heroic action and finally, I suppose, a kind of primary boredom with a wretched story told and retold far too often.

That being so, how is it that I was so stunned at reading Faurisson’s thesis about the poison gas chamber stories? If the stories had not interested me in the first place, why should I have been affected by the discovery that they might not be true? Wouldn’t my fundamental lack of interest in the Holocaust forfeit my right—to a certain extent—to be shocked by the possibility that Faurisson had his finger on something?

But the real surprise might have been my discovery that despite my ignorance and the boredom I professed about the Holocaust, I had believed everything I had ever heard about it. Not the shadow of a doubt had ever crossed my mind. I had believed all the eyewitness testimony related by Holocaust survivors. I had believed what I understood to be the thesis in all the books written by Holocaust historians. Maybe that is why something broke in me that night. Maybe I had believed too rigidly for too long. There was nothing in me that could give a little. No room to bend. Intellectually, psychologically, something had to break. I think it was belief itself that finally cracked that night. My mind welcomed it— but in my heart I felt the awful anxiety that only great insecurity can create.

===============================================

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:46:42 +0000

[Bradley R. Smith, who passed away on February 18, 2016, the very day of his 86th birthday, is most well know for his relentless work in spreading public awareness of the “Holocaust” issue and revisionism. It all started in 1979, in a lobby of a hotel in Los Angeles, when he was handed a leaflet written by Robert Faurisson, called “The ‘Problem of the Gas Chambers’”.

This chance encounter with revisionist material dramatically changed his life when he decided to devote himself to, “countering the taboo against dissident views on this emotion-charged issue”.

In 1987 he founded, “The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust” – CODOH. In the mid 1980s he also circulated a newsletter called “Prima Facie”, aimed at journalists and editors that focused on cultism, suppression of free inquiry and censorship on the Holocaust issue.

The April/May1990 edition of “Prima Facie” became the very first of a still continuing, mostly monthly, newsletter called, “Smith’s Report” that informs readers about CODOH, its impact, and includes news and commentary items. As part of his activities to spread debate about the “Holocaust” Bradley was a guest on some 400 radio talk shows and news broadcasts, as well as appearing on nationwide television.

It is about his sometimes successful, sometime not, attempts to appear on radio talk shows that this very first, typewritten, edition of “Smith’s Report” mainly describes. It is reproduced here in full, along with supporting images. What shines through in his writing is his plain talking honesty and patience, all combined with his droll sense of humor — KATANA.

Note: For a fuller biography of Bradley Smith please see here: http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/smith.html]

Bradley Smith’s

Smith’s Report

# 1

PRIMA FACIE

Bradley R. Smith

P.O. Box 3267 Visalia CA 93278

(209) 627 8757

April/ May 1990

Dear Revisionist Friend:

This is the first issue of a much promised newsletter that I’ll send to you without charge every couple months so long as you express some interest in receiving it.

If it seems to you that you haven’t heard from me for a long time, it’s probably true. Last summer I came down with a pneumonia that for three months left me unable to do more than a fraction of the work that needed doing. Then, along in October when I was at last coming out of it, our landlord put the house we were renting up for sale and we had to find a new place to live. We couldn’t find a suitable place in southern California that I could afford, so toward the end of November I moved my family, my office, and our storage to a rented house in Visalia, a small town in the San Joaquin Valley some 160 miles north of Los Angeles. I spent the next ten weeks working on setting up a speaking tour for Pennsylvania, did the tour and returned the first week in March.

[Image] The city of Visalia is located in the fields of the San Joaquin Valley just below the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California.

In any event, here I am in our new rented house in Visalia writing this letter to you. My apologies for all the unanswered correspondence, unfilled orders and general lack of communication during the last months. I’m pretty sure I’ll be better at everything this year than I was last.

THE WORK CALENDAR: 1 JANUARY through 10 APRIL 1990

5 January: Telephone interview on WSPD radio in Toledo OH. Davy Macy hosting. Afterwards I received a note from his producer saying: “It was an interesting conversation, to say the least.”

I have a C-60 cassette of the program.

[Image] WSPD Radio Toledo, Ohio.

8 January: Telephone interview over WTKN radio in St. Petersburg FL. Hosted by Jay Marvin at the St. Petersburg fairgrounds, complete with a pair of alleged survivors on hand. A carnival atmosphere, not inappropriately. I’d done an interview once before with this man and didn’t remember him being so hostile. His tack this day was to insist that since his “survivors” had “been there” and I hadn’t, they knew what they were talking about and I didn’t.

[Image] Marvin Jay Cohen, better known by his broadcast name of Jay Marvin is a retired American liberal radio talk show host and writer. Marvin’s a radio lifer who has spit vitriol and leftist politics into countless microphones in cities and towns across the country for nearly three decades. He earned himself the sobriquet “the man you love to hate.” He ranted, he shouted, he was mean. His favorite thing to call listeners was “brain stem.”

It was a frustrating interview with a loud-mouthed hostile host.

There is a C-90 cassette available.

9 January: Telephone interview on KRPC [actually KPRC] radio in Houston TX. Host, Roger Gray. An unsympathetic host, not too bad an interview. I can get a cassette recording if anyone wants it.

[Image] Roger Gray’s Facebook page.

[Page 2]

9 January: Telephone interview on WARB radio in Covington LA.

Trey Blossman, host. (Yes, sometimes I do two interviews in one day.) Covington is across lake Pontchatrain from New Orleans. and, as I heard someone say in-studio during a commercial break, it’s David Duke country. Duke, who it is well known accepts Revisionist theory on the Holocaust, refuses to discuss it openly because it might damage his political career.

[Image] State Representative David Duke campaigning for governor in Crowley, La., on Oct. 26, 1991.

It’s difficult to imagine what Duke could possibly say that would damage his career more than some of the things he has already said, but there you are. When even the David Dukes are unwilling to talk straightforwardly about Holocaust fraud and falsehood you are reminded of the depths of the taboo that protects the story.

[Image] WARB was owned by the Blossman family who owned a local bank (the call letters stood for Alfred R. Blossman.) that served the New Orleans, Louisiana, area. The station was assigned the WASO call letters by the Federal Communications Commission when it was sold in 1992.

Trey Blossman interviewed me for two hours. Blossman is a professional and receptive host who actually interviewed me rather try to argue me into the ground. That’s both good and bad. It’s usually easier for me to respond to assertive questioning than it is to give a series of little talks, or lectures, which is sometimes necessary when the host in question doesn’t really know what to ask. I remember this as being in, good part, a good program. There’s a C-90 cassette available, but the first twenty minutes of the program are missing.

11/12 January (midnight): Telephone interview with Rick Barber over KOA radio in Denver CO. A couple months earlier I had tried to get Barber together with historian David Irving for an interview. I had done the Barber program a year, or so before and had gotten responses from Oregon to Tennessee. I called Irving in London and before I had time to really pitch the value of doing the Rick Barber interview Irving said: “Yes. I’ll do it. I’ll ring him up now. What’s his number?”

[Image] For some 30 years, Rick Barber kept untold number of insomniacs entertained as the overnight (1 a.m. – 5 a.m.) talk show host on Denver’s KOA Radio. He passed away in 2013.

So I gave Irving, Rick Barber’s number and David Irving, Barber’s number, but in the event they couldn’t get together and the interview never came off. So when the issue of an interview came up again I just went ahead and did it myself. The broadcast went quite well, tho we did it on the spur of the moment.

KOA no longer provides recordings of their interviews. If anyone recorded this interview at home I’d very much like to have a dub of it.

13 January: Telephone interview on WAMJ radio in South Bend IN.

Mark Murray was the host. I remember him being very doubtful of what I was saying, but fair and inquiring. No cassette.

30 January: Telephone interview on KBX radio in Denver CO with Peter Jones. This is the third interview I’ve done with Jones.

[Image] Peter Jones today and in his younger years (right).

He’s never come clean with me really, but in all likelihood he’s an anti-Zionist leftist. This interview was half an hour and not particularly memorable. No cassette. The best program we’ve done and the most interesting was on KDZR Denver, 24 February 1989 (Prima Facie cassette CT-30).

[Page 3]

Continuing Projects in January

The Pennsylvania/New England Speaking Tour: Alex Stewart was doing a lot of front work on the telephone for this. We had started working on it in December. The Penn State affair had, been the jumping off point. We were making, literally, hundreds of telephone calls. We called every broadcast TV station in Pennsylvania, every cable station, every radio station, every college and nearly every newspaper. We called them back again and again. We were mailing press releases, sending fax transmissions, following up on every lead we could possibly put our fingers on.

[Image] Penn State University.

It was an all day, every day job. Lots of broadcast TV was interested, but it was like pulling teeth to rent lecture halls.

There were scheduling problems, insurance problems, campus regulation problems, and through it all the sense that we could not be certain that people were being honest with us, or if, once they committed themselves to an event, they would not change their minds. We simply kept at it doggedly, booking what we could, changing the bookings as people backed out, trying to fill in for what we lost.

The Penn State File: originally 32 pps., is now 41 pps., including a very revealing exchange between myself and the dean of the Penn state School of Communications, Bryan Winston. Photocopies available.

[Image] Jan 2014, Bradley Smith reading his Confessions of a holocaust Revisionist — Part I. See video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEMR2z_VN8c

“Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist — Part II”. The time has come to get the manuscript for Part II of Confessions in shape for publication. I had hoped to have it together by June, but I’m behind schedule as usual. Nevertheless, I did finish drafts of two new chapters:

“When Cows Bark” takes place about 1981 and describes some of the problems intellectual radicalism can cause among friends and even members of one’s family. It’s an odd story told in a peculiar manner, and since it involves killing a pet dog it will annoy some people. 16 pps.

“Neo-Nazis Have to Make a Living Too” relates some of the background to the move we made from Hollywood to Visalia this past winter. A couple odd subjective experiences and a number of scenes treating with some of the money problems around here. Writing it I was reminded again of how difficult it is to write honestly about money and the lack of it in your personal life, without being boring. Here I take a shot at it. 15 pps.

Visalia Public Library: I donated the two CODOH pamphlets written by Mark Weber to the library’s vertical file. “The Holocaust: Let’s Hear Both Sides” and “Auschwitz: Myths and Facts.” Ten days later I donated a copy of David Irving’s version of “The Leuchter Report” together with a photocopy of the 4-page profile of Fred Leuchter in the February 90 issue of Atlantic Monthly. I stamped CODOH’s Visalia mailing address and telephone number on each item. They were all accepted and filed under “Holocaust.”

[Page 4]

The “vertical file” consists of manila folders arranged in alphabetical order by subject in file cabinets. Here is where newspaper and magazine clippings, pamphlets, leaflets and so on are filed. Items that are worthwhile, but can not be shelved because they have no bindings. This is an easy and very inexpensive way to introduce Revisionist materials into your library. The reference library usually handles this and will see to it that each item you donate is stamped with the date of receipt.

“The Case For Teaching Holocaust Revisionism in our colleges and High Schools”: this is the brochure I have at last worked out to use as the center piece for soliciting campus speaking engagements. It can be used for other purposes too. It’s the first time in six years of Revisionist activism that I have been able to develop a coherent concept that is POSITIVE in nature. The case FOR Revisionism rather the case against exterminationism.

It’s one of those subjective cases of the glass that’s half full being pitted against the glass that’s half empty. But I think the brochure begins to place my argument in a positive mode for the first time, and I am very enthusiastic about it.

The brochure examines The Historical Issue, The Intellectual Freedom Issue and The Moral Issue underlying Revisionism. There is a short bio of myself, a list of Unasked Questions and my address and telephone number. It’s 8 1/2 x 11 and is folded into letter size. I hope some of you would want to distribute it.

18 February: In-studio interview for WPXI Television in Pittsburgh PA for the Don Riggs Show. This was a Sunday night. The day before I had bussed from Visalia to Fresno, caught a flight to Los Angeles and another on to Pittsburgh. Alex Stewart had driven over from Gettysburg and picked me up at the airport. We stayed that night at the house of a supporter in an outlying town and the next evening drove to WPXI for the taping.

[Image] Don Riggs (right) in 1974.

Riggs appeared to be very receptive to Revisionism, but as the interview progressed I understood that he hadn’t read the materials I had provided him with. Before the taping while he was looking through my “The Case For….” brochure Riggs actually threw his arms in the air and said: “This is what’s behind everything that’s happening in the Middle East.”

During the taping Riggs remarked that I was “very astute,” that (ironically I thought at the time) “these are questions that should never be asked,” and “You may be fifty years ahead of your time.” (Alex writes about this a little more fully in the 5 March issue of Christian News, p 22.) When the taping was over I had the uneasy feeling that I had talked too much and that Don Riggs hadn’t talked enough. That the interview had gotten away from him. I tried to head off I-didn’t -know — what and assured Riggs that if there were any problems about airing the tape that I would do what I could to help him. I would respond on, or off air to anyone, or any charge that he might come up against. He shook his head and said, “No”, that he was going to air it. Three days later there was a message from Riggs on my answering machine in Visalia informing me that he was not going to air the interview. He didn’t give a reason and he has never answered my phone calls. While he promised to send me a video of the interview he hasn’t done that either.

[Page 5]

After the taping, when Mr. Riggs rose from his chair, I couldn’t help, but notice how unfit he was. He had to struggle with both arms and with his legs just to stand up. I wanted to rush to his side and help him, but I noticed that no one among those who worked with him was trying to help, so I didn’t either. But his struggle to get out of his chair was agonizing. Being under such a physical burden is difficult, and it probably didn’t make it any easier for Riggs to stand up to the pressure that in all likelihood was brought against him to suppress the interview.

19 February: In-studio interview on WBVP radio in Beaver Falls PA.

We had scheduled a talk at Duquense University in Pittsburgh for this Monday afternoon. I had gone back and forth for weeks over it with Duquense administration and the meeting room had finally been finalized the week before on Friday the 16th I had made arrangements over the telephone with a Pittsburgh printer to do up leaflets for us. That afternoon Duquense called me and postponed the talk again. My room had been taken over by a winter carnival committee. This was a major disappointment, coming as it did after so many other cancellations, postponements and procrastination. I canceled the leaflet job, and Alex got on the horn to the press to tell the city desks that we would not be at Duquense after all.

[Image] A print illustrating Duquense University in Pittsburgh, circa 1935.

I had flown to Pennsylvania then knowing that there were very big holes in our schedule, and that now we had lost a another major event. So Monday morning we got on the horn and managed to get a radio interview in Beaver Falls, an hour, or so north of Pittsburgh.

We were happy to do it because WBVP covers the Pittsburgh area and because the talk at Duquense might still come off and this interview could provide up-front PR for it. Alex and I drove up along Beaver river on a very cold day to the old town. There on the run-down main street we found the studio and as we approached the doorway in the freezing wind we could hear the host, Rick Bergman, attacking the “revisionists” who had been urging him to have me on his show. His voice was coming from two little loudspeakers set up over the doorway to the studio lobby.

I had done a telephone interview with Bergman six months before, during which he had been a hostile host. He had explained it away, enigmatically I thought, by saying that he was himself German. In person he was a wiry young man not yet 30 with a short page-boy haircut covering his ears. We climbed up a narrow staircase to his studio and away we went.

Bergman is one of a handful of media people I have talked with who doesn’t understand why Holocaust Revisionism is important enough to talk about. For Bergman, the Central American Wars are important. I tried to point out that it was the institutionalization of German monstrosity and US sainthood at Nuremberg that helped to legitimize the US government’s moral understanding that it could go anywhere anytime and do anything to anyone and feel in the right about it. I couldn’t convince Bergman that there is anything to that point of view.

[Page 6]

The incident I recall most clearly is one where, after listening to a caller go on and on about a program that the Germans designed to breed women with gorillas, I suggested to Bergman that she might be drunk and that he ought to get her off the air. He went into an arm-waving tirade about my insulting his guests. I was rather taken aback, having thought he might have agreed with me on this one. He didn’t understand that the caller had been insulting the entire Germans people with her foolish charge about the Nazi breeding program, even tho he is German himself. That’s one of the insidious ways that taboo works.

No cassette. Bergman pressed the wrong button at the onset of the interview and recorded 60 minutes of rock music for me.

21 February: Four one-half hour interview tapings for WCBG Television in Red Lion (York) PA with host Jim Nichols.

WCGB-TV is a Christian station. Nichols’ interviews go out on west star satellite, CH. 9, and on both FM and AM radio. Alex and I were staying in his house in Gettysburg now, only 40 miles from Red Lion, and that morning I drove to the studio beneath a clear sunny sky.

Jim Nichols is a free press fundamentalist, but he was so tentative in introducing me on his show that he reached the end of the second half-hour taping without getting around to asking me a single question. I look like a dope sitting there for an hour while Nichols goes on and on. That evening I was so bored watching the interview — that I fell asleep before the third section came on. A few days later when I had time to watch it all I saw that the third segment opened up pretty well and the fourth was given over to me almost entirely. But because Nichols is not a particularly assertive interviewer, on this subject anyhow, even the portions where I do have my say, while they are effective enough, are not very dramatic.

22 February: My final contact with Penn state University. After almost a year of extended correspondence, much of it published in the campus Daily Collegian and state College’s Centre Daily Times, we had come close, but had failed to get a speaking date there.

Spokesmen for three student organizations had shown an interest, but in the end had all backed out. I may have done something to cut my own throat on this one.

The Centre Daily Times had published a letter from a Penn State alumni, Fred Shihadeh, suggesting that since it had once been claimed gassings had taken place at Dachau and is now claimed that no gassings took place there that it might be a good idea to hear other criticisms of the Holocaust story.

Bryan Winston, dean of the School of Communications at Penn state, wrote an insulting diatribe in return, claiming that in his research he had found no claims in the literature for gassings at Dachau and no survivors who claimed gassings there.

[Page 7]

I wrote a four page letter documenting charges of gassings at Dachau, and another four page open letter to Penn State students giving my reasons why it would be good to have a Revisionist speaker on campus. I mailed the entire eight pages to much of the press in Pennsylvania and to all the student VIPs on the Penn State campus. Nothing came from it. Further, my people at Penn State assure me that, contrary to what was being published before in both the Daily Collegian and the Centre Daily Times, once the Dachau letter was received on campus nothing more has been published on the Holocaust issue. Not a single word.

So on this day I made a final attempt to speak at Penn State.

I called the campus radio station and learned that the one program that might interview me was called The Dean’s List, hosted by dean Bryan Winston himself. I thought I’d give him a chance to tell his side of the story. I called his producer, a young man named Steven Aaron, and presented my case. Aaron said: “I don’t believe anything you say, and I would never have you speak on any program that I produce.” with that, Penn State became a dead issue for me, so far as the tour was concerned.

The Penn State File, 4l pps of published and unpublished correspondence, is all available.

23 February: Press interview with staff writer for the York Daily Record. Print press in Pennsylvania had expressed an interest in interviewing me, but only if I had created a significant media event in their neighborhood. I had completed the four Jim Nichcols taping, so that gave the Daily Record an excuse to assign a reporter to listen to the other side of the Holocaust story. The Record would publish the interview when WCGB-TV aired the interviews.

That Friday morning I drove back to York to the Record where staff writer Peter Buelletin interviewed me for an hour and a half.

He had been to Dachau a few months earlier. This made me very happy because I had with me the eight pages from The Penn State File addressing the Dachau gas chamber hoax in a particularly effective way. He seemed interested. They always do. I felt like I had such a winner with the Dachau material that I gave him everything I had, including the slick version of the Leuchter Report produced by David Irving. I thought the interview went very well. I always do.

Jim Nichols still has not aired the four TV interviews, delaying them for a second time, so the York Daily Record has not published Peter Bulletin’s interview with me.

[Image] Prisoner barracks at Dachau, 1945.

It was at this point that Alex decided, for the time being, that he had enough of the uncertainties of working with media and university administrations. That very day we had originally been scheduled to speak at Temple University in Philadelphia. Originally they had been very happy to have me. I was at first offered a full theater with banked seating. Over a period of several days the site was changed and changed again, until I was told that it would be impossible to book me anytime soon for reasons of space. This was a very big disappointment for us. Temple is the home base of the Christian exterminationist Franklin Littel, it’s in Philadelphia, I have support there, and five (5) broadcast TV stations had expressed interest in covering the event. It was the day that we lost the Temple University date that I decided we had better not limit ourselves to Pennsylvania.

[Page 8]

It was that day that I decided that we had better follow up on an offer we had received earlier to do the Jerry Williams Show in Boston. Anyhow, Penn State, Temple and probably Pittsburgh had all gone down the tubes and now it was Friday afternoon, and Alex was disgusted with how things were going, so we decided to split up.

He drove me to Harrisburg where I caught a bus to Philadelphia. A supporter, who I had called ahead, picked me up and I stayed with him that night. The next morning he went out on a limb and used his credit card to rent a car for me and I headed east alone.

[Image] 1988 video with Ernst Zuendel and Fritz Berg on Diesels, Gas Wagons and Zyklon B. Fritz worked as a mining engineer.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U02lIIQsdpg

24 February: Two interesting conversations with Fritz Berg and my first look at Jean-Claude Pressac’s “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers”. When I left Philadelphia I had driven across New Jersey to Fort Lee where I would stay that night with Fritz Berg and family. It was bitter cold and icy. Pressac’s

Auschwitz has more than 500 double-sized pages and is full of interesting illustrations. It appears to contain one German document mentioning a “gassing cellar” in one of the crematoria, but places it in a location within the building that doesn’t make sense. I was too distracted by tour business to really get a fix on the significance of the document, but it appears to be something that Revisionists are going to have to deal with.

Fred Leuchter, author of the Leuchter Report, has told me that when he called Pressac’s distributors to order a copy of the book they wouldn’t sell it to him. They told him straight out that his Report was the immediate cause for rushing Pressac into print, that he had made a lot of trouble for them and cost them a lot of money and, in short, that he could shove it along.

Meanwhile, Fritz Berg opened my eyes to two important points:

The Design Function of a crematory oven: a crematory oven is designed so that the fuel used to consume its human load is located outside the oven itself. The reason for this is to keep separate the residue of the corpse as it settles on the clean bed of the oven from the trash left by the coke, or coal that fueled it. The uncontaminated ashes and bone can then be collected and placed in a container for return to the deceased’s family. The crematory oven, unlike a furnace, is designed to fulfill the needs of ritual and religion.

If the Germans had planned to destroy the remains of millions of murdered victims they would in all likelihood have designed furnaces capable of burning several, or even many, corpses at once, and would not have worried about the human residue falling into the fuel firing the furnace, as all of it was going to done away with anyhow, or maybe the Nazi fiends didn’t think of that. The truth is, I never thought of it and maybe those Nazi engineers weren’t any smarter than I am.

[Page 9]

Poison Gas Chambers Did Exist at Auschwitz: We’re talking about the little professionally designed gas chambers that were used in camps all over Europe for fumigating clothes and bedding etc. I have always been careful to refer to these rooms as “fumigation cubicles.” Fritz views this as a contemptible subterfuge behind which lies a secret uncertainty, perhaps, about what the Germans really were up to.

Somehow, I was finally able to understand the significance of his point of view. At the behest of the Nazi Government, German engineers designed state-of-the-art poison gas chambers and German businesses manufactured them. The Nazi Government ordered these poison gas chambers to be installed in camps and other places all over Europe. Some of them still exist. The Nazi purpose was to save lives, not destroy lives. These poison gas chambers were used to fumigate everything from personal clothing to locomotives and boxcars. The Nazis were trying their best to save people from the ravages of typhus bearing lice and other plague carrying bugs. The poison gas chambers were humanitarian in nature. And practical.

[Image] A Dagesh fumigation machine. A can of Zyklon B would be inserted at the top (indicated by arrow).

It is not claimed that at Auschwitz, or Dachau for example, that people were murdered in the “humanitarian” poison gas chambers that really did exist there. The charge is that the Nazis converted buildings that were originally used for other purposes, shower rooms and morgues, etc. and used these improvised spaces as execution gas chambers. I don’t know of any attempt on the part of anyone to try to explain why. When I talked about the “fumigation cubicles” I understand now that I didn’t want to take on the burden of having to defend the proposition that the Nazis installed poison gas chambers in the camps for humanitarian reasons. I’ve got enough problems as it is.

[Image] Fumigation chambers for clothing, etc., at Dachau Concentration Camp, near Munich. In operation from 1942 till the end of the war in 1945. Dagesh fumigation machines (see image above) are inset within the walls of each chamber (indicated by the red arrow).

Anyhow, Fritz has kicked me up and over another subjective hurdle in my attempt to talk about the Holocaust story as straight as I can. The professionally designed and manufactured poison gas chambers that really did exist in the camps were expressions of Nazi humanitarianism and practicality. They were installed to keep people alive, and a significant portion of those people could then be used as forced labor in the German war effort. Now that I’ve said it here, I look forward to saying it to the media and to student audiences.

26 February: In-studio interview on WBET radio in Brocton MA. On the 25th I had driven into upstate New York to stay over with a supporter and the morning of the 26th I got up at 3 am to drive to Massachusetts for the 9 am interview. It was bitter cold. Brocton is a half hour’s drive south of Boston. I wanted to use the radio interview to tout a television show I was going to do that night in Boston, and the talk I was going to give on the 28th at University of Massachusetts.

The host at WBET was the very professional Bill Alex. His audience is about 20-25,000 a large part of it in Boston. Alex is receptive to Revisionist theory and appears to be impatient with how the Holocaust story appears to be, to a large extent, an expression of Jewish chauvinism. The cassette recording of the program I was given has malfunctioned. If any of you recorded the program I would very much like to have a dub of the cassette.

[Page 10]

Live in-studio interview on WXFT-Television for the Jerry Williams Show in Boston MA. Other guests: Fred Leuchter, author of The Leuchter Report and Mike Slomich, Boston spokesman for the Jewish Defense League.

Leaving Brocton I drove to Boston and took a motel room near U. Mass. I spoke with Leuchter by telephone and suggested that, because the JDL was going to be on the scene, he not drive his own car to the station, but take a cab as I planned to do, and arrive at the last minute. When I arrived at the station in the outlying town of Needham at 9:45 for the 10 pm broadcast, Fred and his wife and the JDL were already there. It was quiet.

[Image] Once known as “The Dean” of Talk Radio, Jerry Williams is one of the originators of the talk radio format.Audiences throughout the United States have been listening to his views for over 50 years. Not a man to pull his punches, Williams has a legion of fans—and detractors. Williams also hosted television talk shows on WBZ-TV (1968–69), WFXT (1987-90), and WHLL (1990).

The broadcast went off with hardly a hitch. Leuchter was very effective and our Boston audience of 80-100,000 viewers watched while for the first time in the US on broadcast TV Americans were told that there were no execution gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Maidanek and that there never had been.

[Image] Fred Leuchter (while being interviewed by Jim Rizoli in 2016) holding up one of the three original Leuchter Reports.

Jerry Williams, who in his own words is a World War II scholar, defended before the cameras the human-soap stories, the human-skin lamp shade stories and all the rest of it. Williams is the founder of a national association of talk show hosts, a Jew, and a very assertive interviewer. Off camera he made it a point to not speak to either Leuchter, or myself. No fraternization. Mike Slomich, who resembles Bluto in the old Popeye cartoons, represented the JDL in a very telling way. Boston Jews who watched the show must have felt ashamed by his performance, while those who have got a case against Jews to begin with must have been hootin and hollerin all over their living rooms.

[Image] A 1936 Popeye cartoon, “Bridge Ahoy!”

I handled the show pretty well, tho afterwards while I watched the video I could see the missed opportunities and so on, as usual. I nailed our friend Elie Wiesel — he teaches at Boston University so Boston is a good town to nail him in. The callers were typical: the young Jew who lost his grandparents in the Holocaust; the U. S. veteran who had helped liberate Dachau and saw the execution gas chambers there; the Israeli who had grown up in a town where “half” the inhabitants were “survivors,” which proved to him that there had been a “genocide.”

After the program I wandered out into the lobby and almost bumped into an attractive young girl who had a glazed look in her eyes. She seemed to not notice what had happened. A moment later I heard someone behind me say: “I think I’d like to piss on you.”

I half turned and found a tall fellow about 30 with a nordic/semitic face thrust down into mine. The somnambulant girl was coming awake. She planted herself in front of me and said: “I’d like to slap you.”

The guy said: “How’d you like me to kick the shit out of you then piss in your mouth?”

I asked the girl if she had read any Revisionist literature.

“I’d just like to slap your face,” she said.

The guy said: “You want me to piss in your mouth? Would you like that?”

[Page 11]

I didn’t think that I’d really care for it so I went back onto the sound stage and told Williams that there was going to be a problem with some of his friends. Williams yelled for his producer and after 15, or 20 minutes two squad cars pulled into the little parking lot. A cab was called to take me to the airport, which was a subterfuge, and the cops held the JDL in the parking lot while they yelled around and the taxi driver headed back to Boston.

The cabby, a fat, long-haired Irish kid, turned out to be a history major at Boston U. so I gave him some literature. His immediate worry was that we not be followed. He took such a circuitous route to get me back to my motel that when I signed the stations’s chit the ride had cost WFXT-TV fifty-six dollars.

28 February: Talk (sort of) at the University of Massachusetts, Harbor Campus. This is the talk that I advertised on WBET radio Brockton. I had also gotten an announcement into the campus newspaper Mass Media the previous day. I expected quite an affair, particularly after the Jerry Williams Show two nights earlier.

[Image] University of Massachusetts, Harbor Campus.

The talk was to start at 2 pm. It was titled “The Case For Teaching Holocaust Revisionism in Our Colleges and High Schools.” I had a number of things on my mind. How I would handle the JDL threat and whatever other protest was developing. The right moment to inform campus security and the police. And the fact that because of unexpected expenses all along the tour that I had now let myself run out of money. I was completely alone and the truth is, I felt a little on the tense side. About noon I received a phone call in my motel room from a man who, without giving me his name, said he was looking forward to listening to me speak that afternoon, then hung up.

No one in Boston had my phone number other than Leuchter, it hadn’t been he who had called, so within 15 minutes I had packed my bags and checked out of the motel. I spent the next couple hours in a super market parking lot. I used the public phone there to make an emergency call to a supporter in New York and he jumped up and wired me $500. I had it within the hour. I relaxed considerably. At 1:30 I called U. Mass administration to report that I was going to speak there shortly and that there might be some trouble. By that time it was too late to worry about taking a cab to the campus so I drove there and parked in one of the covered lots.

I walked to the McCormick building where I had been assigned room 062. The lobby and halls were quiet. I couldn’t find the room. I felt a little bit stupid. It was after 2 pm. Finally I went to an information booth and a couple kids there tried to find the 062 and they couldn’t find it either. I called Gail Hobin, the lady who had booked the room for me, and she said she was sorry, but that room 062 was not in the McCormick building, but in another building across the campus. She said she would be right over and walk me to the room herself. I suggested that if I couldn’t find the room then security might not be able to find it either and I might have a problem. She said security had already called her and she had sent them to the right room.

[Image] McCormick Hall building at the University of Massachusetts and the goblin who led Bradley astray in 1990, Gail Hobin, in 2014.

[Page 12]

When Ms. Hobin arrived all out of breath it was after 2:30. She was very nice and very apologetic. She had made a booking error, which isn’t all that unusual she said. I took her at her word. I make all kinds of mistakes myself. By the time we got to the right building and the right room it was almost 3 pm. Except for the two plain clothes detectives, no one was there. Those who had managed to figure out where the room actually was, had left.

Hobin left after apologizing again, and I waited. A professor showed up with one student. At 3 pm I decided it was pointless to wait so the three of us had a little chat about the Holocaust.

After awhile a second professor came in and listened, without taking part. As it turned out, the two professors had each seen me on the Jerry Williams Show. We talked, I gave the three of them literature, and that’s all there was to my great breakthrough public speaking effort at the University of Massachusetts.

I had expected to be busy the next day with media over the fallout from the U. Mass talk, but now I figured that nothing more would come of it.

There is a one-hour video cassette available of the WXFT-TV broadcast of the Jerry Williams show.

1 March: In-studio interview for WQQW Radio, Waterbury CT.

This interview had been booked for the 2nd, but now that Boston was finished I bucked it up a day. When I left U. Mass I drove straight on out of town and to Waterbury where I took a room for the night.

[Image] WQQW Radio, Waterbury CT and one of their radio hosts, Bill Dillane around 1990s.

Dave Feda hosted the interview. I had done a telephone interview with him last year. During that show a “survivor” tried to convince me she knew something about gas chambers. Feda grew impatient with her obvious stalling around and began to grill her himself. It was the first time in the more than three years of doing these interviews that a host had ever taken over the critical questioning of a “survivor.”

This interview went on for three hours. I did almost all the work in handling the callers. Feda spent his time cleaning his pipe and straightening out a couple drawers in his desk. At one point toward the end of the show a man led some 20 students into the viewers room on the other side of the glass sound booth. They took seats and watched. They could hear us. through speakers in their ceiling. When I saw them file in I felt uneasy, but I didn’t let on. The next time we went off-air I was quite taken aback when Dave Feda said: “When I saw those kids come in I saw magnum 357s.”

[Image] Ruger Security Six [Million?] (Original model) – 357 Magnum.

So we had both been made uneasy by their sudden appearance. Now we laughed about it. It isn’t just Revisionists then who feel like they have to keep an eye out for what might go down. Even some of those who might want to just talk to us feel the same way. That’s why, psychologically, the promotion of taboos is such a filthy business.

The Dave Feda show goes out to about 15,000 people. I am supposed to receive two C-90 cassettes of the interview.

[Page 13]

6 March: In-studio interview on WHBW Radio, Youngstown OH.

After finishing the Feda interview I spent the night with my good supporter in up-state New York. The next morning I returned to Fritz Berg’s in Fort Lee and tried there to make contact with Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice. It was cold and snowing. I left messages at his apartment and at the Voice, faxed him some materials and waited, but he didn’t respond. He believes he can be a First Amendment authority while ignoring the suppression and censorship of Revisionist scholarship. I don’t think he can, not with out compromising the most important part of the work he does, and corrupting his inner life.

The Duquense talk was, technically, still possible, but I decided to let it slide once and for all and drive to Indianapolis to protest the firing of Indianapolis U. professor Don Hiner for using Revisionist materials in his history class. On Saturday I drove back across Pennsylvania to the Pittsburgh area to get within striking distance of Indianapolis. I stayed with friends there. On Monday I worked for five hours on the telephone trying to book media in and around Indianapolis. It was hard going. Then in mid-afternoon I discovered that it was spring break at Indiana U. There were no students attending classes. There were no professors attending classes. I would have no audience. I understood that I wasn’t going to Indianapolis after all.

Meanwhile, I had booked the radio interview over WBBW in Youngstown. The host would be Michael Vaughn. A rabbi and I were going to debate the Holocaust in-studio for two hours. I had set it up to do on my way through to Indianapolis. I wasn’t going to Indianapolis any longer, but I didn’t want to give up a two-hour face-to-face debate with a rabbi so I made the three hour drive to Youngstown, but when I arrived the rabbi had canceled because of his own scheduling problem. It was very cold.

I am supposed to receive a C-90 cassette tape of the program, including what came over “open lines” after I left the studio.

The tour was over. I had six days left on my airline ticket, but there was nothing more I could do that would be worth the expense that I would have to go to do it. The next morning I turned in the car at the Pittsburgh airport and flew to Los Angeles. It was 67 degrees at the airport there. I caught a plane to Fresno and, finding that Greyhound was out on strike, paid a cabbie $55 to drive me to our house in Visalia.

21 March: Telephone interview over KEAG radio, Anchorage AK.

The host was libertarian Fred James. He had some familiarity with Revisionist theory. As an introduction he read a long, sordid account of alleged German atrocities in Poland from the novel Poland by James Michener, which rather surprised me. He took half an hour to get to me. At the beginning of the second hour a Jewish lawyer who at one time had been involved in the preliminary planning for the IMT trials appeared in the studio to participate in the program. Besides being childishly cranky, in my view he behaved very unprofessionally as well. It was a periodically lively show. It was booked by a local man in Anchorage who showed a great deal of patience and perseverance. He has sent me two C-90 cassettes of the three hour broadcast.

[Page 14]

Continuing Projects, March

“Tools of Memory,” a new chapter from Part II. Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist. Here I look at how Vietnam vets use memory one way in recalling their wartime experiences while Holocaust “survivors” use it in a very different way. Photocopy of this draft is available. 11 pps.

5 April: Letter to the Editor Published in Visalia Times-Delta.

The Times-Delta published a letter by a Dr. Sidney Sament relating how when the German army invaded Lithuania some of his family and other Jews were rounded up and ordered to spit in the face of an old rabbi. Since Dr. Sament wrote that he had left Lithuania in 1937, four years before the spitting incident, and that the participating spitters and non-spitters alike had been shot, I suggested that the story was hearsay.

When I join the Visalia Chamber of Commerce I may have the good fortune to be able to chat with Dr. Sament personally.

*********************

Dear Reader:

There’s a lot on my mind that will have to wait for the next letter. I particularly want to talk about the “Open Debate” announcements that we were placing in campus papers. This is a truly excellent project that produced more responses than I could handle during a very difficult time for me last year.

There is an opportunity to create a very profitable tour of the Washington D.C. area this coming October. It could payoff with major broadcast TV interviews and speaking engagements.

Much of what I will be able to do depends on the help I receive from those of you who read this letter and think what I am doing is worthwhile. The tour cost considerably more than I had planned. I can’t kick off the projects I have ready until I clear off some of this debt. These are cost-effective projects that I feel certain will produce results. I know that you are approached from every side to help with Revisionist activism, but please do what you can.

In any event, I thank you for your support in the past, and I hope all is well with you.

Sincerely, [signature]

Bradley Smith

Note: If you’ve tried to call me at my regular number on the above letterhead and found you couldn’t get through well, that telephone was disconnected last month because I couldn’t pay the bill. I still can’t. If you need more info you can reach me at Telephone: (209) 733 2653

_________________________

NOTES

[Not part of the original newsletter]

A scan (PDF) of the original newsletter, along with other Smith’s Reports can be found here:

http://codoh.com/media/files/downloads/SR1-ocr.pdf

http://codoh.com/library/categories/1333/

The home page of CODOH is: http://codoh.com/

_______________________

PDF Notes

* Total words = 8,442

* Total pages = 44

*Total images = 24

===============================================

_____________________

Version History

Version 2: Jan 27, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added Also See links.

Version 1: Nov 21, 2016 — Created post. Added PDF for download.

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 14:49:18 +0000

[This is the last known video interview of Bradley Smith, an indefatigable proponent of free speech and a supporter and promoter of revisionists, in particular those that have concluded that the so-called “Holocaust” is in actual fact, the “Hoax of the Twentieth Century“.

Bradley sadly passed away at the age of 86, on February 18, 2016 — KATANA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAknw5pqOwY

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to view the video.

Published on Dec 18, 2015

Jim Rizoli for the League of Extraordinary Revisionists interviews Bradley Smith — his 5th in the series.

YouTube Stats

Mar 24 — Views: 1,281 – Comments: 22 – Likes: 62 Dislikes: 6

Mar 13 — Views: 1,127 – Comments: 21 – Likes: 59 Dislikes: 6

Feb 23 — Views: 896 – Comments: 17 – Likes: 53 Dislikes: 5

Feb 20, 2016 — Views: 824 – Comments: 16 – Likes: 49 Dislikes: 5

_____________________

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Bradley Smith

TRANSCRIPT — WITH IMAGES

00:00

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

86:40

END

TRANSCRIPT — TEXT ONLY

Jim: Hi everyone! Jim Rizoli here with Bradley Smith.

And we’re going to be talking to you today. He is one of The League of Extraordinary Revisionists that we have picked out to interview and we have only a few of them. So far, Bradley will be the fifth to be interviewed. And we have a few more we would like to talk to, but we’re very glad we have Bradley with us today.

You live where, Bradley, exactly?

Bradley: I live in Baja, Mexico.

Jim: OK, so you live in Baja, Mexico.

Bradley: Baja Norte.

Jim: Well that’s good. [laughing] We live in Massachusetts so, we are a little far away from you.

Bradley: I’ve never been there.

Jim: Oh, well, you should be glad!

But anyway, we’re very happy that we can interview you because I’ve been familiar with your writings for many years. What I really appreciated about you and your coming into the revisionist movement is you’re like me. I don’t write books. I read a lot. And I talk a lot. But you probably write a lot more than me. I do more talking than writing. So I depend on people like you to inform me of what’s going on, to see how it works.

Bradley: I depend on people like Faurisson.

Jim: Well, that’s what I’m saying. They have written everything about this. OK ,so I don’t have to write anymore. What else can you write. You know, we can just get the message out. I look at like yourself and myself as messengers. We’re the messengers.

Bradley: I agree.

Jim: So we’re good on that.

So Bradley, why don’t you tell us a little bit about your background first of all, your claim to fame, I suppose. But give the audience a little about your background, what you’ve done in your life and from where you come to where you are now.

Bradley: Well, listen. That’s a long story. Your assistant sent me a series of questions and she told me for the background, tell us a little bit about yourself, your family history and your education.

My Family History: I’m from a working class family in South Central Los Angeles, in the thirty’s, where they used to do the riots. When I hear all this talk about poverty now, … It never occurred to me a day when I was a child. The issue of poverty was never there. And we lived in a converted goat shed. The goat shed had been remade. This was in a lot, a regular lot behind a house in South Central. They had a goat shed. Well, they got tired of the goat, so they rebuilt the goat shed to be the kitchen and they added two rooms to the goat shed and a toilet. That’s where I spent my early years.

My character must have been initiated there! [laughing] I slept on the sofa until I was 11 years-old, and then we moved. My father was a boiler maker. My mother was a housewife. I had twin brothers when I was 5 years old, they were born. I still remember the day after, I remember them coming out of the hospital into the parking lot and my mother and father each had a baby. I didn’t understand that, because I didn’t understand that my mother had been pregnant. I had not understood that. As a matter of fact, I didn’t know what “pregnant” was!

So anyway, they managed to get the whooping cough and die a year later.

I remember my mother crying and so forth, but we didn’t go on about it for years.

Oh, by the way, they were both lapsed Catholics. The family was largely Irish and there was some German back somewhere, on my father’s side.

[05:00]

By the way, they grew up in the coal mines of Johnstown, Pennsylvania in the 1890s. My father went to work when he was 10 years-old, in the coal mines. That’s considered a crime against humanity nowadays. But in those days, it wasn’t. This stuff all seems normal to me.

My education: I have to say that I am a graduate of John C. Fremont High School in South Central Los Angeles. And then, it more or less went to the dogs! I didn’t want to go to school when I turned 18. When I turned 17, I graduated. I wanted to go into Marines, but my mommy wouldn’t sign for me. So when I was 18, I joined the Army.

And when I got out in early 1952, I thought to study creative writing at Los Angeles City College. I went to a few classes at night, but one night I showed up and I had to sneeze and I opened my jacket, to take out a handkerchief I had in there, and there was a gasp in the room. It was a classroom. There were probably 20 people there. There was a gasp there, because I had a 38-caliber revolver in a shoulder holster.

Jim: Wow! Oh my goodness!

Bradley: In the meantime, I had become a deputy sheriff. You know I was like one of the youngest guys on the force in Los Angeles. When they interviewed me to be a deputy sheriff, they said what’s the job that you would least like to have. I said, I don’t want to work in a county jail. I want to be in a car. I want to be out on a road. I want to get the bad guys.

So of course, they assigned me to the county jail! And after eight months, I quit.

And I decided to continue my education in Mexico City, on the G.I. Bill. And so I went down there to Mexico City, to Mexico City College, an American institution in 1955.

But one day, my friend Mike and I, we used to go to the bullfights on Sunday to pass the time, drink beer. One Sunday afternoon, I saw a bullfight that was really remarkable, by a guy named Ramirez. This was a guy who was kind of kooky and was doing very erratically with the bulls. He was working very erratically, and he ended up getting a very bad reputation.

This afternoon, in order to clear up his reputation, he went into the fight, went into the corrida. He was going to kill all 6 bulls himself! Well, this was going to be a disaster, but I wanted to see it. So we were there and five of his animals, if I remember this right, or the first four of his animals, they had to drag out, live. He couldn’t kill them.

And then the last Faina occurred and it was the most wonderful thing I had ever seen in my life! It was really remarkable. And I remember you’re not supposed to take booze into the stadium, but I always took a bottle of wine in under my jacket. And I’m not a demonstrative guy, but when Ramirez finished this Faina and killed his animal in a perfect show, how a toreador should do it, it was so exciting, it was so beautiful, that I jumped up in the air with all of the Mexicans and started yelling, “Yeah!”.

When I did that, that bottle of wine fell out of the bottom of my jacket and bounced down the concrete steps of the bull ring in Mexico City that has room for 50,000 people, and I was toward the top and it bounced all the way … I’m waiting for it to break. It didn’t break. It went all the way down to the fence, to the coral that goes around the bull ring!

Anyway, I was so struck by that Faina, that I quit school. I quit Mexico City College to study bullfighting.

[10:00]

And so once again, my attempt at educating myself came to naught. Except, I had a pretty good education about the bulls and I worked in that for two years until I drank some dirty water and got hepatitis. Then the rest of my education, I think that was it. That’s my formal education.

Jim: The big question is, what made you want to get into the Holocaust issue? I mean, there had to be something that really got you going in the beginning?

Bradley: Well yeah. Usually I explain it as it was just bad luck!

But I was into the libertarian movement, in Hollywood, in the 70s. And, I, one night in September, October 1979, I went to a Libertarian presidential nomination convention in the hotel in downtown Los Angeles, a major hotel.

And I’m up there. It was on the balcony. And I go up to the balcony and there’s lots of people milling around there and they’re my kind of people. There was this one guy, who comes up to me and he has some leaflets in his hands. And he begins talking about how the gas chamber stories are not true! And how the Holocaust story is a scam! I couldn’t believe I was hearing it, because I was a true believer! I believed everything I’d ever heard about the Holocaust story since the 40s. I mean there was no question in my mind that it happened more or less the way everybody said it happened. I was a true believer! I was a true believer.

Jim: You don’t remember who he was, do you?

Bradley: I didn’t know who he was. I have since learned, and I can’t believe it because I remember another face entirely, but I have since learned that two people were there that night, two revisionists: David McCalden. It was not him, and John Bennett from Australia.

Later I got to know John Bennett. And it turns out that he’s not the face that I remembered, but apparently it was John Bennett, the Australian libertarian and revisionist. And anyway he’s telling me that the Holocaust story is a fraud and I’m right in the middle of all my people there.

I couldn’t believe I was hearing this, but the man was respectful, and he seemed to be very well informed, in some way. And my hands literally began to sweat. Because I’m aware that all of the people who are there have been proselytized by him before I got there and now they’re all watching me, to see what I’m going to do.

What am I going to do? Well I take the leaflet from him and there was a trash can near a pillar, a few feet from us and I started in that direction. And I looked down and it was titled, “The Problem of the Gas Chambers” by Robert Faurisson. Who was a guy I’d never heard of.

I’m walking to the trash bin and I was going to dump this thing and dump it in a way that everybody could see that I was dumping it, so that I wouldn’t be associated with this guy.

Because I didn’t want to be associated with him. And as I got to the trash can, I saw that it’s an article that’s been translated from Le Monde. It was published in Le Monde. And I don’t know who Faurisson was, but I knew that Le Monde is one of the primary daily newspapers in the world. I actually knew that. And at the last minute it was when I made my most serious error! At the very last instant, I doubled that thing up and put it in my back pocket.

And when I got home that night, I read it. I lived in one room in Hollywood then by myself. [1]

[15:00]

The prose was so simple, and the ideas were so simple, and there was a logic attached to it, that I thought:

“There’s something to this. I don’t know what it is! But there’s something to this!“

And I put it on the table and I began thinking about it and thinking about it. But I refused, I refused to take it anywhere else.

Then one night after Christmas, that same year, I had a dream, which I have been circulating lately. That night, I was staying in my mother’s apartment, sleeping on the living room floor. It was just a three-bedroom apartment in a canyon in Hollywood, in a very narrow lot and it was a wooden framed house, two stories with a peek roof. Made about 1805, a traditional house. So anyway, I was sleeping on the floor in her front room and I had a dream. And the dream was that I had been gassed in Auschwitz!

Jim: [laughing] I read about your dream!

Bradley: And you’re laughing!? [said jokingly] No fun being gassed at Auschwitz! So anyway, I saw myself there.

Two things happened — I’m there. The gassing has already taken place. And I’m not hurt and I’m not suffering. I’m just sitting there amidst this big pile of filthy shit-covered bloody corpses!

Everything is in kind of a green pallor, a faded green tone, an ugly tone. And then as I’m sitting there and I remember then part of the dream that two big windows open in the back of the chamber, and I saw all these faces of the Sonderkommando up there. And they were all in the dream. They tended to be eastern European Jews, in the sense because I had been associating with Jews for years, for decades and they tend to be smaller and a little bit stockier, but smaller. They looked Jewish.

But anyway, I’m looking at these guys. I had been living with them and among them for 20 to 30 years. These were the guys who were going to come in and ram their fingers into the innards of their little girls and their wives and mothers, to take out the gold and the diamonds and all this stuff.

And I’m sitting there looking at it and I say:

“You know what, they wouldn’t do it. They would never do that. One of them might or two, once or twice. But they’re not going to spend months or years treating people that way. I know these guys. They’d never do it.”

And that was more or less it for the dream.

And then, instead of dodging the issue, it may have been the next day that I went to downtown Los Angeles to the main library and I asked for Dr Arthur Butz’s, book, “HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY”.

I remember the librarian looking at me kind of funny. She was a middle-aged lady and she knew that I wasn’t supposed to be asking for that book. And because I didn’t find it on the shelves, or in a catalog. And it turns out they had a copy, but they had it in the back room. So she was good enough to go get it. And I read three or four chapters of Butz’s, “HOAX”. And all of a sudden, you know what, I knew! I put it down and began walking in circles around the library. I mean the head was just flashing!

[20:00]

I knew that when I walked out that night — it was New Year’s Eve 1979. I walked out that night and I knew from that moment on, my life was going to take a dramatic change with how I was using it. I wasn’t really using it, I was wasting it. The thing is, that’s what happened. Faurisson, the dream, Butz and I was finally able to say, well you know what, I’m on their side. The thing is I knew from the beginning I wasn’t going to do any scholarly work. I’m not engineered that way. That’s a phrase that David Irving uses for people like me, they’re not engineered right. And I knew that I was going to do what you talked about, that I was going to get the scholarship of others out to the public.

Jim: Now let me ask you this. What was the first thing that YOU did on your own, representing them? In other words, what was the first thing you threw out there to the people to say, “Well, here are my thoughts on it” with this information? Do you remember? Was there something you wrote in a magazine somewhere?

Bradley: I think what I did is that, one, I told the story briefly that I just told you. And I founded a tabloid newspaper, which I don’t remember the name of. And it had one issue, no more. And I probably printed 500 copies, a 12-page tabloid. I actually have one of them around here somewhere, I’ve forgotten about it.

And what I did is I took it to a few bookstores into some news racks. And I distributed it hoping that I would sell one here and there. I offered subscriptions on the back page. I got one subscription. It was interesting in that the guy who subscribed was a guy from a Scientology organization in Santa Monica. Not the main one. His name was Tom Marcellus. By the time I had made contact with him, he had found a job with the Institute [of Historical Review].

David McCalden and Willis Carto founded the Institute. Marcellus had gotten a job there. He had gotten an editorial job or something there and he had subscribed to my paper because it had to do with revisionism. And I remember that he told me he went in and he put this in front of David McCalden. McCalden sat there and he didn’t move. He read the entire 12 tabloid pages before he looked up.

But anyhow Marcellus got in touch with me and invited me down and I had lunch with Marcellus and McCalden. They were in Newport Beach, I think. We had we had a lunch out there. I met both of these guys. That was the beginning.

Jim: So you don’t remember what you wrote about, what the revisionist article was about? Was it just about the Holocaust in general? I’d love to see that.

Bradley: I don’t remember. It was 30 years ago.

Jim: So you were in close association with McCalden and Willis?

Bradley: Not with Willis so much. He was always around, but he didn’t spend a lot of time with me. We only sat down 2 or 3 times in those years.

Jim: So they basically got the publication going themselves, the IHR stuff.

[25:00]

Bradley: McCalden was responsible for publishing the first edition of, “The Journal of Historical Review“.

Jim: You know, I don’t know much about him. I’m glad I’m talking to you about that, because I only saw him in the older videos that he did. And I guess he died young or something, huh?

Bradley: Yeah, he did. McCalden died of AIDS. There was never a lot of discussion about it. But the thing is, is that after he quit, or was separated from the Institute, he had no way to make a living. And so I remember one day I see he was driving a bus for the Los Angeles Airport, taking passengers here and there. But later he got a job as a bouncer at a Persian nightclub in West Los Angeles — doorman/bouncer. And the thing is, it was a place known for being full of loose ladies. I mean that was the purpose of the thing. He was rather a womanizer. I just imagine. that he became intimate with the wrong Persian.

Jim: You think he got AIDS because of that, you think?

Bradley: One, I don’t know and two, that’s my best guess.

Jim: I’ve heard rumors, some saying that he was gay.

Bradley: I would be surprised if that would be so.

Jim: But now knowing what you just said, see that now connects it a little better for me because that makes sense.

Bradley: Not only that, but he had a very attractive wife, besides being a womanizer. He had a very good looking wife. And she was not just someone. She was of Puerto Rican descent and she was a professional psychologist. So she had a real job. And they had a daughter. She also died of AIDS, of course, but he died first.

Jim: He was young.

Bradley: So I remember, I have an anecdote. You want another anecdote?

After McCalden died, he had his little house. He lived in very modest quarters. It was full of books. And hundreds and hundreds of important books. He had a library and his wife didn’t want them. Because that wasn’t her thing. She wasn’t into it at all. So they were giving the books away. And I didn’t want any more books myself because I didn’t want to have to read anything. But I dropped by the house one day to see how it was going. And I was there for a few minutes. And Viviana, her name, she came out of the back bedroom and she was walking very slowly and uncertainly. And I remember, I noted this in my last newsletter, I think. I then did one of the stupidest things, stupidity that I have never got over. She came out and I said:

“Viviana, you look good!”

She looked at me for a moment and then she turned around unsteadily and walked back into her bedroom and closed the door. I never saw her again. She knew she didn’t look good and that I was doing the wrong thing by saying it — something that I’ll never be able to get straight about.

Jim: So, you didn’t get the books?

Bradley: No, I didn’t take any of the books.

Jim: Who got his books?

Bradley: I don’t remember who was there. I think David Cole got some of them. And he may have been there that day, but I don’t remember. I don’t remember any of the other guys who were there. Again, that was in the 80s.

Jim: That’s an interesting story. I’m glad you cleared that up for me, because I really like what he had to say.

[30:00]

Bradley: He was really something. He was very good. He was already a radical, when he was in England. He was against fox hunting. So he used to get some guys together to go out into the forest. He let the fox go by. When the horsemen came, they’d jump out and yell at the horsemen, hopefully seeing the guys fall to the ground. He was always a radical.

Jim: He was a good contributor to the issue. Well let me ask you this now. When did you decide to do the college thing?

Bradley: You know what. I don’t know how I decided to do that. What I did first, I was in New York in July, 1984. I had a manuscript of my first book, Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist and I was going to take it back to the Institute. They were going to publish it.

By the way, I think the first story in my tabloid that I made was the first story in the book. It was how I got the Faurisson, article from Le Monde. I was in the airport in Newark waiting for a flight to Los Angeles. I bought a copy of The New York Times and in The New York Times, I found on the inside — they had little notes, late-breaking news notes — and one of them was that a book distributor in Southern California, called the Institute for Historical Review had been burned to the ground. My publisher!

And by the way, this was on the 4th of July. And so I’m sitting there, I find that my publisher, my first publisher has just been burned to the ground! That can be seen as irony, right? Especially the date, July 4, 1984 — Mr. Orwell.

The jerks who did the burning were probably not thinking of Orwell. They were thinking of 1984, July 4th. They had overlooked the fact that it was Orwell.

So I went out and I volunteered. Willis was there and Marcellus and two or three other guys. And I volunteered to do a newsletter for the Institute that would be directed toward journalists only, pointing out the falsehoods and unproven accusations and nonsense that American journalists were distributing about the Holocaust story. And so Willis said OK. He had a big mailing list and he gave me a mailing list of 4,000 people and so, remember that we decided to call the newsletter, “Prima Fascia“.* Which was a name given to me by another guy. I remember the guy, I forget his name, but it was suggested by him. And I had never heard the term before but he explained what that meant.

[* Prima facie (\PRY-muh-FAY-shee; -shuh\) is a Latin expression meaning “at first sight,” used in common law jurisdictions to denote evidence that is sufficient, if not rebutted, to prove a particular proposition or fact. In most legal proceedings, one of the parties has the burden of production, which requires that party to present prima facie evidence of all facts essential to its case.]

So I went with the Prima Fascia. And we did three or four issues of Prima Fascia but it was directed at journalists nationwide. It went out in print, in an envelope. I think it was probably eight pages. It was easy to get material for the newsletter, because the Holocaust now was all over everything. Before the 1960s, it was not really around. In the 60s, it went like that.

After doing this four times and getting a modest response from journalists who didn’t want to commit themselves to anything, either negative or positive, Mr Carto decided it wasn’t for him.

[35:00]

And so, well, I didn’t know what to do then so then I thought, well, it occurred to me talk shows were very big then on radio. Radio talk shows were very big — mainline talk. It’s gotten big again but it’s more on cable. Then it was audio. It was radio. Once again, I went to the Institute, to Willis Carto and Tom Marcellus and pitched them the idea of me getting radio interviews. To talk about the Holocaust, how the journalists were treating it, or not treating it and free press issues.

So once again they went along with it. And this turned out to be a very successful operation. I literally did hundreds of radio interviews and some TV interviews over the next 8 years, maybe.

Jim: I saw a video of you, was it the Phil Donahue [Show] where you were with David Cole?

Bradley: Yeah, that was Donahue.

Jim: So it was Donahue. I remember watching that one. You know what was funny about that? That was the woman who said, (she was talking about the crematory or the gas chambers — she got them confused, I think). She said:

“If you knew what I knew …” (Because she claimed to be so close to the crematoria), “… you wouldn’t eat chicken today because of the smell of the burning flesh.”

She equated it to eating chicken and I’m saying to myself:

“Lady, you probably were next to the kitchen. You weren’t next to the crematoria!”

Bradley: [both laughing] I didn’t think of that! I should have said that. I did a radio interview in Riverton. I don’t remember where it was and he was a young man, and a lady called in. And she said:

“One of the things that I hated about the Nazis most (she was a Jewish lady in Germany) is that they mated gorillas with Jewish women.“

I said:

“Did you say mate gorillas with Jewish ladies.”

And she said:

“Yes.”

I told the kid [the radio host], I said:

“Listen, get her off of here!”

They threw me off the program for insulting one of their customers.

Jim: Well that story, at the time you were on TV, I mean you have to laugh. The things that they were saying were just so ridiculous and you’re sitting there trying to just say to them:

“What’s going on here?”

Bradley: Imagine that the Nazis were mating Jewish ladies with gorillas!

Jim: Of course, you’ve got to say something like that.

Bradley: I wonder how successful they were! [laughing] Ah, that’s a bad joke. I apologize for that joke. So the lawyers don’t get on you.

Jim: [laughing] I’m not worried about lawyers.

Bradley, getting back to the campus project, because that’s really of interest to me now. Because you started going to the schools. Did you actually go to any of the colleges to do this or what?

Bradley: I gave talks at very few colleges in the 90s, a very few. And I remember one day. I do not know. There was no signal event that caused me to say:

“Ah, I’m going to start submitting full-page advertisements to campus newspapers urging free speech, urging a free press on the Holocaust.”

[40:00]

I don’t remember when I started that, but I do remember one time walking. University of Southern California, U.S.C., is not too far from where I grew up; it’s about three miles literally down the street, down Figaro Ave to 62nd Street. U.S.C. is on 35th or 40th and I grew up on 62nd. And I remembered, that I was going to give a talk that day and it was kind of interesting in that as I walk onto the campus, the campus is largely vacant. I don’t know why that would be; there were very few students.

And I remember walking by myself through these great building that are 2 and 3 stories tall, brick buildings built 75 years earlier. And the huge weight of the university campus — I’m just a little figure walking through this thing and I walk up to a place where I’m going to give the talk. So I remember that, how insignificant I was physically, compared to the physical qualities of the university itself. I mean I was so insignificant.

And when I got there, there was a little subgroup of people there and the police were there. And they said who are you and I told them:

“So far, there have been 14 death threats against you. We have police here and we’re going to change the room in which you’re going to speak.”

I said, “OK.” So I had heard that before. When I was down there, one of my supporters who had heard from me through the Institute or something, introduced himself, and it turned out he was a Los Angeles policeman in civilian clothes. He wasn’t on duty. He had come to take care of me if anything had happen.

And it turns out something was happening. And so 2 or 3 things that were interesting here were that when they got up, when they took me up to the new room where I was going to speak, they had it all set up and the kids were sitting down and so forth. They had my table set against the windows that looked out over the street and into the building on the other side of the street. And so they had set me up to speak, to stand up in front of those windows with my back to the windows, to speak to the children.

I told the police:

“Listen, if you think that someone around here wants to shoot me, why are you setting me up with my back to the windows?“

He said:

“Oh, OK!“

He got it. He didn’t get it before then. And then it turns out that my friend came up to me, the policeman in civilian clothes. He called me outside actually, because they wouldn’t let him in the room, and it turns out that one of the cops had frisked him and they found out that he had had a shoulder holster.

I said:

“Well, this happens, you know.”

The thing was, that he was ashamed of himself that he had allowed a lowly, PD officer — I think he was a detective — he had allowed a lowly PD officer shake him down at the door well, and he left. I asked him to stay around and he said:

“I can’t stay.“

And he left and I never saw him again, never heard from him again. He had been shamed out of duty.

But anyway the talk went OK. I don’t remember what I talked about, the usual stuff.

Jim: How many people were there?

Bradley: Oh, I’d say, it was a small room, I’d say 30-35 people.

Jim: But they didn’t try to stop you?

Bradley: No, they found me a different room. Yeah I just had to advise on where to set me up. [laughing]

You know what, I do not remember, except that there was a couple in Chicago, I don’t think I should mention their name now. The husband turned out to be very helpful to me and he turned out to be a very good editor, an “idea man“.

[45:00]

He set it up so that my first full-page advertisement, but I don’t remember why. I don’t remember how it occurred to me to do this. But I was tired of doing radio. I just didn’t want to do it anymore.

And I was doing a newsletter, but a newsletter is supposed to have news in it, so I decided that it might be good if we made some news. So I used an article that had been drafted by Mark Weber, who was at the Institute then. Mark Weber and I started on a letterhead, Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust [CODOH]. But after he drafted the first article, the letterhead article, he got a job at IHR. He went into another direction. But that article is still around in various forms. I edited it, I rewrote it and my Chicago man helped me to rewrite it.

We published it at Northwestern University, which is in Chicago. We published it in The Daily Northwestern, a full-page ad.

Well this is not the title of it; I have the title all over the place, but I don’t remember it, but it was called something like:

“Let’s have an open debate on the Holocaust story, in the interest of a free press.”

That was the whole thing. So, they published it.

Now this is one of the things that I find very interesting is that at the beginning, I could publish, and by the way, one of the professors wrote an article that absolutely condemned me and didn’t refer to one point in the article.

You know what, it’s been 25 years now, I can’t really talk about it that much.

I published the same ad at Harvard, University of Boston and in a dozen of the major universities around the land and it was an open call for open debate on the Holocaust story, given in a very logical way all the reasons or why.

But these are a few quotations that were taken from the National and Academic Press supporting the publication of our ad. Here’s the title of the ad:

“The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate.”

* This article is still around. Robert Peck, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said:

“The principle of freedom of speech has been not to restrict expression on the basis of content. Newspapers refusing ads because they don’t like the idea Smith is expressing are turning their back on first amendment principles.” This is from the ACLU.

* And then from the president of the American Historical Association. This, by the way is in 1991. These are all in 1991 and 1992:

“Some of us feel that a professional association ought not to get into the business of certifying what is and is not history.”

That’s Leuchtenberg, President of the American Historical Association.

* An editorial in The New York Times. January 1992:

“Denying the Holocaust may be unjust. When there is freedom of expression, even the ugliest ideas enrich democracy.”

[50:00]

* The Washington Post, an editorial in 1991:

“Students should be encouraged to investigate the holocaust story the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical event.”

University of Michigan. The editor of The Michigan Daily:

“The most important question is whether the Holocaust ad should have been printed. I believe strongly more than ever that it should have been. Using free speech, after all, is more important than simply cherishing it.”

* The Washington Times, Alan Dershowitz:

“Some college newspapers ran the ad, as I would have done myself.” 1992.

Alan Dershowitz is the same guy who when I went to University of Texas for a meeting with the editorial staff, there was a quote on the front paper:

“Bradley Smith is a known anti-Semite and anti-black racist, who should never appear in any newspapers!”

He didn’t know then that I was married to a Mexican. They used to use the word “racist” all the time. And then this is from a philosophy professor at Northern Illinois University:

“I suggest we practice what is being preached at us and commit ourselves to tolerating the expression of opinions we strongly disagree with.”

* Here is the final one at Duke University, Professor Peter Fish:

“Can it be argued the radical views on the existence of the Holocaust as a historical event are unfit to print in the sense that publication constitutes obscenity, defamation of individuals or solicitation of criminal actions? If so, then there undoubtedly exist a variety of radical views should never grace the pages of The Chronicle. Erstwhile campus censors should seize the present opportunity to step forward, enumerate their agenda of specific subjects deemed unfit to print.”

When I started this whole thing with the Holocaust controversy, the Case for Open Debate, those are the reactions that I was getting before the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and the Hillel Jewish organization for students on campus got into the act.

And they wrote a 9,000-word essay, which was published as a book, dedicated to keeping Smith out of the campus press! The thing is that they may be bullies in the classic sense, but they’re not dumb. The guys who are associated with the ADL and Hillel are smart guys and smart students. But the thing is that they are true believers. And if you’re a true believer, you stand up for what you believe in. And they believe in almost anything that a Jewish survivor says about a German during WWII. That’s the long and the short of it.

That began the slow, unwinding of my campus campaign. It cost almost $1,600 to publish a full-page ad, back then in the campus newspaper. So I started publishing half-page ads and then quarter-page ads and finally, I noticed that the major papers were not accepting my ads anymore, and I began publishing 1/8-page ads. I was publishing a lot of them, but I had had such success. I had had so many significant academics and journalists support the publication of this material when I started it, before they heard from the ADL. Before from Hillel.

Jim: So basically, the Jews really spoiled the whole show here. They just came in just hoodwinked in, just brought it all down, kind of.

[55:00]

Bradley: I’m going to have to say that you’re making it too easy. The Jews are responsible for what Jews do. But the overwhelming number of administrators, professors and students on the American campus, the overwhelming percentage, are not Jews; they’re us! They’re us!

It’s OK to call Jews for what they are guilty of. But listen, how is it that the great, vast majority of those administrating, serving, teaching and studying at the American universities are Gentiles, who are not Jews, go along with this. The problem is it is not them!

Jim: Here’s the question Bradley to you. What can we do to get this going again, because this is what I want to get into? I want to be able to represent the movement, getting into these places. Because I live in Massachusetts. There are more colleges here than anywhere in the world. And that’s what I would love to do.

Bradley: Which one of them is free to publish revisionist work?

Jim: I don’t know. I haven’t really looked into any of this yet.

Bradley: Well listen, you should. For instance, one of the things to do and that’s one of the things I would do. I have some health issues, you know, and I can’t really do as much as I used to. Germar Rudolf has developed the CODOH bookshop in an extraordinary way. One of the first things to do if you want to work in Massachusetts is maybe he has already suggested this, is to find out which libraries in three Massachusetts universities, which of the libraries stock books by revisionists? You find out and the thing is that I looked into this with Jeff Rucker once. The thing is, that they have the books but they are not out on the shelves. They are in back rooms. One of the things that I might do, for instance, I can’t go to Massachusetts. I may become part of something back there. I only stay up 3-4 hours at a time and I have to lie down. But one of the things I can do is working with the titles of the books that we can demonstrate that are actually on the shelves in, say, 3 university libraries.

Jim: I have practically all the books on the Holocaust.

Bradley: I heard that somewhere.

Jim: I got the whole thing. I’m only missing a couple, but I’ll be getting those. I have 32 volumes. I’m reading all these books now.

Bradley: Well, you’re a young man!

Jim: I’m 63 years old! I mean give me a break! [said jokingly]

Bradley: I was still working when I had 63 years. [laughing]

Jim: I know. I’m willing to go confront these people and talk to these people, have some discussion with them. I have the information and I have been studying long enough to be able to hold my own against them. So I have no problem with them, if I could do it. That’s my goal, that’s my game plan. That’s my goal. That’s why interviewing you and all the other, the high-profile revisionists was my first step. My next step now is getting this out to the public more. Getting them more involved with it as best I can. So, we’ll see what happens.

Bradley: By the way, I might be able to help you. My right-hand man, my SKYPE genius, who got this thing set up. It only took him about a week or so. (He’s sitting right here). We have a new way to get press lists from these universities, which could be very helpful, in which I could participate in something like that, but from a distance. I can’t go back there.

[60:00]

Jim: Like I said, I’m here.

Bradley: Yeah, you’re there.

Jim: I’m here and I’m willing to take some time to do it. If we can work that out. Now, you did mention about Germar. I notice he’s doing a lot with your site now, right?

Bradley: I want to tell you what I’m wrestling with because people who watch this, would like to know. I have cancer of the blood, lymphoma, blood cancer. It’s been 7 years now.

People ask my advice about getting blood cancer. Well, my advice is don’t get it. Then there is a lot of other little stuff. I did chemo [chemotherapy] four times. I have done radiation. I am now dealing with congestive heart failure. This limits my traveling. So we are not going to go on about it.

This is an interesting story. As my ads in the campus newspapers got smaller and smaller, I got less interested in doing them. I wanted to do something other. And I decided it was time to write a book. Well the fact is I’ve always been working on a book.

Behind the scenes, I’m always doing this and doing that, Jim. I had one primary supporter, who was paying for these ads, the primary guy. Everybody who contributes helps me. But one day I talked to him, I said listen, you know I am really tired of this. I think we’re not getting in any of the major newspapers any more and I think I want to just stop it. And I’m going to do a book, and then I’m going to work on promoting the book. He said;

“Well, OK.”

He was an Oregon man, who by the way, got in touch with me. He had been putting revisionist pamphlets under the windshield wipers of the cars parked in one of his child’s schools outside of Portland. Then he heard of me. Then this is an interesting point. He said, how many ads did you run this last season? I said 73. He said 73? That was a lot. We were in 73 student newspapers, oftentimes one-column inches, two-column inches.

Jim: What did you say in the ad though that went into the paper?

Bradley: One of the things I would say is:

“Read the evidence, judge it, think for yourself, CODOH.com.”

Jim: So that was it, take them to your website.

Bradley: Here is where the weakness comes in. I did publish my book, 1992, 1993, “BREAK HIS BONES”. I remember Richard Widman, [of] Inconvenient History [inconvenienthistory.com], told me that if I were going to use that title, that it would be, “BREAK MY BONES”. That seems a little indulgent. He was absolutely right. I put ads in the Harvard Crimson, picture of the cover of the book, University of Texas in Dallas and University of California at Berkeley.

[65:00]

It appeared one time that same week in each paper. The next week, it was cut out from each paper. I could not advertise the book. The whole thing had changed. This was in the early 90s. This was like 15 years ago. The whole thing had changed.

I’d like to tell you the name of that book that the ADL published. It was published by Hillel and ADL and the title of the book is called, “FIGHTING HOLOCAUST DENIAL IN CAMPUS NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS, A MANUAL FOR ACTION.”

Jim: It’s on the ADL site actually, a PDF, you can download it.

Bradley: This is the last edition, “FIGHTING HOLOCAUST DENIAL IN CAMPUS NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS, A MANUAL FOR ACTION.”

That’s me. No one else did it. In the intro to the book, they actually mentioned me. They actually said the reason they were writing this was because of Bradley Smith. So, this was a very successful production for them. They have annual budgets of millions of dollars and so it was very difficult for a lone guy (I’m not alone — I couldn’t do anything if people didn’t help me). My budget is nothing like their budget.

Jim: I can see looking at the introduction of it now, it mentions you right at the beginning of it. It says there:

“Holocaust denial is most often encountered in the form of advertisements, submitted to student newspapers by Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust (CODOH). The ads are an affront to truth and an insult to the memory of those who had been murdered by the Nazis.”

Can you imagine saying that. I mean, an insult to those who were murdered! !

Bradley: That’s the game I’m in. My mistake was that I took it that I could not advertise the book and I never did anything. I had done nothing to sell concessions of Holocaust revisionism and now I did nothing to sell “BREAK HIS BONES”. It was late last year that I published “THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF MORAL DECAY”. I have tried to sell that, but unsuccessfully and so when people ask me how I look about myself, I reply that I’m an unsuccessful literary writer. That’s my contribution.

Jim: If you want to write about the Holocaust, yeah, that’s going to be the case for anybody. You’re not going to make any money on any books about the Holocaust.

Bradley: Well, but the thing is “THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF MORAL DECAY” has hardly anything about the Holocaust.

Jim: But, yeah, it’s about morals and people don’t talk about morals today. Everybody is immoral. What do they care?

Bradley: But they talk about moral decay. That’s me. I’m a prime example of moral decay. That’s the meaning of the title. I’m still interested in trying to peddle this book.

Jim: Do you have the book there? You might as well get some advertising out of this. Bradley Smith: “A PERSONAL HISTORY OF MORAL DECAY”.

[70:00]

Bradley: By the way, Chip Smith, remember the night I was at the libertarian conference and I was given Faurisson’s essay from Le Monde. (It was the Faurisson, the dream and then Butz.) I walked out of the library and this is what I wrote in the notes at that time. Chip Smith, my publisher at Nine Banded Books. He put this couple sentences on the cover of the book:

“While I have not spoken the words, I do not know precisely know what the words are, I understand that a resolution is formed inside me that will change my life from this moment on.”

That’s what I wrote after when I left the library that night. That was what was in my mind. From that moment on, it changed everything.

Jim: The same thing happened with me. When I got into the Holocaust topic in my town. (I produce cable shows. — well I used to.) When I got onto the Holocaust topic, that was it. They just came after me like gangbusters and I’m banned now. I can’t put anything on TV myself. They banned me from producing cable shows anymore in my town. And I cannot for anything politically in my town. I couldn’t get elected dog catcher. I mean, what they do to you, they just destroy you.

Bradley: Well, it is a taboo. A taboo is very powerful and they work — the ADL and Hillel — the ADL in public and the Hillel on campus. They work to maintain the taboo. They are taboo fixated and the thing is that it’s a technique that truly does work because when you challenge a taboo, the entire community is against you and every witch doctor knows that. In the most primitive society, every powerful figure in a primitive society knows that he’s there, that he’s going to use taboo to maintain his position. In the New Guinea jungles, it’s all the same as to be on the Harvard campus.

Jim: We’re going to work on that. I’ve been to Harvard, going to do other things there, video wise, etc. I’d like to really get this topic in there. Thirty percent of the teachers there are Jews. So it’s not too bad. Seventy percent aren’t, but the other 70%, like you say, they’re all accountable to the Jews anyway.

Bradley: No they aren’t. They’re accountable to themselves. This is really important that we don’t blame this as if it’s the Jews alone. It’s US.

Jim: They aren’t taking the high moral road.

Bradley: Well, it’s not THEY. We as a people are not taking the higher moral road.

Jim: But we are they. The teachers are “we”. So I mean it’s it’s tough.

Bradley: But it is WE. If you’re going to talk about “the Jews”, you have to talk about us.

Jim: Well it’s not a good thing.

Bradley: You know something? It’s very rare for any one around the edges of revisionism to ever blame us. We always blame Jews. The thing is, so Jews are responsible for what Jews do, I agree. But then we say the Jews are responsible for what we do. And you know what. We have to stop saying that. Because we’re responsible for what we do.

Jim: You’re right, Bradley. It’s absolutely true. It is just we can’t get enough of those, the “we” on our side. They just don’t want to see it.

Bradley: Well that’s a failure of us. That’s our failure.

Jim: Well, we will see what we can do. We’re going to work on this.

Bradley: We’re going to have to work on the subjective life of the Gentile population.

Jim: The Gentiles are going to have to see what’s going on at some point in time because it’s all going to come crashing down.

Bradley: They know what’s going on. They know that if they speak out on this subject, that they’re going to lose their jobs.

Jim: There you go. That’s the point.

[75:00]

Bradley: They know what’s going on. And the thing is that usually the administrators are not Jews. Every once in a while I say, referring back to the dream, being gassed in Auschwitz, that I didn’t feel like I could go with that because I didn’t want to say that I had come to doubt the greatest story of the twentieth century in a dream. How does that work? I had a dream that changed my life. Where’s Ms. King?

Jim: She’s in the other room.

Bradley: Is she taking care of you?

Jim: Yeah, she’s my administrator. She is working with me to get all this done. She accomplishes a lot. She’s a good woman. She makes all my arrangements. She’s been a very big help to me.

If you have anything else you want to conclude with, or anything else? Well, you should be happy to know that there are many of us who respect you and honor you. We’ve learned a lot from you and if it wasn’t for you and the other revisionists, I wouldn’t be here today. So I’m very happy about that.

Bradley: My SKYPE genius here is telling me I should have mentioned “A Light on Campus”. That’s an icon on my site. I’m supposed to do a little publicity here.

Jim: I’m putting your site up. “alightoncampus.com”. I’m looking at your website now. You have some great links there. It’s probably one of the best ones out there, if you ask me. CODOH.com and CODOHfounder.com.

Bradley: Go to codohfounder.com. There will be a link to A Light on Campus. By the way, A Light on Campus might well be where we would focus on the Massachusetts universities.

Jim: Well, like I said, I’m willing to go out on the road and do this. No problem at all. I offer to debate anybody in my town or anybody about the topic on my TV program, and of course, nobody ever got back to me. They did get back to me, they kicked me off. That’s how they got back to me.

[80:00]

Bradley: As long as you see the joke in that. This [website] is one we may be able to tie in with what you’re thinking of doing. I’m not saying that that would be the site, but whatever you set up, we could link into it and help you.

Jim: There’s your dream, “The Night I Was Gassed in Auschwitz”. If you have anything else that you want to conclude with or anything else you plan on doing in the future, let us know.

Bradley: Nothing specific. This is my right hand man, who lives down near Guadalajara. I don’t think there is anything new here. We could get into a lot more substantial stuff. But the thing is essentially, I’m doing what you said you’re doing. I did some intellectual work at the beginning because it was so interesting to try and figure out why Eli Wiesel, for instance, would repeat the stories and Babi Yar with the Jews underground and being massacred.

They’d all get together and they’d kind of form a union down there, so that they could spurt geysers of blood. And, so I’m looking into stuff like that. The Sonderkommando, and they just have a new movie, “Son of Saul” about a Sonderkommando. This is a guy who chooses to help murder Jews to save his own life. He’s the hero of the movie. The thing is, the Sonderkommandos had a choice to behave with honor or to murder their own children and to live another week. And they chose to murder their children, wives, family.

Jim: Of course, they’re looking at it from the view of being a gas chamber, which we know wasn’t there.

Bradley: Yes, but this is their story.

Jim: I know, that’s what I’m saying.

Bradley: They’re responsible for this story. And not only that but Steven Spielberg has hundreds of interviews with people who tell stories like this. A Sonderkommando was committed to save his own life to search through the vaginas of their wives and children, look for gold, to put their hands into the asses of the dead to find stuff. They volunteered to do this. Now one of the guys who is featured on Steven Spielberg, helped build doors for gas chambers.

Jim: That’s his claim to fame.

Bradley: That’s what he said. These guys were real jerks. The Jews who create and distribute this stuff — it’s indefensible what they do. But all of us who accept it and buy it, it’s indefensible what we do.

Jim: You know what kills me about this movie? Look when they’re releasing it — Christmas. Christmastime. Can you imagine. Isn’t that a Merry Christmas! They’re just shoving it up our ass figuratively. A stupid movie to make us feel sorry for them.

Bradley: Apparently it’s well acted.

Jim: I won’t pay to go see it. But I’ll wait until it comes on Netflix. But I don’t even like watching these movies. I never watch them because they are so bad.

[85:00]

Bradley: I don’t watch them any more.

Jim: They’re so bad. It’s hard to watch these movies. I just read all the revisionist books and anything that deals with revisionism. I don’t even waste my time. Time is valuable. I’m not going to waste it on their garbage. Their garbage is just garbage. I don’t deal with this.

Bradley: We chatted right along, right?

Jim: We did going good and you’re coming along. It gives people a good idea about you and what you have had to deal with. I just think that again the next step for us, anyway what I’m going to try to do is I’m going to try to take what you’ve done and the other revisionists have done — let’s move it up a notch and see what we can do with it. We’re going to try.

Bradley: Well you’re in a good place to try it. That’s sort of the intellectual center of the campus in America.

Jim: Well, Bradley, I want to thank you for this interview. You did really good. You brought us some really good stuff and I think a lot of people are going to enjoy it too. I want to thank you again and I will catch you next time around. You take care.

[86:40]

END

_____________________________

FOOTNOTES

[1] This episode is wonderfully, beautifully and even amusingly retold in “Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist“, Chapter 1.

He was a small, thin, middle-aged man with a white pointy beard, clear blue eyes and a ruddy complexion.

The picture of health. He talked fast (though in a well-mannered, articulate way) as if he were afraid he would lose me.

I felt sweat appear on the palms of my hands.

In the end the little man with the white devil’s beard and the very blue eyes made my decision for me when he turned to a new arrival and began his spiel all over again from the beginning.

As I approached the trash can I glanced down at the lead article in one flyer. It was titled, “The Problem of the Gas Chambers, or The Rumor of Auschwitz.”

In Chapter 3, Bradley continues, …

===============================================

Version History

Version 3: Jan 28, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links.

Version 2: Feb 23, 2016 — Entered text of complete transcript, kindly done by Diane King, Jim Rizoli’s, right hand woman.

Proofreading the transcript, up to the 60 min mark.

Added footnote [1], extracts from Bradley Smith’s book, “Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist“.

Version 1: Posted Feb 20, 2016 — Rough draft text only.

The Plum Cake

admin — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:07:11 +0000

The Plum Cake

By John Weir/Wear

[In this short article by John Weir (Wear), first published in The Revisionist, a journal published from 1999 to 2005 by Bradley R. Smith (founder of CODOH) an issue in itself fatal to the whole “Holocaust” narrative is discussed, namely where is the “Hitler order” to kill all the jews?

As Weir argues it simply never existed because there never was any plan or order, either in writing or given orally, to kill all the jews! If there had been even a secret oral order it would have generated an avalanche of paper work from subordinates seeking clear confirmation for why they need to kill all the jews! That doesn’t exist.

Wear likens it to the circular reasoning logic of Alice in Wonderland where she has to distribute the plum cake pieces before she has cut it into pieces.

The Holocaust story-tellers start with “fact” that the “Holocaust” occurred and then reason backwards that there therefore had to have been a plan and an order somewhere!

What is a fact is that diabolical lies have been told against Germans, and Whites in general, to justify the ongoing White Genocide agenda now being carried out.

– KATANA]

Since the end of World War II a search has continued, and for many has ended with the quarry having eluded its hunters. Some believe what they seek never existed in physical form, but existed nonetheless. It is vitally important that it existed during the war though it has never been located by those chasing it ever since Germany’s defeat. Though no one has seen it, circumstances dictate that it must exist. The fabulous item assumed, but never seen, is the order to commence the extermination of Jews.

The logic behind the assumption of a “Hitler order” is that since there was a Nazi program to exterminate Jews, it must have been ordered by someone; and the someone with authority to do it in Nazi Germany was Adolf Hitler. But no such order has ever been found. This being the case, the order must have either been destroyed or issued orally and never committed to paper. Or so the argument goes.

[Image] Michael Shermer author of Denying History

Michael Shermer in his Holotome, Denying History goes into a long, convoluted explanation as to why Hitler resorted to ordering the murder of Europe’s Jews without committing the elusive order to paper: It seems he had been pressured by various religious and political organizations into suspending his euthanasia program and didn’t want to be embarrassed again by having his signature on a piece of paper in case the same should happen with the “Final Solution.”

[Image] Michael Shermer’s Denying History

This explanation for an oral Hitler order is speculative. It also explains nothing since the pressure that was brought to bear to end the killing of disabled Germans had little to do with the fact that the order was written. If no paper order existed, relatives of the victims would still have brought pressure to have it stopped. And Hitler would have still been the logical focus for that pressure — a paper order bearing his signature would have made no difference.

Countering the need for Hitler to avoid embarrassment would have been the need for those carrying out the order to have a copy of it. An order is more than an command to do something. It confers the authority to a subordinate to fulfill the instructions given him by his superior. It also identifies who is responsible for the order along the chain of command and whether this person has the authority to issue it.

A German housewife during the war needed papers in the form of coupons in order to purchase butter or almost anything else. When she had run out of coupons she could not buy any more butter. People needed papers when traveling, or working. Nazi Germany was a top-down bureaucracy where paperwork was needed to do nearly everything. When anyone wanted to do something out of the ordinary, permission would have to be requested from the proper authorities who would then issue the proper papers granting permission. Yet this pattern is broken with the extermination of the Jews and no viable explanation as to why this is the case has ever been offered.

Written orders to kill Jews under Nazi control would have to have been issued. There is no way around it since issuing an oral command would have created its own consequences. Such consequences would have been as obvious in the historical record as any written order. For example, any time someone with any authority passed through Auschwitz or Treblinka or any of the “extermination camps” he would have asked what the meaning of the pyres piled high with dead bodies was. Such a visitor would ask to see the order which granted the camp administration the power and authority to wantonly kill camp inmates. When those in charge could not produce such documentation, because the order was oral, the requester would naturally have written to Berlin to request confirmation. Berlin would have to respond. One would expect to find hundreds of such letters if the extermination camps were operating on oral authorization. These queries and requests for verification would have produced a paper trail which would have survived the war since copies of this correspondence would have proliferated as they made their way through the Nazi bureaucracy in duplicate and triplicate.

One line of argument used to explain the void in documents relating to the Holocaust is that the order to kill the Jews along with other documents relating to the extermination program were destroyed by the Nazis in order to hide their crimes. This too is unlikely since it would have been nearly impossible to keep track of all of these documents. In addition, Allied intelligence agents had infiltrated the Nazi government and were intercepting coded German communications. The enemies of the Nazi Germany would have leaked these to the Allies long before the end of the war. Those implementing the orders would have had a strong incentive not to destroy these orders since these could be used in their defense in the event of their prosecution for war crimes.

For these and other reasons the “verbal command from Hitler” explanation is not credible. Rather it is an example of circular logic. Like Alice’s plum cake in Through the Looking Glass which she had to distribute before she could cut it, one has to start with the conclusion that there was a Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews before determining that a Hitler order must exist: There was an extermination program therefore there was an order to initiate it. Since no order has been found, an explanation for why the order is missing was created as a substitute to support the conclusion of an extermination program which was really assumed in the first place.

Such thinking is clearly backwards. Since no order has been found, [2]and one would be needed to initiate an extermination program as government policy, logic dictates that there was no extermination program. Our conclusion must follow our premise. Holocaust authors like Michael Shermer argue that evidence for the extermination program comes by way of a missing Hitler order. That the order was either given orally or destroyed can be concluded since the extermination program existed. Refusing our piece of plum cake, revisionists simply note that no order was issued because it would have been located if such an order existed. Since none has been found, the conclusion is inescapable:

There was no policy to exterminate Jews by the Nazi government.

Source: The Revisionist, Codoh Series, No. 4, 2001, pp.

http://vho.org/tr/2001/4/tr08plumcake.html

________________________

Notes

[1] From Through the Looking Glass Chapter VII:

http://www.bragi.com/classics/c/lc1832/tlg07.shtml

‘I’m sure I don’t know,’ the Lion growled out as he lay down again. ‘There was too much dust to see anything. What a time the Monster is, cutting up that cake!’

Alice had seated herself on the bank of a little brook, with the great dish on her knees, and was sawing away diligently with the knife. ‘It’s very provoking!’ she said, in reply to the Lion (she was getting quite used to being called ‘the Monster’). ‘I’ve cut several slices already, but they always join on again!’

‘You don’t know how to manage Looking-glass cakes,’ the Unicorn remarked. ‘Hand it round first, and cut it afterwards.’

This sounded nonsense, but Alice very obediently got up, and carried the dish round, and the cake divided itself into three pieces as she did so. ‘Now cut it up,’ said the Lion, as she returned to her place with the empty dish.

‘I say, this isn’t fair!’ cried the Unicorn, as Alice sat with the knife in her hand, very much puzzled how to begin. ‘The Monster has given the Lion twice as much as me!’

‘She’s kept none for herself, anyhow,’ said the Lion. ‘Do you like plum-cake, Monster?’

[2] The long lost (but now found) Hitler order [Ver 2]

[Image – click to enlarge] Could this be the long lost Hitler order??

The Daily Fail (a highly reputable British newspaper, sometimes known as the Daily Mail) reports that this document was reportedly found by Moshie Goldberg, a diamond dealer and ex-arms dealer now residing in Tel Aviv, in the back pocket of a dreaded, yet recently dead, SS officer, as Berlin fell in 1945. He swears on a stack of bibles on its authenticity.

Experts, from prestigious universities, after rigorous analysis funded by the Weaselberg Foundation believe this could be the the actual original document that sent at least six million Jews to their doom! The greatest crime ever committed in the history of mankind!

Questions as to why it was written in English were waved aside, by an expert historian, Sir Trevor Raper, as baloney and disgustingly anti-semitic.

“The evil Nazis were well advanced in their plans to invade Britain as part of their diabolical scheme to conquer the entire world. The Nazi hierarchy were busy learning English, as Great Britain was the nation that had already conquered most of the entire world. As such Hitler himself was learning English and setting an example by issuing all orders in English, inadvertently creating so much confusion, that it caused them to lose the war!

It [English] was one of our greatest secret weapons.

…

If it wasn’t for the valiant and heroic efforts of the British people, and the Allies, we would be all be speaking German today, and ironically, all the Germans would be speaking English!”

Source: katana

===============================================

Version History

Version 8: Sep 17, 2023 — Added my Intro.

Version 7: Feb 15, 2023 — Updated image links.

Version 6: Jan 27, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 5: Oct 7, 2019 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 4: Sep 12, 2018 – Improved formatting.

Version 3: May 1, 2015 – Edited footnote [2]. Added PDF Ver 3.

Version 2: Apr 30, 2015 – Added to footnote [2]. Added PDF Ver 2.

Version 1: Published Apr 18, 2015

Bradley Smith – katana17

Jan 27 – Anniversary of Auschwitz “Liberation” and Our Enslavement

Jan 27

Anniversary of Auschwitz “Liberation” and

Our Enslavement

“Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist”

In Chapter 3, Bradley continues, …

See Also:

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

Bradley Smith’s

Smith’s Report

# 1

PRIMA FACIE

THE WORK CALENDAR: 1 JANUARY through 10 APRIL 1990

Continuing Projects in January

Continuing Projects, March

NOTES

PDF Notes

See Also:

_____________________

Version History

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAknw5pqOwY

YouTube Stats

_____________________

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Bradley Smith

TRANSCRIPT — WITH IMAGES

00:00

86:40

END

TRANSCRIPT — TEXT ONLY

[86:40]

END

FOOTNOTES

In Chapter 3, Bradley continues, …

See Also:

Version History

Version 2: Feb 23, 2016 — Entered text of complete transcript, kindly done by Diane King, Jim Rizoli’s, right hand woman.

Proofreading the transcript, up to the 60 min mark.

Added footnote [1], extracts from Bradley Smith’s book, “Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist“.

Version 1: Posted Feb 20, 2016 — Rough draft text only.

The Plum Cake

The Plum Cake

Notes

It [English] was one of our greatest secret weapons.

…

If it wasn’t for the valiant and heroic efforts of the British people, and the Allies, we would be all be speaking German today, and ironically, all the Germans would be speaking English!”

See Also:

Version History