This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
Instead of using the word “revisionism” to articulate or update history more accurately, why not use the term “data based?” Data based information” is a more effective term that “revisionist information.”
Ermanno Barone, CA
Interesting idea, but I think we’re stuck with “revisionist.”
I made copies of your last Smith's Report and the “$250,000” ad and sent them to, all my friends (plus a few others). Also, in this morning’s mail I received the enclosed newspaper clippings from a relative in South Bend, Indiana. They’re from the South Bend Tribune and report on the uproar there at Indiana University. I hope you can use them.
Father Rudolph E. Kurz, MO
Thanks. We used them to good effect in this very issue of SR I can’t emphasize too much how helpful it is to receive relevant press clippings.
When we returned from several months in Germany we found several of your newsletters waiting for us. It was so pleasing to us to read that all your marvelous strategies and your relentless work are showing results. Our love to you and your nice family and many, many thanks for what you are doing so extremely well.
Hans and Marianne Raab. BC
Enclosed are two articles from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I sincerely hope you do not pass up this golden opportunity to defend the integrity and character of your organization, CODOH, with which you have worked so hard, long, and patiently to legitimate revisionism as a worthwhile intellectual discipline. The authors of the long article are the typical “liberal” p.c. crowd that clogs our college campuses. You’ve been challenging these types for twenty years now and besting them in personal encounters—Brad, here’s a good opportunity for you.
H.D.B., Atlanta GA
The two J-C articles ran on 18 September. The more important of the two pieces was authored by Kathryn W. Kemp, a lecturer in history at Georgia State University, and Joesph White, who teaches at GSU part time. Titled “Obscuring the Holocaust,” it was a tirade against the new CODOH ad having been run in The Signal at GSU. The third and fourth paragraphs read: “Why should historians, who are devoted to discovering facts about the past, find anything objectionable in a group that espouses academic freedom to an audience that includes a large proportion of college students? We object because CODOH lies.”
There isn't a single reference in the article to any thing I have ever written or said. Reading it made me furious, which in turn surprised me. I have been a public target for slander, contempt and misrepresentation for fifteen years and longer. I've made my peace with it.
Sometimes you get caught up with this stuff anyhow. I was going to write a scathing reply to the J-C, which would not have been published. I was too far behind the curve managing the Campus Project on the one hand and keeping up with it on the other to tear in to the two professors. I’m glad now I was unable to do it.
It's not my work to insult professors, but to help students understand there is something wrong with the Jewish Holocaust story, that open debate will demonstrate what it is, and that the ideal of intellectual freedom is hallow on every campus where open debate is prohibited.
Additional information about this document
|Sources:||Smith's Report, no. 60, December 1998, pp. 7f.|
|First posted on CODOH:||Oct. 28, 2015, 6:41 a.m.|