*** The CODOH trustees write in SR #216: “Hurray, we did it! CODOH is now officially a Charitable Trust, has its own Tax ID, a new postal address, a new bank account, and even a real phone number. And it wasn’t impeded by anything Bradley Smith or his stepdaughter did or did not do, as stated in the last Editorial, but rather by one of the Trustees misplacing a document. My apologies to all concerned!”

Hurray (hurrah) indeed. At the time, my stepdaughter told me she thought it “real classy” the way she had been thrown under the bus in the preceding editorial. I wrote the trustees that this kind of stuff was good to discuss with SR readers, but not something that should be fixed in Smith’s Report on the World Wide Web for all time. It was not a mammoth issue for me, but it was not cool.

And now, there are a number of issues and views expressed in SR 216 that I feel I should respond to, here in SR 217. I do not think this is the best place or time to do it. But where, when, could I do it? One answer would be for those responsible for Smith’s Report to run their editorials and articles past me when they address myself or the work I have done over the last 25 years so that I can respond in a timely and ordered way, rather than a month later. I wrote them stating this. They replied immediately to say that Smith or Smith’s work was not going to be addressed directly in this issue of SR, and they sent me the full draft of the article published here in #217 so that I could review it. Now we’re talking! Open borders!

So here are a couple or three of the matters that I would like to respond to that appeared in SR 216.

*** Germar wrote in #216: “One thing I realized is that CODOH became really big when David Cole did his video on Auschwitz in 1993. This joint venture gave Bradley and his Campus Project a huge thrust into the public eye, into mainstream media.”

Well, not really.

The Campus Project had already blasted its way into the mainstream media before the Cole/Piper video was produced in 1993. Look here:

On 11 December 1991 The New York Times published an opinion piece by David M. Oshinsky and Michael Curtis, who were at the time, respectively, professors of history and political science at Rutgers University. They called upon college newspapers across the country to stop publishing my article/advertisement “The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate.” Why? Because “if the Holocaust is not a fact, then nothing is a fact, and truth itself will be diminished.”

On 15 January 1992 the Times ran an editorial discussing the College Project. The Times didn’t mention either the name of the organization carrying it out or the title of the article in question: “The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate.”

I can’t find the date when the photo reproduced here ran, but there I am in all my glory in The New York Times. It is sometime in early 1992. [actually: Dec. 23, 1991; ed.]

Smith’s Report #9, Feb./March 1992, p. 1, reproducing a New York Times editorial Dec. 23, 1991.

Other prestige press stories and editorials about the College Project included: “How Should Scholars Respond to Assertions That the Holocaust Never Happened?,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (11 December 1991). “A Growing Fray over Holocaust Ad Reaches Rutgers,” The Philadelphia Inquirer (6 December 1991). “When Anti-Semitism Is Easy to Identify,” New York Post (28 November 1991). “Humbug Ads about the Holocaust,” Los Angeles Times (23 December 1991). “Further Thoughts on ‘JFK’ from an Accused Conspirator,” Chicago Tribune (31 December 1991). “College Ads and the Holocaust,” Washington Post (21 December 1991). “Student Protest over Holocaust Ad,” Editor and Publisher (21 December 1991). “Hoping to Change Minds of Young on Holocaust,” New York Times (23 December 1991).

All well before our production of the Cole/Piper video in 1993.

During these same weeks there were major stories about the Campus Project in student newspapers across the breadth of the US. You can find much of this (not all of it by any means) in Smith’s Report #9 codoh.com/media/files/sr9.pdf and in Issues #8 and #10. (If you’d like to read these stories, editorials and some responses to them, ask the NYT for its “The National File.” It contains 20-25 pages.)

The reason I am emphasizing this is because it is the real story of what created the backlash by the Very Rich and Influential (mostly) Jewish political and cultural forces. This was in the days before anything was happening on the Internet. Distributing a video via some kind of disk recording was to use the U.S. Post Office, or public service TV, which means distribution of the message was very modest compared to headline stories in the mainstream and campus press where thousands and in some cases tens of thousands would read the material.

And then there is the fact that before I created the Campus Project, I had previously reached hundreds of thousands of folk doing some 400 radio and television (mostly radio) interviews. The aim from the beginning was to take revisionism and the ideal of intellectual freedom to the widest possible audiences. I did that work better and more successfully than anyone before or since. And then the fact that after my unique and successful radio work, after I devised the Campus Project to take our story to the press on and off campus, I took CODOH onto the World Wide Web where it became the primary English-language revisionist website in the world.

In brief: The CODOH Forum is the world’s largest and liveliest revisionist-moderated on-line discussion of the Holocaust. Hands down. The moderators of the Forum could have taken it anywhere, or gone it alone, but they chose to associate with CODOH. Why?

Inconvenient History. A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry, has replaced The Journal of Historical Review, once the world’s primary scholarly revisionist quarterly. Richard Widmann, its editor and publisher, could have gone anywhere, could have gone it alone, but he chose to associate his quarterly with CODOH. Why?

There are the revisionist scholars and activists all over the world who have contributed to CODOH. Why?

And then there is Germar Rudolf. Once he was free of the German criminal system and the threat of it, he could have gone anywhere with anyone, or continue to go it alone on the Web. He chose to associate himself with CODOH. Why?

CODOH was born through my work with radio and TV, the Campus Project, and Smith’s Report. Smith’s Report grew from one poorly designed newsletter, the first issue published in the year 1990 and distributed free (you can read Issue #1 here: codoh.com/media/files/downloads/SR1-ocr.pdf), to become, in stages, the most significant revisionist Website in the world = CODOH. How did that happen? I created and maintained a significant public presence. Others began to drift in my direction. It was Richard Widmann who convinced me to actually create a Website for CODOH. What I did was to provide a space, an “air,” in which others felt they could breathe, do their own work. I would pay the bills, I would keep things as well-organized as possible, and I would promote our work throughout the nation in mainline media and the campus press, and one CODOH was online, throughout the world.

NOTE: A long time ago I was on the telephone with Samuel Crowell, author of The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, when he told me that the first time he heard anyone questioning the gas-chamber stories was on a talk radio program where some guy named Smith was being interviewed.

One last example of how the Campus Project breakthrough into the mainline press pre-dated the Cole/Piper video. This is not to diminish the value of Cole/Piper, but make clear how I took us into national media via the campus. Following is an excerpt from an article by Deborah Lipstadt in the May 1992 USHMM newsletter I reported on in SR 11, September/October 1992, page 6.

“‘In recent months, a lone denier, Bradley Smith, has garnered incredible amounts of attention with a tactically brilliant but devious maneuver: the placing of advertisements in student newspapers arguing there was no Holocaust.’”

I reported:

“Deborah Lipstadt, Holocaust historian and the only female golem still residing in Los Angeles county, gives me the benefit of her attention on the front page of the Museum’s official, State-sponsored, slick, tabloid-sized Newsletter (May 1992). Lipstadt writes that when she first began research on “Holocaust denial” people would ask incredulously: ‘Why are you wasting your time on those kooks?’ In the last year her life has changed dramatically. ‘Now people urge me to hurry and complete my work ….’

“Its nice to know that I have been able to add purpose and a little spice to the life of this unfortunate woman. [ …]”

You can read my full article here: codoh.com/media/files/sr11-ocr.pdf.The book she published in 1993 is titled Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.

*** What I also realized is that Bradley’s initial success was met by the Dark Side of the Force with an unsurvivable barrage of counterpropaganda…. (Germar in SR 216)

“Here is the gist of it. In SR #20 Smith wrote about the effect his Campus Project’s ad campaign had at the University of Miami: ‘So I scribble a text for a modest ad, back it with $288, then Ziff [Jewish magnate] sweetens the pot with a couple million and presto, five new Holocaust courses at UM that weren’t there before and a new Jewish folk hero. What’s the World Jewish Congress and the rest of that gang complaining about? It might never have happened without me!’

“Three issues later, a reader commented succinctly: ‘You brilliantly turned defeat into a joke. From a historical perspective, and objectively and heartlessly, you should be lynched by revisionists. They returned your ad money to you, $288, and you generated $2,000,000 in research and educational funds for exterminationists. […] Instead, this ad will, for decades, create new exterminationists backed by the Ziff millions.’

“What if that reader is right? What if the bickering we revisionists do has merely served the Holocaust Industry as a pretext to rev up its propaganda and fundraising machines, merely making it and the Jewish lobby grow faster and bigger? What if we merely help the beast to get more powerful and more dangerous? […]”

A reasonable question, not an unreasonable point of view. At the same time, we should have in mind that Yad Vashem was established in Israel in 1953, long before I was “bickering” with our press and academics. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum was dedicated in April 1993. It had been in the works for years, again long before I used “propaganda” to create a bickering culture on the American campus. In short, tens of millions of dollars had already been invested in establishing the Holocaust Industry. I do not believe I have to mention the ADL, Hillel, and the half-hundred Holocaust museums and memorials that were already being talked about and planned by the 1980s.

The “Beast” was growing more powerful and more dangerous well before Smith began his “bickering.” As a matter of fact, the Beast was already so powerful and so dangerous by 1979/80, when I first read Faurisson and Butz, that I recognized the taboo that protected its beastliness from open discussion.

I wrote about how I felt on that New Year’s Eve 1979, leaving the main library in downtown Los Angeles after reading Butz:

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

Chip Smith put those words on the front cover of my A Personal History of Moral Decay. I did not think, in that moment, which was one of the few real turning points in my life, about “putting bread on the table.”

There is still one issue that I want to address. Germar writes in SR 216:

“As some may remember, in 1993 a major conflict arose between the staff of the IHR and its founder Willis Carto. Bradley Smith and CODOH got drawn into that conflict, taking sides as Bradley saw fit back then. I have always tried to stay out of it and focus on producing quality work and cooperating with everyone I could productively work with. …

“Since we are currently posting all the individual articles which ever appeared in SR, those dealing with the Carto/IHR conflict are also among them. When I talked to Bradley about it a few weeks ago, he was convinced that not so much of it is to be found in SR. Well, that’s relative. It’s rather too much for my taste. It goes without saying that I feel very uncomfortable posting those vitriolic exchanges of the past. I’d prefer letting old wounds heal. Still, I do post it all, as we won’t censor our own stuff, but I introduce each of these items with an appropriate editorial comment.”

I wasn’t “convinced” that not much of the Carto/IHR conflict was reported in Smith’s Report, I just didn’t remember that I had addressed it much. Turns out that there is more of it there than I had remembered. I was surprised to read once again the filthy litany of insult and false charges that were made against me by Willis and Elizabeth Carto both. The brain had forgotten it all. In any event, I agree with Germar where he writes:

“CODOH will cooperate with anyone who will work with us productively, and who can help the cause of furthering free speech where it’s most threatened. In this case, we are willing to cooperate with both The Barnes Review (a Willis Carto creation) and the Institute for Historical Review. We all need to start looking forward, not backward, and make the most of what we have.”

Looking forward, not backward, is a good idea. There is still a lot of stuff in Germar’s article for SR 216 that might be addressed, but I can only do so much here. Following are some of his thoughts on working with SR and with CODOH in the coming months. These suggestions were not made in SR 216 but via a private email exchange. I agree with all he says here.

“I propose to publish articles online slated to appear in an upcoming SR as soon as they are available and proofed, then take them (or some version of them) and put them into the pdf/printed version of SR.

“Reasons:

“We need CODOH.com to become more active. Right now we have fits of adding articles only after SR has been published, then for a month basically nothing. That’s not good.

“CODOH lives more from its online readership than from its dedicated print-SR readership, which keeps shrinking. In line with all print media, I expect the print readership to keep shrinking, so maybe at some point we’ll go the way Inconvenient History has been from the start: only make available the articles of, say, every 6 (or 8 or 10) issues in a paperback-bound PoD edition.

“Anyway, contributors, I think, also would like to see their material posted online faster, rather than have it sit (some in waiting for months).

“The exception will be Revisionist Activities, which should remain a monthly summary/overview.

“So, since Jett is inundating me with papers, I suggest getting them out, one by one, no matter when and where they will appear in SR.

“That is a suggestion coming from some of those giving me feedback on my last SR’s editorial, and I think it’s well-founded.

“Any thoughts?

“Germar.”

*** A few final words. While success can follow failure, failure oftentimes comes from past successes. No revisionist has ever gotten good press. Men and women go to jail for doing scientific work on our subject. Taboo rules the press. Just as it rules Yad Vashem, the USHMM and the many other limbs of the Great Beast. The Great Beast squats over American academia like a monstrous toad laying her clutch of eggs. We notified students of the revisionist videos I did as a first experiment, put them on YouTube, and now they have been viewed some 35,000 times. Students! Another opening for us.

And then the final (final!) word. My bank balance tonight stands at $181.14.

If you find the work I have done the last 25 and 30 years, and trust that the work I intend to do now, is worthwhile, please take a moment to contribute to:

Bradley Smith

PO Box 439016

San Ysidro CA 92143

Or Online at: http://codohfounder.com/please-contribute/

I need your help. Thank you.

—Bradley

Germar’s Response

I’m glad Bradley set the record straight, and in the process my head, too.

In his recent interview with Robert Faurisson, Jim Rizoli stated that Robert Faurisson is the “patriarch of the revisionist movement,” to which Faurisson responded by saying:

“Yes, with Bradley Smith, my friend.”

(See “Revisionist Activities” in this issue). I think that statement sums up the comparably important influence both personalities have had on the development of Holocaust revisionism, the one with his research, ultimately triggering the Leuchter and Rudolf Report, the other by bringing the good news of revisionism to the masses.

I may also add that, by the time you read these lines, Castle Hill Publishers with all its copyrights and books stock will probably be part of the CODOH Trust as well. Hence, yet another revisionist entity is finding safe harbor beneath the impressive umbrella Bradley has built during his lifetime.

Adding Castle Hill Publishers to CODOH’s assets will give CODOH a small but steady and somewhat reliable source of income beyond donations and (shrinking) subscription fees. For the moment, CODOH can even accept credit cards for donations and subscription fees. But that money isn’t anything that can be automatically shared with Bradley. As a matter of fact, CODOH has received almost no donations at all since it became organizationally independent from Bradley. Had it not been for us volunteers paying the bills, CODOH would be broke and dead by now. But I’m sure we get it afloat again soon, with your help.

The same goes for Bradley, Please heed his call for help!