Similar Posts

  • Letter to “The Economist”

    The Economist25 St Jame's StreetLondon SW1A1HG[email protected]  Dear Editor We are writing to thank you for your Jun 2nd article Free Speech Under Attack a bit late, (we get our copy of the Economist as a hand-me-down.) It is worth noting that the current wave of censorship received a boost in 1990 with the passage of the Gayssot Act in France, Law No. 90-615…

  • Christian Morality and Holocaust Revisionism

    Recently, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, declared that Holocaust denial is tantamount to “sacrilege” after he issued a message of solidarity to Britain's Jewish community ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day.[1] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “sacrilege” is defined as “the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object.” So, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor is saying…

  • Letters

    Old the 'Wrong Side' Win? In his recent Opening Statement to the London Court, David Irving said: “I shall not argue, and have never argued, that the wrong side won the [Second World] war, for example, or that the history of the war needs to be grossly rewritten.” I cannot go along with that. As…

  • Volunteers Are Key in Growing Campus Campaign

    Last month’s issue of Smith’s Report underlined the importance of CODOH's recent volunteers in carrying out the ongoing Campus Project: inserting small, simple, devilish ads that challenge the Thought Police and point university newspaper readers—virtually all of whom have easy access to the Internet—directly to CODOH’s revisionist Website, CODOHWeb, where they find a cornucopia of…

  • Letters

    Not “Multicultural,” But Accurate History In “The Challenge of Multiculturalism” (Summer 1992), Samuel [Jared] Taylor makes some interesting points, but he seems to be arguing for a history not necessarily in accord with the facts. Would it serve US history to overlook Franklin Roosevelt's provocations leading to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Or the…

  • Correspondence

    I read everything sent me but regretfully can not reply to that which is not of great immediate importance. All correspondence received is considered public domain unless specifically and plainly marked otherwise. If you do not want to be identified by name in SR, please say so in writing. Because SR is a newsletter, not…