Letters

Your letters are the one way I have of knowing what your reaction to each issue of SR is, good or bad. I am unable to respond to correspondence unless it is extremely urgent. I realize this makes it rather a one-way street. If you do not want your name printed here, and there are many reasons why you might not, please make sure you say so each time you write.

I love ya! Beautiful work. I hadn’t visited (CODOHWeb) for a long time, but I think you are really top notch.

Ingrid Rimland (author of the daily Zgram and master of the Zuendelsite on the World Wide Web)

It is a norm for counter-cultural and extremist political groups to use all kinds of obscenities to characterize others. I believe we should avoid the use of such language as you used—I refer you to your blurb for “Revisionism on the Internet” in which the “A” word is used to describe Hitler. I am not debating the pros and cons of Hitler, rather, I believe we should continue to strive for something better. Take it from a well-read 69-year-old.

B. R. Arizona.

Well, it was a careless, self-indulgent way to express myself in this newsletter.

I have just seen the video by David Cole, produced by CODOH, where he tours Auschwitz and interviews Franciszek Piper. The video quite literally demolishes the Holocaust myth. I sincerely recommend the video most wholeheartedly. It really is the best few dollars that I have spent for a very long time.

John Corelli, England (Internet)

This may be the best site on the web.

Art Kleps, New York City (Internet)

Our obsession with the holocaust legend is bearing its poisoned fruit—a Middle Eastern foreign policy that acquiesces to the Jewish right wing, a Justice Department that is eager to take away privacy rights we have enjoyed since the founding of the nation to “protect” us against the threat of terrorism in our war against the Palestinians, and the intellectual corruption of academic institutions. I urge you to keep up the pressure.

Edie Popkin, Los Angeles (Internet)

In SR45 you referred to Adolf Hitler, fondly it seems tome, as an “ass—.” Hitler was an astute politician, a great leader, a military genius, and one who encouraged the promotion and creation of great art and made it available to the common man. He was an inventor and designer, a courageous soldier and patriot, an accomplished street artist, had a photographic memory, and was probably the finest orator of the century. What standards did you employ in order to come up with the descriptive term you used. What is it, precisely, that you do not like about him?

Reinhard Tixel, CA

What I don't like about him is what he stands for. Above all else he stands for tyranny. It doesn't matter that many Germans respected and even adored him. I hold Germans to the same standards I hold everyone else. My work with revisionism is to argue for intellectual freedom.

I can't argue for it in a democratic society without arguing for it in an authoritarian one.

I imagine myself living in Hitlerian Germany in the late 1930s, the glory days, arguing there for what I argue for here—for a free press rather than a Nazi press, for an ideal of intellectual freedom against the ideas of my leader, and I see how it is. I'm a dead duck. No matter how brave the leader is, or how much art the leader promotes, or how uplifting his speeches are, I know that if I do not betray my own speech, my own art, I will be destroyed.. Close to a century ago American radical Big Bill Hayward liked to say that “nothing is too good for the people.” I agree with Big Bill. The beauty and power of intellectual freedom is the gift a free society offers to all its people. The tyrant offers it to no one but himself. He lives in a world of absolute intellectual freedom—for one. That’s why, when the tyrant speaks of suppressing intellectual freedom for a greater cause, he sounds to me like a man with a paper … … —damn and double damn!

I almost did it again.