Letters

In April of 1996, Senators Boxer (CA) and Spector (PA) gifted $1 million to Steven Spielberg for his Shoah Holocaust project where the money would be used to pay for recording 50,000 holocaust survivor voices around the world—the money came out of the House Appropriations Committee Library Funds—education funds intended for the libraries (see Washington Post editions, April 1996.) It was a direct “award.” He did not have to apply for the funds. The House Appropriations Committee denied me funding for the country's first documentary outlining the internment of German-Americans on American soil during WWII years. An internment few know about and which an apology from our government has never been made. In testimony for the Japanese internment, German-Americans were censored, denied congressional testimony. I had to fill out all kinds of documents and get support from Senators Spector and Boxer, only to find out that my proposal was never submitted by Spector. Did they favor Spielberg? Apparently so, because he got his $1 million over my conservative $75,000 request. Perhaps I should submit a grant request to Spielberg.

That would be another story for you. Thanks for your ear, keep up the good work!

J. Krollpfeiffer (e-mail)

Your $250,000 is safe. Not even for a million would they put your message out for 90 minutes on national television.

Doyal Gudgel, WA

Regarding my inquiry of three days ago about not having received the August issue of SR: the September issue of SR arrived today as issue #57. My last issue, #56, is for July. Being an astute individual, I deduced that there was no issue for August, therefore, none is missing. If this is correct, all is well.

John D. Fesmire NY

[Astute indeed! Eleven issues a year. No August issue. Another demonstration of why the intellect of SR readers is consistently judged to be in the top three percentile of all intellectual and demographic groupings everywhere.]

Running the $250,000 challenge to the ADL in college newspapers across America is a Million Dollar idea. I was so excited about its prospects I sent photocopies of SR 57 containing your ad, with my cover letter, to Charley Reese (King Features), Joseph Sobran (Universal Press Syndicate), Pat Buchanan (Tribune Media Service), and Samuel Francis (also Tribune Media Service). If things develop right, maybe one of them will use it in his column. Your efforts are being rewarded!

Ray Ivens, OK

There are so many issues demanding center-stage now, one wonders if it's wise to continue supporting the course of publicizing the “Holocaust” fraud. Please get some kind of shelter, dear brother. God is kinder to us than we are to ourselves.

Evelyn K. S. Judge, VA

It's true—there are so many issues. No issue can be discussed without intellectual freedom. When I made the decision to work with the Holocaust controversy, I came at it from the same perspective that I approached my run-in with the Feds 40 years ago when I was prosecuted for selling Henry Miller's Tropic Of Cancer, which at that time was banned by the U.S. Government. In the 1960’s I held that students, and the rest of us, have the right to read radical literary works. Today, in the 1990s, I hold that they, we, have the right to read radical papers on historical controversies. Intellectual freedom, and freedom to doubt the Jewish Holocaust story, are not two different issues. They're the same issue. Revisionism raises a moral issue, in that intellectual freedom exists only when all of us have it. Christian and pagan, black and white, Jew and German. Revisionism then is a moral quest for an open society. It isn’t “fraud” that is interesting or deep, but the ideal of a culture in which we are all free to reveal what we think and feel as we will. In that respect, revisionism represents a move toward brotherhood.