This Is What CODOH Should Do

We are of course fortunate to have an academic researcher on the codoh team, and your work has been extraordinarily fine.

However, more research is not what is needed most now. Please check out my vid at youtu.be/acPfPG457cw. It begins ….

“The holocaust is a preposterous hoax unsupported by any physical evidence. It is made up of literally millions of lies, but it all rests on one ‘big lie’, that big lie is the focus of this video.”

Study this video closely. This is what’s needed, a comprehensive presentation of the ongoing hoax, not a detailed analysis of what did and didn’t happen in the camps.

The vid addresses the two very good reasons why every person in the US believes the hoax:

1. the photos of Jews gassed by the Nazis being bulldozed into mass graves;

2. the fact that every academic historian to a man/woman save Arthur Butz says that it did happen.

These are tremendously good reasons. They affect people at their core. The photos are the profound emotional basis, the academic total consensus, the irrefutable rational basis. They make the hoax totally impervious to criticism.

They have to be countered head on before anything else is possible.

Fortunately the internet makes it possible – the British documentary hidden for 70 years can now be seen on PBS Frontline Memory of the Camps, and documents the typhus epidemic at Belsen, and shows the footage of the victims.

So the holocaust big lie, the photos of the victims, can be shown as a lie, and it can be seen that every institution in the country supports that lie.

You have to attack the holohoax at its root, and that is it.

So, should you do propaganda? Yes, there is nothing else. There is no pressing need to show that the thing is a hoax, that has been perfectly evident from the very beginning and fully documented since Butz’s book.

And you should do more than propaganda. Propaganda alone is clearly totally ineffective.

Organization is needed. Suppose there were a codoh group in my hometown. We could picket the holohoax museum that is located here (St. P, FL). This is what you should be doing, organizing to picket hoax museums. Picketing the USHMM would be HUGE… every day… someone out there handing out leaflets. The Jews would go ballistic…

Those are my thoughts.

Anon.

Indeed, publishing more books exploring every nook and cranny of the story is hardly attracting anyone. I can’t even claim that I like doing it. Yet still, it needs to be done.

However, I agree that a picture is worth a thousand words, hence putting a focus on video documentaries is definitely what CODOH will be doing.

I must disagree, though, that giving a video the title “Introduction to the Holohoax” and starting it with the words “The Holocaust Big Lie” is going to win anyone over who isn’t already listening anyway. We need a more didactic approach.

Picketing museums: We’ll get back to you about that. Maybe we can win you over to organize this? —GR

Greetings. One thing that I’ve found very frustrating about every revisionist organization I’ve ever approached, and I’ve approached them all, is the general disregard of the fate of jailed revisionists and thought criminals languishing in prisons and jails in Europe and elsewhere. I see that Vincent Reynouard’s plight is reported on in thee current issue of Smith’s Report, but I don’t ever recall the newsletter ever publishing a list of contact information for other revisionists in jail or under indictment. I think a permanent spot in the Report should include an updated list of all jailed revisionists for people who wish to send them support—financial or just a postcard to let them know they are not forgotten. This is important especially as the Christmas/New Year approaches.

Please help me collect and publicize whatever contact information for all persons in prison for historical thought crimes, or crimes related to this wherever they may be. Charles Krafft Society for a Five Minute Moratorium on Holocaust Hubub Seattle, WA USA.

[This is followed by a list of incarcerated dissidents which we have updated and published separately]

Charles Krafft

We’ll institute that right away. We even create a position “CODOH—Civil Rights” and put Charles in charge of it (if he agrees)!—GR

Hi Germar.

First, after p. 2 of the SR [#216], every other page of what I have is missing.

Now to your query, and here is my input, for all its worth.

I agree with you, Revisionism is spinning its wheels, we will never win the propaganda war, and without that, nobody of any standing will join in. I don’t know what the answer is, but for a while now I have advanced the suggestion that we look at the History of Germany, starting with the build-up to WWI and the lies told then (and now). WWII was merely a continuation of WWI, as Matthias Rogg, director of the military museum in Dresden almost admits (tinyurl.com/oywtava).

Also, Hitler worship is a hindrance. I found an article in VfZ, “Fälschung zur Auslandsfinanzierung Hitlers“ (1954, 2, pp. 586-596). Rothfels, in his foreword, talks of ongoing investigations in various quarters, he promises a follow-up, nothing appeared. I did a little research but would need someone in Germany. I happen to believe that, if it can be shown Hitler was part of the plan to destroy Germany, that without financing from abroad there would have been no Third Reich, we might just make some inroads.

As mentioned, for all it is worth.

Good luck to all of you at CODOH.

Regards

Wilfried Heink

Starting with SR #216 we have been using a different software for producing SR. It was set to print the pdf file with opposing pages on one spread, so after page one, there are two pages on your screen. You might need to scroll to the right to see the odd pages; we have changed that back to one page per spread to avoid confusion; ed.

Hi Germar

I’m a relative newbie to revisionism—less than a decade—and have an overview. I have blogged about the Holocaust situation several times, as I am an author and investigative blogger. You say:

I’m not going to make any suggestions here. Even though I have my own opinion about it, I’d rather not divulge it just yet, because it might influence you. I prefer your uninfluenced opinion.

I've shared mine here. I'm interested in yours in a nutshell. In confidence is fine.

So please be so kind as to take the time to think it over and write us a note—or an essay—to feedback@ codoh.com.

I'm responding here as requested

If you do not want it published in SR, please say so, but in case you think that’s OK, please indicate if we may credit you by name.

I am happy for you to share anything I say and to attribute my name to what I say but if it to be published I request prior warning and editorial approval (of my words) and reserve the right to comment on my own blog at all times. If you want more polished thoughts my standard process is to write, give it to you for publication then publish the same article on my own blog the next day or later as agreed in advance

Whatever the outcome, we, the CODOH team, are ready to press the reset button, reboot the system from the bottom up, and make a fresh start.

That's an incredibly mature and wise stance – congratulations for that leadership stance.

One thing I can already say now, though: in-fighting does NOT work. That brings me to another topic which popped up repeatedly when going through old issues of SR. 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. There may have been a legally Right and a Wrong in that conflict, but there has also always been a morally Right and Wrong, and looking back at the historical record of both sides involved, those Rights and Wrongs aren’t necessarily the same. 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.

Again this is wisdom, and I am impressed. You obviously are no stranger to strategic factors, human nature and dealing with deception! In-fighting is symptomatic of failed leadership. I doubt that you'll have that problem from what I've read from you so far.

Having said this, 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.

If free speech is the only/primary goal of the new CODOH, I’m saddened a little but respect your judgment call for being able to speak publicly about a subject [which] is only one aspect of truthseeking. If it includes developing logic and truthseeking skills, however, then you have hit my hot-buttons. If the Holocaust is still the only/primary topic, then sure I’d accept that but would consider your work will miss the real mark, for the Holocaust is actually only ONE subject of truthseeking, albeit a biggie of course.

In this case, we are willing to cooperate with both The Barnes Review (a Willis Carto creation) and the Institute for Historical Review.

OK

We all need to start looking forward, not backward, and make the most of what we have.

Great! You have my attention.

I am an author and investigative blogger with a long history in the IT fields – hardware, software and the Internet. I'm moving into this space a little more, slowly.I own www.holocaustcalculator.com in which I am developing a simple logistics calculator where viewers can accept the standard defaults or enter their own values to demonstrate the impossibility of Gas Chamber claims with real maths/figures.

I own www.holocaustianity.com in which I am developing a privately controlled WIKI with the basics of the Holocaust & Revisionism detailed for newbies, and those wanting to dig a little deeper. It takes the approach that the Holocaust story is a religious belief system and discusses why this is, as well as exploring logical fallacies and how deception occurs.

This leads into my comments about CODOH. As an outsider and an analyst, I view CODOH as an interest group peddling one story, which is highly contested and for 99.9% of people in the too-hard basket. As an experienced truthseeker I recognize a story when I start asking basic questions as I do when I meet openness, integrity, logic and honesty. Most people though are NOT experienced in this area and those that DO ask questions mostly do not want to know the truth when they find it. Thus you are and will always be on a hiding to nothing doing things the way CODOH has done. Passion, of course. Integrity – sure. Strategically, nope, as you allude to in your intro.

I run a small backpackers in Samoa and prior to that in New Zealand I had for decades essentially a hostel providing homestay experiences for guests from around the world. One of the serious changes that I've noted in the last decade and a bit with the digital natives coming through is their inability to divine truth. It’s not that they cannot smell BS, nor that they can’t recognize truth but it is their notably lacking capacity to know how to validate varying claims/opinions. It’s at crisis/chronic levels, if you ask me, and this is in the context that the vast majority of under30s do not trust the MSM! This is actually a recipe for disaster similar to the circumstances HItle took over in but it really does not help you in the slightest!

I don't think you or anyone really has a problem with getting your message out there, nor in setting off a few alarm bells, but the real problem is that with the deliberate dumbing down of the thinking process (logic) is missing, pride of course being the inhibiting factor in this all. Ironically, the one country from which this is most clearly lacking in the hundreds of people I have pass through my home is Germany. Your testbed, yardstick, target market should be the young adults from within German schooling in terms of applying logic into truthseeking. It’s not the nationality (for a recent German lad schooled in France was relatively immune from this) but it is the schooling process and content.

Put another way, if whatever CODOH does in the future can reach and touch the part of the young/maturing German brain so that it can:

1. Understand the process of truthseeking

2. Apply pure logic

3. Understand validation of fact

THEN you will have my endorsement for your future activities, because I then know that you’ve got the right mix in your agenda.

As I see it there is little traction gained from telling people the truth – you have to show them how/why it is the truth THEN as an organisation with a mission and a calling and purpose you have to answer the WIIFM so that you have the opportunity for viral replication. I do NOT want to be negative about Bradley's work but if you compare it to Jesus' there is no comparison – after his lifespan in “business” of decades Bradley was still essentially a one-man-band. After only three years in “business” Jesus had a clear message elucidated and viral replication system established that turned the known world upside down and has seen little loss of traction thousands of years later. Understanding the principles of WIIFM will give your board the answer to HOW to achieve your goals effectively.

So, I’m in the dark on what YOU want for CODOH, but I know HOW to achieve people’s goals and am available to help with strategy and being a sounding board – board-level stuff. If you want me to polish these thoughts into a more thorough coherent blog post, ask me and I will. It's the way I work, taking life's experiences and discussing/analysing them online.

I await your thoughts should you wish to engage further and am happy to hold them to myself if you ask for this.

Regards

Dennis A. Smith

CODOH’s name defines its mission: Advocating a free exchange of ideas in the area where that exchange is most threatened in western societies: The Holocaust narrative. Of course the Holocaust is embedded in a larger historical and societal/psychological context, and that needs to be addressed as well. Teaching people how to search for the truth—epistemology—is one of my favorite subjects, so I’m all ears.—GR

Hi Germar,

Regarding your article about strategy in SR #216, I would say that it's time for assessing a new course in matters at hand, as well. Considering the lock that our organized opponents have on society, through their domination of the financial system, the political establishment, the media and other vital chokepoints, a new or revised strategy must be wisely chosen. Stridency and provocation are usually self-defeating, as it basically only feeds our opponents hatred and sense of resolve. Therefore, all of these things considered, our ability to reach the captive, and already intellectually toxified general public, is terribly restricted, by conventional means anyway.

I would advise flexibility. Continue to publish the truth in scholarly books, as well as in concise, well written, affordably priced works, like the excellent book by Peter Winter [The Six Millions: Fact or Fiction? amzn.com/1499174926]. The more documentation, the better. As of now, however, the internet is the primary way to end-run the situation and reach sentient people. The ‘Net’ is a truly revolutionary tool, and it should be used to full advantage. For example, internet radio and video are a great means to reach curious and thinking people.

By all means stay balanced and flexible, as things change, so must we. The death ride of the West may hopefully alter course at some point, and the truth ultimately reassert itself.

Best Regards, Gary

Herr Rudolf,

I write in response to your recent plea for guidance from the revisionist community. It is, in my opinion, a humble and sincere request. I will try to do it some justice. First, I will point to some existing barriers to the spread of revisionist ideas, which (so far as I know) have not generally been recognized.

The first one is that the revisionists have always been in a position of proving a negative proposition. It is nearly impossible to prove that gas chambers did not exist, for the same reasons that it is impossible to prove that Loch Ness holds no monsters. A true believer need only refuse to debate. If every media and pulpit trumpets his view, he will never have a reason to change it. Of course, those who hold the pulpits are themselves believers. We all know to what lengths they will go to prevent any discussion of this topic.

Why do the believers cling to their beliefs? Because they give comfort to the believer, and the skeptics have nothing to replace them – the second problem. As it stands, the German or American Everyman is content (or at least acquiescent) in his “knowledge” of Nazi evil, Jewish suffering, and Allied virtue, and he can choose to side with the Right: the paths to social virtue are brightly lit and well-trod. The myth of the Six Million is an important part of his world view, and it is built in to his self-image and his value system. Tamper with it, and no telling what else will fall: it is a crutch he has come to depend on, even to cherish. He will defend it with great ardor.

Revisionism of the Zündel-Rudolf-Faurisson variety has been focused on exposing defects in the standard story, chipping away at the foundations of the myth. This is all right and good; this important work needed to be done, and I tip my hat to those who did it. Nonetheless, someone who reads everything published in Journal of the Historical Review or The Revisionist will come away knowing only that what is printed in newspapers and reported on TV is not the truth, but they will have little to hold onto that tells them who told the lie, how they told it, why they told it, and so on. For example, the Rudolf Report put me onto the horns of a dilemma: it was impossible that gas chambers operated at Auschwitz, and it was impossible that so many people (even the New York Times!) could be so wrong about something so important. Most people will back away from this kind of cognitive dissonance, and they do it by rejecting one of the dissonant messages—which brings us to the problem the revisionists have had lo these many decades: they have been trying to take away the crutch without offering anything to replace it. Not surprisingly, they have been treated like thieves by the very people they sought to enlighten.

In my own thrashing about, I stumbled on a solution. My angle was to find a clear-cut case of deliberate forgery of gas chamber evidence, and to find out who had perpetrated it and why. I chose the Dachau gas chamber, because it was clearly a forgery, and it was done by someone in American official circles, which meant I could attack it through archival research. Studying the films that were made of the gas chamber and introduced at Nuremburg, I determined that the film crews must have been in “in the know”(I was not the first or the only person to do so), and so I sought to identify the men on the crews, and those giving them their orders.

To make a long story short, I still don't know the name of the man who put those phony shower heads into the ceiling, but I did learn a great deal about how the propaganda/intelligence apparatus worked in the USA in WW2. I can name a few people who were knowingly involved with that forgery; I have names of many others who were associated with them and with other dodgy Holocaust evidence. More importantly, I feel that I understand the basic political dynamics working within the American system that drove part of the US government into producing the forgeries. The dilemma, in my mind, is solved; the Gordian knot is cut. I no longer have to choose which impossible thing to believe, because I know how the forgery was possible (at least in broad-brush strokes). The truth is interesting and rich with insight, alas, it is too complex to fully recount here. Suffice it to say that my quest was fully rewarded. The myth was perpetrated by ordinary men who lived on earth, who touched other men and women, and who left footprints and artifacts. The forgery was a tangible and deliberate act; it left material evidence. Some of that is in official archives; private collections must hold much, much more. I have run out of time and money for my research, but I am nowhere near out of evidence. For example, I think it likely that photographs exist of the Dachau shower room before it's conversion into a gas chamber, although none have surfaced.

My point here is that revisionism should shift its focus from proving that the gas chambers are lies, to unearthing and disseminating the truth about creation of the lie. Our focus in confronting every piece of dodgy evidence has been to confront orthodox historians with it's deficiencies, only to be ignored. Our new direction should be to determine if it is a conscious and deliberate forgery, and to identify the forgers if possible. It is clear that the forgeries of American origin came from the Office of Strategic Services and some associated British and American agencies, and were disseminated by news and cultural organizations that were largely in Jewish hands. There is doubtless a parallel history of Soviet forgeries slumbering in the archives of the former Soviet Union.

As a corollary to this, the Nazis are no longer interesting. Neither are the camps, except as places where forgeries were staged and propaganda disseminated. The revisionists (here I include David Irving) have drunk that cup to the bottom, without finding anything that is or could be an extermination plan. That was very interesting, but there is nothing more to be said about the Third Reich, except perhaps to explain why it's destruction required building the Myth. Revisionists have already proven that the gas chambers did not exist. We can tick that box and move on.

It is time that we set ourselves to writing what will amount to a complete and accurate intelligence and propaganda history of the war (to whatever extent that proves possible). The forgers were men carried on the tide of human events who acted to deflect the currents of history and certainly did. Any complete accounting of the war will include their acts; any account of their acts will illuminate other events. For example, we can focus on whether Dwight Eisenhower knew that the Dachau gas chamber was a fake (he almost certainly did), and thus expand our knowledge of Eisenhower, which puts more light into dark corners of the Cold War. This quest is innately rewarding, and produces serendipitous discoveries, whereas rummaging through (for instance) crematorium blueprints dead ends in the same stale debates we won decades ago. In choosing to follow this path, we take the initiative,and abjure any dependency upon our enemies (although, as we get close to the truth, we will confront the descendants of the forgers, who will possess the documents we seek). It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of the Loch Ness Monster, but it is quite possible to prove the existence of the Forgery of Dachau. We need not seek the lacunae in the standard story; we can hunt the truth out in the wild.

With the truth (or any part of it) in hand, we can offer people a better crutch, if you will. If we can offer people a better, more cogent picture than the one they have, they will treat us like traders and not like thieves. The knowledge we glean will lead to more discoveries; the pieces will knit together; a whole will grow from the parts. We can take the initiative in choosing what we want to study. One of the insurmountable problems of revisionism has been the refusal of our enemies to grant us a platform by debating us – the life of Bradley Smith has been one long struggle to get someone to debate him, with sadly little to show for it. We can obviate this by ignoring them. We seek what we want without their help; and then we offer it to our friends without asking anyone's permission. When we get information, a “market” suggests itself. For example, I can confidently say that film maker George Stevens was involved in the forgery at Dachau. That information would be interesting to an historian of film, or just a Hollywood groupie. If they are offered that tidbit, they will take it.

We should not waste our efforts debating our enemies. We have offered them an honest dialogue; they have responded by ignoring us. Their primary aim is making sure the Holocaust is never discussed; they will never deal with the evidence honestly. What more could be gained by debating Andrew E. Mathis? Nothing. More important, we do not need to talk to them. We do not need to care what Deborah Lipstadt thinks of us; we do not need to beg Christopher Browning to talk to us. We have spent decades fighting our enemies over their lies, now we should seek truths to share with those who will receive them.

anon.

That sounds fantastic! Can CODOH fund any further research of yours and the production of a book and documentary on that?—GR

In the October 2015 issue, you asked readers to consider possible new directions for CODOH.

First, consideration might be given to discontinuing publication of Smith’s Report (SR). The scarce resources currently consumed by SR could be shifted to CODOH to beef up CODOH’s website or to support CODOH projects.

Second, CODOH might consider substantially increasing the frequency of new postings on its website. This might include the types of things that currently appear in Smith’s Report as well as book reviews/notices and news reports about current events related directly or indirectly to holocaust revisionism. At present, the website contains superb holocaust revisionist resources but new postings are very infrequent. When I visit the CODOH website, I usually just check for anything new; if there isn’t anything, I move elsewhere. There could be multiple new items each day or there could be a single new op-ed type piece every day from some thoughtful person who has an interesting take on holocaust revisionism. The items that appear need not be endorsed entirely by CODOH. Variety would stimulate interest in website viewers.

Third, CODOH might support the production of quality videos like those that have been produced by Eric Hunt and Denierbud. When it comes to murder mysteries, people like visuals. Witness the success of true-life TV crime shows (e.g., the Investigation Discovery network). “Let me see what you revisionists are talking about” is a request that can be nicely addressed by videos. These videos should be available for commercial sale. Personally, I’d stay away from dramatic presentations.

Fourth, an effort might be made to get retail booksellers (e.g., Barnes and Noble) to carry revisionist books in stock, on the shelves. I’m not optimistic.

Fifth, CODOH could solicit contributions from its supporters to publish books that are “in-the-works.” CODOH could charge $50 for a $25 book that would be signed by the author. Kind of neat.

Sixth, CODOH should give up on the colleges and universities. They are a lost cause and they take up time. I love Bradley Smith, but it seems to me that his attempt to converse with college and university folks has proven barren. Maybe I’m wrong; maybe I don’t know enough about what all he’s been doing or about his successes in this regard. In my opinion, colleges and universities have long been intellectually barren places, and not just for holocaust revisionism. They are, moreover, educational dinosaurs. Certainly, except for Arthur Butz, there are no academics in the western world who publicly pursue revisionist work. If they do write revisionist stuff, they do so surreptitiously, like Samuel Crowell, Thomas Dalton, and Warren Routledge. Or if they do it openly, they do it once, like Nicholas Kollerstrom.

Seventh, consider organizing seminars, lectures, and conferences. Videotape them and put them on the internet.

Eighth, CODOH might consider expanding its focus to “revisionism in general” rather than focus exclusively on holocaust revisionism. Should CODOH choose to broaden its focus, then it probably should be incorporated into “Inconvenient History” (IH) and cease its separate existence. Personally, I wouldn’t like this. At all. It seems to me that IH very nicely covers revisionism in general, in addition to holocaust revisionism. Plus, the demise of CODOH, even if incorporated entirely into IH, would appear to be a major defeat for holocaust revisionism. The guys on the other side know CODOH. They hate it. Therefore, it must live.

Ninth, CODOH might “pull in its claws” so as not to anger the other side and thereby increase funding for those rascals. Or CODOH might engage in “propaganda.”

How, exactly, would it be possible to “tone down” CODOH’s message without distorting history? One speaks the truth or one does not. Besides, if CODOH attempted to speak more “softly,” its followers would leave. I would.

“Propaganda” suggests falseness. In my opinion, the most important reason, by far, for the undeniable, significant advances of holocaust revisionism over the past 30 years or so has been the high intellectual caliber of revisionist writers like Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Faurisson, and many others. Although the spread of the revisionist message in terms of its extent (world-wide) and speed was greatly facilitated by the internet, it was the high intellectual standards that proved decisive. A weakly-founded revisionist argument certainly wouldn’t have persuaded me and I would have ended my interest in it years ago. Sound research and sound reasoning are essential, even if the guns of the other side get bigger and louder.

I can’t imagine the world suddenly agreeing with holocaust revisionism. In my opinion, there is nothing CODOH can do to change this or even speed the process up very much. CODOH is all about sound history and sound reasoning. Its message can only be patiently presented. It’s not a political movement. If CODOH continues to exist, it must be in the debate for the long haul.

Herbert H. Hoover

The fate of the print edition of Smith’s Report depends on its future subscription rate. If our readers don’t want it anymore, it will move exclusively into cyberspace and merely produce yearly volumes for purchase, as does Inconvenient History.

The suggestion of increasing the frequency with which items ar posted on codoh.com is excellent, and we will implement that very soon.

We are already supporting the production of video documentaries, and we will increase that effort. Including recorded lectures and conferences in this is a good idea, too.

As long as Bradley is around, he will be agitating for free speech at US colleges and universities; it’s his second nature. Once he drops out, the Campus Project might be up in the air. We’ll see. Maybe someone out there thinks about chipping in?

Dalton, Routledge and Kollerstrom are not the result of the Campus Project but of serious scholarly works that swayed them (Crowell is another matter). That’s the solid base upon which any revisionist activity rests, and we cannot and will not give that up.

As can be seen from CODOH’s library categories, our scope spans from pre-WWI to 9/11 and its aftermath. So CODOH isn’t just about the Holocaust. In the end, however, our range of posts depends on what’s submitted. Smith’s Report is more narrowly focused, primarily due to space limitations rather than anything else.—GR

Hello Germar,

Good to see that you are back. You and I had a few short communications before you were packed off to Germany. I feared for your safety, but you felt you were ok in America. Alas, you weren't. I had a similar dialogue with Edgar Steele, and unfortunately, they got him, too, and he got it much worse than you.

At any rate, hope you succeed in your new work. You are asking very good questions about the future of Codoh, and I can understand your feeling of sitting on that branch you mentioned. The problem with that is that it IS only a branch, and a tiresome one that seems to be somewhat going around in circles. It’s not beating any new paths.

If you define the world’s problem as the whole tree, dealing with only one branch will never settle the problem. You have to grab the trunk. But that requires expertise in other

I started my research 20 years ago, on the very same branch you sit on. Got introduced to it by a friend, and soon realized the much bigger trouble is money, without which your branch wouldn’t even exist. So that’s what I’ve been looking into for more than the last 15 years and found all the answers I’ve ever been looking for.

Regards to Bradley, remember also a few short exchanges with him many years ago.

All the best, Peter

If you can submit a paper for SR that explains how we can tie that in, I’m all ears.—GR

Hello, Germar

I am reading the SR #216. Congratulations and good luck for the new phase of CODOH.

Hail Bradley for all his efforts to bring his publication to us!!

You certainly cannot compete with the big propaganda war. You are outgunned indeed.

To me, the right strategy is to focus on something more subtle as you also suggest. And to spread the word (the truth one) to the world as much as you can. The revolution in the mindset must come from the very bottom and then defy the current dogma.

The Barnes Review magazine is doing a very good job and I love it very much. I believe you could cooperate with TBR and also with Carolyn Yeager who has a hell of a good website. She is very smart.

Larry Lahr

Hallo Germar,

From your first somewhat shy, appearance in Orange County I was impressed by your personality!

In the meantime you went through a lot of turmoil and pain, which is highly appreciated by me.

Your suggestion in the SR article hit the nail right on the head! What is needed is our own COALITION. Which should include all possible “co-warriors” on the scene.

My best wishes are with you. You will succeed!

Fred Scherbaum

Two quotations came to mind as I read your article ‘What should CODOH do?’ (October 2015). From Alexander Solzhenitsyn—the Russian proverb “One word of truth outweighs the world.” And from Arthur Hugh Clough—his line of poetry “Say not the struggle nought availeth.” CODOH must continue the fight for truth in history writing and especially in coverage of the Nazi period and World War Two.

Revisionists do not face a barrage of propaganda that is “unsurvivable.” They bear with them invisible weapons of countervailing power: honesty, honor, integrity and loyalty. The main criteria for publication should be seriousness of subject matter and quality of treatment. Please continue to give us news of the latest research, reviews of relevant books, information about the trials of freedom fighters (such as that about Wolfgang Fröhlich), but avoid useless tilting at windmills and undignified depreciations of our opponents. New generations of readers keep coming like the waves of the sea. Some young person may read the next issue of Smith’s Report, be spurred to find out more, and then go on to a career of national and international importance. “Nil desperandum!” “The truth will out!”

Nigel Jackson

In the most recent issue of CODOH, Germar made some interesting comments and then solicited ideas from the readership.

I have one. I am in the midst of reading The Transfer Agreement, which is subtitled as “The dramatic story of the pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine”, by Edwin Black, and with an afterword by Abraham H. Foxman.

What makes the book interesting is not only the story of the cooperation between Zionist and German authorities to transfer people and money to Palestine, but the story of the economic and political warfare waged against Germany by Jewish authorities, organizations, and their population, from the moment Hitler took office. The book is fact filled, well notated, and since it is Jewish written and endorsed by Foxman, authoritative.

It is the first time that I have encountered this information. I have long ago seen the first page of a London newspaper that Judea declared war on Germany, but this book details their global struggle to bring regime change and war to that country.

The books shortcomings, if one wants to call it that, is it’s focus on intra-Jewish politics and personalities. Naturally it also presumes the extermination story. Finally, first written in 1984 and most recently published in 2001, it is out-of-date.

My suggestion is that a book needs to be written that details the cold war between the Jews and the Germans between Hitler’s coming to power and the Wannsee Conference. Such a book would thus avoid the Holocaust Denial label, but it would bring to light the context of the origins of the Second World War.

anon.

This is a promising book project indeed. But I will not ask Carlo Mattogno to take it on. We need new authors who can write accurate revisionist history in a riveting way, for instance in the style of David Irving. I wonder whether the author of the above lines could do it?—GR