The National Socialist government of Germany was neither the first nor the last to deal with health issues resulting from concentrating large populations in confined areas.  It is unfortunately typical that many who consider the accounts of witnesses of the Nazi concentration camp system view this time and the events which have come to be known as the Holocaust as totally unique in history.  It is both important and enlightening to consider the Nazi procedures to handle population transfers in light of similar procedures in the United States and other less-maligned countries.

I have recently discovered an important article that helps shed light on American delousing practices in the years running up to the Second World War.  In a New York Times article, “New Delousing Plant” which was published on July 17, 1921, we learn that then governor of New York Miller was very concerned about the spread of Typhus coming from arriving immigrant populations.  The article recounts Miller’s tour of Hoffman Island with several other state officials to view the delousing plant that was under construction there.  Hoffman Island, largely forgotten today, is a small island in Lower New York Bay that was used in the early 1900’s as a quarantine station for immigrants found to be carrying diseases when they arrived at the more well-known Ellis Island.

The article describes the need to combat the panic that was developing in the native populations when newly arriving immigrants from southern Europe were found to be infected with Typhus.  The Health Commissioner of New York is described as having the “rather terrible responsibility of protecting the entire nation against typhus.”  The article goes on to report that the Surgeon General said, “the station is sadly lacking in facilities to meet the present emergency, and it is most important that the sanitary safeguards at that port be strengthened if the infection be excluded and at the same time commerce be not obstructed.”

The Surgeon General communicated directly with Governor Miller who directed state architect Lewis Pilcher to expedite the work on whatever facilities were necessary at the quarantine station to halt the typhus invasion.  Miller authorized that any reasonable amount of state funds could be spent to build a delousing plant on Hoffman Island.  Pilcher’s plans were approved by authorities from the Public Health Service.  We learn also that Pilcher’s design was not limited to the New York area and that the Royal government of Italy was adopting the plans for its own quarantine station for emigrants.

The delousing plant is described as follows:

“The most noticeable features of the building are the complete elimination of all trim, which makes it impossible for vermin to lodge anywhere.  Floors, when completed, will be made entirely of concrete, sloping to a central drain so as to permit flushing with salt water.”

The delousing process which was to be used is also described.

“The immigrants who are to go through the process of delousing enter a room capable of accommodating groups of seventy-five to one hundred at a time.   They are asked to remove their clothes.  Their shoes, leather belts and similar articles are placed in one room, where they are treated with gasoline and oil, and their other clothing put in burlap bags, one to each individual.  The bags are numbered and each person receives a tag.  The bags full of clothing are put through two chambers, where they are treated with cyanide gas, which does not destroy them, or with steam under pressure.  These treatments penetrate the materials and destroy both the lice and the nits.

Immigrants then pass into a series of shower baths where they are treated with a certain mixture of soap and oil or acetic acid, of which the principle is that the vermin are suffocated.  The men’s hair is cut off and the women’s hair is thoroughly treated with oil.  When the treatment is finished their clothes are restored to the immigrants, each in an individual bag.”

This process is described as one that is calculated to maintain “thoroughness and efficiency.”  With this process immigrants are said to be processed at a rate of 100 per hour.

There can be no doubt that like the New York war on typhus that the Nazi government built delousing stations and utilized procedures to fight typhus in the concentration camp population.  In fact, all arriving prisoners in the Nazi concentration camp system must have been subjected to a process not unlike that on Hoffman Island.

Holocaust witness, Primo Levi describes just such a process in his Survival in Auschwitz.  Levi who was an inmate at Monowitz (sometimes referred to as Auschwitz III) describes the disinfection process as follows:

“Unexpectedly the water gushes out boiling from the showers – five minutes of bliss; but immediately after, four men (perhaps they are the barbers) burst in yelling and shoving and drive us out, wet and steaming, into the adjoining room which is freezing; here other shouting people throw at us unrecognizable rags and thrust into our hands a pair of broken-down boots with wooden soles; we have no time to understand and we already find ourselves in the open, in the blue and icy snow of dawn, barefoot and naked, with all our clothing in our hands, with a hundred yards to run to the next hut.  There we are finally allowed to get dressed.”

Not unlike the immigrants arriving at the delousing plant of Hoffman Island, Primo Levi and those like him, arriving at Auschwitz were stripped naked, given soap, sent to hot showers while their clothing was deloused with cyanide gas.  The rooms had drains in the floor for the excess water to flow.  Rather than being given their recently deloused clothing back, the inmates of Auschwitz and other camps were given the striped garb of the concentration camp prisoner.

The process was designed to be thorough and efficient.  The fear, confusion and psychological impact which would later result in fantastic macabre tales in which the cleansing soap became the fat of former victims and the life-preserving delousing agent became an instrument of death could not have been predicted by German officials who were under strict orders to lower the mortality rate attributed to typhus.

Sources:

“New Delousing Plant,” New York Times, July 17, 1921.

Primo Levi, Survival In Auschwitz. Collier Books, New York, 1961.

This article originally appeared in Smith’s Report Number 165, September, 2009.

The team here at Inconvenient History has just learned that our Print on Demand publisher Lulu.com will no longer print or distribute our Annual editions.  The “Questionable Content Team” at Lulu has informed us that our content and in fact all revisionist writing is “illegal and anti-constitutional” in France and Germany — two of their markets.

While it is likely that some apprentice book burner filed a complaint with Lulu, it is Lulu’s shame that they refused to stand up for free speech.  Today it is not necessary to set bonfires to burn books.  This was highly effective in the early days of the printing press and the years prior when manuscripts were written by hand.  With our technological advances however, we have rushed madly in a direction which empowers the modern day book burners to silence ideas with which they do not agree.

In my editorial from the first issue of Inconvenient History, I noted that Inconvenient History is not for the squeamish and may not leave you feeling very comfortable — but I had hoped that it might cause a few to think for themselves.

When we silence opinions with which we don’t agree, we have chosen dictatorship over freedom.  We have sided with the crowd and against the individual.  Popular speech never needs protection.

The team at Inconvenient History is currently in the process of making our annuals available to you once again.  As soon as the arrangements are finalized, you shall be among the first to know.

This morning I found several emails asking and discussing whether a recently posted YouTube video of Ronald Reagan was real. Following the links, I found a short 9 second video of Reagan supposedly questioning the six million Holocaust story.  In the short excerpt Reagan says, “I challenge your history again. There is absolutely no record that six million people were put in concentration camps. They only have 16 million to begin with.”  But something is clearly wrong with this video.

First, the excerpt is taken out of context.  What was Reagan really speaking about?  The excerpt appears like those vintage World War II photos with incorrect captions asserting that something is there in the photo when it is not. A quick examination reveals that the footage is indeed real and was taken in 1967.  But wouldn’t such footage have been used against Reagan in his various political campaigns including two for the presidency?  And, even if buried at the time, surely such footage would have come out during his controversial visit to the Waffen SS cemetery at Bitburg.  But, I have no recollection of such comments.

Today, however thanks to the power of the Internet, one is able to answer such questions in minutes.  The short clip was indeed Reagan and it was taken in 1967.  However, the topic was not the Holocaust.  In fact, during a CBS Television and Radio broadcast on May 15th hosted by Charles Collingwood, then Governor Ronald Reagan was debating aspects of the Vietnam war with then Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

Jeff Jordan asked Reagan whether he approved that the Diem regime put six million in forced prison camps and that American advisors did nothing “but help them in this.”  To which Reagan responded,

“I challenge your history again. There is absolutely no record that six million people were put in concentration camps. They only have 16 million to begin with. Now, I’d also like to challenge something else about the supposed evils of the Diem regime. I do approve of Diem’s land reform in which he took from the great mandarin holdings, and began to make land available to the peasants and to the people of Vietnam, who had never owned land before. But also, I would like to call to your attention that a team from the U.N. was sent to Saigon, Vietnam, to investigate the charges against Diem’s regime They did investigate those, but as they returned to this country, Diem was assassinated, which I think was one of the great tragedies of this whole conflict; and the United Nations report, which they declined to make official because they thought why bring anything up now that he’s been killed, has on the other hand, been published, there has been public access to it, and the United Nations report completely cleared the Diem regime of any of the charges that had been brought against him.”

And thus in minutes our 9 second clip is exposed as a complete hoax.  I certainly hope that this hoax disappears quickly from the internet and is not passed around by those who think they have found an ally in Ronald Reagan. This video post, with it’s false caption, asserting a Holocaust connection does a disservice to all interested in historical truth.  It, along with its originator, should be denounced from all quarters.

Inconvenient History Volume 2 contains all the content from our 4 issues from 2010. You will receive a hardbound book with the Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter issues of Inconvenient History.

This volume is jam-packed with hard-hitting revisionism. You’ll get Thomas Dalton’s Goebbels on the Jews, Carlo Mattogno’s The Truth about the Gas Chambers, Paul Grubach’s Non Jewish Stake in the Holocaust Mythology, Joseph Bishop’s Atomic War Crimes, Thomas Kues’ Evidence for the Presence of “Gassed” Jews in the Occupied Eastern Terrorities, Carlo Mattogno’s Origins and Functions of the Birkenau Camp, Joseph Bellinger’s The Lethal Liberation of Bergen-Belsen, Thomas Kues’ A Chronicle of Holocaust Revisionism Part 3 (1956-1960), Paul Grubach’s Christianity, Judaism and German National Socialism: Revisionism Confronts the Theology of Susannah Heschel, Joseph Bishop’s Katyn: Unanswered Questions, Frederic Freeman’s Going Underground: ‘Catacomb Revisionist’ and Revisionist Repression, Thomas Kues’ Halfway between Reality and Myth: ‘Hitler’s Ten-Year War on the Jews’ Reconsidered and Jett Rucker’s Joe Sobran: Relegated Champion.  But that’s not all!  You’ll get all of our challenging editorials, groundbreaking book reviews, commentary and our popular Profiles in History series.  No revisionist library is complete without this volume.

You may order your copy online today through lulu.com at:

$32.00 for 598 hard bound pages of revisionist truth (List price $42.40)

http://www.lulu.com/product/hardcover/inconvenient-history-volume-ii-2010/18672380?productTrackingContext=search_results/search_shelf/center/2

Other sources may offer this book for sale in the future — as this happens, you will be the first to learn of it.

“History is a race between EDUCATION and CATASTOPHE” –H.G. Wells.

4 September 2011.

Samuel Crowell; The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, and Other Writings on the Holocaust, Revisionism, and Historical Understanding; Nine-Banded Books, PO Box 1862, Charleston, WV 25327 (www.ninebandedbooks.com); 2011, 401 pp.

Carlo Mattogno; Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, two vols.; The Barnes Review, PO Box 15877, Washington, DC 20003 (www.BarnesReview.org), 1-877-773-9077 toll free; 2010, 756 pp. total

These two very recent books evidence the maturity of the field of Holocaust revisionism.

Carlo Mattogno, together with his long-time colleague Jürgen Graf and, more recently, Thomas Kues (familiar to readers of this newsletter) are among the most energetic and productive revisionists working today. They have accumulated a wealth of documentary material with long, presumably self-financed, trips to the various archives, especially in eastern Europe.

Mattogno has published a number of books and articles on Auschwitz, the core of the “Holocaust” legend, and this two-volume work is the most recent. Past readers of IHR’s Journal of Historical Review and Germar Rudolf’s The Revisionist may recall that I have occasionally clashed with Mattogno. I do have a problem with Mattogno’s writings and, partly because I have already read many of them, and partly for reasons I shall presently elucidate, I did not read these recent two volumes in their entirety.

A major reason I did not read all of Mattogno’s books is simply that I have great trouble following his arguments and, even after taking all that time and trouble, I can feel I have been left in the lurch.

Our most recent clash was on the subject of a document showing the Auschwitz construction department attempting to get cyanide gas detectors from the oven manufacturer Topf for use in a crematorium then under construction. Pressac and others had held this document up as proving the existence of gas chambers in the crematoria. Those wishing to revisit that exchange can see my original article[i], Mattogno’s original article[ii], and the Butz-Mattogno exchange.[iii] It suffices to say that Mattogno’s theory was that the document “was falsified by an ignorant forger”, while I speculated that the wish for cyanide gas detectors arose from a waste incinerator that shared ducts with the crematorium ovens. We agreed that Zyklon was not involved, as there was a special department at Auschwitz for that, which had all the cyanide detectors needed for that application.

It was therefore with great interest that I read his new discussion of the alleged gas detectors, which is admirable for its copious documentation. It takes 22 pages but, mainly because Mattogno’s trains of thought contrast so much with mine, I found the going rough. It seemed that Mattogno was coming around to my theory, with the change that a cyanide danger was seen in the cremations (I had never encountered an association of cyanide with cremation). I say it “seemed” because throughout the considerable labor of reading this section it was not clear where he was headed, but that’s okay if the matter is clarified in the end. Twice (pp 94, 107) he promised to “furnish an alternative explanation” to the interpretation of Pressac et.al.. He did not consider the possible involvement of the waste incinerator.

I was to be disappointed as he suddenly, and without warning, concluded his analysis with this single paragraph (p. 114):

For all these reason [sic] the Topf letter of March 2, 1943, is at least suspicious. Although it seems formally authentic, its content is utterly untenable.

What does that mean? I don’t know. If anything, Mattogno appears to want to come back to his original claim of falsification, but perhaps understands that the evidence gives no support to such a conclusion, so he has left the matter in confusion. He did not “furnish an alternative explanation”.

Thus I warn that the fruits of the reader’s considerable labor may be more in learning the relevant documents than in formulating reliable conclusions. In knowledge of the documents, Mattogno seems to have no peer. You will come away from the section I have discussed knowing more about the application of Zyklon at Auschwitz than you ever needed to know.

Much of Samuel Crowell’s book is about Auschwitz, though his aim is to consider all the major features of Holocaust legend; in that respect his work is comparable to my 1976 The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. His book is copiously documented. I read the whole volume, and am much happier with both Crowell’s conclusions and his means of reaching them than I am with Mattogno’s, on those matters common to both works. I believe Crowell’s work is of basic and abiding importance in untangling what I have called the “Hoax”.

Crowell has an additional objective missing in Mattogno. He presents a genesis of the legend, even examining the early 20^th century for cultural developments that could have given rise to fears of gas chambers. His main thrust appears to be (p. 151) “The gassing claim as a mass delusion . . . . as a cultural construct . . . . created by, and reinforced by, delusional pressures of social and cultural change as well as by censorship.” That is, the claim was created by society and history, or a natural evolution of society, rather than by intent of specific persons.

Here I shall, before coming to my main objection, criticize a major point in Crowell’s presentation, namely, his disdain for the “hoax” and “conspiracy” interpretations of the legend, though he gives limited approval to the hoax thesis (p 155):

It would probably be better to say that, if the claim is a hoax, then surely a hoax of limited participation, and we should emphasize the number of those deceived, rather than the small number of those deceiving.

Why? Everybody knows the number of those deceived, namely almost everybody, and the number of those deceiving is therefore necessarily small, and there remains only the questions who, how, and why, questions that this reviewer will further examine.

Earlier in the book Crowell advanced his theory with another concession (p. 42): “while we continue to maintain that most of the elements in the gassing story arose more or less spontaneously and were just as spontaneously believed, at Majdanek we are confronted with grim evidence of a deliberate Soviet hoax.” As for the claim of gas chambers at Auschwitz, he remarks (p. 133) “there is a strong likelihood of a Polish and Soviet communist hoax in developing this particular evidence.” The concession is most interesting in terms of who is missing as a perpetrator, whom I shall presently identify.

Later in the book he denigrates “conspiracy theory” much as our major media do (pp. 357ff):

. . . . the human mind will seek to create causal nexuses for events that seem arbitrary and capricious, especially when they are destructive on a grand scale. To this extent the human mind is always potentially schizophrenic: perceiving a world full of confusing and unpredictable action, yet understood by a mind that refuses to accept a lack of pattern or structure. When Einstein wrote to Max Born and declared that God “does not throw dice,” he was speaking not as a scientist but as Everyman.

I beg to differ: Einstein was speaking as a scientist to another scientist. His resistance as a scientist to much of modern physics, which his remark related to, is well known. Indeed finding “pattern or structure” in creating “causal nexuses for events that seem arbitrary and capricious”, though perceiving only “a world full of confusing and unpredictable action”, is called “science”.

As for definitions, that which is “confidential cooperation” to you may be “conspiracy” to me. That is, the notion of conspiracy depends on point of view. We may say my definition of conspiracy is “confidential cooperation Butz doesn’t like”.

We can agree with Crowell, for the sake of discussion, that “conspiracy theory”, as distinct from “conspiracy”, is a claim, not supported by evidence sufficient for proof, of the existence of some conspiracy. The lack of proof, of course, is the basis for the ridicule that our media heap on the dissident conspiracy theorists. Where I part with Crowell is on the value of conspiracy theory. While some conspiracy theories are of course ridiculous, the possibility of hypothesizing conspiracies is vital to arriving at truth.

Here is an example. A police inspector, trying to solve a crime, conjectures that two or more characters may have collaborated in that crime. How does he investigate the conjecture? An important feature of his conjecture would be a hypothesis on specifically how the two or more suspects collaborated to commit the crime, because that hypothesis would guide him in seeking evidence that would, if it is found, confirm the conjecture. Without the hypothesis, the investigation would be unguided. That hypothesis, of course, is a “conspiracy theory”. The police inspector has two luxuries: official investigative power and that he need not reveal his hypothesis until he has the proof.

Public debate on matters of general concern does not allow that; there is normally no way to test the theory other than by throwing it out into the public arena. Should those who suspected a conspiracy involving President Nixon, before the Watergate tapes were released, have kept their mouths shut? I don’t think so.

I argued in my Hoax book that the “Holocaust”, in its canonical “gas chamber” form, has Auschwitz as its center and the document I called the “WRB Report” (since it was first published by Henry Morgenthau’s War Refugee Board), at its foundation. I made it clear in Hoax, Ch. III, that the War Refugee Board was a Jewish operation designed to help Jews, despite the neutrality of its name.

A preliminary version of the WRB Report had been reported by the NY Times on 3 July 1944 and on 26 Nov. 1944 the Times reported publication of the Report by the WRB, more than two months before the Soviets captured Auschwitz.

The WRB Report is also sometimes referred to, today, as the “Auschwitz Protocol”. In the book and elsewhere I noted the strong presence of truth in the document, e.g. the transport lists, which well approximate those later published by the Auschwitz Museum and which, as I said at the end of my Ch. III,  “is not the sort of information escapees would carry out”. As for the rest of the WRB Report, it closely approximates the present orthodox presentation of the gas chamber yarn, according to which gas chambers employing Zyklon were integrated into the crematoria. The knowledgeable, and I stress “knowledgeable”, authors therefore gave us a hoax.

What does Crowell say about the WRB Report? Very little, but it is important. He considers the document USSR-8 presented by the Soviet Union at the big Nuremberg trial (the IMT), as the foundation of the legend (pp. 58ff), noting the WRB Report was not presented (p 62). However Crowell also remarks that the Soviet report was influenced by the WRB Report, and also by a 2 Feb. 1945 report by the Soviet journalist Boris Polevoi (p. 48). He does not note that Polevoi was a Jew on his mother’s side. The Soviet report, having been written a year after the WRB Report by the Soviets who had captured the camp and many of its documents, of course contained more detail, but the Soviets were well instructed beforehand on what they were supposed to find there.

Actually, one page of the WRB Report was put in evidence in the IMT trial[iv]. Moreover, the Höss testimony, given originally, and under duress, to Jewish interrogators while in British captivity, had far more impact in the trial and in the press, and well into the postwar years, than either the Soviet report or the WRB Report.[v] Crowell notes (p. 77) that Höss’ statements “speak with great authority to most historians”.

The relative inattention to the WRB Report at the IMT could have been due to a number of things, e.g. an impossibility of producing the authors, or a decision to let the Soviet Union star in this matter, or simply because Auschwitz was on territory conquered by the Soviet Union.

It may be asked, why must the happenings at the IMT settle this? A hoax need not be something presented in a trial, but I think Crowell is right to focus in this way on the IMT; it provided the basis for all future presentations of the legend. Indeed trials have always been crucial in advancing or supporting the legend, a situation that alone should arouse suspicion in reflective historians. A recent example is the Irving-Lipstadt trial (2000).

The WRB Report played a role in the Eichmann trial (1961). The names (Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler) later allegedly used by the two escapees were given there.[vi] Vrba was a cousin of Vera Atkins, who was to inspire the Miss Moneypenny character in the James Bond stories, but who was a British intelligence agent during the war, indeed one of Höss’ Jewish interrogators.[vii] Small world! Or perhaps we should say “All In the Family”. Vrba published his alleged memoirs in 1964 and testified at Ernst Zündel’s trial in Canada in 1985.[viii] It is the WRB Report that has had both a wartime and postwar life; the Soviet Union’s report has been forgotten. Interest in the WRB Report faded in the first three postwar decades but has risen in recent years. It is the foundation for what I called the Hoax and it is clear that it was created, and has been sustained, by the Jewish entity, especially in its Zionist manifestation, despite the many absurdities and contradictions in the accounts of Rudolf Vrba.

I have to add that I don’t know what individuals actually composed the WRB Report. What is clear is that it came from Jewish circles.

That brings us to my “main objection”: Crowell does not present the Jews as important actors in the genesis of the legend. Indeed they don’t do much more than get killed. There being no hoaxer identified in this book, it can be difficult to see a hoax.

Reconsider, as Crowell would have us, the Nuremberg trials. They were a Jewish festival, conducted under the auspices of the USA in the US zone of occupation in Germany. At the IMT, the Soviets, British and French were just guests in a US-staged show. President Franklin “Clear It With Sidney” Roosevelt[ix] was closely associated with the Jews. During the war he enlisted the support of the Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky via their mutual friend the Jew Walter Winchell, then the most influential columnist in the US.[x] Roosevelt’s secret emissary to the dictator-gangster Fulgencio Batista in Cuba was Lansky.[xi]

Roosevelt tasked his close Jewish associate Samuel Rosenman to lay the foundation of the “war crimes” trials, fighting off a British preference to just shoot the Nazi leaders unceremoniously, in favor of the show that was eventually staged in Nuremberg.[xii] What the Soviet Union did there, with its variation or embellishment of the basic materials of the WRB Report, was part of this Jewish festival. The star of the show was Rudolf Höss, acting out a script written for him by Jews. I said much about the Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg trials in my Hoax book, especially in Chs. I, III, V.

What is sorely missing in Crowell’s book is the Jew as actor or, in terms Crowell quotes, as exercising “deliberate agency” (p. 358) in creating and sustaining the hoax. This absence seems to be deliberate. In discussing the various statements made by or attributed to Höss (pp. 75-83), Crowell references (note 298 on p. 76) Robert Faurisson’s paper, cited above, on the interrogations of Höss while in British custody. I consider Faurisson’s paper the basic study of the Höss testimony problem, but Crowell remarks with obvious disapproval that Faurisson preferred “to stress the Jewish identity” of the interrogators. I say “obvious disapproval” because only the unusual reader alert to such footnotes could infer from Crowell’s section that Höss’ tormentors were Jews. From that I must infer that Crowell considers it irrelevant or at least unimportant that the Höss testimony was obtained under duress applied by Jews. Moreover to Crowell it seems (p. 81) Höss’ interrogators were “acting more or less in good faith”!

In summary both the Crowell book and the Mattogno volumes, and probably Mattogno’s earlier works, are indispensable additions to the revisionist library, but both must be read with care and reserve, as indeed all historical works should. I have had to criticize Crowell’s treatment of the genesis of the legend, because I think it very seriously flawed. That does not diminish my admiration for his analysis of the documents purporting to prove the existence of “gas chambers”. It’s the bad things the book reviewer has to give space to; the author gives space to the good things.

In concluding I want to express my great satisfaction with developments of the past 40 years, at the outset of which I wandered alone in the desert. We are not yet in the land of milk and honey, but we are in a land of plenty and these books prove it.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views of, nor should they be attributed to, these institutions.

Although it is the 150th anniversary of our Civil War (April 1861), ostensibly fought to ensure that America would be one state with equal rights of citizenship for all, most Americans consider it “inconvenient” (if not downright anti-Semitic) to suggest that Israel/Palestine should also be treated as one state with equal rights of citizenship for all.  To express this very American goal is to refute our overwhelming desire to divide Palestine into two states and oppose a 130-year old dream to create a Jewish state in the Holy Land.

The reality itself is “inconvenient.”  Within the current borders controlled by Israel (including pre-1967 Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights) there is in fact a single state. The land has one electrical grid, one water system, one currency, one major highway system, one postal service, and one external border.  It has one powerful military; there are some militias like the Druze Border Guards, the Hamas fighters in Gaza, the Fatah policemen in Ramallah, and Jewish settlers in Kiryat Arba, but there is really only one army, navy, and air force.

If you are wedded to creating a Jewish State, it is “inconvenient” to admit that over half the population of Israel/Palestine is not Jewish.  If you claim to opposed apartheid, it is “inconvenient” to point out that there are an unambiguous set of Israeli laws that favor Jews over non-Jews.  This is the essence of political Zionism.  It is a philosophy and a movement based on racism, chosenness, and Jewish supremacism, but it is most “inconvenient” to even whisper these facts, at least in the United States.

The fact is that after 130 years, several hundred billion dollars in foreign aid, thousands of deaths, and persistent ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, Israel/Palestine is not a Jewish state any more than South Africa was a white state prior to its end of apartheid.  Israel/Palestine is a state controlled by Jews; it is a state where Jews have superior rights (not the least being the right of return); but with over half the population being non-Jewish, it is self-deceiving to call it a Jewish state.

Zionists from both the right and the left refuse to acknowledge this because of their obsession with, and allegiance to, the dream of a pure, or almost pure, Jewish state.  So the extreme right, like Foreign Minister Lieberman, wants to transfer the Arabs and other non-Jews (including children of migrant workers) out of Israel/Palestine.  Others like Dershowitz, Pipes, and Hagee simply want to wall off the non-Jewish areas and call these reservations or Bantustans a “potential” Palestinian state.   Even the most humanitarian Zionists, like Uri Avnery, who would tear down the mammoth apartheid wall (or security barrier), cannot bring themselves to endorse the right of equal citizenship.

One state already exists in Israel/Palestine.  Those who deny it do so blinded by a racist endeavor that should long ago have been discarded along with Aryan supremacy, Catholic supremacy, Tutsi supremacy, and whatever other supremacy forms the basis for discrimination and disregard for basic human rights.  But for most Americans, opposition to Zionism is simply “inconvenient.”

Inconvenient History Volume 1, contains all the content from our 3 issues from 2009. You will receive a hardbound book withthe Summer, Fall, and Winter issues of Inconvenient History.

All the content is here. From our challenging editorials and comment to our ground-breaking book reviews. And of course, all the inconvenient truth of our feature articles. Read through Mark Turley’s “Freedom, Democracy and the Conquering of Evil,” Thomas Kues’s “Chronicle of Holocaust Revisionism,” Paul Grubach’s “Christianity and the Holocaust Ideology,” Joseph Bellinger’s “Prohibition of Holocaust Denial,” Paul Grubach’s “Nazi Extermination Camp of Sobibor in the Context of the Demjanjuk Case,” Thomas Kues’s “Tree-felling at Treblinka,” Juergen Graf’s “David Irving and the Aktion Reinhardt Camps,” Mark Turley’s “Genocide at Nuremberg,” Veronica Clark’s “Adolf Hitler’s Armed Forces: A Triumph of Diversity?,” Joseph Bishop’s “Einsatzgruppend and the Holocaust.”

Again, all the content, the articles, the profiles, the commentary, the reviews from the first 3 issues of our trail-blazing journal.

No revisionist library is complete without it.

You may order your copy online today through lulu.com at:

http://www.lulu.com/product/hardcover/inconvenient-history-vol-i-2009/6562165?productTrackingContext=center_search_results

$29.68 for 296 hard bound pages of revisionist truth.

Other sources may offer this book for sale in the future — as this happens, you will be the first to learn of it.

“In war, truth is the first casualty” –Aeschylus

Those interested in the subject are guided to the U.S. Public Health Reports circa 1931. One finds extensive discussion of Zyklon B as a ship fumigant in the United States and especially in the ports of San Francisco.

In regard specifically to the warning gas we find:

“Both of the warning gases which have been used with liquid cyanide produce a tear effect. The effect of the 20 per cent cyanogen-chloride gas is greater than that of 5 per cent chloropicrin, i.e., lachrimation is much more marked; and it is believed that, on account of the tear effect, a person unfamiliar with fumigation could escape from a small room containing hydrocyanic-acid gas with 20 per cent cyanogen chloride before inhaling a dangerous amount of cyanide.” (July 3, 1931 p. 1575)

In that same issue we find this discussion of Zyklon B:

“Zyklon-B is liquid hydrocyanic acid absorbed by an earthy substance called ‘diatomite’ and packed in strong tin containers. Cans are provided containing 15 grams, 120 grams, 480 grams, and 1200 grams of hydrocyanic acid with 5 per cent chloropicrin as a warning gas.” (p.1576)

Although there is much additional information in this and other reports we move to the July 17, 1931 issue for this discussion of “warning gas.”

“For the purpose of giving warning of its presence, it is customary to mix a lachrimatory gas with HCN. The gas generally used in the United States is chloropicrin, in the amount of 5 per cent or 10 per cent (by weight) of the HCN present.

There was reason to suspect that the presence of this warning gas might interfere with the lethal action of HCN on insects. Insects breathe through spiracles in the thorax and abdomen, which probably are contractile and capable of closure. It is known that insects apparently dead from asphyxiation may recover after considerable intervals of time. On these premises the theory has been advanced that the irritant warning gas may cause the spiracles to close, however, its poisoning by the HCN, so that upon the return of fresh air it recovers.”

It should be noted for sake of completion that the U.S. did conduct studies on the removal of chloropicrin and determined that it had no influence on the death or recovery of cockroaches.

The importance of this information is twofold:
1) Zyklon B was widely in use in the United States as a fumigant in the 1930′s.
2) There was wide debate about the influence that chloropicrin (warning gas) had on the effectiveness of Zyklon B in the United States.

There is no reason to doubt that the Germans were similarly using Zyklon B and debating and analyzing the influence of the warning gas on its effectiveness. In and of itself the removal of the warning gas from Zyklon B is not evidence of a murderous plot on the part of sinister Nazi conspirators.

Whether the current generation did not heed Santayana’s warning or whether the vast differences of historical periods preclude us from applying lessons from the past, there is little doubt that we seem to repeat the worst mistakes of the generations that preceded us.

One historical period that has been embraced by popular culture is the “Red Scare” of the early 1950’s.  The nearly mythologized account seemingly replacing the earlier tales of young Washington and his cherry tree describe a vicious anti-Communist crusade led by Senator McCarthy.  McCarthy, or so the story goes, unfairly and undemocratically destroyed lives because of suspected Communist sympathies.  Regardless of the accused connections to Communism the message today is surely that all are free to believe what they choose – politically and otherwise.  The United States is the land of the free, and if we resort to totalitarian methods, to blacklisting, to name-calling, and attacks on character, then we have in fact lost what is best in America and in fact what so many lost their lives to protect during the Second World War. 

Today however it appears that the message has been transformed.  The very methods which are decried when used by McCarthy or his associates are fair game as long as they are used against the “right.”  The ad hominem attacks, which Gore Vidal once ascribed as a frequent method of the right are equally or more often launched by the former champions of tolerance, the left.  No longer does one lose employment for being a “commie” but one may find themselves on the unemployment rolls should they be identified as a “nazi.”  “Racist,” “anti-Semite,” “nazi” are all part of the new vocabulary of the once-liberal left.  These terms are used against even seemingly Teflon targets like former president Jimmy Carter and current president Barack Obama.  Blacklisting, attempting to prevent one from making a living are all seen as viable weapons in a war against their enemies.    Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind used his power to coerce American Express to dropping British historian David Irving as a merchant.  Why?  Because Hikind did not like his politics, or his history.

The incarceration of people for their ideas, their words, their publications is common throughout the world.  Irving, Germar Rudolf, and Fredrick Toben have all recently served jail time – for holding unpopular views.   Ernst Zundel is still incarcerated in the once democratic Germany.    Book burnings, imprisonment and blacklisting are all acceptable forms of intolerance throughout the West as long as they are practiced against the latest hated minority.  Revisionists and others who attempt to take a fair and sober look at the past and even the present are branded outlaws in our new era of dogmatism.

We learn nothing from the past.  We simply find new targets, new minorities, and new victims.  All else remains the same.

Those involved apparently think they are doing a good thing — fighting “Holocaust denial,” “neo-Nazism,” “racism,” add the slur, you get the idea. The value of free speech and a free press is completely lost on this crowd. They miss the point that their methods are in fact “fascist” or “Stalinist” in nature. The desire to prevent someone from sharing ideas which oppose your own is the type of dogmatic thinking that led to the burning of heretics, the witch trials, and the extremes of National Socialism and Communism.

For these hackers and “anti-Fascists,” none of this matters. They are sure that they are right. In being so right, it is fair to stop the speech of those they oppose.

They miss the point that if the only speech we defend is that which we support, then freedom is lost. It is only offensive speech or speech we disagree with that NEEDS the protection of the law.

Many years ago Huey P. Long said, Fascism will come to America,but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism.” Today it is clear that Fascism is live and well in the United States — brought to you by those with little understanding of what they have done.