Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of Hoover Hog interviews.
In Lucifer's Lexicon, L.A. Rollins defines a "Holocaust revisionist"as "one who denies that he is a denier." I'm sure "Mike Smith" -- aka "Denier," aka "Bud" -- would concur. As the elusive videographer behind the most provocative underground documentaries to emerge on the web in recent years, Denier (as we'll agree to call him), has little patience for cloudy euphemisms. He just calls it as he sees it. And in his taboo-flouting web trilogy -- consisting of OneThird of the Holocaust, Nazi Shrunken Heads, and most recently, Buchenwald: A Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil -- he calls it a lie.
As Denier's unexpected John Malkovich monotone narrates over volumes of intriguing exhibits in steadily focused fact-stacking explication of his heretical thesis, intrepid viewers may find themselves clamoring for a careful refutation. Surely The Skeptics Society or the gang at Popular Mechanics can be relied on to provide a point-by-point reality check, as our entrusted skeptics did when the 9-11 Truth Squad went viral with their pyrotechnic fantasies -- no?
Well, no. At least not to date. Oh, you'll find some snarkily pitched counter-arguments percolating amid the obligatory ad hominem attacks over at Holocaust Controversies, but the guardians of historical orthodoxy have been largely content to ignore Denier and his quirky little home movies. The fact that most of his videos have been banned from YouTube and Google Video just makes it easier. The fact that his ads -- ads soliciting rebuttals -- were turned down by the UC Berkeley student newspaper. Just makes it easier. Free speech is easy when it's chained to the margins. That's the American way.
But you already know the drill. When someone voices doubt about what all good people recognize as the greatest moral catastrophe of the past century, the refrains of suspicion are tightly scripted. Denier is to be cast as an anti-Semite who probably harbors some perverse nostalgia for Hitler's sadly misunderstood regime. Never mind that he regards Der Führer as a stunted power-mad militaristic thug, and says as much, repeatedly, in his movies. Never mind all those anti-war palliatives layered throughout his project -- the calls for "good vibes" and good will and harmony among people everywhere. You can shuck off the pacifist shtick as a long-rehearsed denialist ruse. Because you know better. Don't you?
And if you get stuck on the curious fact that the Bad Man is also an avowed atheist who equally denies the historical existence of Jesus Christ, well, just take a deep breath. Tell yourself such kinks in the profile are but clever face-saving PR distractions. Like those embedded nods to Philip K. Dick and Chomsky. Like the AdBusters-branded riffs on corporate capitalism. You see how it adds up to insidious hipster-baiting mind poison? You see through all of it. Don't you, and very good. The man is seduced by Kevin MacDonald, after all. And we are assured that Kevin MacDonald is wrong about all of it. Dangerously wrong. Because Steven Pinker said so.
"Discredited," as they say. Just keep saying it. You can save yourself a lot of time and trouble that way. Soon, you'll be safely back on track.
But for the time being, if you're feeling adventurous, why not take a peek at what the YouTube brass doesn't want you to see? Why not lend a cautious ear to a man who has come to deny what you have always believed with such peculiar certainty? There's really no danger that you'll learn anything new, is there? If nothing else, it should make for easy sport. Perhaps you can set the record straight, just for fun. Michael Shermer may thank you. Should be good for a laugh, or a sigh. There's no good reason to trust anyone.
INTERVIEW WITH A HOLOCAUST DENIER
THE HOOVER HOG: People who express doubts about various aspects of the standard history of the Holocaust usually refer to themselves as "revisionists" and consider the term "Holocaust denier" to be a smear. But you have embraced the "D" word, stating that you believe the Holocaust to be a "giant myth." Why have you adopted this arguably confrontational approach? And perhaps more importantly, what specifically do you mean when you state that you "deny" the Holocaust?
DENIER: I like the term "denier." The term "revisionist" comes off as a bad euphemism. It is deniers trying to express the sentiment that they believe Jews suffered during WWII but just weren't systematically exterminated. But to the public, it comes off as a bad euphemism. The movie Mr. Death had multiple euphemistic levels, because Fred Leuchter made execution equipment and euphemistically described what he did, and he was also a revisionist!
For me, the term "denier" has parallels to gay people taking the word "queer" for their own self-definition. Turning a derogatory term around for their own power.
I'm sure some people will be amused (or confused) by the idea of applying identity politics to Holocaust denial. But just to clarify, your view is that systematic extermination is the defining element of what has come to be known as the Holocaust?
Are you saying that without genocidal intent, the events that took place no longer signify anything that might be considered historically unique, or uniquely atrocious?
I don't mean that, but at the same time I'm drawing a blank on how to clarify. The Nazis tried to kick the Jews out of Europe. They put them in labor camps.
What do you make of the "functionalist" view, notably of Christopher Browning who deemphasizes the role of gas chambers and argues that the Holocaust was largely carried out by German police reserve units who massacred deportees in the course of carrying out orders. Do such claims fall under the scrutiny of Holocaust denial as well? And do you think the emergence of a functionalist/intentionalist dialectic is (perhaps covertly) influenced by the arguments of Holocaust deniers or revisionists?
Nothing comes to mind on this one.
In your video documentary, One Third of the Holocaust, you focus on Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, collectively known as the Reinhard death camps. And your latest documentary is devoted to Buchenwald. Why did you choose to focus on these camps, rather than on Auschwitz, which seems to be more synonymous with the Holocaust, at least in the public imagination?
I could have started on Auschwitz, but I saw a lot of focus already on that camp. Plus I knew that if I chose Auschwitz, then people would bring up Treblinka, and if I chose Treblinka, then people would bring up Auschwitz. Which is what happened in the YouTube dialogs before my videos were removed by YouTube staff.
Why were your videos removed from YouTube?
Because they remove holocaust denial content even though in their "Terms of Service" and "Community Guidelines" they don't say they do.
At one point, episode 1 of "One Third" got removed, and I appealed, and I won. So it got put back up, only to get removed 8 months later. I appealed again and no one responded.
I put "One Third" up on Google video and it was removed also.
Jesus, I've seen uncensored GG Allin videos on YouTube. You must be a dangerous man. Of course, it will be argued that YouTube and Google are private companies and can exercise discretion over these things, even if we disagree about their guidelines. But in other Western democracies, the situation for Holocaust skeptics is more serious. Germar Rudolf is currently behind bars in Germany, along with Ernst Zundel (who was previously imprisoned in Canada for distributing pamphlets). Do you think such cases have been fairly reported by Western media? And do you foresee similar penalties ever being imposed in the United States?
I don't think Germar Rudolf's imprisonment was even reported. He was
really trying to stay out of prison and the authorities in the USA
nabbed him and deported him to Germany. Just days later, David Irving
voluntarily goes to Austria and gets arrested, which I hate to say,
overshadowed any possibility of Rudolf's imprisonment becoming a media
I think it's outrageous these people are in prison, and I frequently thought of Germar Rudolf while working on my videos. Thinking to myself, "they're keeping Rudolf from doing any holocaust denial art, but I'm free, and I'm making some."
When I was a kid, I remember being terrified by the TV miniseries,
Holocaust. Later, I read the usual assigned books by Elie Wiesel and
Anne Frank. I watched Night and Fog. And I believed all of it, as I
suspect most people do. I didn't know there was such a thing as
Holocaust revisionism or Holocaust denial until I saw a TV Movie of
the Week on the subject (I think it starred Raquel Welch) in the late
80s. I remember thinking that there was something very odd about how
the subject was presented, and I became curious.
How did you come to doubt what everyone believes? Surely you weren't born a denier.
I saw that holocaust miniseries too. And it affected me.
I'm not exactly sure how I became a denier. Seeing a 1992 issue of TV Guide with the two words "Fake News" on the front cover and an article on the "Babies Pulled off Life Support" hoax affected me. I never read TV Guide, but there it was on the counter of the convenience store mentioning how hoaxes are used to promote war. That affected me, and yet I wouldn't become a denier until years later.
Seeing how the media in the Bay Area in the late 90's presented, in an emotional way, a position to support the war against Yugoslavia affected me. I saw the propaganda element.
Seeing New York Times front page articles in the late 90's about Iraq and that "no fly zone" and realizing that there was a force trying to convince the masses to go to war and provoke the Iraqis, affected me.
Being in an academic setting and seeing some things reminiscent of what Kevin MacDonald describes in Culture of Critique about his time as a college grad student, effected me. Like MacDonald, I also saw a discourse cultivating a supposed moral high ground and yet I was noticing that there was something else really going on beneath that, that was helping people advance.
These are defining aspects that come to mind, and yet I didn't become a denier till years after they happened.
But was there a particular book or article or event that caused you to question received opinion regarding the Holocaust/genocide story? Or did it simply follow from seeing these contemporary examples of war propaganda playing out?
9-11 sent me in the direction of holocaust denial. When 9-11 happened I believed it was a response to unfair US foreign policy in the Mideast. Particularly toward the Palestinians. And in those Bin Laden videos released shortly after 9-11, Bin Laden said as much. Bin Laden mentioned Jenin. So I thought "wow, the media is spinning this in a totally different direction." The "they hate our freedom" direction. All this put me on the path to holocaust denial.
Bradley Smith routinely refers to Nazi gas chambers as the original WMDs. Did it surprise you that the US didn't fabricate evidence of Iraqi WMDs in Iraq? Or is that sort of thing too hard to pull off in the contemporary media environment?
It's a great question. If the holocaust is a fraud, then why couldn't the US plant some WMD evidence in Iraq? I don't know the answer. But maybe it's that Bush is not Eisenhower. And I mean that in a good way, not in a bad way.
I suspect that your reference to Kevin MacDonald will be a show-stopper for some readers. A major part of MacDonald's thesis in The Culture of Critique is that ethno-genetic forces have influenced academic and popular discourse in ways that tend to promote Jewish interests, often to the detriment of other religious and ethnic group interests. This point comes up a few times in your Buchenwald documentary and is humorously made in a segment of Nazi Shrunken Heads. But MacDonald's work has been harshly criticized by evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker (who we might as well note, is Jewish) and by others who see his theory as an academically polished and pseudoscientific expression of anti-Semitism. Do you think MacDonald has gotten a bad rap?
I think MacDonald has gotten a bad rap. Culture of Critique is an amazing book. You read passages, and it's just so true.
Of course, all of this brings up the most common criticism of dissident Holocaust history, which is that it is inherently anti-Semitic. How do you respond to this charge? And should it matter?
Well. I advocate kindness toward all Jewish people. I'd be against selective laws against Jews as much as the ACLU would be. Kevin MacDonald talks about Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy, but probably every group has evolutionary strategies. The Germans fought the Romans for such a long period of time, long ago: 2,000 years ago, and maybe that gives them some inherent militarism. The holocaust myth as Jewish group evolutionary strategy might even be a response to German militarism.
At the same time, part of me wants to get away from the idea that Jews use the holocaust to their advantage. The Auschwitz part of the holocaust myth, for instance is so wrapped up in paranoia over delousing, that there's a case to be made that the entire Auschwitz death story came out of paranoia of delousing.
Can you explain what you mean by this -- about "paranoia of delousing"?
The entire holocaust myth is one giant mix up with delousing. I mention that in my recent Buchenwald movie where there's a line that says "a tiny bacteria inside the poop of a louse, is key to understanding the world's biggest lie." Because the typhus bacteria is in lice poop, and that's how it's transferred to people. Eventually it kills both the louse and the human.
Back to Kevin MacDonald. I think it's possible to realize he's right and not be anti-semitic. Think of Alex Haley writing Roots in the 1970's. He probably took writing breaks to have a barbecue with his white neighbors. I just made that scenario up, but maybe it happened. It's the kind of thing we're talking about. Research in a scholarly community, and good vibes within that regardless of what conclusions your research comes up with.
Well, I've seen Independence Day, and I don't think I'm paranoid to
discern a "Jewish savior" subtext in re-runs of Taxi. But damn if I'm
not cautious about who I say this stuff around. I'm all for good vibes
and civil debate, but there seems to be a uniquely prohibitive aura
around this issue (Kevin MacDonald being a mere footnote). My wife is
"sorta Jewish" and when I have dinner with the Jewish half of her
family, I am VERY careful to avoid certain controversial topics, and
when such topics come up, I tend to nod politely, or abscond from the
discussion. I chalk it up to decorum, but the truth is my heart
races. It feels like fear.
So I'm curious. What has your experience been in explaining your controversial views to friends, colleagues and family who may harbor the ingrained prejudices about Holocaust denial. Is it all good vibes? Or does it get ugly? Or is this something you pursue privately -- in the basement, as they say?
This is an interesting question, but I can't respond to it.
Beyond the subject you've chosen, I have a hard time pinning down your documentaries. On the one hand, they're structured as straightforward investigative pieces. All these close-ups of passages from books and articles juxtaposed against public access newsreel footage. Charts and graphs and methodical dot-connecting. Yet I find your approach oddly captivating, and at times disarmingly funny. As a documentarian, you seem to have developed a unique style and sensibility. Do you see yourself as working within a tradition as a "filmmaker"? And more generally, how do you approach your work from a creative standpoint?
The phrase "Form Follows Function" comes to mind. Is that Richardson? I don't think it's Frank Lloyd Wright. Anyway, breaking the holocaust myth is so important, from an anti-war perspective. That's an idea I put forth in my Buchenwald movie where I show Ron Paul in an exchange with John McCain. And also where I show Darth Vader in an exchange with Obi Wan Kenobi, LOL.
It could be this is what the form for this function looks like.
You mentioned Errol Morris's film, Mr. Death, about Fred Leuchter. Any thoughts on Morris's work?
Mr. Death is about holocaust denial, and the only way that movie could make it into every video store in the country is to have the proponent (Leuchter) portrayed as a freak. In the 1500's, there was probably some corollary with Atheism. Some book which discussed atheism, but where it was allowed because it was a freak or a Bad Man who was an atheist.
That's an interesting point. Do you think that Mr. Death can be viewed as an esoteric defense of Leuchter -- and of Holocaust denial, even if that wasn't Morris's intention? I read that when an early cut was shown, audiences responded with sympathy toward the Bad Man, and that the film was subsequently re-edited to include the critical segments featuring Robert Jan van Pelt, which really do seem tacked on.
Yes, my video "One Third" mentions that. A preliminary screening of Mr. Death at Harvard University had some students believing Leuchter's theory, so he re-edited the movie.
I almost find it hard to believe some students sided with Leuchter, because I know how hard it is to convince someone the holocaust is a hoax. It's almost impossible.
If the evidence converges the way you say, then why do you think intelligent people seldom reach the conclusion that seems obvious to you? Why should it be "almost impossible" to convince someone? That sounds more like the kind of impasse one finds in a religious dispute.
This sort of is a religious dispute. The holocaust replaced Christianity as the definer of evil. The Good Samaritan becomes the Righteous Gentile. It's nearly impossible to convince really smart people that the holocaust is a myth. Yet these really smart people know little about the holocaust. They usually don't know it supposedly happened largely in the East.
Speaking of really smart people, some intelligent friends assure me that Holocaust denial has about as much intellectual value as Intelligent Design theory or "9-11 Truth" conspiracy mongering. Holocaust skepticism is also popularly associated with those who argue that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. What's the difference?
The holocaust really is a hoax and the other things you mentioned really are untrue conspiracy theories, including 9-11. I think 9-11 happened just like the media says it did. At the same time there are conspiracies out there which no one talks about. Like Idi Amin as mentioned in my "Nazi Shrunken Heads" video.
I guess the only documentary that might bear obvious comparison to your work is the 1992 Auschwitz expose', David Cole Interviews Dr.Franciszek Piper. Any thoughts on Cole's work, and on his "recantation" under Irv Rubin's death threat?
I like the David Cole video. I think it's good. Cole was onto this way before me.
Cole's recantation to Irv Rubin is once again a Middle Ages comparison. I mean, just the word "recantation." Middle Ages comparisons are always coming up with holocaust denial.
The folks over at Holocaust Controversies have chided you repeatedly
for dodging tough questions, for failing to link to their blog, and for
ducking their challenges to debate. What say you? Do they present
arguments and evidence that threaten the credibility of your views? Are
Yes, I remember the "chicken challenge" when Holocaust Controversies displayed a chicken on their main page along with a counter of the days that I STILL hadn't linked to them.
I've never linked to anybody. I don't even link to CODOH.
I think people should watch my videos, and then read their rebuttals, and make their own decision.
I tried to solicit rebuttals to my chapters at UC Berkeley and Harvard
University, but they wouldn't let me place a newspaper ad asking for
I read all the Holocaust Controversies rebuttals. Occasionally I find a good point. Often I find a "straw man argument." It's important to know what a straw man argument is. It took me awhile to grasp the concept. I'll give an example: Muehlenkamp wrote in his Stroop Report rebuttal essay that I believe that the famous holocaust photo of the Jewish boy with his hands up, is staged, and then he writes all the reasons why that notion is absurd. I don't think the photo is staged though. I think it's at Hotel Polski. The Stroop Report forger cobbled photos from various places. Muehlenkamp presented my supposed position, and then knocked it down (like a straw man.) I find a lot of that at Holocaust Controversies, and like my writing right here, it's tedious to point it out. A rebuttal to a rebuttal tends to make confusing and non-gripping writing.
In your Buchenwald documentary, you make frequent reference to the role of Allied Psychological Warfare operations in postwar de-Nazification efforts. I'm guessing that most people are not aware that such operations even existed. Can you briefly discuss the role of "Sykewar" and why it is relevant to the revisionist/denialist critique?
Eisenhower had his very own Psyche Warfare unit, called PWD-SHAEF.
During WWII there were lots of different psyche warfare departments,
but this was the big one.
The OSS was the American equivalent to the KGB and the Gestapo, but it answered to Roosevelt. Psyche Warfare, in contrast, answered directly to Eisenhower. This is relevant because PWD-SHAEF, short circuited the American government system, by hatching a psyche warfare operation at Buchenwald, and then using it to fool members of congress and the American people. It's a piece of the holocaust myth, and the reason Eisenhower became president and, in the larger scheme of the myth, the reason the country of Israel was created.
Who was CD Jackson?
He's the guy down the hall when Roman Polanski was filming Rosemary's
Baby in the early 1960's, because the Dakota Apartments is where that
film was shot and it's where CD Jackson lived.
He's a guy who made the remarkable career advancement of running his family's New York marble importing company, to suddenly becoming assistant to Henry Luce, owner of Time/Life.
Beyond that, you'll have to watch the movie.
In Buchenwald: A Dumb-Dumb Portrayal of Evil, Eisenhower emerges as a central villain -- a figure who colluded with psychological warfare operatives to control mass media reports of Allied atrocities and to promote a deceptive account of Nazi war crimes in order to advance self-aggrandizing political goals. Of course, this will seem preposterous and offensive to Americans who grew up believing that Eisenhower was great war hero and President. Why are they wrong?
Well, there should have been a little bit of a "heads up" regarding
Eisenhower, when Gary Powers' spy plane was shot down by the Soviet
Union and Eisenhower went on national TV and said we don't fly spy
planes over the Soviet Union, only to have the Soviets shortly after
produce Gary Powers.
Things weren't what they seemed in the 1950s, which is a central tenet of Philip K. Dick's book Time Out of Joint.
The American public was being manipulated by a media/government elite, and Eisenhower was central to it.
You've speculated that Senator Joe McCarthy may have been wise to Eisenhower's propaganda campaign and that he was possibly "poised to uncover the holocaust myth." This is a novel thesis, to say the least. Is it a loose thread, or something you are pursuing?
I got that impression from reading The Chairman by Kai Bird,
even though Bird, not being a denier, wasn't putting that across. When
Bird mentioned that Ed Murrow brought McCarthy down, and I knew Ed Murrow
from a radio address from Buchenwald and his connection to Paley, I was
like "huh?!?" You read in Bird, how Murrow puts footage on national TV
of McCarthy picking his nose. Stuff like that. And in Bird's book you find where Lucius Clay, the first governor of
West Germany, asks Eisenhower if there's a way to get McCarthy to stop
It's also odd that so many key people die when they do. McCarthy dies at 49, just years after the McCarthy hearings. Patton dies in a car wreck just after the war. Roosevelt dies the very day Eisenhower's psyche warfare unit begins it's holocaust myth push. Then there's Kennedy. I don't believe they're all conspiracy secret assassinations. But I wonder if maybe one of them is, though I don't know which one.
But doesn't that sort of speculation edge on conspiracy-mongering? Do you worry that your research may lead you to see connections where none exist? It's a natural human tendency, according to psychologists. Apophenia, I think.
You have to know when to stop. It's disappointing to me that so many revisionists are 9-11 conspiracy theorists.
I'm not sure if it began with Jean-Claude Pressac's work, but in recent years a number of books have been published that purport to refute or debunk Holocaust denial. I'm thinking of works by Lipstadt, Vidal Naquet, van Pelt, Shermer & Grobman, and Zimmerman, although I'm sure there are others. Do you keep up with the work of such critics, and do you find any of them to have value?
I don't think in these works you'd find a lot on Treblinka, Sobibor,
Belzec, and Buchenwald because they are probably largely
on Auschwitz. I haven't read them nor have they come up in Google
searches on topics I've looked up.
I tried to solicit scholars to debunk my videos, but I wasn't allowed to place newspaper ads. "One Third of the Holocaust" has been out for years, and Lipstadt pretends it doesn't exist.
I was allowed to place an ad in the University of Minnesota student paper asking for rebuttals to Nazi Shrunken Heads, but got no takers.
Why weren't you allowed to take out newspaper ads?
You can see the ads I tried to place on my website.
The UC Berkeley student newspaper originally took my $1,000 and accepted the ad, then they went back on that. They started making up all these new rules once I came along. Like that for over 150 dollars, a person had to pay with a personal check and supply ID. No one else had to do that! Then I got Bradley Smith involved and he said he'd pay with a personal check. Then we bent over backwards to be obliging to their requests, like they wanted us to change the ad to say say that anyone could write a rebuttal, not just professors. So we added "open to everyone" to the ad. After no less than 60 emails going back and forth, and them giving us the run around, they finally completely balked and wouldn't place the ad. The money was refunded. So much for the university that started the "Free Speech Movement."
OK. Let's assume you're right -- at least in the broad strokes -- about all
of it. The Holocaust is a massive whopper, and life goes on. What I
wonder is: is there a point at which the news breaks? Does the academic
consensus come around at some point, vindicating the work of these
outlaw historians who have been firebombed and pummeled and
incarcerated and intimidated and defamed and censored? Or is the taboo
against questioning the canonical Holocaust story too deeply entrenched
-- like the Christian Gospels?
It could happen like the way Christianity broke: taking hundreds of years in a long convoluted path.
Or it could happen but with a head-spinning media spin. With some guy we've never heard of, being the "head of the revisionists." In other words, the media-created head of the revisionists who comes out of nowhere. And it could be spun as some incredible disservice that's happened to the Jews. And that spin would be partly correct.
I'll keep that second scenario on file. Just out of curiosity, do you have an opinion about the historical existence of Jesus? I know it's a matter of contention in some circles.
I'm atheist. I don't think Jesus even existed historically. There's definitely a connection between atheism and holocaust denial.
One revisionist text that I find interesting is The Gas Chamber of
Sherlock Holmes, by Samuel Crowell. Crowell uses intertextual literary
analysis to argue that the gas chamber stories arose out of a kind of
social panic over the use of poison gas -- a panic that grew out of the
First World War and that finds expression in numerous contemporaneous
literary works and news reports. The argument is essentially that the
Holocaust narrative -- or at least the core element of genocide via gas
chambers -- may have found root in an atmosphere of mass delusion that
would later be exploited by Allied victors, then historicized by
credulous scholars and journalists. But where Crowell focuses mainly on
social psychology and the cultural reification of mass hysteria (his
monograph has been aptly compared to Elaine Showalter's Hystories),
your work seems more concerned with Chomsky-brand media manipulation
and top-down machinations. Politically-driven collusion among
high-ranking power-brokers, like Ike and his psy-ops agents.
Is the difference between your and Crowell's approach one of method and emphasis? Is his study of socio-cultural semiotics consonant with the arguments you advance in your videos? Or do you think his literary analysis fails to confront the more nefarious role of military propaganda and psychological warfare?
I think that the theory I put forth and Crowell's theory are just two "surfaces of truth" -- a term I remember reading in Roland Barthes' Camera Lucida.
I really liked Crowell's book. It's a paranoia-based theory. And my Buchenwald video has a paranoia aspect when I mention Philip K. Dick.
It's as you said: Eisenhower and his Psyche Warfare team capitalized on paranoia. But when you know about people like CD Jackson, and their connections to the Council of Foreign Relations, as described by Kai Bird, then it's capitalism capitalizing.
Can you explain what you mean by the phrase: "capitalism capitalizing"? It sounds like something out of Baudrillard.
Well, in Kai Bird's book, The Chairman, he describes these New York captains of banking, media, and industry as being members of the Council on Foreign Relations. And what that organization did was try to influence foreign policy to promote U.S business. C.D Jackson, John McCloy, Henry Luce, William Paley I believe, were all in it. And they capitalized on the paranoia, on the confusion with death from typhus, to help put forth the holocaust myth. That's capitalism capitalizing. Paley of CBS, working in Psyche Warfare. Jackson at Life, working in in Psyche Warfare, both CFR members. It's capitalism capitalizing.
To the general public, Holocaust denial is almost exclusively associated, in political terms, with the far right. But your video project is laced with references to the Palestinian cause. You allude at various points to Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul and Phillip K. Dick, and here you've just thrown out a nod to Barthes. At times you seem to buttress your conclusions with critical and arguably sinister interpretation of capitalism (the "invisible brain"; "capitalism capitalizing"), and you conclude your Buchenwald series with a humorously framed indictment of militarism and what I take to be a sincere call for peace, love, and understanding. Can you describe your political point of view? And do you think that Holocaust denial implies or precludes any political worldview or ideology?
I think right now holocaust denial is like atheism at some point in the Middle Ages. At that time an atheist position would have seemed like the opposite of a moralist view, and maybe for some pirate types, it really was.
Even feminism in the early 70's meant one thing and means another now.
Holocaust denial might go through some identity changes too. The idea of what it means to believe in something.
You've completed two feature length Holocaust denial movies and have been blacklisted by YouTube. What's next? Any future projects to plug?
No, no future projects in store.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for the questions. I really liked the exchange.
Comments are open.