.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

My life as a Holocaust Revisionist

I will not attempt a Blog here in the full sense of that concept, but rather a personal journal where I will record some of the stories that thought turns to in those rare moments of clarity when I am not interfering with it.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Baja Norte, Mexico

Smith was raised in South Central Los Angeles in the 1930s and 40s. Smith is a combat veteran (Korea, 7th Cavalry, where he was twice wounded), has been a deputy sheriff (Los Angeles County), a bull fighter (Mexico), a merchant seaman, and was in Saigon during the Tet offensive of 1968 as a freelance writer. He has been described by the Los Angeles Times as an "anarchist libertarian," and by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith as one of the most dangerous "extremists" in America. He has been married to a Mexican woman for 30 years, there are two children, and now two grandchildren. Smith argues that the German WMD (gas-chamber) question should be examined in the routine manner that all other historical questions are examined. He argues that the Holocaust is not a "Jewish" story, but a story of Jews and Germans together--forever. Those who want to challenge the concept of the "unique monstrosity" of the Germans should be free to do so. He believes it is morally wrong, and a betrayal of the Western ideal of intellectual freedom, to imprison writers and publishers who question publicly what privately they have come to doubt.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

THE PASSION OF CHRIST

Last night I watched Mel Gibson's film for the first time. On television, here in Baja, with Spanish sub-titles. What struck me most forcibly was:

The actor playing Jesus had a good face. The violence began too early on, went too far, and I did not believe that the Jesus character could have kept going the way he did. And then there was the Roman counsul (?) who was uncertain of the morality of executing Jesus, and the priests who were certain that he should be executed. I didn't believe in the Roman character, he was too "sensitive." I did believe the Priests, who were adamant that Jesus was dangerous to their own beliefs, their own position and should be killed by the State. The priests were true believers, the Roman was not.

That is the way it is now with regard to intellectual freedom and the Holocaust story. Those who want to destroy revisionists and revisionist arguments are absolutely certain of what they want. They are true believers. The great majority of us who believe in intellecual freedom are uncertain of the morality of "offending" the victims of the Holocaust and those who identify with the victims, for whatever reasons. We are paragons of sensitivity. The search for truth and the ideal of intellectual freedom take a back seat to our felt need to respect the sensitivity of those who demand it, even when it is for themselves alone.

17 Comments:

Anonymous ASMarques said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 16, 2006 10:52 PM  
Blogger Bradley R. Smith said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 17, 2006 10:45 AM  
Blogger Bradley R. Smith said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 17, 2006 11:00 AM  
Anonymous ASMarques said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 17, 2006 1:45 PM  
Blogger Bradley R. Smith said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 17, 2006 3:18 PM  
Anonymous ASMarques said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 17, 2006 5:34 PM  
Anonymous ASMarques said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 17, 2006 5:47 PM  
Blogger Andrew E. Mathis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 19, 2006 10:38 AM  
Blogger Andrew E. Mathis said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 19, 2006 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 19, 2006 2:10 PM  
Blogger Bradley R. Smith said...

As can be seen, all the posts refering to perceived issues at the CODOH Forum, pro and con, have been deleted. This is a personal blog for my own indyosyncratic posts, usually in the form of journal entries, oftentimes on matters that have nothing to do with revisionism. Those who want to comment on what I post here are invited to do so, so far as the posts are reasonably relevant to what I am doing.

If your post is about something I am not doing and I am not directly involved with, please find another place to talk it out.

Thanks for your condiseration. I will do the same for you.

April 19, 2006 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did not feel that the violence sustained by Christ in the film was overdone - in fact - what Christ suffered was probably much worse. However, I feel that Mel Gibson was wrong to take artistic liberty with Scripture. Some examples - the Agony in the Garden, according to Scripture says that Angels came to Christ, not Satan also, Scripture reports that there were other women at the foot of the Cross than His mother and Mary Magdalene. These are omitted.

Regarding Pilate, we have Scripture and historical accounts that he did not want to execute Christ. Tertullian and Justin Martyr both speak of a report on the Crucifixion (not extant) sent in by Pilate to Tiberius, from which idea a large amount of apocryphal literature originated. Some of these were Christian in origin (Gospel of Nicodemus), others came from the heathen, but these have all perished.

Overall - i think that Gibson did a fairly good job in his film portrait of the Passion of the Christ, but certainly not perfect.

April 19, 2006 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 19, 2006 4:53 PM  
Blogger Bradley R. Smith said...

Interesting. I have not read either of the Testaments closely. I think it odd that Gibson would replace "angels" with the Devil. Don't understand the point to it either as film or in any other way.

Regarding Pilate, I was refering to how the character was directed. It could be a truthful representation, but I doubted him on screen. With regard to the violence, I did not stay around to watch the crucifixion. I was already in a state of disbelief. I'm in the minority about all this.

April 19, 2006 7:04 PM  
Blogger Patto said...

First time here B I will keep reading you goog blog

April 21, 2006 1:00 PM  
Anonymous ASMarques said...

Let me state here that my posts to your blog were deleted at my request. Thanks.

April 21, 2006 7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 22, 2006 1:11 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home