A Not-So-Hidden Agenda

© Copyright Skeptic Magazine

A Not-So-Hidden Agenda

Running throughout all revisionist literature–books, articles, editorials, reviews, monographs, guides, pamphlets, and promotional materials–is the fascination with Jews and everything Jewish. No issue of the JHR fails to contain something on the Jews. The January/February, 1994 issue, for example, features a cover story on who killed the Romanovs and drove the Bolsheviks to power. Guess who? Yes, it was the Jews, as Mark Weber explains (1994c): “Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country’s total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years.” But Lenin, who ordered the assassination of the Imperial family, wasn’t Jewish. Weber’s explanation is revealing: “Lenin himself was of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, but he was also one- quarter Jewish” (p. 7). This is a typical revisionist line of reasoning: Fact: The Communists killed the Romanovs and instigated the Bolshevik Revolution. Fact: Some of the leading Communists were Jewish. Conclusion: The Jews killed the Romanovs and caused the Bolshevik Revolution. By the same logic: Ted Bundy was Catholic. Ted Bundy was a serial killer. Catholics are serial killers.

The Jewish focus is pervasive in the JHR. Here are just a few examples:


  • The Zionist Terror Network: Background and Operation of the Jewish Defense League and other Criminal Zionist Groups. A Special Report,1985 and 1993.
  • “The Mendacity of Zion,” by Lewis Brandon, Summer, 1980.
  • “Zionism & American Jews,” by Alfred Lilienthal, Summer, 1981.
  • “Zionism’s Vested Interest,” by Paul Smith, Spring, 1982.
  • “Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?” by Robert Faurisson, Summer, 1982.
  • Review of Ernest Volkman’s A Legacy of Hate: Anti-Semitism in America, by L.A. Rollins, Winter, 1982.
  • “Karl Marx: Anti-Semite,” by James Whisker, Spring, 1984.

The list goes on and on. Why? David Irving gave this illuminating explanation (1994):

I think the Jews are largely to blame for themselves by the knee jerk responses. Every step that they take to try to control anti-Semitism produces precisely the opposite effect in my view. Goebbels himself said that, in fact. To understand this you have to accept the fact that people operate at two levels: their public face and their private face. The public opinion is the one they tell the fellow with the clipboard in the street. Their private opinion is what they keep to themselves and they don’t even tell the cat. I don’t think it is anti-Semitism so much as it is xenophobia. And I think it is built in like the hunting instinct or the mating instinct. It is built into us as one of God’s little tricks.

In giving Weber a chance to defend himself I fully expected a clever rationalization around what seems a pretty obvious bias. I was surprised, therefore, just how bluntly he expressed the justification for the IHR’s attitude toward Jews (1994):

We focus on the Jews because just about everyone else is afraid to. Part of the reason we exist, and part of the pleasure is to be able to deal with a subject that others are not dealing with in a way that we feel helps provide information on what is relevant. I wish that the same considerations were given in our society to talking about Germans, or Ukrainians, or Hungarians, that are given to talking about the Jews. At the Simon Wiesenthal so-called Museum of Tolerance there are constant references to what the Germans did to the Jews in the Second World War. We permit and encourage in our society what would be considered vicious stereotypes if applied to other groups, when they are applied to the Germans or the Hungarians. This is a double standard, of which the Holocaust campaign is the most spectacular manifestation. We have a museum in Washington D.C. to the memorial of non-Americans victimized by other non-Americans. We don’t have any comparable museum to the fate of American-Indians, the victims of blacks in slavery, the victims of communism, etc. The very existence of this museum points up this perverse sensitivity of Jewish concerns in our society. The IHR and those affiliated with us feel a sense of liberation in that we say, in effect, we don’t give a damn if you criticize us or not. We’re going to say it anyway. We don’t have a job to lose because this is our job.

There are no gray areas in this statement. Sensitivity about the Jews and the Holocaust “campaign” is “perverse,” and taking them on provides “pleasure” and “liberation.” The Germans, however, are the victims who must be treated better. It gets worse.

Since I began my research on revisionism, I have been inundated by books, videos, journals, pamphlets, photocopy packages, and letters from a variety of revisionists, who have been generous to a fault in helping me understand both their claims and their motives. Revisionists like Weber, Zuendel, Irving, Cole, and Smith have tried to convince me they are not racists and have no political agendas, but they have been contradicted from within their own ranks. Revisionist and self- proclaimed white separatist Jack Wikoff, for example, publishes Remarks out of Aurora, New York. The publication is endorsed by Bradley Smith, and Wikoff reviews books for the JHR. “Talmudic Jewry is at war with humanity,” Wikoff explains. “Revolutionary communism and International Zionism are twin forces working toward the same goal: a despotic world government with the capital in Jerusalem.” Wikoff also published this letter from “R.T.K” from California: “Under Hitler and National Socialism, the German troops were taught White racism and never has this world seen such magnificent fighters. Our job is re-education with the facts of genetics and history” (1990, original italics).

Revisionist author Lew Rollins has been sending me, on a weekly basis, photocopy packages half an inch thick on revisionist ideas and publications. The January, 1994, issue of Instauration, for example, featured an article on “How to cut violent crime in half: An Immodest Proposal,” with no by-line. The author’s solution is vintage Nazi:

There are 30 million blacks in the U.S., half of them male and about one-seventh of the males in the 16 to 26 age bracket, the violent sector of the black population. Half of 30 million is 15 million. One-seventh of 15 million is a little more than 2 million. This tells us that 2 million blacks, not 30 million, are committing the crimes. The Soviet Union had gulag populations that ran as high as 10 million at various times during the Stalin era. The U.S. with much more advanced technology should be able to contain and run camps that hold at least 20% of that number. Negroes not on drugs and with no criminal record would be released from the camps once psychological and genetic tests found no traces of violent behavior. As for most detainees, on their 27th birthday all but the most incorrigible ‘youths’ would be let out, leaving room for the new contingent of 16-year-olds that would be replacing them.

As for Rollins, a self-proclaimed revisionist, his satirical Lucifer’s Lexicon (1987) offers these gems:

Holocaust, the, n. A smoke screen obscuring the atrocities of the Allies and the Israelis. The insurance fraud of the century. A cheap cinematic trick; a filmflam; the Hollywoodcaust; a soap opera.

Zionist Propaganda, n. Hebrew-National Baloney.

Weber responded to these statements as follows (1994b): “Why is this relevant? Rollins used to work for the IHR. Remarks is on the cusp. They used to be more-or-less revisionist. But he is now getting engaged more and more into racialist matters. Instauration is racialist.” How are they are associated with revisionism? “I suppose they’re affiliated so far as they agree with some of the things we might put out. But there is no relationship.”

Contemporary Holocaust revisionists like Weber and Irving are struggling mightily to extricate themselves from their own restrictive past. But it often seems to be a case of “the gentleman doth protest too much.” How else can all this be interpreted? Not all revisionists are the same to be sure, but there is a core of racist and paranoid thinking that is clearly directed at Jews. It is usually not the crass anti- Semitism of a Louis Farrakhan and his associates, with gross references to “Jew York City.” It is, in my opinion, a far more subtle and pervasive form of anti-Semitism (that extends beyond revisionism) that creeps into the conversation as “Some of my best friends are Jews, but .. . . ,” or “I’m not anti-Semitic but . . . ,” followed by a litany of all the things “The Jews” are doing. This bias is what drives them to seek and to find what they are looking for, and to confirm what they already believe. It is a problem we see in many other fringe groups, who exhibit remarkably similar methodologies and fallacies.

Work Cited

Shermer, Michael. “Proving the Holocaust: The Refutation of Revisionism & the Restoration of History,” Skeptic, Vol. 2, No. 4, Altadena, California, June, 1994. Published by the Skeptics Society, 2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119.

Skeptic Magazine