I have been reading through more of Mathis' writings lately. I have in general found them to be quite fascinating, and agree with much of what he says. While the abundance of articles on so many diverse topics initially raised my suspicions, I concur with his statement that his writings have a "wholly consistent" style, or at least that has been the case for everything that I have read so far. I still think that some of his research begins to veer precipitously close to a very sophisticated form of Goldbuggery. I would be less suspicious if he was more willing to engage in open dialogue, but that remains to be seen.
I really don't understand why he would feel so betrayed. It is only natural that prominent figures in conspiracy research will be treated with skepticism, especially when they are making relatively extreme claims. There is even a thread here on Clues Forum concerning whether or not Simon is a shill: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1271
. Eric Dubay also talks about nuclear weapons not existing, spaceflight being fake, dinosaurs being a hoax, etc., but does that mean Simon or the other researchers here should form an alliance with him?
I find his policy of ”only tend[ing] to write when [he has] something to say [he hasn’t] seen anyone else say” a little convenient. It is not that I disagree with this principle in itself, as it keeps his writing interesting, but I merely wonder if it couldn't be used as a "cover," allowing him to act under the pretense that he has been researching a topic for a very long time, but is only now bringing it up (coincidentally shortly after it was raised elsewhere). As far as I know, he has never discussed "Holocaust denial" before his recent paper
on David Irving, which came out not long after the question of Holocaust denial trials being hoaxed was briefly discussed in the "Hiding in Plain Sight" thread (though I suppose he hinted at addressing the Holocaust in an e-mail to jumpy64). He tells us, "I supported Irving for years. Not really for the so-called Holocaust denial—since I have left that question pretty much open for the past two decades—but for free speech." If he has left the question open for two decades, how could he not by now have realized that there is no evidence for the NSDAP gassing and cremating 11 million people (or gassing humans at all)? Has he not seen the doctored images, heard the incredible tales of the "eyewitnesses," or pondered the absurd logistics? I completely agree with him about David Irving being controlled opposition; however, he implies that the purpose of this is to discredit those who "question mainstream history,” instead of Holocaust revisionists specifically. But, as Mathis suggests, Irving has never even been a “denier” of the Holocaust; like those who claim that NASA fakes spaceflight because they actually use secret alien technology, he’s always “acknowledged” that several million Jews were killed, just that they were killed by means other than gas chambers; though now he doesn’t even deny homicidal gassings
How were they killed, and where? On a small scale, unwanted Jews were put to death by gassing in two small units at Auschwitz, the White House and the Red House, which is now in Poland. It was a death camp as well as a slave-labour camp. A Polish court in 1947 found that its German officers, who were mostly hanged, were guilty of running a camp in which "up to 300,000 people" of all nationalities had died from all causes.
That Judgment is hard to reconcile with the propaganda language used later about "4 million victims" of Auschwitz.
In fact the most intensive killing (i.e. extermination) operations were done at four other sites in eastern Poland, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka and Majdanek (Lublin). One top-secret Nazi radio message which we British decoded in January 1943 reveals that these camps had dealt with 1,250,000 in 1942 alone; they probably killed about the same number by October 1943. Any argument about numbers seems immaterial, even obscene, given a death roll on such a scale.
Notice by the way that although I have repeatedly stated the above, and have published the documents on my website (e.g. at http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz
) you and school pupils around the world are told that I am a Holocaust Denier. The big money is on their side, and it is useless, and hopeless, to argue against them. But the truth remains on my side, and stays here.
I also think it is a bit strange that this paper is called "Looks Like David Irving is Jewish," when his ethnicity is perhaps the least compelling aspect of Mathis’ argument. David Cole is Jewish as well, but does that in itself imply that he is controlled opposition? Here is an excerpt:
Years ago I read some of the alternative literature on the Holocaust, including the claims of Irving. Still not feeling confident enough to take a side—the arguments on both sides being weak or inconclusive, it seemed to me—I emailed Norman Finkelstein. Everything to do with this question seemed misty, so I thought I would ask a Jewish person who I admired. Not being Jewish myself, I thought maybe I just didn't have the proper eye for this stuff. It was grasping, yes, but that is what I did. For those of us on the left, Finkelstein—like Chomsky and Zinn—was a minor hero. His arguments with Dershowitz were enough to make him shine in my naïve eyes. Anyway, Finkelstein said he was pretty sure the Holocaust had happened, but that it was possible the figures had been inflated by some margin. So I adopted that stance quietly, not really having any reason to broadcast it. It wasn't actually that important to me one way or the other, I just wanted to know the truth. I like to know things.
So that is where I was on the question until yesterday, when I tripped across the 2011 article on Irving.
So first he just adopts the stance of a Jew he admires regarding the subject, and next he is “calling out” Irving for being Jewish? Seems like a bit of a non sequitor to me, especially when Finkelstein is likely controlled opposition as well. Whereas Finkelstein funnels curious Leftists into critiquing the “Holocaust Industry” instead of the “Holocaust Hoax,” anyone who passes through Finkelstein’s gate is scared off by “discredited historian” David Irving, supposedly thrown in prison for Holocaust denial when he is merely a limited hangout.
Then, in his "Links" update, Mathis says,
The only substantive reason I have seen on that site is that some fear I am Jewish, or a protector of the Jews. I have admitted that my great-grandfather on my mother's side may have been Jewish, but the rest of my family doesn't believe it and it would never have been known if I hadn't mentioned it myself. His name was Moses Mordecai Williams, and if anyone wants to research him they are welcome to. I ask that they let me know what they find, since I didn't find anything and would be interested to know more. But even if he was 100% Jewish back to Adam, that makes me at most 1/8 Jewish.
He continues on in this vein for several paragraphs, as if it means anything. Why is he emphasizing his genealogy when the issue is his strange tiptoeing around all things “Jewish”? His PDF
about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion barely even discusses the document in question. His paper on Irving, while making legitimate points, spends so much time going into Irving's background that it almost seems designed so that you will forget that he never addresses the actual claims of Holocaust revisionists. Does he still agree with Finkelstein that the Holocaust happened, but the numbers might be slightly exaggerated? Does he think all Holocaust revisionists are controlled opposition? It's not particularly clear.