Why can't Kevin “Hitler burned down the Reichstag” Barrett give me the credit I'm due?

By Carolyn Yeager

In the previously posted (on 5-24) "Email Exchange of May 20," I mentioned an email to me from Kevin Barrett, whose name was on the original list of 'other recipients.' I showed Kevin's email:

Carolyn, Your website, with its gargantuan audience, should be a great place to attack VT. That'll teach Jew-lovin' Gordon a lesson. 

I said I would continue with our exchange in a follow-up post. This is the follow-up post. I replied to Kevin thusly--friendly at first but pretty sharp at the end. 

Now Kevin, I didn't say I had a gargantuan audience; I do not. But when I google carolyn yeager, as they said they did, it comes up 1.2 million entries + - every time. I didn't make it up -- they did.

Gordo is fixated on talking about his huge following, but is always lying.

I used to attack VT, as you may know, but I have better things to do. I don't want to give them the attention anyway. G and J's response to Anthony Lawson just got me going again, for a moment. I thought my advice was good, though.

You have really destroyed your credibility by going on there -- and exposed yourself as more of a political animal than a truth-seeker. My advice: stay away from the holohoax -- your milktoast approach is sickeningly inadequate.

Carolyn

I added that last part in reference to his essay on "Holocaust History Denial" which I had come across in recent days and read through quickly, but not carefully. Now, there is something you need to understand and that is if there is anything I take seriously, it is "Holocaust," and I was aware of Kevin's stance toward it. So I thought I had better read Kevin's piece more carefully, in light of what I just said to him. I did, and mailed him again:

Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:26:33 -0400 [05/20/2013 10:26:33 AM EDT]
From: [email protected]
To: Kevin Barrett <[email protected]>

Hey Kevin,

Looking up your latest "holocaust denier" writings, I find your dishonesty is just as great as that of Gordo and Jim. On April 22, 2013 you published your piece on "Holocaust History Denial" that you are so proud of, I'm sure. You wrote:

"Then one of my 9/11-skeptic acquaintances told me I should read Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides by Thomas Dalton. I did and found it was far better than the books by Shermer/Grobman and Lipstadt. Of course, it wasn't really as neutral as the title sounded."

Well Kevin, I recall quite clearly that I was that "9/11-skeptic acquaintance" who not only told you you should read it, but I mailed it to you free of charge! I know you have not forgotten that, but you choose not to mention my name. It was probably in 2009, maybe 10. You read it and reported to me just what you wrote here. I even helped you get Thomas Dalton on your program. Real appreciation you show in return!

So, okay, I will publicize this on my website, to begin with, just as you suggested I do. I'll have to wait until June to talk about it on a radio program. I'm out for bear.

C.

To this, Kevin replied:

OK, Carolyn, credit where it's due. You sent me the book that opened my mind on this issue. Thank you! 

-K 

PS Does this mean that when I get called a "holocaust denier" I  can blame you? ; - )

But I replied;

No, no Kevin. It's not in the article. That's what counts.

End of email exchange. Five days later, Kevin has not corrected his article, which I didn't think he would. But I'm glad I found out about this pusallanimous behavior on his part. He just can't bring himself to say that I, Carolyn Yeager, played any part in his enlightenment. He has resisted the enlightenment for so long, too.

But is he really enlightened?

He has only stuck his toe in the waters of Holocaust Revisionism and by that is calling for:

"Holocaust Revisionism" chairs in a dozen or so of our leading universities. [and which would these be? Jew-run places all. ~cy] There, the world’s top Holocaust revisionists [again, who chooses?] should be turned loose to develop their very best historical arguments. [But they have already made them, Kevin. Duh.] A lively scholarly historical debate between the revisionists and the defenders of orthodoxy would ensue. [We know how those debates go.]

Who would win the debate? I have no idea. Maybe, with the debate reinvigorated, the orthodox camp would find the motivation to go out and look for the long-lost forensic evidence, [It's motivation that's lacking?] including the ruins of actual mass-human-extermination gas chambers and the remains of millions of victims’ bodies. Or maybe the revisionists, given a modicum of legitimacy and funding, would definitively prove their case. [They already have.]

Kevin Barrett is showing his utter neutrality on this issue, figuratively saying, I don't take a side--I just want science to be given a chance. That has been said for years but I guess it's something new if Kevin Barrett finally gets up the courage to say it.

But even worse is what Barrett wrote for May 22, 2013 on Veterans Today, headlining "Fetzer Questions Holocaust--Call the Spanish Inquisition!" (Kevin always likes to bring up the Spanish Inquisition as a chance to attack the Catholic Church.)

The announcement comes after years of study and debate, during which Dr. Fetzer was occasionally attacked by holocaust revisionists for his refusal to embrace their views until he saw sufficient supporting evidence.

It should read: After finally taking a look at the evidence after years of ignoring it for political reasons ...Fetzer now admits he was wrong.

Barrett similarly wrote on his Truth Jihad radio schedule blog that James Fetzer

decided to come out of the closet and announce his support for holocaust revisionism! After studying the issue, he has finally reached a firm, evidence-based conclusion on this, the ultimate third-rail topic. Jim says that the "responsible revisionists," (again unnamed) who admit that there was a Nazi holocaust but insist that there were few if any gas chambers and that the "six million" figure is wildly inflated, are correct.

Whoop di do. That leaves me out, natch, as a responsible revisionist. Jim Fetzer "supports holocaust revisionism" as long as there remains a Nazi holocaust, no matter what the evidence shows. In other words, nothing has really changed. It is all the same old Nuremberg Tribunal.

*   *    *

Why do I bother with what these two clowns say about "holocaust?" Only because they represent the duplicitous nature of the Left and the Jews' attempts to salvage what they can as the holohoax inevitably comes further apart little by little. These people--not wanting to be on the outside looking in, and also wanting to prevent any absolution of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist policies--will take these positions to make it appear they belong with the revisionists. They don't, but unfortunately there are many revisionists who will welcome them in.

That's why I bother with them. Thanks for reading.

UPDATE 5-26) A thread at CODOH Forum started by Nick Kollerstrom/Astro 3 (who pals around with Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett) should be read. http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7911  Nick not only thinks highly of Fetzer, but also of Veterans Today. In spite of Nick's usual good insights and good intentions, I think he is suffering from a certain amount of mental impairment. He is the first revisionist I've seen do the welcoming bit with Fetzer/Barrett, that I said would happen. My great thanks to the sensible truth-seekers on the thread who aren't buying it--three of them so far.