RePortersNoteBook.com: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial” debate on campus

Nov 8, 2010

Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial” debate on campus

Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus

"Academic Freedom and Holocaust Denial Newspeak"

A Talk by Michael Hoffman

available for viewing on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4XreA-oC4

Hoffman analyzes the thoughtless acceptance of the Newspeak "Holocaust denial" phrase as a universal description of dissenters who dare to question Allied and Zionist dogma. He points to the hypocrisy of approved "holocaust denial " by Zionist professors who deny the 1945 Allied holocaust in Dresden, Germany or the Israeli genocide in Gaza — "denials" which are not a subject of academic controversy or media reproach and do not threaten the university employment or credentials of the deniers.

In the course of this talk, Hoffman confronts Prof. Cary Nelson's arguments in the Nov. 7, 2010 issue of "The Chronicle of Higher Education," about the "Holocaust" and "Holocaust denial" as it applies to the case of Prof. Kaukab Siddique of Pennsylvania's Lincoln University.

Hoffman is the author of "The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West's Most Sacred Relic" (forthcoming from Independent History and Research, December, 2010). He is a pioneer in the study of the psychology and epistemology of Newspeak as applied to public perception of World War II historiography.

Websites:

http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
http://talmudical.blogspot.com
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com

Books by Hoffman:
"The Great Holocaust Trial"
"Judaism Discovered"
"Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare"
"The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians"

LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Nov. 8, 2010

The Chronicle of Higher Education

To the Editor

Cary Nelson's claims ("Does Academic Freedom Protect Holocaust Deniers? It Depends on the Context," Nov. 7), fall by the wayside when we consider that Prof. Nelson unthinkingly accepts and employs the highly partisan and distorting "Holocaust denial" neologism, which has seeped into the language of discourse concerning the vast history of World War II.

"Holocaust denial" Newspeak is limited to protecting one account of history. This is its defect and its function. The doyen in this field is Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, herself a denier of the Allied holocaust against the city of Dresden, Germany (cf. Forward, Feb. 18, 2005). Of course no one would dream of questioning Prof. Lipstadt's academic rights on the basis of her denial of the Dresden holocaust.

Prof. Nelson states, "...faculty members cannot stand before a class and announce that the Nazis did not kill six million Jews..."

Why is it that Prof. Lipstadt can drastically lower the number of Germans incinerated in Dresden without fear of interdiction of any kind? How is it that she has the freedom to question German history and deny German casualty figures, while the rest of us mere mortals may not question Allied and Judaic history and casualty figures, including the "six million"? Prof. Nelson believes that one of the evils attendant on questioning the "Holocaust" is that it "denies people their history and obliterates the fate of their relatives..." Yet Prof. Lipstadt is somehow righteously endowed with this right of "denial" and "obliteration"? Why has American academia consented to a two-tier caste that empowers radical questions about certain historical claims and not others?

Let me anticipate a common rejoinder that is a product of the distorting prism of "Holocaust" Newspeak -- that "denying the Holocaust" is tantamount to denying the American Civil War. The analogy is compelling only if one accepts that skepticism toward specific assertions about World War II, such as "six million dead Jews" or the existence of mass execution gas chambers in Auschwitz, is tantamount to "denying" that World War II happened.

I realize that Prof. Nelson is considered a liberal on the subject of academic freedom, but I believe this is a perception based more on the extremism of his opponents, rather than Nelson's own views, which are actually reactionary to a considerable degree. For example, the medieval ecclesiastical principle held that "error has no rights." Can anyone be a liberal and espouse this standard? Nelson writes, "Siddique maintains that, in promoting Holocaust denial, he is simply speaking for the 'other side' of the issue. But there is no credible 'other side." As in medieval times, so too now: there is only one "credible" truth.

In 1200 A.D. there was no other truth but the truth of the transubstantiated presence of Jesus Christ in the bread consecrated by the priest during the Mass. In 2010 A.D. there is no other truth but extermination by homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau, during the "Holocaust." Nelson is absolutely certain that heretics who have the audacity to doubt this gas chamber dogma are "promoting...hate speech....No respectable historian advocates Holocaust denial." First, no self-respecting independent revisionist thinker subscribes to or ascribes the "Holocaust denier" epithet to himself. Second, any historian who asks forbidden questions about the history of World War II automatically forfeits "respectability." Nelson ought to know this since he is party to demarcating several narrow apertures through which historians on university faculties must filter their research if they wish to retain their employment and, consequently their "respectability."

Like the imperial rights of the Israelis in Palestine, it seems that academics like Deborah Lipstadt have imperial "denial" prerogatives which others do not possess. With regard to revisionist historian Mark Weber, Prof. Nelson invokes white supremacy, an easy target. Has Nelson ever dared to consider the role of Judaic supremacy as a fundamental determinant in the matter at hand? How is that a professor who denies the genocidal bombings of Palestinians in Gaza or the Allied holocaust in Dresden is free to pursue his agenda without fear of "merit(ing) a university warning that he has put himself at risk"?

The test of any code of law is its universality. By this criterion, even Cary Nelson's "liberal" standards of "academic freedom" are unfair and unethical.

Michael Hoffman
Box 849 • Coeur d'Alene • Idaho 83816 USA

(We have received no acknowledgement from The Chronicle of Higher Education [letters@chronicle.com] concerning the receipt or disposition of the preceding letter).

_____________________________
www.RevisionistHistory.org

__________________________________