Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
To: ReporterNotebook <reporternotebook@gmail.com>
1. Thomas Dalton is a professor of HUMANITIES, not HISTORY. He is not credible on this topic. Neither is the engineer Butz, or the bishop Williamson. They all might hate Jews, but no professional historian will recognize their discrimination as factual.
2. Freedom of speech is the hallmark of a liberal and progressive society. I can think of only one topic in which a society should alter this view. That topic is genocide. Note, I did not say "the Holocaust." I said genocide. If we allow our progeny to believe that a genocide is in reality a hoax, then they will not learn from it. They will not vicariously experience the abject terror, horror and brutality of genocide. Having lost this ability to learn from genocide, our progeny will then be subject to the same mistakes that led to the genocide.
3. Some European nations prohibit Holocaust denial for a very good reason. Anti-Semitism in Europe has not disappeared. In fact, it has been gaining strength over the past few decades. The very same public sentiment that created the Shoah remains today just under the daily radar screen. In other world, it can happen again and the most probable location for it is Europe. European nations counter the rise of anti-Semitism with sound laws that discourage displaying Holocaust denial in public. When the European public has learned to accept that Holocaust facts are indeed accurate, and when they have acquired tolerance towards Jews, there will no longer be a need for such laws. However, the massive immigration of Muslims in Europe might postpone that time far into the future.
4. All anti-Semites use the same false premise in blaming Jews. They blame "the Jewish lobby" for every bad circumstance under the sun. I guarantee that no "Jewish lobby" outside of Israel has the political strength to win a dog catcher job. This is the same mendacious "Jewish menace" propaganda that Nazi leaders used to encourage gentiles to hate Jews in the 1930s. It became a foundation for the Nuremberg Laws. In essence, it is pure BS. Jews represent a very tiny percentage of anyone's nation (except Israel). At less than 1% of the US population, Jews influence no one. Blaming "the Jewish lobby" is patently impossible and completely false. Virtually no professional historians or sociologists agree with it. The so-called "Jewish lobby" wields no significant political clout. At 1% of the population, they control nothing.
5. Thousands of thesis and doctoral research projects have all reached the same conclusion about Holocaust. These facts cannot be wrong. Wannsee Conference records reveal the plan for "The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem" in great detail, including architectural plans for massive death camps, gas chambers and cremation furnaces. The SS was tasked with manning death camps and their Einsatzgruppen testified to shooting more than a million innocent Jewish men, women and children (see Babi Yar). Nazi leaders admitted to murdering millions of innocent Jews (and many others). Camp guards, employees and nearby citizens have all testified to the death camp veracity. Survivors described it in detail. Six million Jews did not simply disappear without a trace. They did not all perish from typhus. What's most interesting about this is that Nazi leaders had an out at the Nuremberg Trials. They could have denied murdering millions of Jews. Instead, they all admitted to the genocide of European Jews, but said that they were "just following orders." Transcripts are readily available in English.
6. I could care less if you or anyone wishes to "review" history. By all means, knock yourself out! But, even if the real figure for Jewish Holocaust victims turned out to be four million, or even three million (and virtually all professional historians peg the number at between 5.5 million and 6 million), it would still remain the most egregious genocide against members of one religion in history. So, what could you possibly gain by "revising" history? The very same lesson would remain. Millions of innocent Jewish men, women and children would still have been murdered because of their faith. Hell, even if the number was one million, it would still be a ghastly genocide against Jews. Again, what would change if the numbers are not exactly accurate? Jews were still evicted from their homes, schools & jobs, forced into ghettos, concentration camps and slave labor and the weak and small ones were immediately murdered. You would need either a very low IQ or very significant bigotry to deny these facts. Virtually all professional historians will stake their career on the veracity of these facts. What could you hope to change? Do you think that more people would become anti-Semites? Is this a supercilious goal? So, what's the point in trying to revise it? What on earth do you hope to gain? Some people will always hate Jews, so why waste your time trying to exacerbate this bigotry?
CW
From: ReporterNotebook [mailto:reporternotebook@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Chuck
Subject: Re: Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on campus
Dear Charles,
Every sentence you write is based on a false notion. If the Holocaust narrative is so accurate, why do 17 nations have Holocaust Denial Laws? pushed by the Jewish Lobby worldwide--Israel was the first nation to pass such laws in 1986.
Can I send you a copy of a book in exchange for yours? Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton. Which I can't even advertise virtually in any mainstream publication, with tens of thousands of dollars in my advertising budget, because of the power of the Jewish Lobby.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Chuck <csw2@bex.net> wrote:
Virtually all professional historians agree that Holocaust facts are valid; so what are the credentials of those who disagree? Why should we believe them? Have they uncovered some profound new data to challenge the known fact that millions of innocent Jewish men, women and children were murdered because of their faith? If so, why has no one produced such new data? Instead, they simply cry out in the wilderness, "Historical facts about the Holocaust are not true!" Is this the mind of an empirical researcher with tenure as professor of history at a major university? Or, is this the cry of an anti-Semite who simply can't stand that Jews have obtained a measure of sympathy in the shadow of the Shoah, the greatest genocide against any religious group in history?
Anyone can shout in the Internet that the Holocaust is a hoax. Proving such an impossible allegation is another story. We await their "evidence."
Meanwhile, the only real question is why would anyone try to distort or deny that which thousands of thesis and dissertations have proven so elegantly? Why would someone try to deny the words of Nazi leaders themselves, who admitted that they did indeed murder millions of innocent Jews, but that they were "just following orders" (see Nuremburg trial records). The Wannsee Conference records prove that Nazi leaders planned the extermination of Europe's Jews. Nazi leaders admitted to performing it. Camp guards and workers corroborated it. Survivors described it. And now, suddenly and without any evidence, we are asked to disregard a mountain of evidence that convicted Nazi Germany of the world's greatest genocide. Again, why should we believe the deniers?
Charles Weinblatt
Author, Jacob's Courage
--- In ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com, ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@...> wrote:
>
> Deconstructing doubletalk in the "Holocaust denial" debate on
> campus<http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/11/deconstructing-doubletalk-in-holocaust.html>
> *"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@...] concerning the receipt or disposition of the
> preceding letter).
>
> _____________________________
> www.RevisionistHistory.org
> __________________________________
>
> *
>
>
>
> --
>
> ***Peace is patriotic!*
> *
> *
> *Michael Santomauro*
> *253 W. 72nd Street*
> *New York, NY 10023*
> *
> *
> *Call anytime: 917-974-6367*
> *
> *
> *E-mail me anything:*
> *ReporterNotebook@...*
>
No comments:
Post a Comment