From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:21:35 EST
Subject: NEW YORK SUN: "Denying the Holocaust should
be permissible"
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

February 14, 2006

Cartoons & Holocaust Deniers
February 14, 2006

Mr. Halkin is a contributing editor of The New York

I don't find myself agreeing with the prime minister
of Iran about many
things, but about one thing, I believe, he is right.
It is inconsistent to claim,
in the name of freedom of expression, that a Danish
newspaper has the right to
publish any cartoon of Muhammad that it wants and at
the same time to have
laws, as do at least seven Western countries,
outlawing denial of the Holocaust.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has a point. Either freedom of
expression exists as a general
principle or it doesn't. If it doesn't, Muhammad
cartoons should be bannable
even in a democracy. If it does, denying the
Holocaust should be permissible,
especially in a democracy.

Holocaust denial, needless to say, is a form of
anti-Semitism. No one but an
anti-Semite - a very rabid one - would make the
preposterous charge that the
Jews invented the Holocaust, or wildly inflated the
number of Jewish deaths in
it, and then successfully fobbed off this
fabrication on a gullible world.
There is no such thing as "innocent" Holocaust
denial. All Holocaust denial is
vicious and bigoted.

But denying many things can be vicious and bigoted.
If I were to say, for
instance, that black slavery wasn't so bad because
the slaves were well treated
and lived better on southern plantations than they
did in Africa, that would be
vicious and anti-black. If I were to say that the
Japanese deliberately
exaggerated the loss of life in Hiroshima to win
world sympathy, that would be
vicious and anti-Japanese. If I were to say that the
Bosnian Muslims supposedly
slaughtered in Srebrenice were actually killed in
battle with the Serbs, that
would be vicious and anti-Muslim. Should there be a
law against each of these
things? Should there be a million laws for each of
the million ways in which it
is possible to vicious and bigoted?

But the Holocaust is different, goes the argument.
What happened in it is so
horrendous that denying it is not like denying
anything else.

This strikes me as a very weak argument indeed. Yes,
the Holocaust was the
most horrendous atrocity committed in the history of
humanity. But why shouldn't
the second most horrendous atrocity, whatever that
was, also be protected by
law from would-be deniers? Why not the top ten? Why
stop at one?

Moreover, Holocaust denial laws are not only
unjustified infringements on
freedom of speech, they're counter-productive. It is
likely that Holocaust denial
would never have grown as astoundingly as it has, to
the point that the head
of one of the largest, most populated, and most
powerful Muslim states in the
world has taken to repeatedly championing it in
public, were it not for these

This is so because these laws do two things. On the
one hand, they encourage
the claim that, if the Jews and their allies are so
eager to make denial of
the Holocaust a crime, they must have something to
hide. One only has to consult
some the Holocaust denial bloggers on the Internet
to see what a popular line
of reasoning this is. Why be afraid of a free
discussion, they ask, if you
believe the truth is on your side? It can only be
because the Jews know the
truth is against them that they're so afraid to have
things aired openly.

Secondly, Holocaust denial laws provide a convenient
excuse for the total
nonsense that passes among Holocaust deniers for
"historical research." Yes, they
say, our case isn't airtight - but how do you expect
us to build it when you
don't allow us to publish or disseminate our
findings? Stop harassing us and
we'll show you what legitimate historians we are.

Nor, even if Holocaust denial laws are in some sense
unique, can they be
detached from the general atmosphere of political
correctness in which they exist
- an atmosphere that is unhealthy for the
intelligent discussion of many other
things. Although offending groups of people or
making prejudiced remarks
about them has little to recommend it in itself, the
social taboos that now exist
against anything that is definable as offensive or
prejudiced, or that might
possibly be construed as such, are in the long run
far more damaging. They lead
to self censorship and fear to speak out on a wide
variety of issues, and are
far more pernicious than open prohibitions like
Holocaust denial laws.

We are now seeing the consequences of this
perniciousness in the debate over
the Muhammad cartoons. It is worrisome to anyone who
cares about free speech
to see how many people in Europe and the United
States (including, according to
polls, nearly a third of all Danes) think these
cartoons should not have been
published. After all, they hurt Muslims' feelings.
Is that really what a
modern, democratic society should want to happen in

No, it isn't - but not hurting Muslims' (or Jews',
or Christians', or
vegetarians') feelings should not be a supreme
social value either. When ideas are
expressed, feelings sometimes get hurt. To hear it
said that "Zionism is racism"
is as hurtful to me as a Jew as it is for a Muslim
to hear it said that
"Islam encourages terror," but if we are going to
live in a world in which the
possible relationship of Zionism to racism, or of
Islam to terror, is a forbidden
subject, we have given away our freedom to say what
we think without even
waiting for it to be taken.

As long as they're not openly inciting to
anti-Jewish violence, people should
be allowed to say what they want to about the
Holocaust. We Jews are
grown-ups and can take it. And only if we are and
can are we entitled to tell Muslims
that they should, too.


Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 15:
Item No. 29

Germar Rudolf: Lectures on the Holocaust.
Controversial Issues Cross Examined

In 1976, Holocaust revisionism produced its last
"standard work," if there
ever was such a thing: Prof. A.R. Butz' Hoax of the
Twentieth Century. "How can
a quarter century old text not be obsolete today?"
Butz asks in the preface of
the 2003 edition of his own book, pointing out "the
age of this text, and the
great advances that have subsequently occurred in
Holocaust revisionism."
Hence, there is a great need for a new, integrated
work summarizing Holocaust
revisionism after 30 years of very intensive and
thorough research.

And here it is, the new standard work of Holocaust
revisionism! It was
written by German scholar, writer, and publisher
Germar Rudolf, based on the
research of the most prominent revisionists, most of
which Rudolf had the pleasure to
publish in a multitude of German and English
language journals and books over
the past 15 years.

The book was written to fit the need of both those
who have no in-depth
knowledge of the Holocaust or of revisionism, as
well as for well-versed readers
familiar with revisionism. Anyone who wants to bring
himself up to date on
revisionist scholarship, but does not want to read
all the special studies that
were published during the past ten years, needs this

Since 1992, Rudolf has been giving lectures to
various mainstream audiences
all over the world. His topic is very controversial:
the Holocaust in the light
of new forensic and historical findings. His
listeners initially think they
know exactly what "the Holocaust" is all about, but
their world view is
completely turned upside down after the evidence is
presented. Even though Rudolf p
resents nothing short of full-fledged Holocaust
revisionism, his arguments fall
on fertile soil, because they are presented in a
very pedagogically sensitive
and scholarly way. This book is the literary version
of Rudolf's lectures,
enriched with the most recent finding of
historiography to a topic regulated by
penal law in many countries.

The book's style is unique as is its topic: It is a
dialogue between the
lecturers on the one hand who introduce the reader
to the most important arguments
and counter arguments of Holocaust Revisionism, and
the reactions of the
audience on the other hand: supportive, skeptical,
and also hostile comments,
questions, and assertions. The Lectures read like a
vivid and exciting real-life
exchange between persons of various points of view.
The usual moral, political,
and pseudoscientific arguments against revisionism
are all addressed and

This book is a compendium of Frequently Asked
Questions on the Holocaust and
its critical reexamination. With more than 1,300
references to sources and a
vast bibliography, this easy-to-understand book is
the best introduction into
this taboo topic both for readers unfamiliar with
revisionism and for those
wanting to know more.

US $30.00 568 pp. ., 6"x9", pb., ill., bibl., index
(Aug. 2005) , ISBN:
1591480019 , ISSN: 1529-7748

You can place your order at:

To subscribe and grow with knowledge or
to unsubscribe and Die Stupid?
Send an E-mail to:
[email protected]