Censorship and ethics: publishing Holocaust denial material on this blog

I have, since the inception of this blog, allowed robust debate.

Indeed, 99% of comments are published.

What I don’t let through is the material that is threatening to my self or my readers, or posts that are simply vile insults. Neither adds to the quality of the debate.

Which is why I have very mixed feelings when it comes to publishing comments made by Dr Frederick Toben, the noted Holocaust denier.

My blog exits primarily to expose and critique the disinformation campaign of the climate “skeptics”. It means I have to travel some very strange paths – more often than not, I’m reading large volumes of what is essentially conspiracy theory materials.

I am a strong advocate for free speech, which is why I’ve never called for those who deny climate change to be censored. The debate is robust, indeed nasty at times. But it is vitally necessary.

To paraphrase the late, great Christopher Hitchens, conspiracy theories are “the exhaust fumes of democracy“.

So I accept that this will be controversial to some readers – but I will publish a recent posting of Toben’s here in full. I do this in the spirit of exposing the fallacy of his arguments.

This is no cheap stunt in garnering “hits” – I frequently publish exerts of conspiracy material on this blog to critique. I have given this considerable thought but I will post it here in full and make some brief comments.

By why of my background, my first degree was a  Bachelor of Arts majoring in History. As part of my studies I critically examined such works as “The Myth of the Six Million” and the Holocaust denial “phenomena”. Thus I am reasonably familiar with many of the materials, figures and evidence.

So I say this in the strongest possible terms.

I find the denial of the Holocaust abhorrent on many levels; ethically and intellectually.

Holocaust denial is primarily intended to offend the memory of victims of the holocaust. Holocaust denial is a form of intellectual “terrorism” designed to assault, offend and enrage. 

The following resources should be consulted by readers interested in the debate:

I would refer readers to Irving v Penguin Books:

David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a case in English law, relating to Holocaust denial. It ruled that the claim that such denial is a deliberate distortion of evidence is substantially true, and therefore not libellous.

In 1998, the British author David Irving filed suit against American author Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books in an English court, claiming that Lipstadt had libeled him in her book Denying the Holocaust. Lipstadt had accused him of deliberately misrepresenting evidence to conform to his ideological viewpoint. English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defence, meaning that it was up to Lipstadt and her publisher to prove that her claims were substantially true.

Lipstadt hired British lawyer Anthony Julius while Penguin hired libel experts Kevin Bays and Mark Bateman of media firm Davenport Lyons. Cambridge historian Richard J. Evans was hired by the defence to serve as an expert witness. Evans spent two years examining Irving’s work, and presented evidence of Irving’s misrepresentations, including evidence that Irving had knowingly used forged documents as source material. Upon mutual agreement,[6] the case was argued as a bench trial before Mr. Justice Charles Gray, who produced a written judgment 333 pages long in favour of the defendants, in which he detailed Irving’s systematic distortion of the historical record of World War II.

The full text of the judgment is here, and I refer readers to this because every “arguments” made by holocaust deniers was put to the test in a court of law and found to fraudulent:

I find myself unable to accept Irving’s contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.

I would also cite Martin Niemöller’s majestic “First they came…”

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

All of us have a responsibility to defend the truth, whether that be historical or scientific truth. This is the motivation of Watching the Deniers.

Because we should never be silent.

Toben’s comment

The original follows: 

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka
Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard
A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues
A Holocaust Controversies White Paper, First Edition December 2011
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com
Jonathan Harrison, Roberto Muehlenkamp, Jason Myers, Sergey Romanov, Nicholas Terry
Enquries can be directed to questions.hc@gmail.com
_________________________________

***
Think on these things from
Bertrand Russell:
The Impact of Science on Society, 1952
Google Books – http://books.google.com.au/books

“For some reason which I have failed to understand, many people like the system [scientific totalitarianism] when it is Russian but disliked the very same system when it was German. I am compelled to think that this is due to the power of labels; these people like whatever is labelled ‘Left’ without examining whether the label has any justification.”
[FT comments: The former was internationalist and run by a Talmudic thought pattern that opposed nature, while the latter was nationalist and run by a Germanic thought pattern that worked with nature.]

“The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies.”
“All this is not imaginary, it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.”

“There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second is that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been practised: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by Aztecs, the Spartans and the rulers of Plato’s Republic; the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia.”

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for the purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian)” – p63 [10]

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”
***
1. By way of an introduction here are some background aspects of my world view that shape my moral and intellectual value-system, and reveal my blind spots.

Whenever the ideal of truth as a justification of a world view is deemed to be important, all too often obsessive credentialism makes it necessary to paint a validation picture of offered commentary that ought to be self-evident – as in my response to this 570-page work of minute detail purportedly proving the ‘Holocaust-Shoah’ to be an historical fact.

My world view rests on the Kantian Categorical Imperative – Kategorische Imperativ – and its reflective formulation:

Zwei Dinge erfüllen das Gemüt mit immer neuer zunehmender Bewunderung und Ehrfurcht je öfter und anhaltender sich das Nachdenken damit beschäftigt: Der gestirnte Himmel über mir und das moralische Gesetz in mir.

The first signifies scientific enquiry and the second personal morality. Then, for the record, let me add three positive comments made in 2002 about my person:

Fredrick Töben is a man of considerable courage. Whatever one thinks of his views, one can respect a dissident who sticks to his extremely unpopular opinions just because he believes in them – Israel Shamir, Jaffa-Tel Aviv, Palestine.

The advantage of communist censorship was its transparent ugliness and its open lunacy. The disadvantage of the so-called Western liberal democracy is its feigned freedom, and its ‘cool’ lunacy. Communism used to kill the body but it spared the soul. The ‘liberal democracy’ kills the soul while leaving the body of a zombie. The revisionist Fredrick Töben – or we might better call him a non-conformist or a latter-day dissident – is well aware of the mendacity of the democratic discourse and delirious myths which shape our modern world: both are enforced by criminal codes all over the glorious West. He rejects them with precision and all due incision. There is no flight for Töben and other free thinkers like him – only a long fight. As Nietzsche used to say, ‘a free man is a fighter’. – Dr Tomislav SunicZagreb, Croatia.

To opine on aspects of Jewish propaganda is courageous; to go public with such honest opinions is suicidal. As such, I believe Fredrick Töben has chronic literary suicidal tendencies. – Mohammed Hegazi, Melbourne, Australia.

Of course, you can Google my name and find numerous contrary comments about my person, something that does not bother me in the slightest, and I shall certainly not employ someone who charges $1000,- a month to manipulate Google statistics so that only favourable comments appear in the search engine. The former Federal Court of Australia judge Marcus Einfeld is allegedly employing such a person.

This fiddling of statistical information is an important point because the Internet is rife with manipulated data that does not accord with the truth of a matter. There are liars, bloody liars and statisticians. Hence the quest for popularity, personal or subject through Internet statistics, produces nothing but false consciousness, delusions and fantasies, and outright fiction that individuals attempt to pass off as facts grounded in the physical world.
The Internet social media craze has become a mythic maker especially when youngsters celebrate their thousand + and whatever number friend on Twitter or Facebook. Such friendships are not put to the test over time, especially when the going-gets-tough and political correct movements either develop or implode.

Note how the Global Warming/Climate Change debate is fraught with believers who fiddle the books because they wish to impose a global/universal taxation system on all citizens, thereby guaranteeing that institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, who are rumoured to be the guardians of the collected carbon tax, are then able to ensure the United Nations has the funds available to continue its work of global outreach – of doing good and helping the poor of this world to improve their exploited and enslaved lives.

That YouTube statistics are manipulated is a fact, and I have reports from individuals who tracked the hits counter on contentious video clips, then waited for YouTube and Google officials to skew such counters to either a popular or ‘unnoticed’ level. This is especially so in matters Holocaust-Shoah where any postings are subjected to censorship.

Sometimes, though, even in the openly controlled television media items slip through the security net. In Australia this regularly happens during the December-January summer holiday period when relief editors man the media controls.
Remember Herman Rosenblat, the Holocaust survivor who for 10 years sold his concentration camp survival story to popular US television programs as a physical fact?
On 18 February 2009 ABC’s Good Morning America asked Rosenblatt why he lied about that apple his future wife daily threw to him over the fence into the concentration camp:
*
Rosa Rosenblat: I used to come by every day, bring the apple I had in my jacket and piece of bread, and say: ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’.

GMA: Why did you do it? Why did you tell such a big lie to so many people for so long?
Rosenblat: It was no lie. It was my imagination, and in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it. Even now I believe it that she was there and that she threw the apple to me.

GMA: How can you say it wasn’t a lie, it wasn’t true and you know it’s not true?
Rosenblat: Yes, it’s not true but in my imagination it was true….

GMA: Herman and Rosa Rosenblat told their false story publicly for more than a decade but it all fell apart about six weeks ago after Holocaust scholars proved that it was physically impossible for prisoners to approach the fence at the concentration camp where Herman Rosenblat was kept and that Roma’s family was two hundred miles away at the time.
Why did your wife agree to go along with this. Did she ever express any reservations?
Rosenblat: Because she loves me.

GMA: Why’s she not here today?
Rosenblat: Because I don’t want her to be here today. It’s too much – too much going on.

GMA: Was it difficult for your wife to have go out very publicly and tell a story that she knew wasn’t true?
Rosenblat: It was, it was, but she loves me so much that if she thinks that’s good for me she’ll go along with it.

GMA: Rosenblat is remarkably unrepentant about his years of lying.

Rosenblat: I pronounce my love for you, forever. …
*
It is such nonsense that enabled me to formulate a title for the paper I delivered at the 2006 Teheran Holocaust Conference: ‘The Holocaust has no reality in space and time, only in memory’.

But of course there is much more to this fiction that accuses Germans of a most heinous crime – because verbal representations are clearly found in Old Testament writings where it is stated the Hebrew God directs the slaughter of women and children, for example, of which since 1945 Jews and their proxies accuse Germans of having perpetrated on world Jewry. The Holocaust-Shoah’s mythical mindset clearly has Old Testament precedents built into it, as well as homicidal thought patterns that are clearly evident in detailed Talmudic writings, which make up the ethical standards and moral guide of most Orthodox Jews.

When American presidents unashamedly lie about their personal lives and promote matters Holocaust-Shoah, or embrace the 2003 Weapons of Mass Destruction – WMD lie, or worse still, vigorously condones the 9:11 lies, and then the Rosenblat lies are merely another example of a mindset that within our Western democracies even academics and lawmakers/politicians unashamedly embraced – and continue to embrace.

The truth of a matter has become irrelevant – and this is the core of what is causing the decline of the West and the adoption of Holocaust-Shoah as a substitute religion beneficial, among others, to Jews and Israel at the expense of Germans/nationalists and Muslims/Palestinians/Iranians: the adoption of the Talmudic Marxist atheistic death dialectic combined with Pharisaic usury principles. For this kind of dialectic win-lose mindset truth is deemed to be a mere social construct – truth is what you want it to be – rather than truth being the foundation, the bedrock of our civilisation.

Just remember, whenever engineers begin to fiddle the books with their calculations and measurements, in effect creating a physical structure built on lies, then the structure they build will collapse. So, too, it is with any mental structure that a lying mindset constructs, for example, the Marxist ideology or the Holocaust-Shoah myth sold as a physical fact but protected legally from a thorough examination. Germans are accused of having committed atrocious crimes yet they are not permitted to mount a defence against such allegations because such a defence would hurt the feelings of those who believe in the Holocaust-Shoah myths. The Rosenblat phenomen on has been encouraged to blossom in so-called western democracies and Germans lack the moral and intellectual courage to oppose it because of basic creature comforts. Hence the few individuals who embrace Revisionism know full well that it will mean in most instances a social and professional death sentence.

But fortunately such nihilistic mindset that propagates such Holocaust-Shoah lies also contains its own self-destructive internal logic, as the Rosenblat example exemplifies. Revisionists didn’t even have to expose Rosenblat’s lies. There are numerous such cases on record where Revisionists merely smiled at such fraudsters riding on the Holocaust-Shoah myth gravytrain. Hence, where lies are told personal relationships break down and a society begins to rot, and it is only for some time that legal constraints hold together the rotting social fabric. History teaches us how under the weight of official lies the moral, social and legal duties with which most citizens are imbued are crushed. Hence in order to deflect from the inevitable social disintegration the global trend is to crass consumer hedonism, which however directly results in producing a cynical-nihilistic world view where the only freedom citizens enjoy is the freedom to go shopping – never mind if you are one of the millions unemployed and have no money to spend!

As Dr Robert Faurisson reminded us when the 2003 WMD was exposed as a lie and used as a pretext for the US to invade Iraq, the next global lie of recent times to break down will be the ‘9:11 was done by a bunch of Muslim terrorists’ lie. Anyone with some understanding of fires and explosives knows that buildings don’t collapse the way we have been told the World Trade Centre Twin Towers were brought down – not by planes but by controlled demolition; and we need not even mention how Building 7 collapsed in the absence of any planes hitting it because Larry Silverstein admitted that he decided to ‘pull it’.

Hence, the official conspiracy theory, though solidified through two huge insurance payouts, is just that – a lie told to justify Anglo-American-Zionist global war mongering designed to save a crumbling global economic power structure.

On 6 October 2011 – presstv.com – new world order ‘breaking down’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0ur6gMIaQ
… and note Ron Paul’s political comments at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0.

This now global lie that postulated ‘terrorism’ as an evil driving force needed to be fabricated to fill the ideological vacuum left after the Soviet Union and its dependencies started to disintegrate at the end of 1989 and into the 1990s, thereby securing the global supremacy of the Anglo-American-Zionist predatory capitalistic world view for some decades to come.

The most comprehensively developed recent historical lie – the Holocaust-Shoah lie, which states that during World War Two Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers – still stands because it is set in legal concrete and it serves well those individuals who see Germans as a threat to their economic existence. However, since its formal legal protection began during the late 1970s and early 1980s massive cracks have appeared within its structure, and that is thanks to individuals such as Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Fred Leuchter, Willis Carto, Ernst Zündel, Michael Hoffman, among others. Of course, most recently, the notable Holocaust-Shoah scholars Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf and Thomas Kuess, are now under attack in the latest works by Holocaust believers.

Cheers

11 thoughts on “Censorship and ethics: publishing Holocaust denial material on this blog

  1. Mekhong Kurt says:

    Excellent. Honest intellectual debate does involve letting the fruitcakes have their say — then pointing out they’re fruitcakes. And while I’m well aware that this blog is primarily aimed at — what’s the PC term these days? Well, I don I don’t know, so I’ll just be non-PC and say ” idiot climate-change deniers” — that you are willing to address other stupidities despite your primary focus is commendable, indeed, admirable.

    While I’m not Jewish, I have met or known some Jews who personally survived concentration camps in Nazi Germany, including meeting one who was at Auschwitz as a new arrival about to be treated to a “shower” when the Allies liberated the camp. I absolutely believe the Holocaust occurred — wait, that’s incorrect — I KNOW it did. I can’t “see” gravity, but I know it exists, too.

    Much of my life I’ve been known as a peacemaker, not through force, but by using a natural ability reasonably well-developed to appeal either to reason, the better side of human nature, or sometimes both. Yet as time moves along, my attitudes are hardening against those who flat *refuse* to engage in even just a rational discussion, or one appealing for someone to quit hate-filled, hate-inspired accusations (all scientist are corrupt and want nothing but money, etc.), much less both.

    As a fairly well-informed student of WWII, I’m moving more and more to the most basic strategy of that war: total warfare — but with the caveat that I insist on remaining honest, and staying above the name-calling fray (unless I have a hope that getting down in the mud might actually get through).

    Liars are liars, and both need and deserve to be outed as such. Good for you.

  2. Mekhong Kurt says:

    I forgot to tick “Track replies,” so I’m adding this to do so now. Sorry.

  3. Geoff Brown says:

    “denial of the Holocaust abhorrent on many levels; ethically and intellectually.”

    Denial of the Holocaust IS abhorrent, but so is the subliminal link to sceptics by the use of deniers to describe kegitimate seekers of the truth.

    As David Suzuki said: “Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.”

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      You’ll note Geoff I’ve never equated climate sceptics/deniers with those who deny the Holocaust. And don’t.

      Also, I respectfully allow sceptics to post here in nearly every instance.

      I do however see the exact same tactics used by climate sceptics as those used that deny evolution and the effectiveness of vacinnes. In each of the later there is a large body of well understood evidence. In each of the later the opponents to the science are motivated by religion/ideology.

      I use the term “denial” in the broadest sense, not specific to Holocaust denial.

      Toben is a climate sceptic, as his posts have indicated.

      Re Suzuki, I don’t think he’d equate denial of science with scepticism.

      • Mekhong Kurt says:

        Mr. Brown, you make a perfectly valid point about not equating legitimate skepticism with the “skepticism” shown by climate-change deniers.

        However, as the response from WtD makes clear, he isn’t doing this.

        While I’m fairly new as a reader of WtD, I’ve seen nothing to suggest anything other than a broad accommodation of views from all sides, including from those entirely on the other side. I have a couple of blogs myself, and while I do examine comments, unless they are threatening, amount to nothing more than insults, or the like, I leave them be — even those that make me, as the blogger, squirm. I think that’s how this blog is handled, too. (WtD can correct me if I’m wrong, of course.)

  4. L Johnson says:

    “I absolutely believe the Holocaust occurred — wait, that’s incorrect — I KNOW it did. I can’t “see” gravity, but I know it exists, too.”

    One can test gravity by jumping off a cliff or falling off something not as high, as did Mr Meldrum in Australia recently. The results are undeniable. One certainly does “KNOW” it exists once the body has been broken by it.

    You know the “Holocaust” occurred how? Oh, you “have met or known some Jews who personally survived concentration camps in Nazi Germany, including meeting one who was at Auschwitz as a new arrival about to be treated to a “shower” when the Allies liberated the camp.”

    Do you mean people like Mr and Mrs Rosenblat? Is that correct?

    On that basis alone you call those who appear to be your intellectual superiors, “fruitcakes”? “Yet as time moves along, my attitudes are hardening against those who flat *refuse* to engage in even just a rational discussion,” “not through force, but by using a natural ability reasonably well-developed to appeal either to reason,”

    I have an elderly relative who has no self awareness of her dementia. Have you ever considered that the “reason” to which you appeal is in fact self delusion or lack of awareness, of absence of reason?

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Have you ever meet a Roman Legionnaire, a Greek Hoplite, a Union soldier from the Civil War or a Spartan slave? Our knowledge of each rests upon historical and archaeological records. No one today alive has a “living memory” of the Crusades. But they happened.

      • LazyKT88 says:

        WtD, well said. Saved me the trouble.

        In addition, I wonder what L Johnson’s grounds is to conclude, at lease tentatively, that I am intellectually inferior to others; there is no reference to whatever intellectual abilities I do or do not have in my comment; ergo, such a conclusion, even a tentative one, can be based on nothing other than an emotional foundation, in this case perhaps dislike of what I said.

        @L Johnson, as WtD notes, much of what we know lies beyond the history of our personal sensual perceptions. Even in our own lifetime’s, we are limited. I’ve not been to all the countries of the world, yet I believe they exist. Similarly, while neither I nor any other human has ever been to any celestial object other than the Moon, I believe scientists do have some correct knowledge about and understanding of them, just as I believe other scientists really can image items so small that no human eye can possibly detect them.

        By your own logic, @L Johnson, I don’t know in what form you exist. Are you human? Or can I conclude you’re a robotic troll?

  5. john mortl says:

    Frederic Tobin comes across completely at odds with how he has been characterized. With this in mind one has to question the motives of his detractors. Distorting his character and the message can only mean that they have no compelling evidence to buttress their position.

  6. Watching the Deniers says:

    I advise readers to very careful in entering debates with such ideologues. No amount of reason, evidence, historical documents and archaeological evidence will convince them.

    I recommend the The Holocaust History Project for those with an interest in the subject, as it contains a wealth of primary materials and analysis.

    http://www.holocaust-history.org/

    See also specific section on denial:

    http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/

    This article which originally appeared in Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia that is well worth reading:

    http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/abc-clio/

    “…It can thus be seen that Holocaust denial is a conspiracy theory that seeks to place Jews behind an international movement to promote a falsehood for monetary gain. In this way, Holocaust denial is no different than many other previous forms of antisemitism, which imputed to Jews monetary greed as well as a conspiratorial air. Besides the haphazard manner in which deniers have chosen to lump all Jews together, regardless of religious or political orientation, as perpetrators of this “hoax,” deniers also engage in efforts at pseudoscience to try to prove their point of view regarding the Holocaust. To date, none of their efforts has made any lasting impression on Holocaust historiography…”

    Background on John Mortl:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-mortl-is-indeed-hardcore-denier.html

    Mike @ WtD

  7. acn says:

    I hardly create remarks, however I read a few of the
    comments here Censorship and ethics: publishing Holocaust denial material on this blog
    | Watching the Deniers. I actually do have 2 questions for you if you do
    not mind. Could it be simply me or do a few of the remarks appear like they are written by brain dead visitors?😛 And, if you are posting on other social sites, I would like to
    keep up with everything new you have to post. Would
    you make a list of all of all your social pages like your twitter
    feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: