Telling lies about the holocaust
January 8, 2009
Oprah really dug it, until she found out it was a fib…
There is much recent documentation of faked holocaust memoirs. Take this one here.
I know its Politically Incorrect to say so, but whoever brings attention to these bullshitters, who create fiction out of the holocaust, and try and sell it as real personal or factual history, is doing a good deed? Yes, or no?
Surely, History is dialectical and involves constant debate, and we need ‘no sayers’, and even fascist sympathizers, so as to keep history and historians alert for bullshitters, on both sides.
For example, astute US political Commentator Christopher Hitchens came out in support of freedom of speech for author David Irving some years ago in relation to a book publishing scandal in the 90’s. See here.
Jewish authors like Norman Finkelstein accuse the Jewish community of cashing in and exploiting the issue of the holocaust, and its suffering. In his books The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, he expounds on these ideas.
Israeli film Stalags, documents sadomasochistic Israeli/Nazi porn, and also reveals lies about the holocaust in certain memoirs like that of K. Tzetnik’s House of Dolls, and shows that the teaching of myths like the existence of Joy Divisions (Jewish female brothels) at Auswchitz, still goes on today on camp tours. See here.
Isn’t the misrepresentation of holocaust events as odious from the Jewish community, as it is from Holocaust Deniers? But, don’t they both have a right to say what they want to say, and then have their lies revealed, and debated? Don’t we all have the right to debate these issues, without ostracization, and the kind of ridicule and attack that comes from just supporting free speech?
I would have thought the revelation of truth about a historical event is important, no matter which direction of politics, or source, that it comes from.
I have often wondered, in outrage, about the hysteria, legal wrangler and even the imprisonment of people (!) on this issue?
I feel Historical Revisionists are a classic examples of the unpopular speech issue. Why protect just popular speech? Surely, it is the Irving’s of this world that need protection, and not just the status quo of historians.
That’s why despite the flak we caught at MUFF, and the fallout, I have always been proud of having stood up for this issue five years ago, and had a victory in a Victorian court at VCAT, and at least tried, however unsuccessfully, to bring attention to this important free speech issue.
No one else had the guts to do so, and no one else today in Australia has the guts to support such issues.
You have to ask why normally fierce libertarians, liberals and free speech advocates are so afraid of this issue? Does not this fear not engender in one a rightous anger of Defiance, to this barely vieled McCarthyistic threat?