Bradley - You wont believe what is on the end of this line

[offlinevincentferrer]

(please read these posts ! This was posted in the Wisconsin Badger Herald, in response to Bradleys ad. MOD- we are taking a new turn here, hence the NEW thread. )

As a former opinion editor for The Badger Herald, I have spent the past week processing the implications of Bradley Smith’s Holocaust-denial advertisement on The Badger Herald website.

My first thought was to note that The Badger Herald has a long tradition of promoting free speech on campus. Over time, this tradition has evolved into a responsibility. As Professor Donald Downs pointed out at its 40th anniversary gala, the Herald belongs among a handful of publications, which have become vital testing grounds for First Amendment propositions. Sometimes the Herald has happened upon this responsibility accidentally. At other moments, it has sought controversy deliberately. I am too distanced from the internal politics of this paper to know into which category this recent incident falls. I can only note that editors under a free press always retain the responsibility to challenge or reinforce the constitutional parameters to which they owe their existence.

That said, Bradley Smith is not worth the yarn it took to sew Jason Smathers’ socks. He is a reminder that evil, when it speaks, is not always bombastic or cinematic. It can be understated, peaceful, tentative, eloquent. Holocaust denial, as a pseudo-intellectual endeavor, is indeed tremendously evil. And yet, Mr. Smith’s modest advertisement demonstrates the First Amendment is not merely a right. It is a tool afforded by decent human beings to truly evil people who, left to their own devices, will discredit themselves more breathtakingly than any outside critic ever could.

To quote Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, “In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self-restraint against the very natural but often counter-productive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear.”

And now is the time to engage with Holocaust deniers. The stakes are too high. This is not a terribly optimistic historical moment for advocates against anti-Semitism, and the curators of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum have a responsibility to directly respond to Mr. Smith’s taunting.

Consider the historical context: The Iranian government continues to march forward toward nuclear weaponry, evidenced by the regime’s rhetoric whenever another advancement is made on the pathway to uranium enrichment. (I have been cavalier in the past about advocating for Iran’s right to nuclear power, a position I herewith rescind; evidence of the regime’s intentions has reached an overwhelming mass.) For the first time in the decades since the closing of German concentration camps, a nation whose leadership persistently denies the Holocaust is poised to gain unprecedented international leverage. And here at home, the progressive media has made martyrs of untalented, belligerently pro-Palestinian professors who have used their legitimate concern for Palestinian rights as a shield against the equally legitimate academic concerns of tenure committees. It was refreshing to read Chancellor Biddy Martin’s eloquent letter praising the contributions of Jewish students. Indeed, it was sobering to note how seldom public universities take the side of Jewish students as forcefully or dramatically.

By running Bradley Smith’s advertisement, The Badger Herald has done more for Jewish students and authentic, fact-based Holocaust historians than it will ever know. It has reminded all of us that stupidity and nonsense exist in this world, from which flow the entrails of thinly veiled bigotry and deliberate deception. Those who rightly promote Holocaust awareness frequently admonish citizens of the world to “Never forget.” And yet we do forget. We forget that people with much more clout and resources than Bradley Smith, who tout an identical message, are gaining regional power in the Middle East. We forget how long it has been since public universities treated Jewish students with the vocal respect due to any minority group. Sometimes it takes a Bradley Smith to jolt us back to reality. The First Amendment works in mysterious ways. If our campus had “forgotten,” we have been woken up by an unlikely voice.

Eric Schmidt (eschmidt2@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in political science.

[offlinevincentferrer]

( Posted by Bystander on Badger Herald website) .

If Eric Schmidt is so confident and sure of his holocaust beliefs, why not publicly debate those who find zero evidence of a homicidal gassing program.

My guess is because these supporters have never studied the evidence. Most Americans young and old have been educated on the holocaust from programs they have seen on TV.

These TV programs show a few photos of Germans marching, Adolf Hitler yelling and bulldozers pushing bodies into open pits. Of course, the viewer is reminded these bodies are Jews who were gassed. That is enough for most Americans to conclude, Hitler gassed the Jews.

Auschwitz survivors are held in awe by many these days, as if they have been awarded the status of ‘canonized holocaust survivor’. And that may explain why nearly every holocaust survivor speaking on the lecture circuit today mentions their time in this concentration camp. A camp known as the biggest death camp in the world.

But none of that is evidence of a program to kill Jews.

Those who have looked at the actual evidence find no evidence whatsoever of a program to kill Jews or any other ethnicity.

Just the opposite, the evidence shows every effort to preserve the lives of those who were sent to concentration camps.

Today, estimates are there are 1,500,000 holocaust survivors in the world. Yet, the holocaust was 65 years ago!

In other words 75% of those living in 1945 have died. If we back the clock up 65 years, we find the world had closer to 6,000,000 holocaust survivors. Hence very few Jews died in this period. Many were dispersed all over the world, but only a fraction of 6,000,000 died. This corresponds to the figures supplied by the RED CROSS that calculated 282,000 deaths in all concentration camps.

[offlinevincentferrer]

Eric Schmidt replied to comment from bystander | March 9, 2010 10:49 AM | Reply
IP hash: 1401fa90


I would be happy to debate Bradley Smith or any Holocaust denier any day of the week. Although, I think my former colleague at the Herald, Jonah Braun — or our chancellor, Biddy Martin — would be better able to directly address the anti-historical claims made by Mr. Smith. People like Mr. Smith prey on people who are not PhD’s in history, as if I am obliged to conclude that the Holocaust never happened simply because I have not devoted a lifetime to Holocaust and Jewish studies. (Somehow, this demand is never made of people who take as given the sinking of the Titanic, for example.)

The difficulty with the premise of a debate is that the Holocaust denial movement by definition has built up a critical mass of talking points used to intimidate and confuse critics. In the same vein, creationists who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old have assembled a zillion anomalies in the fossil record that are routinely trotted out, as if anything were being proven by their demonstration. And the loudness of their message, coupled with the dizzying presentation of not-quite-connected premises, had actually embarrassed some very well-known evolutionary biologists, who have devoted their lives not to honing rhetorical skills against wicked fools, but to researching evolutionary design. Critics of well-established academic findings can indeed be better at rhetoric than their academic counterparts. This does not mean they are correct. It simply means they have a lot of time on their hands and listen to a lot of talk radio.

Indeed, both history and science are not done by finding small errors or anomalies in documentation, nor are they mere exercises in fact-disputing or “gotcha” moments. As Prof. T.F.H. Allen at Madison contends, academia is about creating the most robust, factually-compelling narrative from the assembled evidence. And all the evidence suggests that the current narrative of the Holocaust is correct, robust and appropriate. The Holocaust is, to quote Lee Bollinger again, “the most documented event in human history.” And to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, who is certainly not on the side of Israel and has no vested interest in promoting what Norman Finkelstein has called the “Holocaust industry,” “Even to bring the factual accuracy of the Holocaust into the realm of debate is already to lose one’s humanity.”

[offlinevincentferrer]

Here is the entire thread for those interested.

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2010/03/05 ... ls_own.php

[offlineInquisitive]

two things:

The difficulty with the premise of a debate is that the Holocaust denial movement by definition has built up a critical mass of talking points used to intimidate and confuse critics

Remove the word "denial" and it's correct as it stands.

“Even to bring the factual accuracy of the Holocaust into the realm of debate is already to lose one’s humanity.”

So, he'd like to debate (he reeeeeally would) but he can't on account of he'll lose his humanity. More likely he'll lose the debate...coward.

[offlineskeptical]

It seems amazing that such a simple thing as defending the widely promulagated "history" of the Holocaust is such a daunting task for the thousands of scholars who are paid to do just that. In much the way that the gas chambers seem needlessly complex machinery in a world where bullets were so inexpensive (that was my high school history teacher's explanation when I asked "why didn't they just shoot these people?" ""bullets were just too expensive")..
The Holocaust story defense machinery is also starting to look a bit overly complex.... rather than fine, imprision, deport people or endanger all of our freedoms by limiting free speech... why not just put forward arguments that effectively make your case?
I think the real problem here is that the more closely people look at the Holocaust, the more dispassionately they consider the evidence, the less convinced they become... in a csi prime time world the lack of any bodies (other than the pictures of those poor victims of disease) seems a bit odd... Colonel Klink and Sargent Schultz just don't come across as capable of hiding their paper trail and destroying every shred of physical evidence.
I've seen thousands of movies about the Holocaust but it becomes less and less coherent as a piece of actual history as you look more closely at it.
The odd fact that European Jews seem to be just as likely to have survived World War two (from a demographic standpoint) as Midwestern farmers lends itself to questioning the stories we have heard...
Why not argue about it? What the heck are you afraid of? Universities are designed for just this sort of discussion.
I'm sure that there are University professors who have staked their PHDs on very small tidbits of the set of things that are known to humanity.... why are they so terrified of even glancing at the mythology of World War Two?
Have their positions and paychecks outweighed their curiousity?
You know that there are a few members of the UW staff who have screwed up their courage enough to go out to an anonymous internet spot and read a bit, we all know that they understand and know the truth so we are left with the sad realization that they have no honor, no integrity... just a desire for position, power and pay that supercedes all else in their day to day existence.
It's sad isn't it........

[offlineBarrington James]

"Why not argue about it? What the heck are you afraid of? Universities are designed for just this sort of discussion.
I'm sure that there are University professors who have staked their PhDs on very small tidbits of the set of things that are known to humanity.... why are they so terrified of even glancing at the mythology of World War Two?
Have their positions and paychecks outweighed their curiosity?"

The universities in every country in the world are designed to create, perpetuate and reinforce the myths of its country. One main job of the universities is to train the future teachers of the young and their young students to believe in these legends. Their other role is to support the government, the press, the politicians and the cinema and other such tools of propaganda. Any university or any professor who does not do this will be punished.

Any serious debate on the holocaust would be a disaster for the believers. Despite the horrors of the holocaust and the death of hundreds of thousands of people in the camps and the death of at least 50 million others in the war in general, not even including the deaths of the Chinese, the fact is six million Jews were not gassed or otherwise murdered. They know it; we know it, but most of the public does not. That is why you will never hear a debate on the holocaust in any university in the Western World. Apparently the death of as many as a half million Jews or more would not be a holocaust. Could their be a bigger insult to those who died in that stupid war?

[offlineDiogenes1]

the death of as many as a half million Jews or more would not be a holocaust.

but according to the Red Cross report, IN TOTAL, only 271,000 died in ALL the camps run by germany. And over half of these people weren't even jews. While in a matter of 2 days, over 200,000 germans died in a deliberate firebombing of Dresden. Now that was a real holocaust.

[offlineproxyserver]

Eric Schmidt replied to comment from bystander | March 9, 2010 10:49 AM | Reply
IP hash: 1401fa90


I would be happy to debate Bradley Smith or any Holocaust denier any day of the week. Although, I think my former colleague at the Herald, Jonah Braun — or our chancellor, Biddy Martin — would be better able to directly address the anti-historical claims made by Mr. Smith. People like Mr. Smith prey on people who are not PhD’s in history, as if I am obliged to conclude that the Holocaust never happened simply because I have not devoted a lifetime to Holocaust and Jewish studies. (Somehow, this demand is never made of people who take as given the sinking of the Titanic, for example.)

The difficulty with the premise of a debate is that the Holocaust denial movement by definition has built up a critical mass of talking points used to intimidate and confuse critics. In the same vein, creationists who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old have assembled a zillion anomalies in the fossil record that are routinely trotted out, as if anything were being proven by their demonstration. And the loudness of their message, coupled with the dizzying presentation of not-quite-connected premises, had actually embarrassed some very well-known evolutionary biologists, who have devoted their lives not to honing rhetorical skills against wicked fools, but to researching evolutionary design. Critics of well-established academic findings can indeed be better at rhetoric than their academic counterparts. This does not mean they are correct. It simply means they have a lot of time on their hands and listen to a lot of talk radio.

Indeed, both history and science are not done by finding small errors or anomalies in documentation, nor are they mere exercises in fact-disputing or “gotcha” moments. As Prof. T.F.H. Allen at Madison contends, academia is about creating the most robust, factually-compelling narrative from the assembled evidence. And all the evidence suggests that the current narrative of the Holocaust is correct, robust and appropriate. The Holocaust is, to quote Lee Bollinger again, “the most documented event in human history.” And to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, who is certainly not on the side of Israel and has no vested interest in promoting what Norman Finkelstein has called the “Holocaust industry,” “Even to bring the factual accuracy of the Holocaust into the realm of debate is already to lose one’s humanity.”

And to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, who is certainly not on the side of Israel and has no vested interest in promoting what Norman Finkelstein has called the “Holocaust industry,” “Even to bring the factual accuracy of the Holocaust into the realm of debate is already to lose one’s humanity.”

That must be an absolute lie, because I distinctly remember Chomsky provided a laudatory preface (in favour of free speech only AND NOT NECESSARILY agreeing with revisionism) to one of Faurisson's books, for which he was universally criticised. If anyone knows the name of this book, and if there is an English translation then I would be interested -- there does not seem to be very much of Faurisson published in English.

[offlineskeptical]

In regard to the UW question and answer sessions posted on Bradley's blog (I'm not sure if this will fit in this topic thread)
I think that, to give credit where credit is due, you have to admit that Jason Smathers gives a good defense of free speech before a hostile crowd. He is being challanged by his professors, the dean of the journalism school (who says, for all intents and purposes, that he doesn't "believe in the marketplace of ideas"... my god, the dean of the UW school of journalism) I think we are watching a few calcified relics of the bureacracy who are much more interested in protecting themselves, their positions, then in protecting the ideal of the University.
It is clear to me that as the various characters asking questions become a bit heated, and give vent to outrage, that the real threat is against Smathers and his cohort... those professors, that crowd.. they have the power to destroy these young men's lives and would clearly feel perfectly justified in doing so.
The dispassionate debate, the simple questioning as to the facts of history seems to engender outrage in the crowd and among the professors..... I think that the folks in that debate need to re-evaluate just where it is that the threat of violence emanates from. It is as if they were saying, "If you continue speaking these words, I will choose to attack you therefore you are violent"...
I offer no facts and ask no questions but I thank you for offering this forum.

[offlineSevenUp]

That must be an absolute lie, because I distinctly remember Chomsky provided a laudatory preface (in favour of free speech only AND NOT NECESSARILY agreeing with revisionism) to one of Faurisson's books, for which he was universally criticised. If anyone knows the name of this book, and if there is an English translation then I would be interested -- there does not seem to be very much of Faurisson published in English.

Chomsky wrote the foreword because he believes in free speech. Also, it positions him as a gatekeeper on the left, the normal role that he plays on all Israel related issues. That is, he appears to support Faurisson, while denouncing him as a anti-semite. See, even Chomsky, the farthest left critic of Israel, believes the Holocaust, so it must be true. As Chomsky, the farthest left critic of Israel, believes it has the 'right' to exist, so it surely does have this right. Chomsky takes contradictory positions to disarm criticism of Israel from the left.

Here is the Chomsky quote ...

"Going back years, I am absolutely certain that I've taken far more extreme positions on people who deny the Holocaust than you have. For example, you go back to my earliest articles and you will find that I say that even to enter into the arena of debate on the question of whether the Nazis carried out such atrocities is already to lose one's humanity. So I don't even think you ought to discuss the issue if you want my opinion. But if anybody wants to refute Faurisson there's certainly no difficulty in doing so."

[offlineBarrington James]

"but according to the Red Cross report, IN TOTAL, only 271,000 died in ALL the camps run by Germany. And over half of these people weren't even Jews. While in a matter of 2 days, over 200,000 Germans died in a deliberate firebombing of Dresden. Now that was a real holocaust."

You've hit the nail right on the head: everyone has a different definition of a holocaust. Consequently there is mass confusion over what we are denying, debating, investigating, claiming or studying. And that's the way the Zionist want it. Confusion and lying, Hollywood, the Western press and politicians are their best weapons; facts and logic, math and science are their worst enemies. But their strategy is still working; they are certainly not dumb. They have successfully labeled the deniers as anti Semitic evil people and they are still winning this “debate”. We must define our terms every time we mention the word holocaust or the truth will never come out. The word holocaust has lost its exactness.

However I still think 271, 000 deaths would be a holocaust. Actually in view of what happened to the flourishing Jewish population of Germany in particular and the rest of Europe in general the loss of jobs, educational opportunities, the persecution, the internment, and so on from 1933 to 1939, let alone the deaths in the camps in the 1940’s, I would say the Jews experienced a psychological, financial, and terror holocaust even before they were sent to the camps. The fact that many Jews committed suicide during this time tells it all. And, you are right: all of Germany and Japan experienced a holocaust due to the Allied bombing.

I don't know exactly how many people, Jews or non-Jews, died in the camps. The most reasonable estimate seems to be between 200, 000 and 400,000 of which at least half that number were people labeled as Jews by the Nazis but it is well known that many Jews died as partisans, as reprisals, as victims of anti -communist revenge, or as the result of hate, particularly in Eastern Europe. I have no doubt that as many Jews died of these causes as they did in the camps but until an investigation can be done to find and examine the alleged graves in both the camps and the killing fields, then it is all guess work. We can use mathematics, science, logic, and common sense to debate the holocaust, and we have made great gains of understanding and truth, but until we are allowed to openly investigate and debate the holocaust much will remain unknown.

[offlineSevenUp]

the death of as many as a half million Jews or more would not be a holocaust.

but according to the Red Cross report, IN TOTAL, only 271,000 died in ALL the camps run by germany. And over half of these people weren't even jews. While in a matter of 2 days, over 200,000 germans died in a deliberate firebombing of Dresden. Now that was a real holocaust.

What is the reference for the 271,000 figure?

[offlineBalsamo]

And what is the reference for the 200.000 in the Dresden Raid?

Not that i don't think this raid is one of the most criminal act in WW2, but stating 200.000 died in Dresden is like saying 6.000.000 died in Gas chambers wherever they were...

[offlineBarrington James]

"Not that i don't think this raid is one of the most criminal act in WW2, but stating 200.000 died in Dresden is like saying 6.000.000 died in Gas chambers wherever they were..."

The title for “The most criminal act of WW2” which of course would be a criminal act within the most criminal act of all time, the war itself, the long planned for destruction of Germany, Nazi or not, and of Japan, America’s rival for dominance in Asia and beyond, would have to include both the terror bombing of both Japan and Germany and the destruction of the Jews of Europe. Which was worse: the murder of millions from the sky for world dominance or the murder of millions on the ground for being Jewish? They seem the same in evilness to me. I can’t imagine a more criminal act than murdering of civilians for any reason, regardless of the number.

As for the numbers, not that it makes much difference to the fiendishness of these crimes, the claim of six million has now been accepted by most serious scholars of the holocaust to be more of a symbolic number than a real one and that the actual number, as claimed David Irving and others, might be approximately one million. Whereas the murder of approximately 25% of the population of Dresden, a city of at least a million people, refugees, ordinary civilians, POW’s and injured soldiers, due to the fact it was the supposed to be the only safe city in all of Germany, in a two day fire bombing of the city by thousands of Bombers which raised the temperature in the entire city core to over
1,000 degrees, would be about 250, 000. This seems to me to be a quite reasonable approximations of the number of dead in the two situations. But does number alone tell the entire story?

Another way of looking at these crimes would be to study the intent of the perpetrators. There no doubt that the British, led by Churchill, Bomber Harris and Lindemann and others, intended to kill as many German civilians as possible. JM Spaight, for example, wrote a book about it after the war to try to justify their beliefs and the British had been creating their terror bomber, the Lancaster bomber, for that very reason for at least ten years. Whereas, it has been argued on this site that the deaths of so many Jews was the result of disease and starvation in monstrous plan of driving the Jews out of Europe gone horribly wrong because of the war or as the result of acts of long pent up acts revenge and hate throughout Eastern Europe for all kinds of reasons.

However having said all that, it also seems to me that the worst crime of all time is soon to happen and will dwarf the above in number and criminality. It will be the long planned slaughter of Iran which just might murder more helpless souls in day or two than the above two crimes put together. One thing I can say with certainty: we have learned nothing from the previous two crimes whether we were its victims or its killers and we probably never will