I'll just quote a few bits:
Saying you’re going after “deniers” is the easiest way to get people on-board with censorship. The desire to pound deniers transcends political left or right. When Congressman John Conyers and the NAACP and a bunch of academic elites held a conference at Hofstra University to craft legislation that would ban “hate speech” in the U.S., what villain did they choose to put on trial in the moot court that was held to test the model legislation? A Holocaust denier.
But, as one of the authors of the model legislation admitted to me in an interview, the legislation would actually affect anyone who’s accused of “insulting” any racial/ethnic/religious minority. The law – and this was explicitly stated to me in my exclusive interview with the person who crafted it – would ban a leftist like Michael Moore from releasing a book titled “Stupid White Men,” and a conservative like David Horowitz from claiming that American blacks aren’t entitled to reparations.
Both sides, left and right, would suffer, all from a law that was to be sold to the public as a way to combat “Holocaust denial.”
That law never passed. Hence, Hikind’s attempt to take a different route by forcing credit card companies to make moral judgments regarding who can use their services. Let’s be clear on exactly what happened. A state politician – a “public servant” – has successfully lobbied major credit card companies to prevent American citizens from using their services based merely on the opinions that those Americans hold. If you say, “so what? Those opinions are odious,” then congratulations, you’ve taken the bait. Thanks for being so easily manipulated; you’re a real hero.
My forthcoming book is filled with information to debunk the belief that there is some hard line in the sand that separates “revisionists” from “real historians.” I’ll give just a few examples here.
On an episode of the Charlie Rose Show from May 8, 1996, this exchange regarding revisionism took place between Christopher Hitchens and Eric Breindel (editorial page editor of The New York Post):Hitchens: Most of what I know, I’ve learned from arguing with people with whom I disagree, often very violently.
Breindel: Well, this is true, but there are levels of the game. I mean, I assume that there are serious scholars, or people you would find serious in the sense that they unearth new information, who publish in, for example, the journal of The Institute for Historical Review, which dedicates itself primarily to proving, for example, that there were no gas chambers at Nazi death camps. There has been scholarship, Christopher, in those journals. Let there be no doubt about it. They have uncovered train records that many of us who study this field didn’t know existed. They go to the actual archives.
Hitchens: I also quote Raul Hilberg, who you, I know, know is one of the senior historians of the Holocaust story – in many ways, the original historian of it. His book in 1961, The Destruction of European Jewry, is considered to be the standard. He said to me, “Look, David Irving has made me go back and look at things again. David Irving has made me re-examine things I thought I knew for sure. David Irving has made me go over some ground, ask me how I know things, and I welcome this kind of challenge.”
Twenty years earlier, in Canada, at a criminal trial of a man accused of “revisionism,” the aforementioned Raul Hilberg admitted on the stand that revisionists play an important role in Holocaust history:Lawyer: It appears, then, that even today some of the relevant documents to give us a clear understanding of this massive situation are still missing. would you agree?
Raul Hilberg: Oh yes.
Lawyer: And some of them might very clearly contradict some of our firmly fixed views.
Hilberg: I can never exclude the possibility of contradiction. After all, there are people who maintain (at the recent historians conference) at Stuttgart that Hitler did not give any orders (for the extermination of the Jews).
Lawyer: Yes. so in fact people questioning these types of situations can be of use to you and to others in stimulating further research.
I caution people against equating an organization like the Institute for Historical Review with odious enterprises like NAMBLA or the Westboro Baptist Church. Good research does indeed come from revisionist historians. Indeed, currently there are many important contemporaneous documents relating to the war and the Holocaust that can be found in English only on some of the sites that Dov Hikind blacklisted (the IHR, David Irving’s site, Castle Hill and CODOH, and Inconvenient History).
Does that mean I vouch for everything on those sites? Of course not. Does that mean I vouch for the character of everyone who buys material from those sites? Of course not. The cowardly nature of the silence of my former conservative allies regarding Hikind’s activities may perhaps be better understood if one imagines how the right would react if a New York Democrat pressured Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discovery, and Paypal to withdraw services from gun dealers, on the grounds that some customers of gun shops might be “bad people.”