29 June 2009
I will try to be brief in my own response. It won’t be easy.
Re my mischaracterization our our conversation: you may well be right. It is only natural that I would recall the conversation one way and you another. Such is memory. For the rest I will address only what I see as the core of your letter. You write:
“Your ad, in our determination, is racist and discriminatory to Jewish people in that it asserts certain aspects of the Holocaust didn’t exist, based simply on the premise that Eisenhower didn’t mention that in his book. It is racist in that it attempts to discredit an important aspect of Jewish heritage. The body of published books and photos, survivor accounts and internal records of the Nazis (sic) Party, Gestapo and the SS, provide a more compelling argument that it did.”
I assert nothing in my ad. You are wrong to suggest I do. The ad asks a question.
When you write “our” determination I will only note that when we were dealing with students at the BG-News, the ad was going to be published. They accepted payment for the ad. The young man I dealt with was perfectly agreeable to running the ad. Only when you appeared on the scene was the ad suddenly, in a matter of minutes, censored.
You are wrong to argue that it is “racist” to attempt to discredit what appears to the author to be false. What difference does it make that it has become an important aspect of Jewish heritage—if it is false? Would it not be a good, a blessing in fact, for Jews everywhere to be relieved of a false heritage which, at the same time, corrupts the heritage of another, in this case that of Germans?
When we were on the telephone you had no response when I suggested to you that the Holocaust is not about Jews, which is the position of the professorial class, but about Germans and Jews alike. No Germans, no Holocaust. You follow the academic line in that no question can be asked that might question any aspect of Jewish heritage—the gas chambers—while no question can be asked that might question any aspect of what is asserted is “monstrous” in German heritage—gas chambers.
Irony, or “reverse” racism?
With regard to asking questions about history, and I understand that every question has implications that go beyond the question itself, accusations of racism are, with regard to Holocaust fraud and falsehood, the childish reaction of a professorial class to a subject that its members do not have the professional courage to address. You should try to get beyond it.
At this point you might pause to wonder who would have promoted such a taboo, and in our universities who would have institutionalized it? For my part, I would want to explain to BGSU students that they are living in a free society, not a cargo cult, where we are free to discuss what we want, how we want, for whatever reasons we want. It’s called a society where a free exchange of ideas is encouraged, not discouraged. It’s not complicated. It is taboo that complicates the question, not the question. Without taboo, it’s just another question. Can you provide, with proof, the name of one person killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz?
Read something. I suggest Sam Crowell and The Gas Chambers of Sherlock Holmes which you can find here. Crowell reveals the creation of a cultural milieu that would facilitate a WMD charge against the Germans based on “eyewitness” testimony (in spite of the evidence you mention above), and create a “Grand Illusion.” Try it. I do not believe you believe you know it all. Read something the professors should read but will not, “on principle.”
Note: I will distribute this letter to others I believe might be interested.