The "Harvard Law Library's 'Guide to Hate Groups on the Internet'"
is presently developing into another murky story, and I am mentioning it
in this morning's ZGram simply to establish yet another crumb trail that
people may find interesting to follow.
Here's what I know, which is not the entire picture:
Four or five weeks ago, somebody alerted me to the existence of a "Who's
Who in Hate" web page, and I checked it out in a cursory fashion, a
bit amazed that a prestigious university like Harvard would lend itself
to something that amateurish and clearly libelous. The web page was still
under construction, and it was simply this:
One side lined up the "hate groups" - ranging all the way from
really unpleasant skinhead type pages to sterling Christian/Patriot pages.
The other side, supposedly "combatting hate", showed a continuum
from truly vile and vicious groups - such as the Anti-Racist Action groups
- to the traditional Agony Aunts such as Nizkor.
The Zundelsite was listed somewhere in the middle, under "Revisionists".
I thought that was okay. I reasoned that whoever had spawned this website
didn't know a thing from Adam when it came to the nature of the ideological
polarizing that is now taking place world-wide.
I also thought with a rather smug smile to myself that sooner or later,
this thing would cause problems for Harvard for any number of delicate reasons,
which would take our cause straight into academia - and that, if Harvard
knew what we think Harvard knows, it would clamp down on this stuff pretty
fast.
Well, it was sooner rather than later.
A few days ago, when I mentioned this website in a ZGram, I received a letter
from "the editors" - no names given - informing me that the website
was no longer associated with Harvard and was now an independent, non-profit
enterprise, retitled "HateWatch".
Since then, a couple of people seem to be checking up on this. One is the
indefatigable Matt Giwer who is complaining about a photo copyright and
making noises in the right direction. The other one is author and journalist
Michael Hoffman II.
Hoffman is best known in revisionist circles for his documentation of the
first, 1985, Holocaust trial of Ernst Zundel, recently republished as "The
Great Holocaust Trial." a book now banned in Canada. He also wrote
"They Were White, and They Were Slaves". Hoffman has developed
his own webpage called "Independent History and Research." It
can be found at: http://www.hoffman-info.com.
On October 12th, Hoffman began his dialog with the anonymous "librarian"
of "HateWatch." (Now found at: http://www.hatewatch.org). For
any who are interested in reading the entire correspondence, visit Hoffman's
page at: "http://www.hoffman-info.com/enshrining.html"
Pulling no punches, Hoffman wrote :
"The raison d'etre of the Harvard law Library 'Hate Guide' is to do that very thing: seeing evil intentions behind every word of criticism expressed by homicidal gas chamber skeptics." He raised the question as to why no Zionist hate groups were among Harvard's listing.
To Hoffman's request to include Zionist Hate Groups, the anonymous "librarian"
temper-tantrumed:
"Which ones!? What are their URL's?! What server do they reside on!?"
When many others may have given up in disgust, Hoffman pressed on:
"Much of the implications of this debate are, patently, over your head. Let's repeat: when you list Bradley Smith's academic CODOH group as a hate site and fail to list the web [site] of the bomb-throwing Jewish "Defense" League, your credibility and objectivity are extinguished, whatever your protests and exclamations to the contrary."
Harvard's anonymous "librarian" responded:
"Contrary to your unreasonable belief, if these yet to be named Jewish groups advocate hate I will NOT HESITATE to include them in HateWatch."
To this, Hoffman sent this spirited response, repeated here in shortened
form:
"Come out of cloud cookoo-land, Mr. or Miss Librarian. Hate advocacy
is not the issue at the Harvard Law Library. By your own praxis, every revisionist
site is ipso facto hateful. You are apparently such a zealot you can't grasp
the depth of your own subjectivity. If we observe your listings we clearly
see that facts and evidence play no part in your determinations of who or
what is hateful.
Your agenda is on display for all to see: he who doubts some aspect of the
enormous, veritable sea of accusations grouped under the absurd Newspeak
term, Holocaust, is immediately stigmatized by Harvard Law as a hater. I
suppose when Jews like David Cole doubt some aspect of the homicidal gas
chamber accounts, they become 'self-haters.'
By the evidence of your listings, you are a partisan. You should be in charge
of the Likud Library, not the Harvard Library, where your pose as a neutral
archivist of all proponents of hatred has become a consummate example of
the pretensions of thought police.
Normally hysteria like yours would have had cachet only in some obscure
Stalinist sub-cult. But these are not normal times and your hysteria now
commands a prominent position at Harvard.
The objective of the Harvard Law Library hate guide is to intimidate independent
scholars and instill in them the fear that if they, too, should dissent
from the party line, they may quite possibly have Harvard Law Library's
official anathema pronounced against them as well. That is the real intent
of your despicable enterprise . . . "
(End of Hoffman letter)
That was exactly the impression I had: Either the "Harvard Law Library's
"Guide to Hate Groups on the Internet" was put up by dumb kids
who didn't know better, or it was yet another typical In-Your-Face intimidation
tactic, as in ". . . here's Hershowitz!"
Right now I lean toward dumb kids. I can't imagine Harvard being a willing
party to something as clumsy as this. But, then, you never know. It's worth
a sleuth or two.
Friends who have more time than I do ought to keep digging into this one.
I bet you that it leads eventually where all the threads converge.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"What will the stream become In its long course, Since 'tis so dark and turbid At the source ?"
(Pietro Metastasio)