The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal continues to get it on the snout
for their bizarre and intellectually embarrassing "Truth is no defense..."
position, as one of yesterday's editorials, this time of the London Free
Press, reveals. I will tell you about that editorial tomorrow - and a
fat plum and victory for our cause it is!
Meanwhile, here is Part II of what I started yesterday, prefaced by a small paragraph sent in by one of our readers.
"What I find fascinating is the degree to which telltale phrases and utterances reveal the thought-processes and mind-sets of the players," writes one of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal monitors, disgusted in his soul. "For example, that a stand you take vis à vis Israel should be equivalent to your academic status is taken as a given."
Well, that was certainly true in the Tribunal's acceptance of the Dr. Frederick Schweitzer paper, proffered up ***without a single scholarly attribution*** but spiked with outrageous speculations about the content of the Zundelsite and motives, as reflected on the Zundelsite, regarding Mr. Zundel.
Here's Dr. Jacob speaking to the issues raised by Dr. Schweitzer by properly citing his sources, as any well-trained academician should:
"The Jews are the only people who have profited so much from their previous injuries while the victims of other holocausts have never been compensated in a comparable manner. (cf. Michael Goldberg's Why Should Jews Survive: Looking Past the Holocaust toward a Jewish Future. Oxford University Press, 1995).
Furthermore, the Jews themselves have been responsible for large-scale acts of terrorism and murder in the Middle East, as any reader of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs or other recent books on the subject will know (cf. for instance, Israel Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, London, Pluto Press, 1994, Lina Rokoch's Israel's Sacred Terrorism, Association of Arab-American University Graduates Press, 1980, Noam Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, South End Press, Boston, MA, 1983).
Interestingly, I may add that the holocaust itself is referred to frequently in journals like the Washington Report. I may quote from just one issue of this journals.
On page 82 of the August-September issue of the Washington Report you will note in an article by Edna Homa Hunt, the remark, "Does Holocaust . . . worship and castigation of the German people of their alleged silence preclude loud protests against the indiscriminate terrorizing of an entire population (that is, of Palestinians), and thus full complicity in such terrorism?" And again, on p. 78 of the same issue, in a letter by a Jewish survivor from Nazi Germany called Elias Davidsson, you find this remark, "The historic suffering of Jews, particularly the Nazi murder of six million European Jews, are held to justify Israel's existence and behaviour." (E)lsewhere in the same issue in an article by Rachelle Marshall, you find references to the Israeli industrial producers who make "huge profits resulting from monopolistic pricing" and who are called by the author, for this reason, "profiteers".
The Zundelsite itself questions the extent of the holocaust on account of the exaggerations and discrepancies in the number of Jews claimed to have been killed by the National Socialists during the war. Such questioning of the alleged numbers of victims is the prerogative of any historical researcher. Besides, something which Dr. Schweitzer fails to mention in his report is that the Zundelsite is concerned to conduct a dialogue on the subject with the Jews, as its links to the Nizkor and Simon Wiesenthal sites clearly indicate.
The suppression of such free inquiry would constitute a breach of human rights since what is at stake is the intellectual freedom and development of the German and European peoples who, at present, are under the ban of the Holocaust doctrine, prohibited from exploring and cultivating their own intellectual and historical tradition, which in its finest aspects is not only free of Jewish influence but also, often, even philosophically anti-Judaist.
Instead of being allowed to focus on their own heritage the European peoples are forced to adopt not only the Jewish historiographical bias which denigrates and demonizes any nationalistic trends in society or polity but also the totalitarian Jewish view of the world which is being imposed at present on the cultural and political life of the western nations under the guise of democratic capitalism and multiculturalism.
Contrary to the impressions given by Dr. Schweitzer's report, not all antisemitic literature promotes hatred against the Jews with an intent to destroy the Jewry, but rather, antisemites and antisemitic literature have often helped the public acquire a clearer understanding of the character and intellectual and social capacity of the Jews (cf., in this context, Albert S. Lindemann's recent book, Esau's Tears, Cambridge University Press, 1997, which states that "not all hostility to Jews, individually or collectively, has been based on fantastic or chimerial visions of them, or on projections unrelated to any palpable reality. As human beings, Jews have been as capable as any other group of provoking hostility in the everyday secular world").
In fact, some of the best minds of Europe and America have been openly or subtly antisemitic. I may cite as examples the great American-English poet of the twentieth century, T.S. Eliot, and the important German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, two of the most profound and original minds of the modern age.
But the intellectual reputation of both these men has, on account of their antisemitism or nationalism, been radically diminished in recent years through the critical literature produced by Jewish or philosemitic scholars (for instance, Anthony Julius' recent book, T.S. Eliot, Antisemitism and Literary Form, Cambridge University Press, 1995, and Victor Farias' Heidegger and Nazism, Temple University Press, 1989), an alarming phenomenon when you consider that these thinkers are not isolated in their antisemitism but have superb precedents in Shakespeare and Voltaire and Giordano Bruno and Luther.
The prohibition of all antisemitic literature would mean the end of all learning and a return to the obscurantism of the Dark Ages. When the Judaization of the world proceeds at the expense of the intellectual tradition and development of the peoples involved, then it is time that this Judaization itself be considered a crime against human rights, and indeed the most serious - since it is directed at the most intellectual part of humanity.
It is therefore entirely misguided for a tribunal devoted to human rights to help the Jews to bully Mr. Zundel, who is only an index of the Jewish problem, when it allows the problem itself to persist unresolved and unchallenged.
In conclusion, I may say that the report of Dr. Schweitzer on historical antisemitism does not understand the significant differences between the several varieties of antisemitic literature that have existed through the centuries and through a twist of language and logic classifies all of them under the heading of the original type, namely the mediaeval Christian which propagated the popular image of the Jews as diabolical deicides and murderers of Christian folk.
His proofs of such "mediaeval" superstitious hatred and fear of the Jews in the Zundelsite are made up of citations taken out of their context and distorted from their original significance. The most crucial intellectual distortion that Dr. Schweitzer has performed is to have identified the term antisemitism with violence against the Jews. He does not seem able to grasp that anti-Judaism is indeed a valid aspect of social, cultural, economic, political, religious and philosophical scholarship.
The persistence of the Jewish question in so many intellectual forms through the centuries is an undeniable evidence of the impossibility of eradicating this question so long as the Jews continue to participate in Western society, especially in the present dominant and dictatorial manner.
The Zundelsite serves only to highlight the problems of this participation in the period following the second world war, and the purpose of (the Zundelsite) may thus be classified as a cautionary and, therefore, necessary one."
(End of Dr. Alexander Jacob's evaluation of the Zundelsite - a document rejected as "too antisemitic" by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Dr. Jacob was prevented from testifying for the defense after the unanimous ruling by the Tribunal!)
Thought for the Day:
"Fear of being called 'racist' holds the white race at bay. . . accusations of racism have sealed their lips better than if they had lost their voices altogether."
(William Vassallo)