Norman Finkelstein is an “anti-Zionist Jew” who claims to believe in the Holocaust.
I have always felt that he doesn’t actually believe in the Holocaust, and just says he does so it doesn’t get in the way of his work fighting to destroy Israel. (I do believe he legitimately hates Israel, probably for the reasons he states – caring a lot about the plight of Palestine.)
American academic Norman Finkelstein has responded to Facebook and Twitter’s ban on Holocaust denial by saying he believes “that Holocaust denial should be taught in university and preferably by a Holocaust denier.”
In an article released on his website responding to the move – which he claims had been rejected by “multiple ‘progressive’ publications” – Prof Finkelstein argues that if “Holocaust denial does constitute an actual or potential contagion”, then it should be taught in academic institutions “to inoculate students”.
He continues: “To profess both that Holocaust denial shouldn’t be taught and that it poses a clear and present danger defies logic.
“The claim by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey that an alleged global rise in antisemitism and ignorance of the Nazi Holocaust justify suppression of Holocaust denial no less lacks in logic.”
Drawing on arguments made by influential proponent of liberalism John Stuart Mill, Prof Finkelstein argues that it is best practice to subject beliefs to opposition in order to strengthen them from such attacks, especially those that we believe to be certainly true.
He said: “Even granting the facticity of the Nazi holocaust, giving deniers a platform would still be warranted. Just as the profundity of ‘all men are created equal’ […] is not entirely obvious, so the profundity of the Nazi holocaust is not entirely obvious. If depths of meaning lay buried in it, then, they can only be plumbed in unfettered discussion.
“It can only be wondered how quick is the reflex to stifle Holocaust denial, even as conjuring taboos will inevitably reduce a human tragedy, however profound, to a sterile mantra, an object of blind worship, or in Mill’s terms, a dead dogma.”
Prof Finkelstein went on in the article – an excerpt from his forthcoming book Cancel Culture, Academic Freedom and Me – to state that entertaining Holocaust denial would ultimately weaken it, rather than allowing it to fester.
Here’s his original article on his site:
There is no way to allow people to openly discuss the Holocaust and also have them come to the conclusion that it actually happened. You could do that before the internet, when the only way for people to spread information was through newsletters mailed to their mailboxes that they had to sign up for.
In the modern age, anyone who tries to talk about the Holocaust is going to get spammed with facts that ultimately prove that at the very least:
- There is no evidence for the gas chambers
- The gas chambers and the crematoria, as described by the Jews, are physically impossible
- Virtually everything that the Jews said about the Holocaust is an absurd lie (different colored smoke for Jews from different countries, dogs trained to bite when Jews played the piano wrong, masturbation machines, wall of eyes, raised by wolves, chambers with electric floors, rollercoasters into a furnace, walking backwards out of gas chambers, etc.)
- The alleged “death camps” had great accommodations, including swimming pools, orchestras, theaters with regular plays, medically-inspected brothels, football teams, etc.
Pretty much, most people will tap out on trying to debate that the Holocaust actually happened after you post this video:
(By the way: that may be the single most censored video on the internet – a video filmed by Steven Spielberg’s production company for the purpose of savoring the memory of the Holocaust. Jews saying it themselves is always going to be more powerful than any goy making an argument.)
After the people watching the debate see that video, and start asking about it, the person defending the hoax will just call everyone anti-Semites and leave the thread.
Jews have gone through and tested this, obviously. They know you can’t defend the Holocaust. In the guide books for defending the Holocaust, such as those by Deborah Lipstadt, defenders are explicitly told to not engage deniers in open debate, and basically to just call them names.
You can’t really get away with that on the internet.
The internet is the Roman Senate. You’ve gotta back up your namecalling with facts and logic, or someone is going to get up in your face.
Given all of this: I basically agree with the Jews that anyone who is arguing for open debate of the Holocaust is either a denier or someone who otherwise doesn’t care if most people in the world become deniers. Because there is just literally no way you can both believe in the sacred nature of the Holocaust and believe that it is possible to defend it in open debate.
As such, I do not believe that Normal Finkelstein actually believes in the Holocaust. His arguments would only make sense if there was some ability to push back against the arguments of deniers, and there isn’t any, other than name-calling.
The people that I have seen trying to defend it earnestly will eventually totally give up on the alleged “death camps” and start talking about how German soldiers were slaughtering Jews on the Eastern front. They hate running into me, because I will just say: “I’m not going to argue about how many partisan Jews were killed by Nazi soldiers. No one thinks that’s what the Holocaust is. Everyone thinks that the Holocaust is innocent Jews getting slaughtered in camps, not Jews getting killed by soldiers on a battlefield.”
Frankly, I’ve gotten the impression that the people in Holocaust debates who start talking about “Einsatzgruppen” and the Eastern front aren’t actually Jews or even true Holocaust believers, but just debate fanatics who want to show off their debating skills by making absurd arguments.
Obviously, totally banning debate of something is a Hail Mary play, which no one would do if they had any ability at all to defend their arguments, so it is going to necessarily make more people question this hoax. But the Jews have gamed it out that there will be less denial if they ban all discussion outright than if they pretend to have arguments and sit by and watch those arguments be consistently destroyed.
So I agree with their decision. They have no choice but to ban discussion of this alleged event, which serves as a foundational myth for so much of modern culture. If there was no Holocaust, the Jews aren’t victims and white people aren’t evil. Jewish victimhood and white evilness are the cornerstones of this current cultural, social and political zeitgeist, and they have to be maintained at any cost. Thus, the Holocaust must be enshrined as sacred, and any questioning of it be labeled blasphemy.
(It should be noted that Holocaust truth was already banned from Facebook before this most recent announcement of a ban. Facebook is just getting pressured to ban things, so they banned denial a second time.)