Yale University Professor Interviews Holocaust Revisionists

Bradley Smith takes a quick look at Professor Mark Oppenheimer’s rundown on Holocaust revisionism as an expression of anti-Semitism

Yale professor Mark Oppenheimer interviews this writer and Mark Weber for a four-part article titled The Denial Twist published in The Tablet, A New Read on Jewish Life. His introduction is titled American Psycho.

Oppenheimer exploits the recent shooting at the USHMM to explain how Mark Weber and me fit into the historical significance of anti-Jewish bigotry. In my own case, he is interested in my life story – what was there in my personal history that led me to choose such an unsavory career.

With respect to myself, Oppenheimer is not interested in what I have written, not interested in what I think about the value of a free exchange of ideas in real life.

While Oppenheimer writes that I would never encourage violence, I do not recall that we talked about this. He recounts that before I got into revisionism I was active in the libertarian movement. He writes, not very clearly because he does not define his terms, that I was drawn to Holocaust denial because I believed that the taboo against the Holocaust was a taboo worth challenging. He writes that I see myself as a free-speech zealot whose great contribution is to ask a question—were there gas chambers?—that most are too afraid to ask.

He does not appear to get the connections I make or why I make them. We didn’t talk about any of that.

Nevertheless he wonders if the world would be better off without provocations such as mine. Now that I have gone over his five articles I think it fair to speculate that he does think so. At least I see no place where he takes seriously the value of a free exchange of ideas. I’m really quite surprised at realizing this.

Oppenheimer reflects on the idea that it would be good to understand the difference between those revisionists who are misguided, merely stupid, and those just seeking attention. And that finally we would need to recognize the multifarious nature of anti-Semitism. That is, if I think something Professor Mark Oppenheimer believes about the Holocaust should be questioned in the light of day, I am an anti-Semite.

Of course.

But maybe I’m wrong: Let us see how you judge this 9,000-word series of five articles on revisionism and two very different revisionists. You can post to my Blog.

American Psycho is here:

http://codoh.c.topica.com/maandi8abRpMRbMTrGRbafpTId/

The Eisenhower ad is here: http://codoh.c.topica.com/maandi8abRpLlbMTrGRbafpTId/

The Denial Twist is here:

http://codoh.c.topica.com/maandi8abRpLmbMTrGRbafpTId/

My Blog is here:  http://codoh.c.topica.com/maandi8abRpLnbMTrGRbafpTId/

==========

Please help me defray the costs of running our Eisenhower ad in student newspapers at campuses across America. To date the Summer Campaign has cost some $5200.00 in advertising space and salaries alone. You will be able to read about the Campaign in the next issue of Smith’s Report. During the two months of July and August I expect to have expenses that will reach $10,400.00. Help us forward the idea that questions about the Holocaust should be examined in the routine way that all other historical questions are examined. Why should they not?

Thanks -- Bradley

Please contribute via Paypal at:

http://codoh.c.topica.com/maandi8abRpLobMTrGRbafpTId/