Detractors of Pamphlet Don't Offer Concrete Evidence, Says
Revisionist Bradley R. Smith
The Phoenix reports that President Bloom ("himself Jewish")
states that I wrote my article "The Holocaust Controversy: The
Case for Open Debate" to "express [my] personal prejudices," and
that I have an "anti-Semitic agenda," a small-minded ad hominum
assault that I dismiss out of hand. It's the kind of thing you
overhear in your local butcher shop.
President Bloom apparently did not address any specific
statement or language in the text of my article, but was content
to slander me. In this he is following the precedent set by his
academic peers, together with special-interest pressure groups
such as the two mentioned in the Phoenix article: The
Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith (ADL), and its campus
front, Hillel.
College presidents and their professors have had six years to
correct the errors of fact contained in my article (it was first
published in the Daily Northwestern in 1991) but have failed to
do it. Why? Because if an error of fact is discovered in the
article I'll correct it. What then? The professors and their
presidents will be left with what's left over. What are they
going to do with all the statements of "revisionist" fact that
are left over?
The "Holocaust" is not one story but a vast collection of
documents, testimony, and yarns. Some of it's true and some of
it isn't. How ordinary! Revisionist theory addresses those
documents and outs those that can be shown to be fabrications.
It addresses eyewitness testimony and outs that which can be
shown to mere invention, or worse. If President Bloom's
professors were doing it, I wouldn't have to.
The use of slander by those in authority against those of us
who doubt what they say we must believe is the response of the
petty tyrant. Academics, pledging their allegiance to orthodoxy
rather than to open debate, have become mere patriots of the
Holocaust, the last refuge on campus for the intellectual
scoundrel. Rather than trusting themselves to the processes of
free inquiry, they turn to supermarket tabloid psychologizing to
convince students to avoid the texts that their professors
themselves vilify-for reasons the professors are not called
upon to reveal.
Meanwhile, revisionist theory is metastasizing (I love giving
the profs a straight line) all over the place. When I opened my
website on the Internet two years ago we were getting forty and
fifty hits a day. Now, every 24 hours, close to 2000 revisionist
documents are accessed on our site alone. Slander is a
wonderfully effective tool in the hands of our college
presidents (I know!), but in a free society an honest search for
truth is even more potent.
When students become aware that their professors and their
professors' leaders are evading the specific language of the
text they condemn, thus replacing education with indoctrination,
I think they will be a little disappointed with the intellectual
level of the college they are attending. Bradley R. Smith is
director of CODOHWeb. He can be reached at www.codoh.com .
This article is available at the Phoenix Online at:
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/phoenix/1998/1998-02-20/6.html
|