Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Book chapter "Holocaust denial in the age of web 2.0" by Nicholas Terry Available Online

Author: Hans Metzner
The multi-author book Holocaust and Genocide Denial: A Contextual Perspective edited by Paul Behrens, Olaf Jensen and Nicholas Terry (2017) is a more recent publication on the development, incidence and encountering of Genocide Denial in general and Holocaust Denial specifically. The chapter Holocaust denial in the age of web 2.0 by Holocaust Controversies' Nick Terry is online available at google books. Its conclusion points out these seven reasons which "can be adduced for the decline of Holocaust denial":
1 Consistent social disapproval
2 Its political ineffectiveness
3 The ease of finding other ways of expressing anti-Semitism or delegitimising Israel
4 Loss of 'market share' to other conspiracy theories
5 Inability to cope with the volume of recent Holocaust research
6 Lack of novelty
7 The ageing of the 'movement'
(Behrens et al., Holocaust and Genocide Denial: A Contextual Perspective, p. 53)

40 comments:

Gilles Karmasyn said...

Hi Nick (yeah, I know, it's Hans writing, but, well, it's notehless Nicholas Terry who is talking)

Very good chapter in a very important book. Thank you very much for having assembled those talented people who produced such interresting material. I do think that you identified correctly those seven points, though I do not agree with you that Holocaust denial has lost its momemtum. From what I could grasp by lurking and observing, though mostly passively unfortunately, I think Holocaust denial has become a new "cultural code" of antisemitism and (often though not always) radical forms of antizionism. It has spread as a much wider layer, though less thick, if I can use such an image. You describe a loss of "thickness", but there is no loss of the denial "sickness"... since it has spread in a way that, in my opinion, compensateq for the losses you have underlined.

My two cents...

Thanks again to the HC team. Keep the good work.

Gilles (K)

Nicholas Terry said...

Hi Gilles,

my main point was that the organised 'revisionist' movement has manifestly lost momentum; other commentators have noted generational changes as well, and the list of deceased or silent revisionist authors is very long. Moreover, there are very few new names coming forward to replace them, and a number of potential future leaders either quit or changed their opinions: Thomas Kues, Eric Hunt, Friedrich Jansson, the Black Rabbit of Inle are all examples of this from the past 10 years.

I agree with you that denial remains a 'cultural code' for antisemites and the extreme right, but I think it is less important for the far right now than it once was, simply because they have more contemporary fish to fry. Considering that there is more of *everything*, more videos on YouTube, more self-published ebooks, more blogs, more websites, more social media platforms and Twitter accounts, then one can find 'growth' in absolute terms but still have decline in relative terms.

One can also view this in relation to the content produced for specific sites in the various ideological bubbles and the attitudes of readers and BTL commenters. Most far right sites don't produce Holocaust-denying content, but one can easily find commenters who endorse denial. The mismatch is even more obvious with anti-Zionist sites.

But - in both cases, the denial content is now self-generated or reposted on social media platforms, and recirculates almost endlessly on a loop. So it's easy to find anti-Zionist rank and file members' accounts reposting denial, but much harder to find leading anti-Zionists willing to incorporate this into their middle or higher brow content. Because if it becomes known that some mid-ranking activist is also a denier, this is entirely toxic in the mainstream media, and that still matters to the left-leaning anti-Zionists.

On the far right and in the alt-right, there are already so many divisions that denial is not that crucial. I should note that I've also seen Breitbart commenters tell deniers to get lost - just as Trump supporters reacted badly to deniers at a rally in the 2016 election.

Last January in an interview with The Observer, I talked of a 'Twitterification' of denial, a transition from old-school pseudoscholarship to a more 'low-grade', simplified version. Exactly how far this dumbed-down version has spread is a matter of debate - in certain venues like YouTube, it seems rampant and widespread, but elsewhere it really doesn't. And I am more than willing to accept that things may be different in non-English-speaking parts of the internet, simply because I cannot monitor or track everything.

blake121666 said...

CODOH has reviewed this book:

https://codoh.com/library/document/5309/?lang=en

Nicholas Terry said...

That's not much of a book review since it ignores most of the book. Even its treatment of my chapter concentrates most attention on a section that is 1000 words long (about Mattogno et al), and says virtually nothing about the rest of the chapter. Therefore many of the expectations of the "reviewer" are ridiculous - for example, not mentioning that Rassinier was a former KZ inmate although I explicitly mentioned that Rassinier was on the left.

Elsewhere, I am chided for not mentioning the banning of denial books on Amazon in March 2017 when the book went to press in autumn 2016, and we indicated a cut-off point of 31 October 2016 in the introduction.

This was, in case it's not blindly obvious, the proceedings of an academic conference, thus the high price - it's meant to be borrowed from university libraries, especially by lawyers and those looking for short overviews on various examples of genocide denialism.

bhigr said...

"Therefore many of the expectations of the "reviewer" are ridiculous - for example, not mentioning that Rassinier was a former KZ inmate although I explicitly mentioned that Rassinier was on the left."

I don't think that this is ridiculous because merely being a leftist doesn't mean that you were actually a victim of Nazi persecution and an inmate of one of the most notorious concentration camps. It is extremely unusual for such a person to protect the Nazis from supposedly unjust criticism. This fact was the reason for many people to take holocaust disbelief seriously. Therefore, it is swept under the carpet.

bhigr said...

Then, I think the review makes some really good points. Let me quote:

“Indeed, it seems today as if Holocaust denial is the main aspect of the far right ‘history’ and conspiracy theory, and that other conspiracy theories about Jews stem from this idea rather than the other way around.” (p. 12)

Of course, it’s a usual slander to call Holocaust denial a conspiracy theory. But here’s how you turn the tables (literally): Go to the Nuremberg trial records, the so-called Blue Series, and read Count One of the Indictment (Vol. 1, pp. 29-41). The title is THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY, and in the text the word conspiracy appears no less than 15 times. The word conspirators appears 60 times! And as for the Holocaust:

“Of the 9,600,000 Jews who lived in the parts of Europe under Nazi domination, it is conservatively estimated that 5,700,000 have disappeared, most of them deliberately put to death by the Nazi conspirators.

In fact, the Holocaust itself, from the supposed code language of the Nazis to the complete erasure of the traces of the crime, fits much more with the concept of a conspiracy theory...”

Sergey Romanov said...

The designation "conspiracy theory" has little to do with the legal term "conspiracy", and an inmate exhibiting the Stockholm syndrome, while unusual, is not "extremely" so - it's not like there aren't survivors of the Soviet persecution defending the Soviet system.

bhigr said...

Conspiracy theory has little to do with conspiracy? Please let me correct you:

"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

bhigr said...

Oh, the legal term "conspiracy":

"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal)

The legal term "conspiracy" relates to a conspiracy involving a crime.

There is no way around the insight that the holocaust is a conspiracy theory involving thousands of nazi conspirators who secretly conspired to kill all the jews.

Nathan said...

Reposting for bhigr, who clearly didn’t listen in logic class. Almost five years yet deniers are still using basic logical fallacies.


Nathan said...
t 65- My point about the modern use of the word 'conspiracy' was clearly too subtle for sluggish nathan. -

Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

- Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).-

Dr. Terry is using the word "Conspiracy" in one sense - the colloquial definition being a sinister, evil scheme, by this or that party, more often than not the product of an utterly paranoid mind. The IMT and Eichmann trial prosecutors, on the other hand, are using a totally different sense - the legaldefinition wherein a bunch of people conspire to commit a crime. Anyone can see that the senses being used are not the same, well, anyone except for you.

Were you listening in logic class? This is one of the first fallacies that usually get discussed. But, since when have idiots ever needed logic?

Nathan said...

- There is no way around the insight that the holocaust is a conspiracy theory involving thousands of nazi conspirators who secretly conspired to kill all the jews.-

Actually there is. The dictionary entries you posted like an idiot clearly distinguish between the different meanings of the clearly different terms. You and the idiots at CODOH are acting like dumbass kids and pretending that the two different terms with two different meanings and used in different contexts have the same meaning. I’ve provided the name of the lame ass logical fallacy that you’re reduced to using

bhigr said...

"an inmate exhibiting the Stockholm syndrome, while unusual, is not "extremely" so"

So you claim that Rassinier suffered from the Stockholm syndrome. Do you have any evidence for this? If this is not extremely unusual, then I gather that you have proofs of hundreds of holocaust survivors who suffered from the same stockholm syndrome.

The fact that Rassinier actually investigated the holocaust and wrote several books about it rather points to the fact that his opinion was not the result of an emotional reaction due to a traumatizing event {stockholm syndrom} but the result of his investigation. This is even more apparent by the observation that the psychological effect of the trauma wears down with time whereas his revisionist opinion became stronger with time.

bhigr said...

"It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."


I pointed out the meaning of the term by giving you the oxford dictionary definition. I proved that the legal definition of a conspiracy corresponds to a regular conspiracy involving a crime. When Terry says conspiracy in the English language then he means conspiracy.

So I didn't commit the logical error of "equivocation".

Nathan said...

Paul Rassinier interviewed Pffanenstiel, and yet the latter kept on insisting to him that gassing happened. Like Sassen and Eichmann, Rassinier wanted P to denounce Gerstein and say that gassings never happened. While P did the former, he refused to do the latter and made it clear that gassings happened and that he bore witness to them. Deniers can’t even get their heroes to lie and claim that their life’s work never happened. That’s also swept under the rug.

bhigr said...

"The dictionary entries you posted like an idiot clearly distinguish between the different meanings of the clearly different terms."

Nathan, I did not confuse the two things. I clearly pointed out that the legal term conspiracy relates to a regular conspiracy involving a crime. That's the difference. A regular conspiracy does not have to relate to a crime but it may. The holocaust clearly relates to a crime. Thus, it is a conspiracy both in the legal and in the regular sense of the term.

So instead of cursing people you should read my post thoroughly and respond after you have understood the meaning.

bhigr said...

Nathan, Rassinier apparently didn't believe that these witnesses were telling the truth.

Critically analyzing witnesses is the hallmark of revisionism. The holocaust deniers have published a new book, which exclusively deals with the eye witness "Miklos Nyiszli".

Carlo Mattogno, Miklos Nyiszli: An Auschwitz Doctor's Eyewitness Account—The Tall Tales of Dr. Mengele's Assistant Analyzed

I think you guys should read it.

Nathan said...

- I did not confuse the two things-
You did more than confuse, you pretend that Dr. Terry’s usage of the term carried the same meaning as the IMT’s usage. And you did this even though your own dictionary entries clearly treat them as seperate terms with seperate meanings. See my explanation, which more or less matches up with the dictionary entries you so helpfully provided.

Dr. Terry is using the word "Conspiracy" in one sense - the colloquial definition being a sinister, evil scheme, by this or that party, more often than not the product of an utterly paranoid mind. The IMT and Eichmann trial prosecutors, on the other hand, are using a totally different sense - the legal definition wherein a bunch of people conspire to commit a crime. Anyone can see that the senses being used are not the same, well, anyone except for you.

The term conspiracy theory and the legal concept of conspiracy are literally two different terms, as your dictionary entries themselves show. Grow the fuck up and learn English and logic

Nathan said...

A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than eternal happiness
Therefore
A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness

#bhigrlogic

Nathan said...

Time Is money
Money is the root of all evil
Therefore
Time is the root of all evil

#bhigrlogic


Grow the fuck up, learn some English or reading comprehension.

Nathan said...

I have better things to do with my time than waste it on a proven liar like Carlo Mattogno, who omitted cremation figures from German wartime records just because they contradicted his fantasies. As for “witness analysis”, give me a break. Like with Sassen And Eichmann, Rassinier wanted Pfannenstiel to denounce Kurt Gerstein and deny gassings. P eagerly did the former, yet remained adamant that Gassings happened and that he saw it. Pfannenstiel was free to deny the gassings since he was being interviewed by a Holocaust denier who wanted him to, and yet he didn’t. This alone doesn’t prove gassings, but his willingness to attack his fellow witness while insisting that what’s they both saw happened, makes it clear that he’s being honest and sincere. There’s the only witness analysis you need, and proof that Rassinier failed epically, just like Sassen.

bhigr said...

"You did more than confuse, you pretend that Dr. Terry’s usage of the term carried the same meaning as the IMT’s usage. "

Oh, I didn't pretend this. I proved this. The legal term used by the IMT relates to the regular term used by Terry involving a crime. Since the holocaust involves a crime - not even Dr. Terry doubts this - both the IMT and Dr. Terry are talking about the same thing.

"Dr. Terry is using the word "Conspiracy" in one sense - the colloquial definition"

It is an insult to Dr. Terry to claim that he uses colloquial language in a scholarly treatise. Dr. Terry used the term in its regular sense.

The regular conspiracy is a secret agreement by people to commit something wrong or illegal-
The legal conspiracy is a secret agreement by people to commit something illegal.
The holocaust is the secret agreement of thousands of nazi conspirators to kill all the jews.
Thus, the holocaust is the legal conspiracy to commit the illegal crime of genocide.
Thus, the holocaust is a regular conspiracy involving a crime.

Get it?

Nathan said...

Here’s a good one.

All trees have barks
Every dog barks
Therefore
Every dog is a tree

#bhigrlogic

bhigr said...

Sorry Nathan, but you don't get the argument.I am not using the term conspiracy in a different sense than Dr. Terry.

Nathan said...

- h, I didn't pretend this. I proved this. The legal term used by the IMT relates to the regular term used by Terry involving a crime. Since the holocaust involves a crime - not even Dr. Terry doubts this - both the IMT and Dr. Terry are talking about the same thing.-

You’re digging yourself deeper. Sergey already distinguished between the legal term and the colloquial term. So did the dictionary entries you provided.

Here’s a really good one

Noisy children are a real headache.
Two aspirin will make a headache go away.
Therefore
two aspirin will make noisy children go away.

#bhigrlogic

Will aspirin make you and your childish stupidity go away? Based on your idiotic reasoning, it will. It probably won’t though since your reasoning is idiotic. I’d hate to waste aspirin.

bhigr said...

I find your posts amusing Nathan ;-) Keep on posting if it makes you feel happy.

Nathan said...

My posts are examples of the stupidity you’re demonstrating in this thread. So, you’re laughing at yourself.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation


The priest told me I should have faith.
I have faith that my son will do well in school this year.
Therefore,
the priest should be happy with me.

#bhigrlogic

Now for real logic

Explanation: The term “faith” used by the priest, was in the religious sense of believing in God without sufficient evidence, which is different from having “faith” in your son in which years of good past performance leads to the “faith” you might have in your son.

Replace “faith” with the two distinct terms “conspiracy theory” and the legal concept of “criminal conspiracy”, as explained by Sergey, myself and the Oxford dictionar. You won’t get it though.

bhigr said...

Sorry, but you don't understand the argument. Improve your reading comprehension. You are digging yourself into an abyss...

Nathan said...

- sorry but you don’t understand the argument-
Oh, but I do. You’re engaging in well poisoning by pretending that two similar sounding but clearly different terms with different definitions- as explained by Sergey, myself and the Oxford dictionary- are the same. I’ve seen it before in 2013, which was why I shared my response to this exact same stupidity. Seriously man, it’s 2018. Grow up.

Apropos
Criminal actions are illegal
All murder trials are criminal actions
Therefore
All murder trials are illegal

#bhigrlogic

Replace “criminal actions” with the two distinct terms “conspiracy theory” and “criminal conspiracy”, two different words in the dictionary with two distinct meanings. You still won’t get it though. Logic isn’t your strong point.

bhigr said...

If you have understood the argument then try to repeat the argument in you own words. So far you have merely been engaging in the logical fallacy of the false analogy.

Nathan said...

Your "argument" isn't, and is in fact an example of the fallacy of equivocation. No different from the other examples I have shared.

Con is the opposite of Pro
Therefore
Congress is the opposite of progress

Dear god, this is what #bhigrlogic has reduced us to. Childish sophistry presenting itself as clever.

Nathan said...

- try to repeat the argument in your own words-

I have. I provided several examples of the fallacy of equivocation to illustrate the stupidity of your "argument". You don't understand basic logic though, which is why you don't get it.

Giving money to charities is the right thing to do.
Therefore
Charities have the right to our money

#bhigrlogic

I sure hope you understand that "right" means two different things in this paragraph, and that #bhigrlogic is stupid. But since you can't distinguish between "conspiracy theory", the legal concept of conspiracy, and the fact that the Oxford dictionary very clearly differentiates the two, I really doubt it.

- you are merely engaging in the logical fallacy of false analogy-
Nope. You keep pretending that two words with two distinct meanings are the same, and I am merely pointing it out. You clearly never took basic logic classes, which is why you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

bhigr said...

Sorry, you are unable to repeat the argument. Therefore, you have not understood the argument. Instead your are posting fanatically false analogies. I don't think that I can cure you. Have a nice day.

Nathan said...

Don't trust atoms
They make up everything

#bhigrlogic

Lol, poor bhigr thought codoh's equivocation of the two different terms "conspiracy theory" and "criminal conspiracy" was so clever, but got butthurt when it was showed not to be clever, but as a textbook example of the logical fallacy of equivocation. And so he runs away.

Nathan said...

For anyone with the brainpower or interest to learn basic logic, which automatically excludes Bhigr and the Codoh idiots

-Of course, it’s a usual slander to call Holocaust denial a conspiracy theory. But here’s how you turn the tables (literally): Go to the Nuremberg trial records, the so-called Blue Series, and read Count One of the Indictment (Vol. 1, pp. 29-41). The title is THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY, and in the text the word conspiracy appears no less than 15 times. The word conspirators appears 60 times! And as for the Holocaust:-

Dumbsss bhigr thought that this was clever, but as his own dictionary entries show, it's an equivocation since they're equating Dr. Terry's usage of the term derogatory term "conspiracy theory", with the distinct legal term "conspiracy". As dumbass Bhigr showed, conspiracy theoryrefers to " explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors", while the legal term refers to "an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.". These are two different terms, and codoh is equating them. Therefore equivocation.

By the way

- The legal term used by the IMT relates to the regular term used by Terry involving a crime. -
That's not how the law works. The law means what the law says; that's how laws work. Thus, like Sergey said, the legal concept of criminal conspiracy has no relation to the idea of "conspiracy theory". Codoh's equivocation is based on illiteracy and sophistry, Bhigr's equivocation is based on sophistry and ignorance of how the law works. QED.

Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr in response to me earlier

" "Therefore many of the expectations of the "reviewer" are ridiculous - for example, not mentioning that Rassinier was a former KZ inmate although I explicitly mentioned that Rassinier was on the left."
I don't think that this is ridiculous because merely being a leftist doesn't mean that you were actually a victim of Nazi persecution and an inmate of one of the most notorious concentration camps. It is extremely unusual for such a person to protect the Nazis from supposedly unjust criticism. This fact was the reason for many people to take holocaust disbelief seriously. Therefore, it is swept under the carpet."

No, the reason I did not go into more detail about Rassinier was that the focus of the article was on developments in Holocaust denial *after the year 2000*. I mentioned Rassinier very briefly as part of a very short overview of the evolution of 'revisionism', the chapter was neither a comprehensive history of Holocaust denial nor was it about Rassinier. I actually cited two biographies of Rassinier in French as well as Igounet's history of negationism in France, and Rassinier's experiences in the camps are certainly mentioned in these works.

The non-mentioning of something in a journal article or edited collection chapter of under 9000 words length basically means it isn't mentioned for space reasons, and/or because the detail is mentioned in something cited in the article or chapter. These days, the fact that anyone can look up someone like Rassinier and read about his camp experiences in Wikipedia articles about him makes this look even more like whining.

Nicholas Terry said...

Yes, bhigr and CODOH are engaging in the usual sophistry regarding the term 'conspiracy theory'. The same point has been made by deniers (and other conspiracy theorists) dozens of times; it's nothing new and it's really boring.



blake121666 said...

Nathan said:

"I have better things to do with my time than waste it on a proven liar like Carlo Mattogno, who omitted cremation figures from German wartime records just because they contradicted his fantasies"

I'd be interested to see the omitted cremation figures. Can anyone supply me with a reference?

Nicholas Terry said...

Jett Rucker has piled on with *another* CODOH piece. Several immediate misunderstandings in his headline and opening lines need to be corrected:

1) an edited collection is NOT a textbook. They are very rarely intended to be textbooks; this edited collection is fairly close to a conference proceedings in that most chapters, including mine, were presented as conference papers, with some additional chapters being commissioned on examples of genocide denial that weren't presented at the conference.

2) academic publishers are notorious for setting high prices for obviously academic books, especially edited collections. There are even worse prices in some areas of scientific publishing. The assumption is that they are bought by university or national libraries, and that interested readers will borrow them for free from a library. Increasingly, the prices of ebooks for university libraries are fairly similar to the prices of expensive academic books, so publishers are often more likely to sell the ebook version that can be accessed with a university login via a library catalogue. High prices indicate a small print run and therefore limited sales.

3) Chapters of edited collections are contributed without expectation of payment, just as academic journal articles don't pay authors; academic publishing rests on free labour. So the contributors aren't at any kind of "trough" pigging out because of the high price of the book.

This isn't the only edited collection discussing Holocaust denial in recent years, there's also one edited by Robert Wistrich (2012, price £71.99 versus £105 for our one), and there are chapters on denial in recent edited collections about antisemitism, some of which are occasionally cheaper.

Sergey Romanov said...

> Conspiracy theory has little to do with conspiracy?

You seem to have a poor reading comprehension.

"The designation "conspiracy theory" has little to do with the legal term "conspiracy""

Realizing you've made a fool of yourself:

> Oh, the legal term "conspiracy":

Heh.

> The legal term "conspiracy" relates to a conspiracy involving a crime.

Exactly. And whenever the term is used in the legal context, it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories (the term which doesn't refer to any claim about any conspiracy under the sky).

> There is no way around the insight that the holocaust is a conspiracy theory

It obviously isn't, while Holocaust denial is.

> So you claim that Rassinier suffered from the Stockholm syndrome. Do you have any evidence for this?

Sure, his behavior.

> If this is not extremely unusual, then I gather that you have proofs of hundreds of holocaust survivors who suffered from the same stockholm syndrome.

It's unlikely that they were as prominent as Rassinier, so the request is not rational. I've given the example of the victims of the Soviet regime.

> The fact that Rassinier actually investigated the holocaust and wrote several books about it rather points to the fact that his opinion was not the result of an emotional reaction due to a traumatizing event

Since his books and opinions are irrational, they rather confirm the hypothesis.

geniza said...

I'm happy to see the Terry chapter mention -- albeit in passing, since it's such a minor part of the Holocaust denial movement -- the tiny, failed attempt of Clark-Lowes, Atzmon, and a few others to repackage Holocaust denial as a form of generalized leftist anti-Zionist rhetoric, only to be emphatically and unceremoniously given the boot. Holocaust denial as a form of far-right antisemitic discourse is incoherent, but triply so when attempting to pass itself off as left-wing.

It's also worth noting that Jim Fetzer managed the unimaginably difficult feat of being evicted from "Veterans Today" for being too crazy.

One more sign of the state of Holocaust denial in 2018 is that David Irving's site is down -- has been for days. If not even Irving can cash in on the Holocaust denial audience anymore, then it's time to cue the dirge and draw down the curtain.