Pat the Bully

Slate ^ | October 3, 2002 | Sam Tanenhaus

[Pelham]

populist/nativist/isolationist

Funny how the slurs of the Left have found such ardent "conservative" adherents at FR. Guess you're part of the Ted Kennedy Fan Club, seeing as its his 1965 immigration bill that the populist/nativist/isolationist troglodytes object to.

[Texasforever]

99.9% of Americans have no idea this magazine exists, and will have no idea it has folded when it inevitably does

Look for at least 5 new members to sign up and post every article in the magazine night an day. FR will be used as free advertisement. The New American has had more Internet exposure on this site in the last 6 months than they have had for the previous 5 years.

[Pelham]

I don't follow the Institute for Historical Review as you apparently do, it's never been an interest of mine. So Joe's speech in its "Holocaust-revisionist glory" is news to me. I assume you must mean this:

http://www.ihr.org/conference/14thconf/sobranconf.html:

I wonder how you interpret this part of his speech:

Here I should lay my own cards on the table. I am not, heaven forbid, a "Holocaust denier." I lack the scholarly competence to be one. I don't read German, so I can't assess the documentary evidence; I don't know chemistry, so I can't discuss Zyklon-B; I don't understand the logistics of exterminating millions of people in small spaces. Besides, "Holocaust denial" is illegal in many countries I may want to visit someday. For me, that's proof enough. One Israeli writer has expressed his amazement at the idea of criminalizing opinions about historical fact., and I find it puzzling too; but the state has spoken.

Of course those who affirm the Holocaust need know nothing about the German language, chemistry, and other pertinent subjects; they need only repeat what they have been told by the authorities. In every controversy, most people care much less for what the truth is than for which side it's safer and more respectable to take. They shy away from taking a position that is likely to get them into trouble. Just as only people on the Axis side were accused of war crimes after World War II, only people critical of Jewish interests are accused of thought-crimes in today's mainstream press.

So, life being as short as it is, I shy away from this controversy. Of course I'm also incompetent to judge whether the Holocaust did happen; so I've become what might be called a "Holocaust stipulator." Like a lawyer who doesn't want to get bogged down debating a secondary point, I stipulate that the standard account of the Holocaust is true. What is undisputed -- the massive violation of human rights in Hitler's Germany -- is bad enough.

Maybe I overlooked where Joe "minimizes the number of Jews killed by Nazis". What Sobran does seem to be guilty of is tweaking the nose of those who love to sling around accusations of anti-semitism. And giving a speech to the IHR certainly accomplishes that. But there doesn't appear to be anything in his speech to back up your charge. A little guilt by association on your part, perhaps?

[sinkspur]

Of course I'm also incompetent to judge whether the Holocaust did happen; so I've become what might be called a "Holocaust stipulator."

Sobran's either being disingenuous, or he IS a revisionist.

[MistrX]

I like Taki.

[Pelham]

Okay, so you aren't able to find any statement in his speech to defend your claim that he minimized the number who died in the Holocaust. In fact, you found that he made a point of announcing his own lack of qualification to pass judgment on the numbers.

So now, finessing the first claim, we move on to a charge that Sobran is either disingenuous or a revisionist. That would be true if "Holocaust stipulator" equates to "Holocaust denier". But in fact he defines the term himself:

I stipulate that the standard account of the Holocaust is true. ;

by his own words a "stipulator" accepts the standard account as true. Your either-or argument is an example of a false alternative. An equally plausible argument that fits Sobran's behavior is a desire on his part to infuriate those who like to resort to charges of anti-semitism. There's no excluded middle in your argument, which is what would force a choice between revisionism or disingenuousness.

[Huck]

Their adherents will find a welcome nest at libertyforum. But then, they won't get much exposure over there.