Norman Finkelstein endorses open debate on the Holocaust; says "I don’t know what a Holocaust denier even is."

[Sannhet]

Norman Finkelstein praises Holocaust denier David Irving at pro-Corbyn group meeting
Far-left activists Prof David Miller, Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and Chris Williamson also attended online gathering

By Lee Harpin
July 31, 2020 | The Jewish Chronicle [UK]

The anti-Israel activist Norman Finkelstein has told a meeting of the Labour Against The Witch-Hunt group: “I don’t know what a Holocaust denier is” - while backing what he said were “statistical, scholarly questions” around the question of whether six million Jews died in the Shoah.

The American left-wing icon also heaped praise on the discredited Nazi apologist David Irving at the virtual event, describing him as a “very good historian” who “knew a thing, or two or three.” [...]

Mr Finkelstein – whose own parents were the only members of his family to survive the Holocaust [...] said: “David Irving was a very good historian – I don’t care what Richard Evans (the historian who was a key player in the Lipstadt libel trial) says. He produced works that are substantive…If you don’t like it, don’t read it. In the case of Irving, he knew a thing or two – or three.”

Mr Finkelstein continued: “I don’t see the reason to get excited about Holocaust deniers. First of all I don’t know what a Holocaust denier even is. People say if you deny the centrality of the six million Jews being killed and you try to bring in other groups of people you become a Holocaust denier. Other people say if you deny the centrality of the gas chambers you become a Holocaust denier.”

Addressing what he said was “the question of numbers”, Mr Finkelstein said: “How many were killed? Those are statistical scholarly questions. Why can’t we answer a number with a number and present our sources?”

Does calling for open debate and saying the Holocaust is a "statistical scholarly question" itself constitute legally punishable Holocaust Denial, in mandatory-Holocaust-belief countries? How close is Finkelstein here to being labeled a Denier?

[stinky]

This is an interesting development.
Finkelstein took a different approach in 2007 when Lady Michelle Renouf probed him on Iran's Sahar TV's 'Forum' about The International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, also known as the Tehran Conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePWuiEiZtz0

[Archie]

Finkelstein seems to generally avoid direct discussion of revisionist arguments. One can only guess at his true views. In Holocaust Industry he takes the holocaust story as settled. And tactically I think that was a sensible approach. Indeed, if you want to get published, that is the only approach. When you're writing something like that, you want to reach as broad an audience as possible and to do this you usually don't want to bundle your argument with something even more controversial. In effect, he attacked on a second front. And while hasn't gotten involved in the main battle I still say what he did was very useful.

I suspect that privately he is at the very least much more familiar with revisionism than he usually lets on. And he very possibly has liberal views on the six million, the gas chambers, etc. Michael Santomauro did an interview the Jim Rizoli and he suggests as much (based on having known Finkelstein quite well back in the 80s).

[stinky]

Finkelstein seems to generally avoid direct discussion of revisionist arguments. One can only guess at his true views. In Holocaust Industry he takes the holocaust story as settled. And tactically I think that was a sensible approach. Indeed, if you want to get published, that is the only approach.

I agree. At least if you want to be published by any "reputable" publisher.
He does cling to the "my entire family was exterminated" though.
Here's a well known address he gave at the Uni of Waterloo Canada;
https://youtu.be/6O5zgXeCynQ?t=128
"My late father was in Auschwitz concentration camp. My late mother was in Majdanek concentration camp. Every single member of my family on both sides was exterminated".

I suspect that privately he is at the very least much more familiar with revisionism than he usually lets on. And he very possibly has liberal views on the six million, the gas chambers, etc. Michael Santomauro did an interview the Jim Rizoli and he suggests as much (based on having known Finkelstein quite well back in the 80s).

It's quite possible, but I have not come across any anecdote's aside from what Santomauro claimed in the Rizoli interview.
If I recall correctly, did Santomauro claim that Finkelstein had some revisionist books?

[Sannhet]

I suspect that privately he is at the very least much more familiar with revisionism than he usually lets on. And he very possibly has liberal views on the six million, the gas chambers, etc.

Many have said or thought the same of Noam Chomsky, who famously defended Robert Faurisson as early as 1979 and consistently thereafter through the 1990s at least, on free speech and freedom of inquiry grounds. I recall in the documentary Manufacturing Consent, filmed in 1991-92?, there was an extended part on Faurisson and Chomsky was still defending him on film, but also refused to say whether he disbelieved the Holocaust and seemed to wave that question away.

If Noam Chomsky is ever going to let it be known that he is a Holocaust Disbeliever, he'd better hurry up; He turns 92 in December.

[stinky]

Noam Chomsky & Norman Finkelstein are gatekeepers of the left.
They will never repudiate the hoax, or 911.
They are both critical of Israel & organised jewry, but within a certain scope.

They both downplay Jewish influence

If Chomsky didn't defend Faurisson on free speech / freedom of inquiry grounds it would be too obvious that he his a fraud.

I am aware that Norman has suffered some hardship for his views.

However, they are both textbook examples of controlled opposition.

James Petras exposed Norman Finkelstein in a debate some years ago;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJi7eugSRAM

[Merlin300]

Noam Chomsky & Norman Finkelstein are gatekeepers of the left.
They will never repudiate the hoax, or 911.
They are both critical of Israel & organised jewry, but within a certain scope.

They both downplay Jewish influence

If Chomsky didn't defend Faurisson on free speech / freedom of inquiry grounds it would be too obvious that he his a fraud.

I am aware that Norman has suffered some hardship for his views.

However, they are both textbook examples of controlled opposition.

James Petras exposed Norman Finkelstein in a debate some years ago;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJi7eugSRAM

Controlled opposition is still opposition. I can't blame anyone for not being a hardcore Revisionist.
I can live with Free Speech on the subject.

[stinky]

Controlled opposition is still opposition. I can't blame anyone for not being a hardcore Revisionist.
I can live with Free Speech on the subject.

Sure, that would be an enormous improvement.

Chomsky may have used the notion of free speech to defend Faurisson, but controlled opposition is not & does not, by default, endorse free speech.
The role of 'controlled opposition' is to capture people who have largely already broken through a layer or two of the propaganda.
It's function is to PREVENT people from further understanding, by conceding some ground (not more than what the normy 'escapee' group knows already) only to knowingly deceive & limit the scope.

[Lamprecht]

Probably because some exterminationist "Experts" like Lipstadt say absurd things such as all "deniers" claim every "survivor" is a lying. The first "denier" was a prisoner in the concentration camps.

More on that: viewtopic.php?t=12923

He does cling to the "my entire family was exterminated" though.

And this is his excuse for why he can say all of the things that he does say, and nobody can call him "anti-Semitic" or "self-hating Jew" or whatever.

Sometimes to get a point across, you have to quote a Jew that agrees with you. It works magic. Remember, nobody can criticize Jewish behavior except a Jew, or else they're anti-Semitic.

[stinky]

And this is his excuse for why he can say all of the things that he does say, and nobody can call him "anti-Semitic" or "self-hating Jew" or whatever.

Except by other jews, who call Finkelstein & Atzmon etc 'self hating jews' or 'antisemites'.

Sometimes to get a point across, you have to quote a Jew that agrees with you. It works magic. Remember, nobody can criticize Jewish behavior except a Jew, or else they're anti-Semitic.

Anyone, that says anything that jews don't like (jews included) are called 'antisemites' - but they can only be designated such by other jews, otherwise the act itself (the accusation) would amount to antisemitism.

[Lamprecht]

And this is his excuse for why he can say all of the things that he does say, and nobody can call him "anti-Semitic" or "self-hating Jew" or whatever.

Except by other jews, who call Finkelstein & Atzmon etc 'self hating jews' or 'antisemites'.

Sometimes to get a point across, you have to quote a Jew that agrees with you. It works magic. Remember, nobody can criticize Jewish behavior except a Jew, or else they're anti-Semitic.

Anyone, that says anything that jews don't like (jews included) are called 'antisemites' - but they can only be designated such by other jews, otherwise the act itself (the accusation) would amount to antisemitism.

They can call him whatever they want. Lock 10 Jews in a room together for an hour and you'll get 20 accusations of antisemitism; none of them stick. Anyone that discusses issues relating to Jews and Israeli is called that word, but he can always use the "But my family died at Auschwitz" excuse so it doesn't really stick. People have called Trump an "anti-Semite" but the ordinary person sees Bibi shaking his hand in approval, Kushner, and all that stuff.

A good test is to check out the opening paragraph or two of a Wikipedia page, and see if they are called "anti-Semitic" or "conspiracy theorist" or "racist" or whatever. A person who has not heard of Finkelstein will go by that description. If they looked up Kevin MacDonald instead, they get "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, white supremacist" in the first sentence. This is more than enough for a lot of people to disqualify anything he writes or says.

I don't recall personally referencing Finkelstein for any reason, but maybe he makes a good point about something somewhere. If Jews want to be able to say "But I'm Jewish" they can't go behave like Brother Nathaniel Kapner or Bobby Fischer.
Quoting a person about one topic isn't an endorsement of everything they have to say on everything.

[Archie]

Finkelstein has been stirring the pot again. A few days ago he made some comments in reaction to the Facebook and Twitter bans on Holocaust denial. He says not only that it should not be banned but given maximum exposure in order to defeat it once and for all.

https://www.thejc.com/news/us/norman-finkelstein-students-should-be-taught-about-holocaust-denial-ideally-by-a-holocaust-denier-1.507888

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.

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.

“Haven’t the taboos enveloping the Nazi holocaust — the fear of questioning (facets of) it, the sacrosanct status it occupies — not only caused it to calcify into a lifeless ritual, but also spawned a raft of spurious testimonial literature and preposterous pseudo-scholarship, the paradoxical outcome of which is to provide fodder for the deniers’ mills?”

Such “fodder” includes small discrepancies in evidence of individual events, which Holocaust deniers attempt to use to suggest that the entire Holocaust is a fabrication.

He says: “If one is committed to the purity of truth, not just in its wholeness but also in its parts, then a Holocaust denier performs the useful function of ferreting out ‘local’ errors, precisely because he is a devil’s advocate — that is, fanatically committed to ‘unmasking’ the ‘hoax of the 20th century.’”

He adds: “If a purported witness enjoys immunity from cross-examination — as does every Tom, Dick and Moishe pawning himself off as a ‘Holocaust survivor’ — the human propensity is to exaggerate, which, if left unchecked, will harden into a lie.”

Finkelstein seems to be trolling here. He says "entertaining Holocaust denial would ultimately weaken it" but nobody in the Holocaust Industry seems to agree with him.

[stinky]

Here's a link to Finkelstein's article from which the Jewish Chronicle based it's story on;

http://normanfinkelstein.com/wp-content ... -HDeny.pdf
WHY WE SHOULD REJOICE AT HOLOCAUST DENIERS, NOT SUPPRESS THEM - A Reply to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
By Norman G. Finkelstein
Finkelstein'a article is an excerpt from the book's manuscript.

Interestingly, the JC doesn't link to Finkelstein's article.

Finkelstein dedicates himself to pumping his hero Mr Hilberg. From the article;

“If these people want to speak, let them,” Hilberg counseled. “It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that’s useful.” If he was laid back when it came to Holocaust deniers, it’s because Hilberg was confident in his conclusions based on his mastery of the source material.

Our master cherry-picker of source material was so confident in his conclusions he dodged the second Zundel trial.

“Yes, there was a Holocaust,” Hilberg once observed, “which is, by the way, more easily said than demonstrated. ”If you’ve done your homework, then fielding obnoxious skeptics is at worst a form of intellectual amusement, the mental equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

However, it was the rat-fish Hilberg who got shot up by Doug Christie/Faurisson in the Zundel trial.

Here's an interesting quote from Finkelstein's footnotes;

I vividly recall my own deflated sense of intellectual self upon perusing Holocaust-denier Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the 20th Century. He correctly observed, for example, that it was originally alleged that three million Jews were killed at Auschwitz, and six million Jews altogether were killed. The figure for the number killed at Auschwitz was subsequently scaled down to one million, yet the total figure was still put at six million. How can this be?, Butz rhetorically asked. I had no answer

Finkelstein is creating controversy to sell his upcoming book - "Cancel Culture, Academic Freedom & Me".