|
THE COWARDICE OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL Besides their professed anti-Semitism, Holocaust deniers commit the rather silly crime of rejecting an extraordinarily well-documented event in human history. Their chief sins, therefore, are hatred and amentia. So the argument goes. And may I add, cowardice? Once upon a time, a man was so despised that an organization was formed against him. In its mission statement, the organization inveighed against the man; its leader went on to suggest, in published works, that the man should be seized on the street and beaten. One day some members of the organization encountered the man en route and made good on their leader's suggestion. The man was badly beaten and left for dead. Miraculously, he survived, and went on to make a full recovery. Upon being released from the hospital, the man visited his assailants at their home and confronted them. "You beat me," said the man, "and left me for dead! How could you do such a thing?" The man expected to hear: "Yes, we beat you, and we will beat you again. For you speak the truth—we want you dead." He would not hear those words. Said his assailants, one after another: "Why accuse us of this awful thing? We did not hit you! We did nothing of the sort!" "Then you are worse than pathetic," said the man, and walked away. The psychological and religious implications of Holocaust denial have been long argued. I won't take time to rehearse them here. Perhaps, though, the first objection to my parable above should be the simplest. Holocaust denial is less an act of cowardice than one of self-preservation. It certainly seemed to be, for Himmler et al., when they ordered the destruction of evidence which testified to their horrific activities. A case could made, then, for Heinrich Himmler. His was an act of vain self-preservation; it was only after he fell into British hands, after all was lost, that he killed himself. So then, let Himmler hang in history for his manifest hatred and amentia. Such can no longer be true today. Today, when a man denies the Holocaust, he is far from guided by self-preservation. Consider the following statement: "Of course the Holocaust occurred, and for this I rejoice. May it happen again and again." Now it's true that this statement is tremendously unpopular these days, and more than that, tantamount to social suicide. But then again, Holocaust denial is also tremendously unpopular these days, and tantamount to social suicide. What sort of man is it, that faced with adopting the pro-Holocaust argument—an argument that is his actual position, though it's a position that is everywhere despised—will see his salvation in an argument that is not his actual position, though it's a position that is, like the first one, everywhere despised? What sort of man, indeed? Holocaust deniers are convicted twice: once for the hatred harbored deep within their hearts, and once again for perpetrating the most unsuccessful attempt at camouflage in recent memory. Therefore, Holocaust deniers are said to be mean, stupid creatures. That they are. And I say, they're cowards. -murrayjames 10/04/08 |