Is Holocaust Denial inherently anti-Semitic?

[Monarchist]

Ignore all notions of religion, theism, and atheism for the moment. What is the essential kernel, in your bold opinion, of "Holocaust Denial"? 'Denial', as a word, does not imply a hatred or dislike for the objects and pro-nouns included in that which is being denied. 'Denial' is merely the doubts inherent in human curiosity. "I question the validity of claims that six million Jews and six million others died under Nazi Germany from A.D. 1933-1945" doesn't sound anti-Semitic, at least to me. However, it seems that the entire notion of questioning the Holocaust has become something so degraded in popular discourse as to equal homicide in words.

"noun 1 the action of denying. 2 Psychology refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion." - Compact Oxford English Dictionary.

I, myself, do not ascribe to the notions and assumptions inherent in Holocaust Denial claims. My point here is to ask you all whether an individual mind must contain an essential core of anti-Semitic thought in order to question the validity of Holocaust death count claims. I have seen many stories, such as the case of Faurisson, where seemingly innocuous and formal pamphlets were written by men who appear rather academic at first. These very same 'historians', Faurisson included (see: http://www.codoh.com/info/infoihr/ihr2problem.html), turned out to be vicious anti-Semites later on, writing about "The Great Jewish Tyranny". On the other hand, I have met a few people (not much evidence on that point, unfortunately ) who seemed genuinely concerned with the facts of the Holocaust, and the potential for emotional exaggeration which it brings to discussions.

Here is a non-neutral Jewish interpretation of Denial: http://www.jewishmag.com/115mag/holo...ocaustdeny.htm

Does it seem that one must be anti-Semitic to question the validity of the Holocaust claims?

To Moderators: This may be moved to "Vestigia Vetustatis" if it does not appear to be sufficiently centered in morality. I tend to think that it is, so I posted it in E.M.e.M., instead.

[Ummon]

Stating something patently false is lieing. Lieing always has a purpose. A purpose implies a motivation. Inferences on motivations are of course always imprecise.

[Monarchist]

Stating something patently false is lieing. Lieing always has a purpose. A purpose implies a motivation. Inferences on motivations are of course always imprecise.

I suppose the only valid reply is that people such as Faurisson and Paul Rassinier don't believe they're lying. The only other possibility is, as you so concisely suggested, purposeful untruth.

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

Stating something patently false is lieing. Lieing always has a purpose. A purpose implies a motivation. Inferences on motivations are of course always imprecise.

this.

[Ummon]

γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Repression

Psychological repression, or simply repression, according to Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory, is the involuntary psychological act of excluding desires and impulses (wishes, fantasies or feelings) from one's consciousness and holding or subduing them in the unconscious. Since Freud's work in psychoanalysis, repression is now accepted as a defense mechanism[1] by psychoanalytic psychologists; however, there remains some debate as to whether (or how often) repression really happens[2] and mainstream psychology holds that true repression occurs only very rarely.[citation needed]

The part where it says "citation needed" is caused by the imprecision of the comment.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Splitting

Splitting as a defense mechanism
If a person fails to accomplish this developmental task, borderline pathology can develop. The borderline personality is not able to integrate the good and bad images of both self and others. Kernberg also states that people who suffer from borderline personality disorder have a bad representation which dominates the good representation.[2] This makes them experience love and sexuality in perverse and violent qualities which they cannot integrate with the tender, intimate side of relationships.[3] These people can suffer from intense fusion anxieties in intimate relationships, because the boundaries between self and other are not firm. A tender moment between self and other could mean the disappearance of the self into the other. This triggers intense anxiety. To overcome the anxiety, the other is made into a very bad person; this can be done, because the other is made responsible for this anxiety. However, if the other is viewed as a bad person, the self must be bad as well. Viewing the self as all bad cannot be endured, so the switch is made to the other side: the self is good, which means the other must be good too. If the other is all good and the self is all good, where does the self begin and end? Intense anxiety is the result and so the cycle repeats itself.

People who are diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder also use splitting as a central defense mechanism. They do this to preserve their self-esteem. They do this by seeing the self as purely good and the others as purely bad. The use of splitting also implies the use of other defense mechanisms, namely devaluation, idealization and denial.[4]

Splitting creates instability in relationships, because one person can be viewed as either all good or all bad at different times, depending on whether he or she gratifies needs or frustrates them. This, and similar oscillations in the experience of the self, lead to chaotic and unstable relationship patterns, identity diffusion and mood swings. Consequently, the therapeutic process can be greatly impeded by these oscillations, because the therapist too can become victim of splitting. To overcome the negative effects on treatment outcome, constant interpretations by the therapist are needed.[5]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Projection

Psychological projection (or projection bias) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are ascribed to the outside world, like the weather, the government, a tool or another person or people. Projection is one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves. Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humor presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth.

In other words, there are unconscious motivations.

[Monarchist]

γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Well, that was all you needed to say. Certainly, it lends a bit of destruction to their credibility when they make these claims of dubious voracity. The Deniers call themselves scientists (in terms of analyzing documents and photographs for "fake" content) and historians, yet their investment in the substance of the Denial is suspiciously heavy. It warrants a cautious glance when a person is asking for proof of something that he has already decided does not exist. At least, it appears to be the case that they have decided. Some of them veil it quite well, while others betray no innocence. Not one of them is à la recherche du temps perdu, but more hoping to insert their own version of time into time.

Perhaps, in relation to the intense number of "atheism" threads lately, this subject does belong in E.M.e.M.

[Arch-hereticK]

What if someone isn't told the "real" story of the holocaust? They could deny it and not be anti-semitic.

[basics]

Arch-hereticK,

Perhaps centuries of branding the Jews as Christ-killers has a lot to do with what certain people want to believe and what actually happened. There can be no doubt that the Nazis applied themselves to working out a system of mass destruction of many that didn't aspire to their ways and whether the numbers add up to our satisfaction is not really that important.

It is the fact that they put their plans into action that is important. And, there is no doubt that the Jews were a primary target perhaps adding the only obvious target had the Nazis not invaded the East. But that does not detract from all the sub-humans as they would call them that they also destroyed. That all were called or classed the same.

But we know the Jews on the whole weren't devoid of all their faculties, indeed certain jealousies were another factor in why they became, perhaps for the most, the victims of such a hideous crime. The church had been against them and their own ability to survive, even thrive, whilst their fellow countrymen didn't, made them an obvious choice for blame.

To deny that there was this programme to eliminate people that did not qualify to the standards of the persecutors is quite ridiculous. That itself is not anti-semitic but it is abnormal. To the Jew and them with sense, the denial that millions were killed in the manner devised by the Nazis is not just abnormal but anti-semitic. What makes it that is that there are still people out there who, if given the opportunity, would do the same again.

[Musthavename]

Looking at all the evidence for something and choosing to not believe it isn't inheritly prejudiced.

In the case of the Holocaust though, the evidence is really big enough though that there's other motives at work when someone denies it. That, or plain stupidity.

[Chlodwig I.]

Looking at all the evidence for something and choosing to not believe it isn't inheritly prejudiced.

In the case of the Holocaust though, the evidence is really big enough though that there's other motives at work when someone denies it. That, or plain stupidity.

QFT

[Pious Agnost]

I do not believe it is inherent.

But I believe it is present 99.999% of the time

[Yaga Shu Ra]

'Denial' is merely the doubts inherent in human curiosity.

"I question the validity of claims that six million Jews and six million others died under Nazi Germany from A.D. 1933-1945"
≠
"I deny the validity of claims that six million Jews and six million others died under Nazi Germany from A.D. 1933-1945"


Doubt suggests upholding reservations towards the validity of an answer and behests further inquiry and verification. (Questions demanding - the search for - answers)
Denial however, is the dismissal of an answer and it's validity; both the conclusion and the weight of it's body of support, and behests further subtext.

[Barry Goldwater]

Well, you'd have to be an anti-Semite or just a dumbass to deny the Holocaust - it's got a mountain of evidence behind it, including the confessions of the bastards who pulled it off and some survivors too.

I'm willing to wager that 9 out of 10 times, yes, Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites.

[Kissaki]

"I question the validity of claims that six million Jews and six million others died under Nazi Germany from A.D. 1933-1945"
≠
"I deny the validity of claims that six million Jews and six million others died under Nazi Germany from A.D. 1933-1945"


Doubt suggests upholding reservations towards the validity of an answer and behests further inquiry and verification. (Questions demanding - the search for - answers)
Denial however, is the dismissal of an answer and it's validity; both the conclusion and the weight of it's body of support, and behests further subtext.

Indeed, but when it comes to the Holocaust, both sentences above would earn you the label "Holocaust denier".

Personally, I actually don't see the connection between Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. Surely an anti-Semite would not deny the Holocaust, but rather try to justify it. If he denies the events took place, that should indicate that he disapproves of such events. If a mother believes her rapist son is an angel simply because she does not wish to believe otherwise, does that mean she approves of rape or hates rape victims? Of course not, she merely loves her son, and so is willfully blind to the truth.

Or to use another example: if people believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, does that make them pro-Muslim extremism?

[Keravnos]

If anti-Semitism is the egg, when that egg would hatch it would be the Holocaust.

Break the egg of anti-Semitism and no Holocaust would emerge ever again.

Holocaust denial is like saying that there can be a hen without an egg, or in the Holocaust case's a snake without an egg.

[Keravnos]

Or to use another example: if people believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, does that make them pro-Muslim extremism?

No, but it would destroy your mental defenses which tell you what is real and what is not, make your mind vulnerable to all sorts of conspiracy theories, which would either lead to insanity or in prison. (both are worst case scenarios, mind you).

[Kissaki]

No, but it would destroy your defenses on what is real and what a work of fiction, open up your mind to all sorts of conspiracy theories, which would either lead to insanity or in prison.

I know people who are suckers for conspiracy theories ("man never landed on the moon", "JFK was killed by the CIA" etc. -- anything so long as it's a good story), but who are otherwise normal people. Now, it is true that such conspiracy theories are often held by "village idiots", mostly harmless people who are nevertheless too far gone to be called "normal", but unless you obsess on such conspiracy theories I think you'll be alright.

[Keravnos]

I know people who are suckers for conspiracy theories ("man never landed on the moon", "JFK was killed by the CIA" etc. -- anything so long as it's a good story), but who are otherwise normal people. Now, it is true that such conspiracy theories are often held by "village idiots", mostly harmless people who are nevertheless too far gone to be called "normal", but unless you obsess on such conspiracy theories I think you'll be alright.

Which is why I altered my original post, since it didn't portray exactly what I wanted to say.

Back to anti-Semitism.

1st step. "regular" anti-Semitism, aka, if a Jew did something good in which he succeded and you failed, it can only be his fault, never yours.

From here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semite_and_Jew

Sartre tells of a classmate of his who complained that he had failed the agrégation exam while a Jew, the son of eastern immigrants, had passed. There was – said Sartre’s classmate – no way that that Jew could understand French poetry as well as a true Frenchman. But Sartre’s classmate admitted that he disdained the agrégation and had not studied for it. ‘Thus to explain his failure, he made use of two systems of interpretation… His thoughts moved on two planes without his being in the least bit embarrassed by it.’ (Ibid. p.12.) Sartre’s classmate had adopted in advance a view of Jews and of their role in society. ‘Far from experience producing his idea of the Jew, it was the latter which explained his experience. If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him.’ (Ibid.) Anti-Semitism is a view that arises not from experience or historical fact, but from itself. It lends new perspective to experience and historical fact. The anti-Semite convinces himself of beliefs that he knows to be spurious at best.

Then the second step... calling Einstein a "relativity-Jew" , who concealed his hatred of Germany behind an obscure pseudo-science." How is that different than what Sartre speaks of? It is only the scale that is different.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/

A nazi propagandist by the name of Joseph Goebbels sought to defame Einstein. This is like the first step^1000

Then the third step... threatening to kill all Jews if they don't leave you alone. (Hitler's words)
http://www.holocaust-history.org/der...19390130.shtml

If the international finance-Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations into a world war yet again, then the outcome will not be the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!

Fourth and final step... Holocaust.

Now, if we retrace our steps and somehow make the first student in question realize that it was his own fault, that he should have studied harder to pass that exam. Teach the value of personal responsibility. Most of the times failure can be directly attributed, to one's own self and I speak from experience. Let's not search for secrets and deceptions anywhere but rather focus all that energy on improving our own lives and those of those around us, if at all possible.

Conspiracy theories make great movies but not much more than that. Let's not forget that Hitler was the worlds' largest conspiracy theorist and how well that turned out. NOT.

[Taiji]

No, but it would destroy your mental defenses which tell you what is real and what is not, make your mind vulnerable to all sorts of conspiracy theories, which would either lead to insanity or in prison. (both are worst case scenarios, mind you).

That's pretty paranoid of you. I think most conspiracy theorists are nutty, and I'm being generous, but to be deluded into thinking that believing a conspiracy theory certainly causes bad things to happen to you is on another level. Although it's probably structurally the same disorder, it's just a different, and frankly wierder, control mechanism.

But who cares? Afterall you're not hurting anyone with your fearmongering since I sincerely doubt anyone will take it seriously.

[Graphic]

Of course it is. All the facts are there, plain to see. Denying gravity (or evolution heh) is anti-science.