Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Another Zionist Attack on Academic Freedom

By Daniel McGowan / Dissident Voice / May 28th, 2011

This is an attempt, admittedly futile, to remove some of the slime thrown at me in a letter addressed to President Gearan and circulated to over 250 people on October 3, 2009. It was written by Jim McKinster and five other faculty members and allegedly signed by 32 people in all. I heard about it by happenstance soon after it was circulated, but neither the President nor any of the six who circulated it was willing to provide me with a copy. That is a typical cowardly response employed by those who use this smear method to accuse, try, and censure someone who dares to speak truth to power. (I finally got a copy last week, hence the 20-month delay in my response.)

Their letter and with a copy of the op-ed I wrote in the Finger Lakes Times are attached.

Allow me to refute the lies and innuendos that these “colleagues” have levied against me, behind my back. Since each of you received the detractors’ letter, I am sending you this rebuttal.

1. The purpose of my op-ed was to define Holocaust denial. That should be clear from the byline “What do deniers really mean?” It was submitted in response to the media frenzy and demonization of President Ahmadinejad who addressed the UN General Assembly and whose picture was shown above my guest appearance piece. Instead of acknowledging this, my faculty detractors feigned outrage that it appeared on the eve of Yom Kippur. I had nothing to do with the timing of the article and make no apology for when it appeared vis-à-vis a Jewish holiday.

2. More egregiously these faculty detractors claimed to know my “personal beliefs” and claimed that I mis-used my title of professor emeritus at Hobart and William Smith Colleges to lend them credence. That is simply a lie. Nowhere are my personal beliefs stated. Moreover my op-ed included an exceptionally long disclaimer showing The Colleges neither condone nor condemn what I had written.

3. The faculty detractors claim that “Holocaust denial carries absolutely no weight among academic scholars in any field whatsoever.” That is simply not true. There are a number of scholars who write about the typical Holocaust narrative and are willing to fight the slime hurled at them by ardent Zionists and by others who feel it their duty to protect the narrative which serves as the sword and shield of apartheid Israel. (BTW, our former provost and former William Smith Dean both demanded that I not use the word “apartheid” in connection with Israel; granted the term was used in the Israeli press and later by President Carter, but it was not “suitable discourse” on our campus where we routinely claim to support free speech and diversity of opinion.)

4. The faculty detractors write that “denying undisputed facts of the holocaust (sic) is not a way to show support for the Palestinians.” First, the three tenets of Holocaust revisionism are clearly not “undisputed. To the contrary, they are hotly and passionately disputed; people’s lives are ruined when they even question these “facts.” In fourteen countries you can get jail time for disputing “facts” surrounding the Holocaust.

Second, disputing “facts” is what science and historical analysis is all about. We academics have no problem discussing and disputing whether or not Jesus Christ is truly the son of God, or if President Obama’s birth certificate is real, or if President Roosevelt knew a Japanese attack on Hawaii was imminent, but we are not allowed to discuss or dispute the six-million figure.

Third, what gives these detractors the credentials to pontificate on what supports or hurts Palestinians? Some of them have been responsible for feting at Hobart and William Smith Colleges anti-Palestinian demagogues including Wiesel and even Netanyahu. They helped give Madeleine Albright our highest humanitarian award, which is a disgrace in light of her statement that the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children was “worth it.” Was I the only one to protest that award?

I have team-taught a senior course on the Palestinians. I have published books and articles on the Palestinian Naqba and the massacre of Arab civilians by Jewish terrorists at Deir Yassin. I have built the only United States memorial to their dispossession and ethnic cleansing. I don’t need, nor accept, biased comments on how to support Palestinians.

5. Calling Holocaust historical revisionism “Holocaust denial” is unnecessarily pejorative. It might be fine for Fox News, but it is not conducive to academic discourse. To call Holocaust revisionism “thinly veiled anti-Semitism” is simply untrue and it demeans scholars and others, including Jews, who question the Holocaust doctrine as we are fed it in hundreds of films, books, articles, and commentaries. Terms like Holocaust Industry, Holocaust Fatigue, Holocaust professional, Holocaust wannabes, and Holocaust High Priest were not coined by “deniers” or anti-Semites; they were coined by Jews. (The High Priest quip is an obvious reference to Wiesel; it was made by Tova Reich in her book My Holocaust. Tova’s husband, Walter Reich, was the former director of the US Holocaust Museum in Washington.)

In 1946 the US government told us that over 20 million people were murdered by Hitler. Now that figure is said to be 11 million; it is literally carved in stone at the US Holocaust Memorial. For years we were told that over 4 million were killed at Auschwitz, but by the early 1990s that figure was reduced to 1.5 million. Wiesel tells us that people were thrown alive onto pyres; he claims to have seen it with his own eyes; today Yad Vashem trained guides at Auschwitz say that is not true. These are examples of historical revisionism and they are not inherently anti-Semitic.

6. It is most interesting to see academic colleagues say, “(a)s we all know … the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ was introduced to make genocide sound more palatable.” That means they either deny that Palestinians have been (and continue to be) ethnically cleansed or they agree that Israel is performing genocide of the Palestinian people.

7. While the faculty detractors found my speech to be “abhorrent,” they seemed unable to find fault with a single fact I presented. So they resorted to name-calling and labeled the piece “hate speech” and “unsupported vitriol” and smeared my name to hundreds of people. I am surprised that Abe Foxman or the Mossad did not come calling.

8. The detractors genuinely were concerned about the op-ed’s impact on our Jewish students, staff, and faculty. But maybe it is time for all members of the community to see the Holocaust for what it really was and not the unquestionable, unimpeachable, doctrine that makes Jewish suffering superior to that of other people. Maybe it is time to recognize that Zionism as a political movement to create a Jewish state in Palestine began long before the Holocaust and that Zionist discrimination, dehumanization, and dispossession of the Palestinian people should not be excused by it. Maybe it is time to see that since over half the population (within the borders controlled by Israel) is not Jewish, the dream of creating a Jewish state has failed. Walling in the non-Jews or putting them in Bantustans or driving them into Jordan will not make it a purely Jewish state. The nationalist allegiance to “blood and soil” has been a failure and that should be the real lesson of the Holocaust.

9. To say that my op-ed “does not meet our expectation of minimally rational and minimally humane discourse’ is nonsense. The piece is well written, well substantiated, and quite humane.

10. But the faculty detractors are quite right about one thing; they were deeply disturbed and saddened to see a Hobart and William Smith title attached to it. Diversity and perspectives outside the mainstream are to be encouraged, but not if they question Jewish power, Israel, or Holocaust doctrine. Apparently that is beyond the pale.

11. The demand to President Gearan to remove my title of Professor Emeritus is both classic and stupid. Consider how little it would accomplish. I would be supposedly ashamed and I would have to buy a walking pass at the gym that would cost me $40 a year. Would it save HWS from being associated with my writings? Of course not; I would simply use the title of “Former Professor Emeritus at Hobart and William Smith Colleges” with no disclaimer.

But what it would really do is to cast me into the briar bush with Norm Finkelstein, Marc Ellis, Paul Eisen, Henry Herskovitz, Gilad Atzmon, Rich Siegel, and Hedy Epstein (a Holocaust survivor), all friends of mine and all anti-Zionists. Professors Ost, Linton, and Mertens apparently saw this and I credit (or blame) them for my still having the emeritus title.

Lest I seem irreverent or unscathed by this widely-circulated smear letter from my detractors, allow me to admit that I have been hurt by it. Many faculty and other HWS folks now shun me as a persona non grata largely because they only read the slime and never a rebuttal. Of course until now there could be no rebuttal because the smear letter was withheld from me. (Even the Provost’s request to send me a copy was refused.)

My former student and long-time friend, David Deming, who is now the Chair of the HWS Board does not answer my letters. President Gearan does not answer them either. Board member, Roy Dexheimer, disparages me and wonders if I fell “off my meds.” Another Board member, Stuart Pilch, took it a step further and made a threatening phone call to my home and a promise “to hunt me down.”

But the biggest disappointment is with those faculty detractors who never came to discuss or complain about what I had written, but instead chose to spin their own interpretation, which was full of lies and half truths, and then disseminate their smear as widely as possible. Should any of you be one of the signatories, my door is open for further discussion. And if you know the names of the other signatories, I would appreciate your sharing that information with me.

~

Daniel McGowan is a Professor Emeritus at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Because of admonishment by the administration, it is hereby stated that the above remarks are solely those of the author. Hobart and William Smith Colleges neither condone nor condemn these opinions. Furthermore, the author has been instructed to use his personal email address of mcgowandaniel@yahoo.com and not his college email at mcgowan@hws.edu for those wishing to contact him with comments or criticisms.

May 28, 2011 - Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance

9 Comments »

  1. It is unfortunate that the history prior to and post-dating the second world war cannot be discussed or researched without encroaching on the winner’s historical narrative which, unfortunately, overstepped rationality, imposed any number of falsehoods and misinformation for political purposes which is simply not backed up by forensics and thusly, has resulted in skepticism about various events. To the winner go the spoils and the writing of history, but now we approach that time when the made-up aspects of the narrative do not hold up to scrutiny.

    It is always true that those issues which cannot be debated because they are accepted as absolute fact, upon further inspection, come up as contrived, illicit and simply false.

    While it is certainly true that there was a Holocaust and there was much suffering, the limits and accuracy of the narrative is being tested because of the absence of forensics which support the narrative in a number of important aspects.

    Perhaps also, there is much transferrance of guilt away from the Bolshevik Holodomor and the obvious influence of ethnic/religious hositilities in the Bolshevik revolution and the ethnic cleaning of Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians (6-10 million Christian peasants) by principally Jewish agents in Stalin’s Cheka.

    Ferocity in defense of a narrative in order to forestall debate on the forensics which cannot be taken to support certain aspects of the narrative is the hallmark of propaganda and tyranny.

    Yet, that is precisely the tactic. It is quite unfortunate that those same groups which so aggressively support a narrative unsupported by forensics and facts are many of the same groups which push hate speech and anti-speech provisions to further repress the truth. It is probably not a mere coincidence.

    Comment by Veracity | May 28, 2011 | Reply

  2. Analyzing irrelevant answers

    Jews twist reality with lies, stonewall truth with smears and sidesteps

    20th May 2011

    LOGIC WILL BE ILLEGAL IN THE NEW JEWISH SUPERSTATE

    How does it feel to you when you ask people a question, and they don’t answer it, but instead, they change the subject? (See most common technique at bottom.)

    So then when you ask the question again, they ridicule you for asking such a stupid question, and make derogatory remarks about your education, insisting everyone already knows the question you have asked is absolutely ridiculous?

    And if you persist, and ask the question one more time, pushing as hard as you can without being totally offensive (or not), that’s when you get the real reaction. They tell you you’re a bad person for even asking such a question, that it’s in bad taste, that it’s an insult, and that it will cause profound emotional distress to a certain group of surely innocent and perpetually harassed people. Surely you wouldn’t want to harm an innocent person, would you?

    The question of innocence we’ll deal with in a moment. The reality remains that you have asked a question and have not received an answer.

    What is your usual thought when a person stonewalls like that, evading the question with a series of objections about the question, rather than just answering it?

    It’s obvious the person is trying to deflect you from the original question you have uttered. Can you see that? What possible excuse could they have for not answering a straightforward, simple question? There’s only one. They’re trying to hide something. And that something is most often an existing false story which they want you to continue to believe.

    If this were only a demonstrable paradigm in interpersonal communications, that would be one thing, and this conversation would simply be a pleasant intellectual diversion in a parlor over tea. But unfortunately, this is the dominant paradigm of world communication on all levels — most especially and profoundly in mass media — where the lie they can get away with becomes the truth that we live with — or die with.

    The whole world knows that there is one category of question that must be asked by first looking over your shoulder to ascertain who might be within earshot before you ask it out loud. And everybody knows what that category is.

    Here are a few sample questions you might want to ask certain people to observe exactly how the process of evasion by smear and sidestep — social manipulation, you might call it — actually works (as if most of you didn’t already know).

    Question #1: The FBI was able to identify “all 19 hijackers” THE DAY AFTER 9/11/2001, but in the ten years since has nabbed no one else except a few patsies who they will never let speak in public lest their fraudulent poses be observed by everyone. More than 70 Israelis were rounded up in the days following 9/11, but all were allowed to return home by scanner salesman/rabbi Michael Chertoff. The question is, who do you think pulled off 9/11?

    Be sure and observe head and eye movements at the exact moment the punchline is delivered.

    That should tell you a lot. Furtive glances in both directions, clearing of the throat, or hard swallowing. Use of the word Muslim in any connective reference is certain evidence of mindlock poisoning, now estimated to effect 77 percent of Americans (major drop in last two years; it continues to drop with increasing environment disasters).

    Question #2: When you know that the main thrust of the Talmud commands Jews to kill or enslave every non Jew in the world, that all Jews renew an oath every year to lie about everything they do, and that all their holidays celebrate the slaughter of non Jews, would you like to contemplate the coma you’re in that leads you to believe Jews are just ordinary members of society?

    This question will usually totally shut down any conversation with a Jew. Observe the squinting, the quick turning away, usually accompanied by the most disturbing profanity. You can even see the wheels turning as the Jew makes mental notes about how he can help his tribe destroy you in the most painful of ways.

    Question #3: Ernst Zundel was illegally kidnapped in Tennessee on a series of pretenses, illegally transported to Canada, illegally held in solitary confinement, illegally removed to Germany, illegally sentenced to five more years in prison, his lawyer also sentenced for trying to defend him, and now is illegally ordered to keep silent in perpetuity about the truth he speaks. The Canadian Supreme Court, after a decade long battle, found him innocent. Yet he’s been harassed, kidnapped, abused and silenced ever since. Makes me think of Sami Al-Arian, the Palestinian professor who was found guilty of nothing, acquitted by a jury, served a five-year sentence, and when it was time for him to go free, THEY NEVER LET HIM GO! Who do you think was behind all this? And do you think they have our best interests at heart?

    The question Zundel had asked that got him in so much trouble was a republication of a book titled “Did Six Million Really Die?” During Ernst’s long ordeal and consecutive prison sentences, the plaque at Auschwitz was changed from “4 million were killed here” to “1.4 million were killed here,” proving Harwood’s title and Zundel’s point. But still, Zundel lingered in jail for many more years.

    Are all of you so brain dead that you don’t know who is behind this? The only reason for doing this is that you are paid to do it, perhaps not directly, but from the so-called benefits this fascist lockstep conformity has given to America. And you can just look around you and open your eyes to assess all of that. I hope they paid you a lot. Because it won’t be worth much much longer.

    The question of innocence. Funny how the world’s greatest killers and liars always feign concern for the little guy, the innocents of the world. Maybe that’s because the poor are the Jews’ cash cow. They bleed them dry, from booze to legal fees to bogus medical procedures and bills. You know the technique. It’s the one that’s bleeding you dry as well.

    Your lives are dependent on people you know are lying to you. Yes, OK, stop listening now and go back to watching the game.

    We don’t really need to know who’s doing the fighting, we need to know who’s funding the fighting. Chances are excellent it will always be the same group. It has been for hundreds of years.

    Jews make a big deal about how they are “the Chosen” and have attempted to prove their omnipotence by going around the world and assassinating whomever they choose and daring anyone to do something about it. The United States, with its celebrated bin Laden assassination drama, has now officially emulated its masters, and communicated to the whole world that World War III is under way, with the Talmudic axis of evil of Israel, Britain and the U.S. (and all those other assorted sycophants) attacking the whole world for the purpose of robbing and enslaving it. The Constitutional republic that began more than 200 years ago has now metastasized into a bloated Jewish tumor about to burst with blood across the entire surface of our planet.

    You know, the Jews themselves are the ones who say they’re not human, only they put it this way. They say the Jews are the only humans and the rest of us are just animals put here to serve the Jews.

    To list Jewish achievements would be to note all the traditions they have either destroyed or polluted, all the people they have needlessly killed and laughed about it.

    If you’re not a Jew, I bet you and I agree on what we have to do. That’s right, a total quarantine from human civilization. And that’s also right, the other solutions are much, much worse for everyone, but especially for the Jews.

    Just imagine, no more Jewish doctors trying to kill you slowly in order to get every bit of your cash, no more Jewish lawyers conspiring with other Jewish lawyers to maximize their profits at the expense of both their clients, no more Jewish teachers telling us there is strength in diversity, no more Jewish priests telling us Israel is more important than Jesus, no more Jewish presidents telling us we have to stand fast behind our gallant defender of democracy Israel while it kills all its neighbors . . . just imagine, no more Jews. No more people going to jail for telling the truth. No more buildings being blown up in the middle of our largest cities.

    So here’s question #4 to ask the Jewish person of your choice to listen closely to his answer and analyze it for (1) sincerity, (2) rapid eye movements, (3) implied threats that you should not be asking such an dangerous question, (4) stealthy attempt to change the subject, (5) denigration of your educational background, (6) allusion to a possible financial opportunity, (7) thumb twiddling, (8) grabbing crotch, (9) farting, and (10) insisting that everybody is in the same boat (Jews have their own boat).

    Question #4: “As an American I wish to know that with dual Israeli-American citizens, which country takes precedence in priority of allegiance? Does Israel come first, or does America come first? And what is the percentage of each group of Jews?”

    Have fun. Your life depends on it.

    Top twist technique in tribe’s tall tales. The most common way they use to distract you from your original question is . . .

    “Surely you don’t mean all Jews, do you?”

    Anybody who knows me knows I mean all Jews. Check the programming by analyzing all the irrelevant answers and you’ll see what I mean.

    Comment by John Kaminski | May 28, 2011 | Reply

    • To understand who benefits the other side, one must first contemplate why they would give such publicity to any Holocaust denier. If you were cheating on your taxes, would you want the opposition to be a sharp nonconformist or a sensationalist who can easily be whittled down by any lawyer? I believe there had to be a mass murder of Jews but the stories were not even close to being Warner Brothers worthy. In fact, if the public knew a Nazi collaborator presented what was easily the most popular story of the genre (in ballpoint, no less), they’d be repulsed.

      Comment by Eric Vaughan | May 28, 2011 | Reply

  3. When religious dogmas force themselves on science, the sheer gravity of reality drives them out of its realm. I seem to recall a story about a fellow named Galileo….

    Comment by Eric Vaughan | May 28, 2011 | Reply

  4. the truth is that Billy Wilder directed some of the holohoax: he is seen in the films. It was a media hoax (jewskin lampshades, jew soap, jew shrunken heads), like 911 and 7/7, when you control all media you can pull it off. but it’s falling apart. why? 911 woke up a lot of people to jewism. when people figure they’ve been lied to, they get mad

    Comment by boycott kosher | May 28, 2011 | Reply

    • I read up on Billy Wilder after reading your reply. My personal beliefs are that Zionists bought Jews off the Nazis and the Nazis shook that piggybank for all it was worth with horrific war crimes. If someone believes likewise, 1953’s Stalag 17 is the perfect audition for a distortion artist to get the Holocaust juggling act.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_17

      Comment by Eric Vaughan | May 28, 2011 | Reply

  5. I’ve always found the holocaust to be an interesting subject, especially in America. Why? Well, does no one find it the least bit odd that the United States has a holocaust museum and not one, not one dedicated to the memory of the American slaves? Especially since the former was not even committed by Americans in the first place?

    I’ve always found that denial, no pun intended, to be quite unsettling.

    Comment by Saris | June 3, 2011 | Reply

    • One wonders at the shameful disregard for native Americans that is implicit in accepting these museums dedicated to Europeans only.

      Every acquiescent visitor is a bold racist for not objecting.

      Comment by aletho | June 3, 2011 | Reply

  6. the only terrorist are the jews themselves

    imagine your self before israel wasn’t there there were no terrorist

    people were living side by side in pease christians muslims a thousand or two jews en israel is there you see everywhere terror

    the only reason of terror coz israel wantts tobe there in the middle east if there is no enemy they create one

    like the rabbi said we must go to war without war we the jews wouldnt exist

    Comment by Dutchguy | July 4, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 754 other followers