|April 26, 2000|
supports the criminalization of dissent
The Canadian Jewish Congress acknowledges that it is working to criminalize dissenting views concerning the Jewish Holocaust, and indicates that it has enjoyed some success in persuading government representatives to begin moving in this direction:
The CJC web site gives no indication that there is any minority view among Jewish leaders which opposes this movement to criminalize dissent, and as you are frequently featured on the CJC site, especially in your role as CJC War Crimes Committee Chair, the impression is created that you concur with the CJC position. I wonder if you would care to confirm or disconfirm this impression?
In case that you are in agreement with the CJC effort to criminalize dissent with respect to the prevailing popular view of the Jewish Holocaust, I present reasons below why you should not be.
of Jewish-Holocaust dissent because:
Boaz Evron tells us that Holocaust misrepresentation is the second-greatest tragedy to befall the Jewish people during the 20th century
The reason that no one should advocate the criminalization of the open discussion of the Jewish Holocaust is that much of the story currently popularized by the media is palpably false, a realization that has occurred to more than one writer:
of Jewish-Holocaust dissent because:
Many Jewish-Holocaust hoaxes have already been first widely disseminated, and later discredited and abandoned
By way of demonstrating Boaz Evron's thesis that the misrepresentation of the Jewish Holocaust is the second-greatest tragedy to befall the Jewish people during the 20th century, and that it constitutes a cancer for Jews and for the State of Israel, I will demonstrate that the story of the Jewish Holocaust has been corrupted by a number of frauds, and has been in a state of ongoing revision to cleanse itself of these frauds ever since it first emerged out of Soviet war-propaganda factories. In doing so, it will be convenient to refer to examples already documented on the Ukrainian Archive. If what is lacking for you to be utterly convinced is a list ten times as long, then referring to external sources would make such a longer list easy to compile.
(1) Soap made out of Jewish fat. Soap being made from Jewish fat would have to qualify as authentic, Jewish-Holocaust history by virtue of its being testified to in Nuremberg:
The Soviets even supplied samples:
Today, however, historians do not credit the soap story. Thus, in Raul Hilberg's index, there appears only the entry "soap rumor," and on p. 955 there appears the statement:
Or, Deborah Lipstadt makes the following acknowledgement:
Lucky for Holocaust revisionists Raul Hilberg and Deborah Lipstadt that they live in the United States where they will be safe from the criminal prosecution under the who-cares-what's-true law that the CJC hopes to get passed in Canada.
(2) Millions of volts at Belzec. The story of millions of volts at Belzec would have at one time qualified as authentic Jewish-Holocaust history, of the sort that the CJC today wants to shelter under the umbrella of the criminal law, with the defense of truth disallowed to any skeptic — would have qualified, I say, because of the authority and prestige of the The Jewish Black Book Committee which takes credit for the The Black Book: The Nazi Crime Against the Jewish People:
And the millions-of-volts at Belzec story which is told in this Black Book is the following:
Need I say more? Does anyone doubt that the above fairy tale has today been totally abandoned? Is there anybody still unaware that Yitzhak Arad testified in Jerusalem that Belzec was the same as Treblinka, with victims first gassed, then buried in massive pits, and later dug up and burned in open-air fires?
(3) Three types of death chamber at Treblinka. I allude here to another "Black Book," this one by Ilya Ehrenburg and Vasily Grossman (eds.), The Black Book: The Ruthless Murder of Jews by German-Fascist Invaders Throughout the Temporarily-Occupied Regions of the Soviet Union and in the Death Camps of Poland During the War of 1941-1945, Holocaust Library, New York, published in Hebrew in 1980, published in English in 1981.
There cannot be much doubt that the contents of this book are ones that the CJC would want to have classified as authentic Jewish-Holocaust history, deserving of protection from historical revision by the criminal law, and with any challenger to its accuracy dragged before the criminal courts with his lip buttoned for him by the judge whenever he offered the defense of truth. This authenticity can be inferred from the prestige of the advisory board of the Holocaust Library, which includes a Nobel Prize winner: Alexander Donat (Chairman), Sam E. Bloch, William H. Donat, Abraham H. Foxman, Hadassah Rosensaft, Leon W. Wells, and Elie Wiesel. And the authenticity can be inferred further from the copyright to the book being held by "Yad Vashem & Israel Research Institute of Contemporary Society." And it can be inferred still further by world Jewish-Holocaust authority Yitzhak Arad having written one of its prefaces. If this isn't authentic, unchallengeable throw-you-in-jail-if-you-doubt-it Jewish-Holocaust history, I don't know what is.
Anyway, this particular Black Book identifies three types of death chamber, the most frequently used employing vacuum, next most frequently used employing diesel exhaust, and least frequently used employing steam:
However, Yitzhak Arad testified in Jerusalem in 1987 that there was only one type of death chamber at Treblinka — one fed by diesel exhaust, killing by means of carbon monoxide — and the story of vacuum and steam chambers seems to have utterly disappeared from the Holocaust literature.
Hope I don't have to spend time in the slammer for having brought that to your attention.
(4) Hair factory at Treblinka. The story of the hair factory at Treblinka might even today qualify as authentic, criminal-code-stamp-of-approval Jewish-Holocaust history, because of the qualifications of its author:
The hair-factory story would qualify as authentic Jewish-Holocaust history also because the title of the book contains the words "true story," and because a blurb on the back cover testifies to the quality of its research:
And we know that the hair-factory story is authentic Jewish-Holocaust history also because of its staying power — it was first published in the United States in 1971, then in Great Britain in 1981, after that was reprinted in 1982 and 1983, and most recently re-published in Great Britain in 1996.
And what is the hair-factory story that Michael Elkins tells? Hold on to your seat, because I think he had film rights in mind when he wrote it:
Michael Elkins describes the Treblinka uprising of 02Aug43 spilling into the hair factory (which we are now told is at least two stories high, making it the only two-story building at Treblinka), and describes as well how products of the hair factory were cunningly employed as weapons:
Michael Elkins even describes the Germans using helicopters to hunt down prisoners who escaped during the revolt of 02Aug43:
However, none of the Jews who testified as Treblinka survivors at the 1987 trial of John Demjanjuk in Jerusalem mentioned a hair factory at Treblinka, or hair warehouses at Treblinka. They said the shorn hair was baled and shipped out. The photograph of a model of Treblinka that someone had made did not show a two-story hair factory, or even a one-story hair factory, and it did not show a single hair warehouse. We are left, therefore, wondering whether the Jerusalem witnesses were making up stories about a Treblinka that they had never seen, or whether Michael Elkins is accurately describing a Treblinka that never was.
I offer my impression as well that whereas the Germans might have been developing experimental helicopters in 1943, none were available for use by the armed forces.
(5) Frank Walus as The Butcher of Kielce. Frank Walus having served as the sadistic Nazi war criminal, The Butcher of Kielce, clearly qualifies as on-with-the-handcuffs-for-doubting-it Jewish-Holocaust history, because (1) Simon Wiesenthal said that Walus was the Butcher of Kielce, (2) about a dozen we-know-only-one-truth Jewish eyewitnesses swore that he was, and (3) Chicago Judge Julius Hoffman handed down the verdict that he was. Jewish-Holocaust history doesn't come carrying much higher credentials of authenticity than that, and the quality of the testimony did meet the high standards of graphic goriness that the public has come to expect in such cases, and that Jewish witnesses have become used to supplying:
Too bad for the CJC attempt to get Canadians to sanctify a single version of Jewish-Holocaust history that six years after Walus's persecution began, and two years after he lost his U.S. citizenship, conclusive evidence of his innocence surfaced, and the Justice Department withdrew the charges. So much for the worth of a dozen Jewish witnesses describing the Jewish Holocaust.
(6) John Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka. The colorful stories of John Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka at one time qualified as authentic Jewish-Holocaust history merely by being reproduced in numerous official documents in both the United States and Israel, and by being endlessly repeated by the press, and ultimately by being corroborated by a string of Jewish witnesses in Jerusalem, and beyond that being credited by three Israeli judges — stories of this sort:
It is no shame to John Demjanjuk to repeat the above stories here, as today the claim that he was ever at Treblinka has been totally abandoned. The US Office of Special Investigations, desperate to have the last word, continues proceedings against him, but in those proceedings, not a whisper can be heard of Treblinka. The testimony of the we-know-only-one-truth eyewitnesses who swore knowing John Demjanjuk at Treblinka is thus dismissed as worthless. The horrible indictment above stands to the eternal discredit not of John Demjanjuk, but of the madmen who wrote it. The conviction of John Demjanjuk, and the sentencing him to death, stands not to his discredit, but to the discredit of the three Israeli judges who staged his show trial, and of world Jewry who almost to a man supported that show trial actively or passively. And yet can the CJC find any qualification higher than the decision of a court of law that will give a story protection as authentic, seize-your-hard-drive-if-you-doubt-it Jewish-Holocaust history?
Sure hope my pointing out that John Demjanjuk being ultimately acquitted is an example of ongoing Jewish-Holocaust revision doesn't bring the thought police knocking at my door when the CJC's new law is passed.
of Jewish-Holocaust dissent because:
The most prominent
If we turn our attention from particular Holocaust stories to the Jewish leaders most active in disseminating them, we discover that this leadership has been overrun by fabulists. Alphabetically, a few of these fabulists are:
(1) Yitzhak Arad testified at the 1987 trial of John Demjanjuk in Jerusalem that 870,000 Treblinka bodies vanished into thin air, leaving behind not a single body, not a single bone, not a single tuft of hair, not a single tooth, not a single pile of ash. You will note that John Demjanjuk is on trial for his life, and yet this prosection witness is a stranger to the most elementary logic. Consider, for example, that if 870,000 bodies are burned in open fires, the teeth will not burn (and much more than the teeth — but let that pass), and on the assumption of a conservative 20 teeth per body instead of the full 32, that gives us 17.4 million teeth that must have been left behind. Where are those teeth, Mr. Arad? We need to see just a few of them before we will be willing to credit your story.
And that's not all that vanished without a trace. According to Arad, the entire camp infrastructure vanished without a trace as well, leaving behind not a single map of the camp, not a single blueprint of any building in the camp, not a single photograph of the camp as a whole or of any building in the camp or of any room inside any building in the camp, not a single road or sewer line or garbage dump or telephone post or foundation or brick, not even a single area of disturbed earth where any of the massive burial pits were supposed to have been. That was the testimony Yitzhak Arad, leading authority on the Jewish Holocaust, head of Jerusalem's Yad Vashem for the previous fifteen years, fresh from having written his book, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka — that is the evidence that Yitzhak Arad presented in Jerusalem as his contribution to the Jewish effort to get John Demjanjuk hung. I have the transcript. This transcript is in the public domain, and you can readily obtain a copy for yourself. Please do so, and please read Arad's testimony and then please tell me whether you think I am exaggerating.
Please tell me also whether you advocate that my instructing Yitzhak Arad as to the evidence that he needs to produce in order to transform Treblinka myth into Treblinka history is deserving of criminal prosecution, and that in such prosecution I should be denied the defense of truth.
(2) Alan Dershowitz has run hard in the race to lead the struggle to have John Demjanjuk convicted in the court of public opinion, which paralleled the struggle to get him convicted in various courts of law. Undermining Dershowitz's efforts, however, has been his readiness to bend truth. The outstanding example documented on the Ukrainian Archive so far is Dershowitz insisting to Lord Denning that John Demjanjuk's being sentenced to death was greeted with no more than a few muffled sobs, and that the audience sang and prayed only after the judges left the courtroom. However, the alternative view that the Demjanjuk audience was out of control from the first day of the trial, and erupted in a bloodthirsty outcry the moment the death sentence was pronounced, is supported not only by Demjanjuk's defense attorney, Yoram Sheftel, and not only by nineteen press accounts, but also by Dershowitz himself in an article he wrote three years prior to presenting Lord Denning with the untruthful version.
(3) Jerzy Kosinski was being groomed for a Nobel Prize when it was discovered that his Holocaust-survivor recollections were total fabrications, and that the Poles whom he had maligned in his novel, The Painted Bird, as brainless and brutal anti-Semites had in reality, at considerable risk to themselves, protected the Kosinski family, and had enabled them to pass the war years in a comfort unattainable by the Poles. Please read James Park Sloan's biography of Jerzy Kosinski, and tell me whether you would want to see Sloan subjected to criminal prosecution for debunking Jerzy Kosinski's widely-accepted and highly-acclaimed tales of the Jewish Holocaust, and indeed whether you would want to see the authors of the Village Voice article which first exposed Jerzy Kosinki as a plagiarist and Jewish-Holocaust fabulist subjected to such criminal prosecution as well, all under the CJC who-cares-what's-true law of course.
Please tell me also whether it is your position that when the thought police haul me up before the courts, I should be forbidden the defense of truth for having pointed out that among the reasons why Jews should have denied Jerzy Kosinski a leadership role among Jewish-Holocaust witnesses was that he had shown plentiful evidence of mental unsoundness, as by having masturbated Marian Javits's dog.
(4) Sol Littman is the author of one of the two publicity stunts that led to the creation of the Deschênes Commission — the Littman-Blumenthal Mengele Scare; and is the co-author of the second of the two publicity stunts — the Littman-Wiesenthal Thousands of War Criminals Scare. Littman was excoriated by Commissioner Deschênes, and his reputation left in tatters in the minds of that infinitesimal minority of Canadians who have read the Commission Final Report. To illustrate the contempt with which Commissioner Deschênes came to regard Littman's credibility, I reproduce the following excerpts from the report:
Of course in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians who have not read the Deschênes Commission report, Sol Littman continues to enjoy the reputation of Canada's leading Nazi hunter. It testifies to Littman's competence and integrity that he accepts this title without being able to point to a single Nazi that he has helped bag over the course of his Nazi-hunting career. The number of Sol Littman's misrepresentations is vast, and I invite you to read my beginning to catalog them in my letters to him which are on the Ukrainian Archive. You will note in these letters that I ask Littman to produce several documents that he has claimed are in his possession, and that are supposed to be highly inculpatory of Ukrainians, but that he has neglected to do so. I have even offered Sol Littman immediate publication of his documents on the Ukrainian Archive, without regard to how damaging they may be to Ukrainians, but he does not take me up on my offer.
Please inform me if you think that I should be denied the defense of truth when the thought police haul me before the courts for distressing Sol Littman with my offer of instant publication of his inculpating evidence, and please tell me whether Commissioner Deschênes should suffer a similar fate for publishing the incredulity that he came to feel toward Sol Littman's Jewish-Holocaust stories.
(5) Morley Safer is the co-author of the Wiesenthal-Safer Calumny, outlined in the Simon Wiesenthal section below. Generally, Safer feels no qualms about getting up in front of 30 million viewers and offering to them his off-the-top-of-my-head prejudices and stereotypes and hatreds which he assumes must be true because he has heard them so often from everybody around him, and repeated them so often himself. He tells us that Western Ukrainians are particularly predisposed to blaming their troubles on others, but doesn't tell us what historian or sociologist offered that observation. He tells us that the accusation has been made that Ukrainians are genetically anti-Semitic, but doesn't tell us what geneticist made that accusation. He tells us that the government of Ukraine has responded that Ukrainians may not be genetically anti-Semitic, but doesn't tell us the name of the government spokesman who deigned to reply to such an idiotic charge. He imagines that there is such a thing as "the church of Ukraine," and he tells us that it too has responded that Ukrainians may not be genetically anti-Semitic, but does not name any church, nor any church representative who offered the reply. He doesn't know the difference between the SS and the Waffen SS. He is beneath contempt, and he will sleep easier only after the CJC finally has my hard drive seized for having the effrontery to say so.
(6) Yankiel Wiernick is perhaps the pre-eminent Jewish-Holocaust witness, as his account of Treblinka was relied upon heavily in the Jerusalem trial of John Demjanjuk, and is spoken of with reverence to this day, as in Yitzhak Arad's book Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. If Yankiel Wiernick's account of Treblinka can be doubted, then nobody of comparable stature is available to fill his shoes, and the credibility of the Treblinka story is dealt a mortal blow. And yet what is Wiernick's credibility? Judge for yourself.
Yankiel Wiernick relates that he was fired upon by a Ukrainian guard who was just behind him, and that the bullet penetrated all his clothing but stopped at his shoulder leaving only a scratch. Wiernick relates that as he helped drag bodies that had not received immediate burial, their arms and legs fell off. Where the woman's world record for high jump is around 2.1 meters, Wiernik claims to have witnessed a girl prisoner jump over a barbed wire fence 3 meters high, then wrench the rifle out of the hands of a Ukrainian guard who had run up to apprehend her, and then shoot two Ukrainian guards before being overpowered. Wiernick relates that whenever an airplane was heard over Treblinka, prisoners would conceal piles of corpses numbering 10 or 12 thousand from view by covering them with branches. Wiernick relates that when Germans threw a burning object into an opened mass grave just to see what would happen, "Clouds of black smoke began to pour out at once and the fire thus started glimmered all day long." Wiernick relates that when bodies were tossed into a mass grave without being given a chance to cool off first, "They were so tightly packed that, when the graves were opened on a scorchingly hot day, steam belched forth from them as if from a boiler."
In other words, Yankiel Wiernick gives every indication of never having witnessed the scenes he is describing, but rather of making them up out of his fevered imagination, and where that imagination is constrained by a knowledge of the world that might be considered inferior to a child's.
Please instruct me whether it is your position that my concluding that Yankiel Wiernick is a pathological liar is deserving of criminal prosecution without my being permitted the defense that Yankiel Wiernick really is a pathological liar.
(7) Elie Wiesel fails to describe gas chambers as the chief method of execution in his recollections of Auschwitz, and instead describes the method of execution as leaping into pits of fire. According to Wiesel, although the Germans were on the verge of murdering him the way they were murdering all the Jews at Auschwitz, they nevertheless allocated scarce resources to him — the use of a German surgeon and a German anesthesiologist, together with a week's stay in hospital, together with rations so generous that he was sending out leftovers to his father who was not in the hospital. Unfortunately, Wiesel cannot keep straight from one telling of the story to the next whether the genocidal Germans operated on the sole of his foot or on his knee. When offered the choice of accompanying the genocidal Germans as they abandoned Auschwitz, or remaining to be liberated by the approaching Soviets, Wiesel chose to accompany the genocidal Germans.
Please instruct me whether it is your position that the thought police should haul me before the criminal courts, and that the criminal courts should deny me the defense of truth, for my bringing to public attention the discrepancies and incongruities in Elie Wiesel's writing which testify to his lack of credibility.
(8) Simon Wiesenthal can be credited with co-authorship of the Littman-Wiesenthal Thousands of Nazi War Criminals Scare which was the second publicity stunt leading to the creation of the Deschênes Commission. Wiesenthal like Littman is excoriated by Commissioner Deschênes for his irresponsibility, as in the following two passages:
Among other sins, Simon Wiesenthal can also be credited with being the chief author of the Wiesenthal-Safer Calumny which has Lviv Ukrainians killing five to six thousand Jews in the three days prior to German occupation, an event which he and Morley Safer introduced into the historical record gratuitously, and where an abundance of other testimony indicates that in that same interval it was the Jewish-dominated NKVD that was killing Ukrainians by the thousands in Lviv, and by the tens of thousands throughout Ukraine.
Prominent among the black marks on Wiesenthal's record is his 1971 accusation that Ivan Chrabatyn of Vancouver had been implicated in the mass execution of 10,000 Jews. "We have about 60 witnesses who can positively identify him" Wiesenthal told the Vancouver Sun. But in the end, as is standard for Wiesenthal, zero Wiesenthal witnesses were produced, overwhelming exculpatory evidence came to the fore, the Vancouver Sun paid Chrabatyn's lawyer $5,000 [Error: the correct figure is $11,000] to drop Chrabatyn's suit for libel, and Wiesenthal sat safely in Vienna, avoiding service of Chrabatyn's summonses.
Wiesenthal's credibility is not enhanced by indications that he was a Nazi collaborator of massive proportions, as evidenced by such of his own admissions as that he had been allowed to keep two pistols by his German captors, or that while other escapees were executed following recapture, he was relieved of work and put on double rations.
I ask you to inform me whether I should be denied the defense of truth when the thought police haul me up before the courts for pointing out that Simon Wiesenthal's claim that 6,000 Nazi war criminals resided in Canada was followed by his presenting a list of a mere 217, and that was followed by Commissioner Deschênes judging his list to be "nearly totally useless," and that in turn was followed by zero convictions in criminal court. I ask you further whether it is your opinion that my doubting the existence of the Wiesenthal-Safer largest single pogrom of the war in pre-German Lviv merits criminal prosecution without the defense of truth being allowed. Such a prosecution is particularly plausible in the Orwellian nightmare being planned for Canada by the CJC, as the record-breaking, pre-German Lviv pogrom easily qualifies as falling within authenticated Jewish-Holocaust history, as is evidenced by its having been broadcast to some 30 million 60 Minutes viewers in 1994, and not having been retracted since.
In short, I ask you to inform me whether you come down on the side of using the criminal law to force people to believe for all time that:
(1) the Germans made soap from Jewish fat;
(2) Belzec victims stood on a platform that lowered them into a pool of water where they were electrocuted by a current of millions of volts;
(3) the most common death chamber at Treblinka was a vacuum chamber, and the third most common was a steam chamber;
(4) Treblinka had a hair factory and seven hair warehouses;
(5) Frank Walus was the Butcher of Kielce;
(6) John Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka.
Do you recommend that Jewish-Holocaust stories like the above should be forever carved in stone? Do you recommend that anyone who doubts such stories should be arrested, have his hard drive confiscated, be tried under the criminal code, not be permitted the defense of truth, and perhaps sent to prison if a recantation cannot be extracted?
And do you recommend that the representations of Yitzhak Arad, Alan Dershowitz, Jerzy Kosinski, Sol Littman, Morley Safer, Yankiel Wiernick, Elie Wiesel, and Simon Wiesenthal also find protection under the umbrella of accepted Holocaust history, and any challenges to them be branded as hate propaganda, and similarly prosecuted?
If that is indeed your position, then I ask you to consider whether you have not joined a project to introduce totalitarianism into Canada, and whether that project will not be greeted with particular repugnance by the academic historians who are your colleagues.
Upon reading the CJC statement above that the defense of truth will be disallowed anyone charged with a denial not only of the Jewish Holocaust, but also anyone charged with a denial of "any other historically recognized act of genocide," it is possible to imagine that the intent of this qualification is to allow groups other than Jews to claim sanctity for their holocausts — Ukrainians, Armenians, Cambodians, Gypsies, and so on. With respect to this supposition, I make two observations:
(1) Other groups do not appear to want their holocausts sanctified, being secure in their confidence that closer scrutiny of the historical record will confirm their claims, and if it clears up misconceptions as well, all the better.
(2) It may be reasonable to wonder if the qualification really aims to extend holocaust sanctity to the losses of non-Jews, or whether it aims to extend holocaust sanctity to other Jewish losses. I am thinking primarily of the Khmelnytsky rebellion of 1648, which Jews have begun to increasingly portray as a gratuitous and genocidal attack upon them by Ukrainians, with Bohdan Khmelnytsky playing the role of an early Adolf Hitler. Is it the Khmelnytsky rebellion that the CJC wants Canada's criminal code to sanctify as another Jewish Holocaust? Is it Khmelnytsky that the CJC has in mind when it talks of "any other historically recognized act of genocide"?
I fear that this may well be the CJC goal. I fear that under irresponsible and inept leadership, the CJC is attempting to use the criminal law to force this coup of historical revision. I fear that the day may come when Ukrainians are forbidden to proclaim the truth that the Khmelnytsky uprising was a rebellion against a Polish-Jewish oppression so crushing as to be hardly distinguishable from outright slavery:
I fear that the day may come when the Jewish habit of inflating losses succeeds in suppressing the responsible estimate of 10,000 and succeeds in replacing it with rabbi Nathan Hanover's hyperbolic estimate of more than 100,000:
I fear that in CJC's plans for Canada, discussion, such as that below, of Hanover's ignorance of arithmetic may provoke a midnight knock on the door by the thought police:
I fear that the day may come when Hanover's untrustworthiness is suppressed, and his stories are sanctified as history instead of disparaged as the fantasies that they transparently are:
And I fear that the day may come when police with assault rifles will be called upon to enforce the CJC view that an enslaved peasant must be considered a racist monster in those cases where Jews profited from his state of slavery and exploitation:
In view of the undeniable corruption of the Jewish Holocaust industry, CJC advocacy of criminalizing open discussion of the Jewish Holocaust leaves the impression of having no motive other than to cover up industry misdeeds.
Holocaust misrepresentation is indeed a cancer eating at the Jewish people. It is a cancer that has metastacized. It is a cancer that may be inoperable. But the only hope is to extirpate it immediately, and make up by means of future virtue the misdeeds of the past.
If the CJC is sincere in its stated goal of reducing anti-Semitism, it can do no better than to take energetic steps toward uncovering past Jewish-Holocaust misrepresentation and toward reducing future misrepresentation, and it can do no better than to abandon its campaign to criminalize free speech.