In Denial – the politics of global warming
The term “holocaust denial” is defined as follows by the American Anti-Defamation League:
Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy. It was this doctrine that was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Holocaust. What is on the surface a denial of the reality of genocide is, at its core, an appeal to genocidal hatred. (ADL 1996).
In other words, if you are unconvinced of the official view of the Nazi holocaust, you are complicit in it. Note that the party line changes. Thirty years ago, someone who refused to believe that Jews were made into soap, glue and lampshades by the Nazis, was allegedly party to murder. That is no longer the case. But today, if you question cattle trucks, gas chambers, or a number of Jewish fatalities less than about five million, you are still, by the above definition, someone who is trying to replay that genocide. Note that I don’t reject the latest version of the official story; I reject the idea that rejecting it is a crime. But that doesn’t satisfy the thought police; it just makes me an “apologist” rather than a “denier”. The acceptance of the concept “holocaust denier” is the result of a successful assault on the highest principles of Western civilization – sceptical enquiry and presumption of innocence. It was unlikely it would stop there. Legislators, activists and journalists have tried to extend the term “denier” to protect another sacred tablet: the belief that there is irrefutable evidence that human activity is causing the earth’s climate to enter a period of unprecedented, irreversible warming.