Saturday, December 16, 2006
The road to Tehran's Holocaust denial
The Islamic Republic of Iran's campaign to deny the Holocaust is rooted in the idea that the Holocaust is the moral basis for the establishment of Israel. If the moral foundation under Israel cracks, the thinking goes, war to eradicate Israel -- to "wipe it from the map" -- is suddenly justifiable. That is why Iran is holding its conference. There is no other convincing explanation.
The thing is, the road to Tehran's denial was paved by Western chattering classes, who have recently indulged in absurd invocations of the word "genocide" and casual comparisons of the Israelis to Nazis. Bret Stephens goes after them like a SA "brownshirt" on the last day of June, 1934:
"Not acceptable," says Ban Ki Moon, new Secretary-General of the United Nations. "Repulsive," say the editors of Britain's Guardian newspaper. "An insult . . . to the memory of millions of Jews," says Hillary Rodham Clinton. Global polite society is in an uproar over the Holocaust conference organized this week in Tehran under the auspices of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Moral denunciation is what reasonable people do--what they must do--when a regime that avows the future extermination of six million Jews in Israel denies the past extermination of six million Jews in Europe. But let's be frank: Global polite society has been blazing its own merry trail toward this occasion for decades.
The Australian Financial Review is not the Journal of Historical Review, the Holocaust-denying "scholarly" vehicle of some of the Tehran conferees. But in 2002 the AFR thought it fit to print the following by Joseph Wakim, at one point the country's multicultural affairs commissioner: "Sharon's war is not a war," he wrote. "Genocide would be a more accurate description." In Ireland Tom McGurk, a columnist in the very mainstream Sunday Business Post, noted that "the scenes at Jenin last week looked uncannily like the attack on the Warsaw Jewish ghetto in 1944." Jose Saramago, Portugal's Nobel Laureate in Literature, observed after a visit to Ramallah that the Israeli incursion into the city "is a crime that may be compared to Auschwitz."
Never mind that the total number of Jews "dealt with" in the Warsaw ghetto, according to Nazi commandant Jürgen Stroop, was 56,065, whereas the number of Palestinians killed in Jenin was no more than 60. Never mind that at the time Mr. Saramago visited Ramallah a total of about 1,500 Palestinians had been killed in the Intifada, whereas Jews were murdered at Auschwitz at a rate of about 2,000 a day.
Read the whole thing.
There is something else here, a point that Stephens does not make. The Islamic Republic, which by ideology and practice believes in moral absolutes, is exploiting Western post-modernism's unwillingness to stand and defend any single truth. Even the most basic and verifiable historical truth, which is yet within the memory of thousands of witnesses still living, is attackable because Western intellectuals no longer believe in any truth. Among the complicated people who shape the considered opinion of the Western elites, it is entirely acceptable to question all interpretations of facts (with the obvious exception of facts that bear on global climate change). So in Ahmadinejad we have a man who believes absolutely that the Prophet Mohammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem and absolutely that Jesus Christ was not the son of God, and who at the same time holds a conference to deny the historical fact of the Holocaust, and still our foreign policy "wise men," the major newspapers, and the leaders of the Democratic party call for our president to negotiate with him. Who, actually, is confused?
29 Comments:
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Dec 16, 10:12:00 AM:
Who cares what Ahmadinejad thinks about world history?
The key to understanding people in another culture is to pay attention to their actions, not their words. "What a person does is what he is," noted Syd Field in his book "Screenplay," an authoritative guide for screenwriters. Movie writers understand this point when they write drama. Top journalists understand this point when they cover politicians. And international executives understand this point when they put together business deals.
By K. Pablo, at
Sat Dec 16, 10:38:00 AM:
Strange, TH, I've been ruminating on essentially the same point you make in this post. It is a philosophical one: Islamists have found an exploitable weakness in the thought processes that dominate the West, yet we have not been able to exploit the obvious shortcomings of an absolutist mindset.
Interestingly, I think Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami put it best:
"Despite all efforts aimed at summarizing the entirety of Western Civilization in liberal democracy and the multifaceted justification of this point of view, and dreams of an end to history, the rising crisis of modern rationale and modernism on the one hand and the resistance of other civilizations and smaller communities based on faith on the other, and even the emergence of anti-modernist traditional movements in the twentieth century, has created doubts about the ultimate domination of reason-based modern civilization."
By William, at
Sat Dec 16, 11:19:00 AM:
I believe that you have the right to question any idea, and I believe such a mindset has allowed Western Civilization to adapt over the years.
I also believe you have the right to say that any questioner is full of **it, a position that, when adopted by society, lends us the resolution to take serious action towards the pursuit of an idea or the resolution of a problem.
Basically, you can say anything you want, a right which I will never deny you, but that doesn't mean I can't say you're wrong and wrong for saying it.
For you, TH, to cite the first belief in defending those who question Global Warming, and then cite the second in condemning those who question the Holocaust, is definitely being a hypocritical.
Given the facts, I believe that Global Warming is enough of a threat that we need to take action against it, and I condemn anyone who continues to promote the easy path of denial as either gullible or people who place their own self-interests before the greater interests of society.
Given the facts, I believe the Holocaust was a gruesome reality, and I condemn anyone who continues to deny it as despicable knaves who will allow no moral prohibition to get between them and their greedy goals.
Unfortunately, from time to time, ones strategic situation requires that you talk with despicable knaves. It's regrettable, but I believe that at this point in our ME policy we are looking for the least of various evils rather than the greatest of various goods.
By 
, at
Sat Dec 16, 11:59:00 AM:
OK, you need to leave scientists out of your postmodern "Western chattering classes" because it is completely unfair to lump us in with them. Scientists as a lot are, and have been for a long time, in conflict with postmodernisms goals and means (see Gross and Levitt's excellent book "Higher Superstition" for many examples of the conflicts that postmodernists and scientists have). Postmodern critics seek to deny the existence of any objective, knowable truth - *obviously* no one in science is going to want to be associated with that sort of thinking.
To snark about the interpretation of climate change facts in the same post as holocaust denial is irresponsible in the worst way. Cynical (and very postmodern, I might add) manipulation of this sort, along with a few papers, by scientists funded by oil companies does not a valid alternative interpretation make.
Let me be blunt: neither you, nor anyone I have seen comment on this blog, is qualified and informed enough to make a judgement about a very complex problem. No one here (me included!) has the background to judge from the large body of research whether
a) Carbon emissions caused by humans significantly alter the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, or whether
b) The change in the amount of CO2 has a significant impact on the rate of warming.
Because of people like you, the scientific debate over climate change has become politicized and shrill to a harmful extent, but that doesn't mean that the scientists involved aren't making good-faith efforts to get at the truth - so by mentioning them together with holocausts deniers you are making them seem as if their intellectual effort is as corrupt and meaningless as Ahmadinejad's. This is taking slimeball tactics to a really new height; excuse the angry tone of this post but you really hit a nerve here.
By skipsailing, at
Sat Dec 16, 02:38:00 PM:
Nonsense Phrizz. You are talking about scientists, not saints.
The simple fact is that there are several competing interpretations of the dynamics of climate change. What our host points out is that despite this many, many people have accepted a single explanation as dogma. That dogmatic approach marks the end of scientific progress. Once a "myth" is established a large body of writing will follow to find ways to explain how disparate "facts" actually conform to the conventional wisdom.
The men who believed that human health was based on balancing humors had enormous amounts of written justification, all of it wrong.
Futher, given a choice of boogeymen, phrizz, I think global cooling is by far the more important.
And yes, TH is conflating the global warming scare mongers with the holocaust deniers. Why? As I read his post it seems to me that both groups have decided that something is true simply because they believe it is.
Further, phrizz, the debate over so called global warming SHOULD be political. The al gore alarmists are demanding massive intervention. In america large scale co ordinated action is generally done with the involvement of the government. Hello? You get that don't you?
Frankly, I think the nerve that TH hit has little to do with global warming. I think he got this exactly right: people who believe in nothing will believe anything.
Is that you? Are you part of the "man is the measure of all things" crowd that is currently clamoring for domination?
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Dec 16, 03:31:00 PM:
Basically, you can say anything you want, a right which I will never deny you...doesn't mean I can't say you're wrong and wrong for saying it.
France will deny you that right.
By Pudentilla, at
Sat Dec 16, 03:44:00 PM:
"Who, actually, is confused?" -
Given the available evidence about the nature of the Republican administration's profound incompetence in the business of warmaking, perhaps those who call for diplomacy have greater clarity of thought than that which you credit to them.
Of course such folks do live in a world whose recent history has taught them to distrust those who would divide all actors into "good" and "evil" and demonize all who will not immediately embrace an ethic of total war with other people's kids against those we deem evil.
Perhaps it is those who have lived through the last five years and still embrace the military leadership of this administration and still genuflect to their claims of moral superiority who suffer some confusion.
By , at
Sat Dec 16, 03:53:00 PM:
TH's point is that Global Warming is debatable, given various warming and cooling trends absent modern carbon inputs (example: Medieval Warming Period, "little Ice Age 1300-1830").
Whereas the Holocause is established, verifiable FACT.
Modernist dogma accepts that Global Warming is a fact based on well, "feelings" and other non-verifiable articles of post-modernist religious faith. While trivializing or denying the Holocaust and "dealing" with it's principal enablers like Ahmadinejad.
The above poster worrying about Al Gore's global warming while suggesting "we can do business with Mr. Hitler" ... oops I meant to quote him and instead quoted Chamberlain is the very example of what is defined as insanity.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I am quite sure we can "end" Global Warming by all living in mud and grass huts (except "important people" like Al Gore and Alec Baldwin and Leo DiCaprio). I'm sure the middle class Chinese, Thais, Taiwanese, South Koreans, and Indians who clawed their way up to middle class prosperity are more than happy to go back to living in primitive mud-hut conditions "to save the planet."
Meanwhile the West and the useful idiots cheer on Ahmadinejad's clear attempt to finish Hitler's job. I'm quite certain most of the Global Warming crowd would applaud Ahmadinejad for wiping out Israel as he promised.
After all that will not only kill Jews (something progressives can really get behind) but cut their carbon emissions. I mean Israel has given the world gene therapies, cell phone technology, anti-cancer treatments, and at some point you have to draw the line.
By William, at
Sat Dec 16, 05:28:00 PM:
Anony, I am part of the 'Global Warming Crowd' and I believe Ahmadinejad a despicable knave. The UN, Brazil, People's Republic of China, India, US National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, Union of Concerned Sciences, and even some industry leaders, such as Republican Paul Anderson, chairman of Duke Energy, Boeing, IBM, John Hancock, and Whirlpool, are also all part of the 'Global Warming Crowd'.
The blanket assertion that they want to live in 'mud and grass huts' and are not only 'useful idiots', but would 'cheer on Ahmadinejad's clear attempt to finish Hitler's job' has just reduced you to an ignorant knave in my book. No wonder you post anonymously.
Phrizz, I do not believe you or me capable of making judgments on carbon emissions. I do however believe the vast majority of scientists with expertise in said subjects to have such capabilities, and do not believe oil-company funded scientists denials credible.
That is my position, and we already know yours. As I said, I respect your right to a different opinion on the matter, but with all due respect think you wrong for holding it, and suspect that you are more afraid of adopting the same position as Al Gore than convinced that the reasoning behind global warming is flawed.
Additionally, to clarify, I am not part of these 'postmodernists'. I would rather find truths than deny them, and I believe that we have found truth in the position that Global Warming is a very real threat that must be dealt with. To attempt to keep the issue out of politics would be to delay action, and to delay action is to deny it.
Fortunately, as is evident in the list above, most of the world has decided against denying it. The only hope for those in denial is historical vindication, but I'm afraid in 100 years you will be likened more as Luddites than Casandras.
By pst314, at
Sat Dec 16, 05:53:00 PM:
"OK, you need to leave scientists out of your postmodern "Western chattering classes" because it is completely unfair to lump us in with them."
I disagree. Scientists can be as loudly stupid as any pundit on a TV pseudo-news shouting exhibition, and I know a few. And back in the 70's I was personally acquainted with all too many physicists and chemists who actually took the "Limits To Growth" and "global cooling" garbage seriously, to the point of advocating drastic and rapid policy changes.
By SR, at
Sat Dec 16, 05:55:00 PM:
Some pretty interesting coments in tis thread huh?
Who cares what Immadinnerjacket says. We should just wait for him to do something before we become concerned enough to intervene. (How about Iranian weapons killing US soldiers?)
You believe in and worry about global warming? Fine.
What are you prepared to do about it? A nuclear powered electricity-based society? No ? I thought not.
Solar and wind? Not in your back yard? I thought not.
Tax oil companies to death, more research into...wind and solar...now your talking. Oh, yeah in California, that one went down to a thudding defeat at the polls.
By SR, at
Sat Dec 16, 05:59:00 PM:
And another thing. The fact that "the vast majority of scientists" believe anything can be written off just as well by looking at the sources of their funding. The US Government. That global warming studies are in vogue now is not necessarily due to anything more than fashion.
If you've ever been a scientist trying to get a government grant, you know what I mean.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Dec 16, 06:25:00 PM:
I am quite sure we can "end" Global Warming by all living in mud and grass huts
I'm not. How you gonna deal with the sun? So far its seem not interested in taking the offered bribes to lower its output back to 1700's levels.
By , at
Sat Dec 16, 08:50:00 PM:
It is deeply saddening to read some of the posts so far in this thread. I suppose it is a symptom of America's pervasive anti-intellectualism that people like pst314, skipsailing, and SR believe that a climate scientist is no more qualified to judge the evidence for the global warming case than they are, and that scientists as a whole are no less likely to be "loudly stupid" regarding their field than any random uninformed person.
While scientists have to beg for grant money to fund our research, and while that does lead to a publication bias, most scientists will aggressively challenge ideas that they do not think are adequately supported by the evidence. After all, nothing can make your career like turning the status quo on its head!
It's true that in every profession there are bad apples and science is no different. But saying that, "The fact that 'the vast majority of scientists' believe anything can be written off just as well by looking at the sources of their funding" is like saying that "all corporate executives are as corrupt as Skilling and co. at Enron," or that "US military and intelligence personnel systematically and cruelly commit torture." It's ridiculous exaggeration.
I'm sure most posters in this thread would say they dislike postmodernism. But when you argue the relativist point of view that scientific knowledge is merely dependent upon who funds it, (and hence that the scientific method as a way of knowing has at its core no more validity or worth than any other), you are making the quintessential postmodern argument!
By K. Pablo, at
Sat Dec 16, 10:32:00 PM:
The flaw in your argument, Phrizz, is you are mistaking the political views of scientists for science. It is not "anti-intellectual" to point this out. Most scientists I know, in the biomedical basic sciences at least, are overwhelmingly liberal. This is true of the ones on the medical school faculty here at U of South Florida, the ones I knew at MIT/Harvard Med, the ones I knew at University of Maryland, the ones I meet at national meetings, etc., on down the line. Maybe climate scientists are different, but I will breezily put the burden of proof on you.
You know, TH made some great points in his original post and this tangent that took over grew out of an off-hand parenthetical of his. Global warming bores me, and I don't know many thoughtful people who think of it as a more imminent threat than Iran getting nukes in two years or so. Perhaps this tangent itself exemplifies the intellectual crisis of the West (as Victor Davis Hanson recently commented)... "the result is that we have almost worked ourselves into some sort of self-induced paralytic state."
By William, at
Sun Dec 17, 12:50:00 AM:
Sir sr, I believe in global warming and I also want to develop nuclear power. I'm pretty sure Mr. Anderson, head of one of the largest producers of nuclear power in America, and fellow global warming 'believer', also doesn't have a problem with nuclear power. I also don't give a damn if you build a windmill in my backyard as long as you pay me.
Additionally, I think that China wouldn't buy into an idea because it is 'in vogue', or a company would spend money without expecting something in return, and, Pablo, I really don't doubt that China, or India, is overwhelmingly liberal. And yet, they both 'believe' in global warming.
I think all of you latch onto the 'hippy wing' of global warming proponents and take that part for the whole. There is a very practical side that believes that wisely sacrificing a bit now will save us all much more later, and I at least really tire of these mud huts and crazy liberals accusations and innuendos.
But, as Pablo has pointed out, this global warming debate is entirely off topic. I merely brought it up to demonstrate that just because we tolerate dissent does not mean we cannot condemn the dissenter. If Iran's President wants to deny the Holocaust, then fine, there is no reason we cannot call and treat him like a despicable knave. I really doubt there's any contention on that point.
Where there might be contention is that I am alright talking with him. Stalin was an evil, despicable (insert derogatory adjective here) knave, and yet by talking with him we defeated Hitler and probably avoided WWIII. It was an evil to allow him to persist in Russia, but certainly the lesser of many evils we faced at the onset of the Cold War. So I can see some good, or at least less evil, coming from negotiations with Ahmadinejad.
Unless you have a better option (please do tell if you do), then that is the position I must hold.
By , at
Sun Dec 17, 01:08:00 AM:
Most scientists I know, in the biomedical basic sciences at least, are overwhelmingly liberal.
If they credibility, real credibility, get some INTJ engineers to come on board. engineers are a lot less likely to be swayed by fad than scientists. Engineers don't trust stuff or take anything for granted -- we can't build things from hand waving, speculation, and desire.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Dec 17, 09:43:00 AM:
Holocaust deniers ignore overwhelming evidence to make their baseless claims.
Global Warming deniers ignore overwhelming evidence to make their baseless claims.
I liked this sentence from william, Anony, I am part of the 'Global Warming Crowd' and I believe Ahmadinejad a despicable knave. The UN, Brazil, People's Republic of China, India, US National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, Union of Concerned Sciences, and even some industry leaders, such as Republican Paul Anderson, chairman of Duke Energy, Boeing, IBM, John Hancock, and Whirlpool, are also all part of the 'Global Warming Crowd'."
They're all just a pack of Hippie Freaks who hate big business and want to take away our Hummers!
By , at
Sun Dec 17, 11:37:00 AM:
"If they credibility, real credibility, get some INTJ engineers to come on board. engineers are a lot less likely to be swayed by fad than scientists. Engineers don't trust stuff or take anything for granted -- we can't build things from hand waving, speculation, and desire."
You also can't do cutting edge research by just looking up stuff in tables all day, using the same formulas that you memorized over and over, and using the same pieces of software, like engineers do. To do breakthrough research, you need to actually think in new ways, which might require some (gasp) imagination!
You want to play the stereotype game? Because there's plenty more where that came from...
By William, at
Sun Dec 17, 12:19:00 PM:
So much for changing the subject.
Mr. Peden, you, or at least others, insist on attacking positions I do not hold. We are not debating the solution here. We are debating if there is a problem. All the parties I listed agree that global warming is a problem. That does not mean they believe the Kyoto protocol is the solution.
If you do want to cede the point that global warming is a problem and thus move on to debating solutions (a very legitimate and much more productive debate to have) I will tell you my position is the same as TH's and the Economist: I believe the most effective solution would be a global carbon tax. Let the market choose the most effective alternative.
By the way, add President Bush and Tony Blair to the list of global warming 'believers': "The president has long recognized that climate change is a serious issue"
If you still insist on denial, I doubt there's any more I can do to persuade. Feel free to switch back to Iran.
By SR, at
Sun Dec 17, 12:31:00 PM:
As I read the explanation for TH's carbon tax proposal, it seems to me that climate change ranks way behind national security and the need for staving off production disincentivizing taxes likely to emanate from the Democrats in Congress.
By William, at
Sun Dec 17, 12:40:00 PM:
That's a nice addendum to the carbon-tax method of combating climate change: it can redress multiple problems at the same time.
But the Economist is more to the point: 'Climate change is a real problem and the only way to tackle it is to reduce the gap between the price of fossil-fuel energy and alternative energy. But subsidies are not the best way to achieve that goal... A global carbon tax would be a more efficient way to close the gap between fossil and alternative fuels' -Economist, Nov. 18-24 2006.
By SR, at
Sun Dec 17, 02:48:00 PM:
I can just hear our resident climate alarmists now saying, but Peden, I am not a socialist.
By , at
Sun Dec 17, 05:50:00 PM:
Circumlocution at its worst.
What a load of Bollocks!
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Sun Dec 17, 10:56:00 PM:
That first post by Phrizz was well put.
I do want to put to bed this ridiculous idea that engineers don't believe in global warming. Of course they do. Chemical engineers are raised on "rate of change = rate in - rate out". It's immediately obvious that if you decrease the heat emmissions (lower rate out) you get accumulation. It's called an energy balance and it's about the first thing you learn in freshman engineering. I don't know a single chemical engineer who doesn't believe in global warming...not even republican ones (yeah, i'm sure there's at least one somewhere, but it's a serious minority).
The premise of the theory is sound, and data supports it. I'd also like to make a distinction here between the diagnosis and the prescription. The diagnosis is a specific scientific question, and the prescription is an open ended societal response. Those of you who want to argue the prescription: knock yourselves out. You can advocate whatever political course you want. The interplay of market forces and political treaties is up for grabs. When it comes to the diagnosis however: that's just plain science. Science doesn't care about your pet theories, no matter how much you believe them in your heart of hearts. When you try to argue the diagnosis without any viable chemistry, math, or data, you just look stupid.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Dec 18, 12:19:00 AM:
Global Warming deniers
Could you point one of these out for me?
By SR, at
Mon Dec 18, 12:46:00 AM:
Sorry,
It is not good enough to leave it at diagnosis. It is not as simple as manmade CO2 is making global temperatures rise and that's it. No it is very much more complex, and that's the beef with demagogues like Al Gore. Bjorn Lonborg has taken a well balanced and dispassionate look at the whole enviornmental policy
movement. What does he get for it? Ad hominem attacks and scorn from "scientists" whose bread is buttered by global warming.
One of the brightest guys in my med school class became a pathologist because as he told me, the most interesting thing for him was figuring out what is wrong. He was happy to leave it to the rest of us to figure out how to treat the patients.
By William, at
Mon Dec 18, 01:26:00 AM:
Sorry, Peden, that I trust the combined analyses and judgments of countless scientists, nations, and even American CEOs over yours on the nuances of global warming. I trust neither you nor I to fairly analyze the facts, but I do trust the growing majority of those with expertise in the field and those upon whose shoulders rests the welfare of whole societies or, alternatively, corporations.
Trying to differentiate concern about 'climate change' from global warming shows sheer degradation of argument- the link clearly connects to an article about global warming and the quotee than goes on to cite funding the Bush administration has poured into measures to counter global warming- not weather.
I also resent this label, 'global warming alarmist' as though I'm running around telling everyone to get to their mudhut or die. I believe that it will better serve our long term economic and societal interests to take measures to combat global warming. So how about 'Economic and Societal Proponent' instead?
But all in all it seems, as illustrated by Purple Avenger, that this debate here is closed. Most of us agree there is a problem. The disagreement is rooted in the solution, and really this thread is too long already to start a new debate over that, so we'll just have to wait for TH to post on a relevant topic and then we can broach that subject.
I will however clarify that a global carbon tax does not equate with the Kyoto protocols (that's not a tax), and can be very effective on a national level (not so much on a local level- businesses can too easily up and leave).
So... Iran?
By , at
Mon Dec 18, 01:45:00 AM:
to take measures to combat global warming.
I think I've asked before - what's your plan for dealing with the sun?
...or the destruction of the rain forests? (trees eat CO2 you know)
