Censorship, Holocaust and Political Correctness

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
Conclusion
Annotated Bibliography

Introduction

Throughout the history of second half of twentieth century, the attempts to suppress a so-called “unpopular knowledge”, on the part of governmental authorities and public institutions, have contributed more then anything else to citizens in Western countries being slowly deprived of their essential civil freedoms. We are being continuously told by mainstream Medias that, among other things, people in democratic countries enjoy the freedom of self-expression.

In fact, we are being told that America’s recent wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, had only one objective – popularizing the concept of democracy among those who used to suffer under totalitarian regimes. However, this is being done in time when citizens in so-called “democratic” countries often face criminal charges for simply trying to do a historical inquiry on the issue of Holocaust, or for suggesting that the establishment of “multicultural paradise” in Western countries is impossible in principle, simply because the concept of racial equality does not correspond to the objective reality, while being utterly unscientific in its essence.

In this paper, we will focus on exploring different aspects of formal and informal censorship, in regards to a so-called “Holocaust denial”, as we strongly believe that people’s ability to express their thoughts freely is essential to the existence of democracy in this country, despite the fact that the hawks of political correctness strive hard to convince us in otherwise. We will also establish a link between government’s pressure to silence historical revisionists and the fact that Western civilization, as we know it, will be facing the danger of self-destruction, once citizens are being deprived of their sense of rationale, as result of being subjected to politically correct indoctrination.

Main body

Before the end of WW2, it was a perfectly legitimate practice to criticize Jewish people for their strong affiliation with shady commercial activities, their promotion of spiritual decadence or their close ties with Communist leadership in Soviet Union. However, after WW2, the public criticism of Jews, or even referral to them as regular people and not the “holy cows”, became socially unacceptable. It appears that, even if Holocaust did not happen, it would have to be invented, because it effectively puts Jews beyond any criticism whatsoever.

The fact that indulging in historical research on Holocaust started to represent a danger to historians, unless they wholeheartedly support the dogmatic version of this event, laid the ground for the establishment of informal and then formal censorship, in regards to this issue. In his article “Informal censorship of Holocaust revisionism in the United States and Germany”, Robert Kahn provides us with example of how the existence of informal censorship on discussing the Holocaust reveals itself in America.

The article describes what has happened when in 1992, academic newspapers in 35 American universities and colleges were asked to publish a paid advertisement, on behalf of The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH), which encouraged students to engage in open debates on the issue. Apparently, only 5 newspapers had published the ad, while supplementing it with their own comments on the essence of ad’s message as “offensive and inaccurate”, “founded on historical fiction and anti-Jewish bigotry”, “offensive, provocative and wrong” and “racist, pure and simple”.

Kahn is making a good point, when he suggests that: “While this may be expected of the papers that killed the ad, the critical posture taken by those who ran it reflects the availability of freedom of speech as an arguing point. The First Amendment allowed student editors to oppose revisionism without censoring, a luxury their German counterparts lacked” (Kahn, p. 126). The reason why newspapers had to supplement the ad with derogatory comments is because, had they not done it, they would have been sued by Jewish Anti-Defamation League and consequentially closed down.

Why Jewish organizations in U.S. are being so strongly opposed to the prospects of open discussion on Holocaust? Why are the people in this country being encouraged to think that arguing the dogmatic views on Holocaust represents crime, even though that U.S. Constitution operates with the concept of “benefit of the doubt” as being vital to the existence of democracy in the first place? The answer to this question is obvious – Jews were able to turn the issue of Holocaust into one of the most lucrative businesses on Earth.

Germany alone pays Israel $350 million on annual basis, as “reparations for Holocaust”. Swiss banks are being extorted in broad day light by various Jewish organizations for huge amounts of money. These groups threaten to apply the label of “anti-Semitism” to these banks, if they fail to address Jewish demands. As time goes by, the number of self-proclaimed “holocaust survivors” grows increasingly larger, even though that it does not make any logical sense.

Even though that the majority of these “survivors” were born well after the end of WW2, they are strongly convinced that everybody owe them money. The article “Siege of Leningrad Victims to be Compensated”, which can be found on the site of JTA, reveals the sheer hypocrisy with which Jews impose “historical guilt” for their misfortunes on everybody else but themselves: “The Claims Conference has won payment for Jewish survivors of the Nazi siege of Leningrad. Under an agreement the conference described as a “historic breakthrough,” the German government will make a one-time payment of about $4,000 to victims of the siege now living in Israel or Western countries” (JTA, 2008).

Apparently, the millions of Russians, who died and became invalids, during the siege of Leningrad, do not qualify for compensation from Germans. After all, they are nothing but “goims”- cattle. In fact, the mere suggestion that Jews were not only the ones who had suffered, during the course of WW2, now represents a criminal offence in many European countries and Canada, because it is being regarded as “Holocaust denial”.

In his article “Censoring Holocaust Denial is Hypocritical”, Alec Brandon provides readers with the proof that the form of government in most of European countries and Canada can no longer be referred to as democracy but as Liberal dictatorship: “Holocaust denial laws litter much of Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland all have laws criminalizing the act.

The punishment for denial is not insubstantial and is actually enforced quite often. The maximum sentence in Austria is 10 years” (Brandon, 2007). Two years ago, the famous British historian David Irving, was being sentenced to 3 years in jail in Austria, simply because pointing out at the fact that there is absolutely no objective evidence that Jews were being gassed in German concentration camps on mass scale, and that the “survivors’” testimonies, upon which the notion of Holocaust rests, are utterly contradictory. It might very well be the case that Irving’s point of view is wrong, but it is even more wrong to be putting someone in jail for simply expressing its opinion on historical even that had taken place 70 years ago.

On February 5, 2003, another “Holocaust denier” Ernst Zundel, was being stripped of his Canadian citizenship and deported to Germany, on the premise that he represented a “threat to Canadian national security”, where he was being charged with the “thought crime” and sentenced to 7 years in jail. In his article “Who Is Ernst Zundel, And Why Is He In Jail?”, Mark Weber provides us with the insight on sheer absurdity of ideological censorship: “There is absolutely no basis for the “security threat” charge. Zundel’s life is an open book. He is a peaceful man with no record of violence. During the 40 years he lived in Canada, he was never convicted of a crime. In fact, he has himself been a victim of hate and violence. He survived at least three attempts on his life, including a devastating arson attack against his residence” (Weber, 2003).

While failing to recognize Muslim terrorists with Canadian citizenship as such that represent “security threat”, Canadian authorities could not come up with nothing better then prosecuting Ernst Zundel, who was employing hundreds of people, who used to donate thousands of dollars to various Christian charities, on annual basis, and who simply had enough courage to stand up for his beliefs. Mark Weber explains the reasons why Zundel was being persecuted: “Zundel is in prison not because his views are unpopular or because he is a “security risk.” He is in prison because Jewish groups want him there. He is a prisoner because he promotes views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to its interests” (Weber, 2003).

After Zundel was convicted of “promoting extremism”, all of his books, such as “The Auschwitz Lie and Did Six Million Really Die?”, were being removed from public libraries in Canada. In fact, these books are now being included into the list of “extremist literature”, which people are not allowed to bring to Canada. If person who crosses Canadian border admits that he or she is in possession of any of Zundel’s books, these books will be confiscated by customs and destroyed.

In his article “The Censorship Trial of Ernst Zundel”, Bradley R. Smith confirms that Canada is turning into a truly totalitarian state: “At the border dividing our nations, history books are seized by Canadian Customs and Excise offices as ‘obscene’ if they promote a point of view toward World War Two that is not approved of by the State” (Bradley, 2007).

In Canada, gays can legally get married, children in public schools can get an explicit information on “sexual diversity”, Hindus can carry concealed daggers in public, as part of their “cultural heritage” – yet, if anyone raises its voice against the sheer insanity of having Liberal wackos being in charge of designing country’s socio-political policies, he will be automatically branded as “extremist”.

This has led to a situation that FBI now considers Canada as country that poses threat to U.S. national security. In his article “Danger from Canada”, Oliver Guitta explains why: “Historically, a number of terror attacks targeting the U.S. have originated in Canada, such as the ‘Millennium plot’ planned against Los Angeles airport… Canada is well known for its reluctance to extradite suspects, especially when they are nationals… For example, the Canadian leader of the Tamil Tigers, Manickavasagam Suresh, was arrested in 1995 as a threat to national security and was ordered to be deported, but he is still in Canada 13 years later” (Guitta, 2008).

The reason why we have included this quotation in the paper is to illustrate that Liberal censorship, which claimed Ernst Zundel as its victim, is conceptually counter-productive. It cannot benefit anyone in principle, except for the rich representatives of “chosen people. This is why people who insist that there should even more “hate crime” laws enacted, in order to combat “intolerance”, are nothing but traitors, who will eventually be dealt with as traitors.

As we have mentioned earlier, Jewish groups of interest were able to effectively deny people their right of freedom to of speech in Western countries, whatever incredible such suggestion might sound, because there is a plenty of evidence available that substantiates the validity of this statement. The non-Jews in Western countries are expected to always feel shame over the Holocaust, and to be willing to open up their wallets, every time “chosen people” demand it.

This is the reason why Western Medias, 90% of which “purely accidentally” happened to be owned by “God’s folk”, withhold from citizens any information that might cause them to wonder why they need to close their eyes on what “progressive” politicians do to their countries. It is a fact that policy of “multiculturalism” resulted in creation of situation when more and more cities in countries like France, Britain, U.S. and Canada slowly turn into Third World slums, with drug dealers openly pushing narcotics to kids, with residents dumping garbage right onto the streets, as part of “celebration their ethnic uniqueness”, with law abiding citizens being afraid of venturing into ethnic “ghettos” or even coming out of their houses, after it gets dark.

Everybody know this fact, yet people are only allowed to hold “kitchen talks” about it, while fearing to be laid off from their jobs or being labeled as “racists”, as the logical result of them deciding to talk about it openly. Slowly but surely Western countries are being turned into the modern equivalent of Soviet Union, where people’s public statements and their actual thoughts did not correlate. Just like in Soviet Union, we now live under ideological censorship of political correctness, with its proponents suggesting that it is perfectly legal to jail people simply because they want to utilize their right of self-expression.

For example, within a matter of last 10 years, there has been no single Hollywood movie made that would feature a Black character as the main villain, despite the fact that, according to statistics, while constituting only 12% of population in America, Blacks commit 65% of all crimes. According to these movies, Blacks consist exclusively of computer geniuses and future American Presidents. In fact, even mentioning this statistics represents a “crime” against political correctness; therefore, any information that would shed doubt on the possibility of building “multicultural paradise” is being effectively censored.

The reason why revisionist literature is being banned from libraries is not because Jews become utterly horrified by suggestion that their horrors, during the course of WW2, maybe were not quite as horrible as they would like everybody to believe, but because such literature helps to prevent White people from indulging in psychological masochism. For example, those who have read Irving’s or Zundel’s books will never believe that traveling to Israel to pledge allegiance to Jewish cause, on the part of both American presidential candidates, even before either of them became elected, is something absolutely normal – after all, both: McCain and Obama intend to become not Israeli but American Presidents.

In his article “Listen to Vladimir Bukovsky”, John F. McManus discusses how one of the most famous Soviet dissidents Vladimir Bukovsky, who had spent half of his life being imprisoned in GULAG, views the recent socio-political developments in America and the countries of EU: “Greatly alarmed, Bukovsky sees the police powers in the EU’s Europol on the way to becoming the equivalent of the USSR’s KGB.

Europol has already criminalized ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ and he fears that the absence of any definition of these ‘crimes’ will enable the EU’s authorities to silence and punish the opponents of political correctness” (McManus, 2007). As we have illustrated in the first part of this paper, this already began to happen, with many European prominent intellectuals finding themselves behind bars, simply because they refused to be brainwashed. Thus, we can conclude that we are now past the point of discussing the issue of censorship, in regards to some particular book being banned from libraries, because of containing sexual obscenity, for example.

Given the wide range of modern ideological censorship, which is aimed at preventing people from relying on their sense of logic, when it comes to discussing the issues of political and social importance, it is now so much easier to actually talk about things that were not being subjected to censorship yet, even though that their number is being continuously decreased, as time goes by. For example, as recent as ten years ago, the story of “Cinderella and the Seven Dwarfs” could be easily found in just about any elementary school’s library.

It is not the case anymore now. Apparently politically correct censors do not like word “dwarf”, because their mental depravity causes them to think of this word as being “offensive”. In very near future, this fairy tale might end up being referred to as “The Story of Physically Abused Female Servant and Seven Vertically Challenged Individuals who had the Misfortune of being born as Caucasians”.

Conclusion

Thus, it is wrong to think, like many naïve citizens do, that authorities have the right to ban books from public libraries, because of book’s “extremist” content. It is important to understand that those who actively strive to deprive Western nations of their inner integrity, as something that would insure that the processes of “money bags” becoming even richer and the ordinary citizens becoming poorer would go unchallenged, will never be satisfied with even little bit of freedom being left to people.

Today they tell us we cannot read Zundel, tomorrow they will be telling us that our children cannot read “Cinderella and Seven Dwarfs” and after tomorrow, they be raiding our houses, simply to set whatever the books they can find on fire, just like being predicted by Ray Bradbury in his novel “Fahrenheit 451”, because there is no need for people to read books, once they have MTV channel and Oprah’s Talk Show.

Annotated Bibliography

Brandon, Alec “Censoring Holocaust Denial is Hypocritical”. 2007. Chicago Maroon. Web.
- Author discusses the instances of people being punished for seeking a historical truth. Even though Brandon agrees that denying Holocaust is wrong, he criticizes those Liberal that are being utterly intolerant towards people who hold different opinions from what Liberals consider as being “appropriate”.
Guitta, Oliver “Danger from Canada”. 2008. Middle East Times. Web.
- In this article, Gutta discusses how promotion of policy of multiculturalism in Canada, resulted in this country becoming a haven for terrorists. At the end of the article, he suggests that Canada represents threat to American national security, because of that.
Kahn, Robert “Informal Censorship of Holocaust Revisionism in the United States and Germany”. George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, v. 9, no. 1 (1998) p. 125-49. Web.
- In this article, author discusses different forms of informal censorship in American colleges and universities.
McManus, John “Listen to Vladimir Bukovsky”. 2007. Bnet. Business Network. Web.
- McManus talks about former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who is being known for his criticism of political correctness in Western countries, as the form of ideological oppression, similar to Communism and Nazism.
Siege of Leningrad Victims to be Compensated. 2008. JTA Breaking News. Web.
- This article informs readers that those Jews, who survived the siege of Leningrad, during WW2, are eligible for $4000 payments from German government, while denying the possibility to Russian survivors for also being eligible for compensation.
Smith, Bradley “The Censorship Trial of Ernst Zundel”. 1991. Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. Web.
- In this article, Smith suggests that Canada is turning into totalitarian state, because country’s penal code operates with the concept of “thought crime”.
Weber, Mark “Who Is Ernst Zundel, And Why Is He In Jail?”. 2003. Institute for Historical Review. Web.
- Mark Weber discusses reasons why Ernst Zundel was being deported to Germany and exposes the sheer absurdity of his indictments. He also makes it clear that Canada has turned into Liberal dictatorship and that U.S. is about to follow its footsteps.

Click Here To Order Now!

Censorship, Holocaust and Political Correctness

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)