Response to “Why We Should Rejoice at Holocaust Deniers, Not Suppress Them” by Norman Finklestein
On October 21, Norman Finklestein published an essay denouncing Facebook and Twitter’s recent ban of Holocaust denial on their platforms. Par for the Finklestein course, his essay title is as provocative as possible and despite containing a kernel of truth worth developing further, his essay veers into liberalism. In fact, his argument relies entirely on liberal values such as free speech, academic freedom, diversity of thought, and the marketplace of ideals. His main assertion is that Holocaust deniers should be platformed so that their ideas can be debunked. According to Finklestein, Holocaust deniers actually facilitate the “quest for truth.” By levying their incorrect arguments, the rest of us are forced to present an accurate reporting of history.
Finklestein fails to understand why people deny the Holocaust. His essay implies that Holocaust denial is based in peoples’ historical ignorance. The solution to this supposed ignorance is education- by correcting Holocaust deniers with the facts, they will see their error. He compares Holocaust denial to someone who has only tasted one flavor of ice cream at Baskin-Robbins asserting that vanilla is their favorite flavor; this is preposterous because how could they know that when they haven’t had the other flavors?
Of course, people do not deny the Holocaust because they are ignorant. Speech does not occur in a vacuum and often when people are saying something, they are not necessarily trying to convey the information that the speech contains, they are trying to do something. Imagine a child in the backseat of the car on a road trip calling out repeatedly “are we there yet??” Their parent could answer this question every time, “solving” their ignorance by providing a correct answer. But the parent could understand that the child is simply vocalizing their boredom. This question is not a sincere inquiry or assertion but an expression of the child’s restlessness. Such is the case with Holocaust denial. Publicly denying the Holocaust is an act: a dog-whistle. The denier is signaling their negative beliefs about Jewish people to others but is doing so with an element of plausible deniability. No, they don’t “hate Jews,” they just “don’t believe the Holocaust happened!” A lie that liberals will readily believe.
Finklestein’s assertion that Holocaust deniers should be rejoiced, if taken literally, would end up facilitating the spread of Nazism by providing platforms to people who are simply signaling their hatred of Jews to others. Instead of creating a dialogue where Holocaust deniers are disproved, a space would be provided for antisemites to show others that they are not alone.
Next, Finklestein misrepresents what is threatening about this ban. He assumes that this is a threat to so-called freedom of speech and academic freedom. Free speech is under attack! This liberal discourse refocuses us from the material world back onto the purely idealistic. It takes issues of antisemitism and frames them through liberal free speech frameworks. Our questions shift from what is Holocaust denial and why are some people doing it to “is it ok for Twitter to limit speech?” Instead of analyzing the motivations and interests of these billion-dollar corporations, we are expected to litigate the meaning of the first amendment- something I quite frankly do not care about. Finklestein is right to be skeptical about Twitter and Facebook’s ban of Holocaust denial. But not because it is an “attack on free speech.”
Finally, Finklestein bases much of his argument on the idea that Holocaust denial is the same as Holocaust dehistoricization. Holocaust denial is the act of denying that the Holocaust happened. Holocaust dehistoricization, on the other hand, is the intentional shift by white euro-america to decontextualize the Holocaust, such that white euro-america becomes the savior and protector of the Jews. This dehistoricization is necessary for white euro-america because the actual history of the Holocaust contradicts erroneous claims that white euro-america was ideologically opposed to the nazis. Further, Holocaust dehistoricization is used as a tool for current white euro-american exceptionalism (and of course, colonialism)- so-called Jewish assimilation is used as proof that antisemitism has been defeated in white euro-america. Finklestein’s own text The Holocaust Industry methodically shows how this narrative shift occurred and how the Holocaust has been decontextualized. This is not the same as Holocaust denial.
Earlier in this essay, I mentioned that Finklestein’s article contained a kernel of truth that he failed to adequately develop because he adheres to liberalism. That kernel of truth is that we should be skeptical of Twitter and Facebook’s action. Twitter and Facebook are both multi-national corporations worth billions of dollars. They are capitalist; they are imperialist. They essentially maintain hegemony over the national public sphere. Every single one of their actions are focus grouped and researched to maximize their profitability. This is why we should be concerned. Their actions, including their decision now to ban Holocaust denial, are completely influenced by their imperialist capitalist allegiances.
These allegiances are why Twitter has decided to not ban white nationalism from their platforms because doing so would result in many prominent “US” politicians being flagged and potentially banned. This is why Twitter has refused to delete tweets from prominent US officials that contain white supremacist or completely false assertions, claiming it is newsworthy. This is why Twitter for a long time refused to ban well known nazis such as Richard Spencer and David Duke. They resisted until the public pressure was so great that they feared it would hurt them to allow these racists to continue using their platform. Richard Spencer remade his account and is still posting. In fact, as I write this, he is live-streaming about “PoBoy Nationalism” to approximately 250 viewers.
Facebook is known for hosting nazi groups, bands, organizations, and pages. It ruled that neo-nazi groups “do not violate community standards.” Facebook’s main source of revenue is advertisements and it actually figured out which users were nazis and allowed advertisers to specifically target those users. Pro-publica found that ads could be purchased targeting users based on the phrases “Jew hater” and “Hitler did nothing wrong.”
So, why would imperialist capitalist Twitter and Facebook ban Holocaust denial?
Well, in Facebook’s case, there was recently a massive campaign from over 400 brands- including Coca-Cola, Nike, Ford, and Starbucks- to pull all of their ads from Facebook until they could reign in so-called “hate speech.” Additionally, Facebook has drawn criticism from the ADL, a zionist “civil rights” organization, due to its past refusal to ban Holocaust denial. So, Facebook executives decided to sit down with ADL and talk about how they could change their platform. This coincides with a massive campaign by hundreds of organizations calling on Facebook to adopt the zionist IHRA definition of antisemitism. Twitter has received similar criticism for its continued hosting of nazis and has made changes to appear less nazi-friendly. In July of last year, Twitter changed its rules to ban dehumanizing language on the basis of religion. The ADL praised them for this. However, this past July, the ADL joined in calling for a 48-hour Jewish “walkout” of twitter, using the hashtag #NoSafeSpaceForJewHate.
It is not profitable to appear antisemitic.
Let me be clear, that is not to say it is not profitable to be antisemitic.
Facebook and Twitter are capitalist imperialist corporations. Their goal is to make profit. It is impossible to disentangle this profit-seeking from their decision to ban Holocaust denial. This ban allows both social media sites to continue hosting nazis, continue serving as hotbeds for racism, continue allowing fake accounts to build consent for coups in Latin America, continue allowing “US” politicians to beat the battle drum for a war against China, and to keep collaborating with the NSA, all while pretending that they are ‘taking steps to improve.’
Finklestein focuses his argument on the experience the individual has in relation to Holocaust denial. He asserts that it encourages researchers to sharpen their understanding of the Holocaust, he states that Holocaust deniers themselves will scrutinize every detail and may uncover something that had not previously been known, and he says that for a researcher who has done their work, fielding “obnoxious skeptics is at worst a form of intellectual amusement.” This liberal framing cannot adequately explain why Holocaust deniers exist, what Holocaust denial does, and why Twitter or Facebook-billion dollar corporations- would take steps to ban Holocaust denial in the first place.
