The Historical Review Press

We are the world's leading publisher of revisionist and hard-to-find political material -- serving the truth and fearing no-one! Visit our home website here!

Search This Blog

Friday, 16 July 2010


Better to read the article on the internet:

Bravest spokesman for freedom of speech: French-Jewish philospher Bernard-Henri Lévy

A discussion hosted by the Columbia-Paris Alliance Program and SIPA, in collaboration with the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism. [January 26, 2010]

Panel members:

David Remnick, Editor of the New Yorker (Jewish - moderator)
Bernard-Henri Lévy, Author and French/Jewish Philosopher
Philippe Schmidt, Chairman of INACH and Vice-President of LICRA (Jewish)
Professor Kent Greenawalt, Columbia Law School
Peter Awn, Director of Columbia's Middle East Institute

'It's a great privilege to introduce Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy, who really is one of the most forthright, and one of the bravest ehm, spokesman for freedom of speech, here or anywhere, and eh, he will close this with a few minutes of, closing statement.'

With these words, the editor of the American newspaper 'The New Yorker', David Remnick, introduced a closing speech by the French/Jewish philosopher, which ended a, at this point, one hour and 20 minutes long debate at Columbia University about freedom of speech, among a panel consisting of 5 people and a studio audience.

Before he delivered his expected grand finale, Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy the famous French/Jewish philosopher, dedicated much of several his long-winded drawn out speeches, defending why some phenomenon he chose to call 'holocaust-denial', should be the only exception to freedom of speech. He quickly included 'other genocides'.

Bernard-Henri Lévy transscript:

This difficult question of denial of the holocaust, eh of condemning and putting a law against denial of holocaust and denial of other genocides, not only holocaust.

On one side one could say, and I have a lot of friends who say; 'it is so stupide, to deny 'olocaust, and eh, the truth is so stronge, the evidence is so clear, that we should let the good currency, eh, get rid of the bad currency. Why make a law?

This is an acceptable argument, we could think like that..

On the other side, the reason why, as for myself, after having thought at length on this question, for years, I finally decide that the law was good is the following, I will say it, I'm sorry very shortly, in few words, but it supposes, it could be developed.

For me the denial of ze genocide, is part of the genocide itself. It is part of the genocide. It is very clear in ze genocide against Jews, you know, the structure of the genocide, supposed had embedded into itself, the fact of the denial..

Direzsays (?), Himlèr and so on said, not only we will kill them, but we are going to erase the trace of the killing, the deniàl is part of the crime..

Same for the Armenians... Ze committers, ze executioners of ze 'olocaust of the Armenians, said exactly the same.

It is not enough to kill, we have to at the same time in the same movement, in the same breathing, we have to commit and erase the crime..

So there is a very péculiàr structure of genocide, it is not the crime as any other( ?), there is a péculiàr structure, which having the denial integrated in the crime, makes the possibility, and imposes I think, the necessity of punishing the denial which is part of the crime.

The transcript above is from: 03 Bernard-Henri Lévy 01 (50 MB)

Twisted reasoning

Is it really necessary to argument for the rather obviously untenable nature of the muddy reasoning by this prophet of the so called 'Nouvelle Philosophie' [new philosophy]?

Well, at least Professor Kent Greenawalt tried:

So I think there is an argument about whether it should be eh, not allowed in European countries, but I, the real reasons struck me as quite implausible, eh for the following reason, ah, assuming that part of the idea of genocide, or that particular genocide was that it was also going to be covered up, eh, that was part of what it was, but now we're generations later, and the question is, should people be able to deny that that existed or not.

To me it wouldn't make any difference.

Suppose their basic idea has been, let's publicize that to everybody, and eh, - that it's great [uncertain] - we're doing this, and the same few generations later and some people are denying that it took place, so I don't see the connection between the denial, or that it took place generations later and what the underlying philosophy was of the genocide in the first place, that seems to be a pretty remote eh, relation..

The transcript above is from: 11 Kent Greenawalt, Columbia Law School

Balder: The exploitation of the suffering was a pre meditated embedded part of the crime!

I wonder if it might also have crossed Mr. Greenawalds mind, that Bernard's assumption that the denial was embedded in the crime, could be reversed in this way: The exploitation of the suffering was part of the crime.

As we all know the Zionists needed a large number of Jewish victims, in order to be able to black mail the world to give them their own state.

It is a well known fact, that Zionist organizations were not the least interested in saving Jews who were deemed of no value for the Zionist state. I suppose Greenawald would have been too politite to mention it, if indeed he had thought of it.

Bernard-Henri Lévy - Zionist Real-Politik in stead of French/Jewish philosophy (or is this what F/J philosophy actually is all about?)

Funny though that no one seemingly had the guts to stand up for free speech on it's own merits ('ohne wenn und aber') , without counting, weighing and considering how profitable or contra-productive this would be, in order to further certain views on history, and other not so narrowly defined causes we apparently all are morally obliged to subscribe to.

Columbia Law School Professor Kent Greenawalt came closest, and appeared to be the most sincere advocate of free speech present on the panel. No hard words here.


No comments:

Post a Comment