A surprisingly open debate on the $PLC's website about David Irving by Jay Knott (05/15/11) ⇌ (David Irving Meeting)
The Southern Poverty Law Center falsely describes Pacifica Forum as 'a white nationalist hate group'. As the reader can see, it is nothing of the sort. True, it has allowed white nationalists to speak. That's freedom of speech. Allowing a point of view doesn't mean you agree with it - unless you are for totalitarianism and against freedom. That is the case with the $PLC, but they hide it pretty well.
I posted the following. Let's see if they censor it. (PS. they DID censor it - they allow contrary views they think they can refute, but not incisive insights like the following, by yours truly).
The key point in this discussion is when a commenter, 'B. B.', reports on assaults by Anti-Racist Action members on Irving attendees. They advocate violence toward anyone who wants to even listen to Irving. As other commenters make clear, this includes schoolchildren. The SPLC rejects this:
If the SPLC 'condemns' the ARA for violence, why not advocate 'confronting' their meetings? David Irving doesn't advocate hate or violence. He hardly ever mentions the Holocaust. It is ridiculous to accuse him of 'entirely false propaganda', but even if it were true, there would be no reason to 'confront' it any more than any other false idea. The difference is that the SPLC agrees with the ARA's politics. They believe in 'confronting' or 'smashing' ideas they disagree with. The SPLC's definition of 'hate' is 'stuff we strongly disagree with'. In Western enlightenment societies, we don't confront ideas, we discuss them. If we think they are mistaken, we try to refute them, always allowing for the theoretical possibility that the other guy might be right. This is not naive liberalism, it's the essence of how we acquire knowledge. It's why the open society is the most successful in the history of the world. It's why the USSR collapsed and the USA didn't.
The tone of the SPLC's arguments, and their unbalanced evaluation of the relative dangers of
- white nationalists
- Islamic fundamentalists
- violent leftists
shows they don't understand this.
The hidden message is that Irving's unorthodox interpretation of World War II is dangerous, and would 'lead to' violence. In a convoluted passage, the SPLC argues that underestimating the Nazi Judeocide implies that there must have been a conspiracy, by Jews, to overestimate it, which leads people to not like them, so it's anti-semitic. If this is true, it is equally true of all other underestimates. Historians regularly downplay the Soviet Union's crimes in the Ukraine, or the Allied bombing of Dresden, to take just two examples. Do David Irving and his 'white nationalists' organize 'protests' to 'confront' left-wing historians?
The Southern Poverty Law Center has it upside down. The only political violence in the USA is from the left, who exaggerate the history and current scope of far-right violence. The threats are relatively mild, because Anti-Racist Action know that, if they went too far, they would be either a. shot, or b. imprisoned. The harrassment I have suffered from them for merely listening to right-wing views, none of which I agree with, have been just enough to encourage me, and not enough to stop me.
I suspect the real reason the SPLC condemns the ARA is because these useful idiots are more idiotic than useful.