He pointed out, for example, that someone who had never heard of the Holocaust, then was told of it, and simply didn't believe that people could do such things, could be a denier. Other people doubt aspects of the official Holocaust narrative because they are prone to conspiracy theories. There are dozens of reasons for doubting the current official story, which itself has been subject to endless revisions. There is no logical connection between hating members of an ethnic group and doubting the scale of a particular example of violence against them.

For example, suppose I was convinced, somehow, that the Turkish government's official view of the Armenian massacre of 1915 was correct. That might make me a mug, but would it make me an anti-Armenian? Of course not. The idea is ridiculous. Only Jews have the privilege that questioning any aspect of their victim status is, in itself, hate.

You are wrong to say "Holocaust denial exists as a continuation of anti-Semitism before 1945. It's no more complicated than that".

You ask me to tell you the 'other side of the story' of the oppression of Jews throughout history.

I'm not telling you 'the other side of the story'. I'm arguing for it to be possible to tell it. When there were riots against the Chinese in Malaysia, these riots were partly driven by resentment of the poor against the middlemen. This does not mean they were justified. One can write about this without being called a Sinophobe. Similarly, Indians in Fiji and East Africa, or Korean shopkeepers in South Central LA. There are numerous examples of an 'ethno-economic entity' (my neologism) being on the receiving end of hate from the oppressed - an unpleasant mixture of class and race conflict. Try writing about Jews in Russia, or Spain, or anywhere, in similar terms, and your head of department will be hauled up before the ADL. It's much worse in Canada than in the USA. In Western Europe it varies, but it's mostly pretty bad.

Your comment about "drinking babies' blood" is so predictable. It's like Baron Sasha Cohen (Borat) but not as funny. The idea is, you take criticism of Jewish power. Multiply by ten. Add some hate. Exaggerate a bit. Then you get something like 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. No-one actually thinks that people in Arizona believe this Tsarist forgery, but Cohen gives the impression that this is an exaggerated picture of what they do believe. Thus he smears them as haters. You're doing the same thing (maybe not consciously).

'Anti-semitism' simply isn't a valid term of classification. When UC Berkeley researched Israeli organ theft, they were told it was anti-semitic, and reminiscent of ancient calumnies. That observation is simply irrelevant. What matters is whether it is true. Do you think the Department of Anthropology at Berkeley is a hotbed of neo-Nazis?

It's not working anymore.