I would also like to correct the statement I made about a “holocaust revisionist”. He has stated that he would more accurately be called a “armchair revisionist sympathizer”, but since he’s not the easily offendable type I felt free to use that stronger term.

Perhaps indeed she is getting a little baksheesh on the side, like our good old friends Heath Lowry and Stanford Shaw.

*Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, this was right about the same time NR began to slide into the abyss at full throttle. The unworthy inheritors of the journal of Kirk, EvKL, Burnham, and Meyer just can’t seem to pull themselves away from Star Trek fantasies and pop music long enough to finish a coherent thought.

Part of the spark for this was a discussion I’ve been engaged in with a Holocaust revisionist. Though I am understandably less familiar with the literature, it is my strong impression that most holocaust denialism seems motivated by anti-semitism rather than a genuine search for historical truth. The lack of hatred for other victims of genocide is why we do not see the same sort of denialism for them, not because of the relative plausibility of various genocides. I do not mean to say that every denier must be motivated by hate, there will always be strange people who say absurd things for seemingly no reason (I am thinking of Lerner here, though she may have connections to the Turkish government I am unaware of). However, it is my contention that without it there would be almost no denialism and you would pretty much have to go looking for it rather than seeing it pop up all over the internet.