PART II: AN INVITATION TO HOLOCAUST DENIERS- ANSWERING E. MICHAEL JONES
Let's Have the Conversation
Our Humanity Defined by Reason
Humanity is measured by our capacity for reason—the ability to align our thoughts and actions with reality through facts and logic. In my first article, An Invitation to Holocaust Deniers, I called on all readers to join me in reasoning together, to test ideas through respectful dialogue grounded in evidence. On my Gregorian Rant Facebook page, thousands engaged with the piece, and over a thousand responded positively. Yet, in the comments, a stark truth emerged: the degree to which we disregard facts and logic reflects the degree to which we deny not only historical atrocity but also our shared humanity.
This denial is not benign. It is the intellectual equivalent of a Cro-Magnon uttering, "Me throw rock," a retreat from reason into brute ignorance. Such rejection of truth is no mere academic failing—it is a moral collapse, for facts and logic are divine gifts bestowed by a God who calls us to seek truth and love one another.
In a private conversation with a Holocaust denier who professed the highest regard for facts and logic yet chose not to engage publicly, he confided that many of his peers share his views. He also claimed to know at least three professors who align with his perspective. He had forwarded my article to his peers for consideration. Yet, as of this writing, there has been no sourced reply from any denier.
The academy is not a private refuge for untested ideas—it is a public forum, rooted in antiquity and enduring to this day, where knowledge is pursued through reason, evidence, and open exchange. Even the most difficult or controversial ideas, if factually sourced, deserve to be aired in the light of scrutiny. Its hallmark is transparency, a principle carried from the open dialogues of Plato's grove to the modern halls of learning, rejecting the privatized and hidden approach that shields ideas from challenge. Such secrecy conveys cowardice and betrays intellectual weakness, while true strength lies in subjecting all claims to the light of public reasoning, fostering collective understanding and advancing truth across the ages.
Let me state emphatically: if there is any fear of reprisal in providing a sourced response—while such hesitation is perplexing for anyone who genuinely values the academy’s time-honored processes of coming to knowledge—I will safeguard your anonymity when reporting your rejoinder. To underscore: issues of such profound importance must be addressed in the public forum, where facts and reasoning can be tried and tested in the light of accountability. I invite such engagement—bring it.
When pressed to provide scholarly, credible sources, this individual invoked the name of E. Michael Jones. A brief review revealed that, for many holding similar views, Jones is a central figure and often the most prominent source cited. Thus, I address him and his adherents directly—not as a personal attack but as an invitation to all who cite him to elevate their discourse. If his claims hold merit, they must withstand scrutiny. If they crumble under reason, then the denial they support must be firmly rejected.
Before proceeding, let us define two terms that are crucial to this discussion using Merriam-Webster:
Ignorance: "A lack of knowledge, understanding, or education."
Applied to Holocaust denial, ignorance is the refusal to engage with established historical facts, preferring unfounded narratives over documented reality.Arrogance: "An attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims."
Applied to Holocaust denial, arrogance is the presumption that one can reject overwhelming evidence without providing a coherent, factual basis.
This article invites humility as the antidote to both ignorance and arrogance. Humility is essential for establishing a just social order. When facts and logic are subjugated to the power of bullies who spout unfounded claims, society risks descending into chaos—a survival of the fittest devoid of justice, truth, or humanity.
The Case Against E. Michael Jones: Reason, Facts, and Evidence
E. Michael Jones, often cited by Holocaust deniers, has presented arguments that either justify or outright deny the Holocaust. Let us examine his claims and test their merit against rigorous scholarship.
1. Jones’s Claims About the Holocaust
E. Michael Jones's statements fall into two categories: justification of Nazi actions and denial of systematic extermination.
Justification: In The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Jones argues that Jewish "messianism," exemplified by Bolshevism, provoked Nazi policies. "National Socialism saw itself as the only force capable of stopping Bolshevism, which was, at its core, a Jewish movement." This framing shifts moral responsibility for Nazi atrocities onto Jewish communities.
Denial: In The Holocaust Narrative (2023), Jones denies the use of gas chambers and the systematic extermination of Jews. "The gas chamber myth fell apart during the Zündel trials in Canada during the 1980s." These claims rely on discredited sources, flawed logic, and a revisionist ideological framework.
2. The Scholarly Flaws in Jones’s Arguments
Ernst Zündel, the Leuchter Report, and the Collapse of Holocaust Denial
Holocaust denial has long relied on a combination of pseudo-science, flawed methodology, and unqualified authorities to prop up its claims. Among the most prominent figures cited by deniers is Ernst Zündel, a Canadian propagandist whose legal battles and self-published materials served as rallying points for Holocaust denial throughout the 1980s and beyond. E. Michael Jones relies heavily on the Zündel trials and their so-called "evidence" as a foundation for his own claims. However, a closer look at Zündel, the infamous Leuchter Report, and the robust scholarly rebuttals to these sources reveals the total collapse of this denialist narrative.
Ernst Zündel: A Discredited Figure
Ernst Zündel gained notoriety as a publisher of Holocaust denial materials, most famously the pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die? In the 1980s, Zündel faced legal proceedings in Canada under a law prohibiting the dissemination of false news. His defense centered on claims that the Holocaust, particularly the use of gas chambers for mass extermination, was a fabrication.
A central piece of Zündel’s defense was the Leuchter Report, commissioned to provide scientific proof that gas chambers at Auschwitz were not used for killing. This report quickly became a cornerstone of Holocaust denial and remains a key reference for figures like Jones. However, both Zündel and the report he championed have been thoroughly discredited.
The Leuchter Report: A Study in Pseudo-Science
The Leuchter Report was authored by Fred Leuchter, an American who claimed expertise in designing execution equipment. Leuchter visited Auschwitz and Birkenau in 1988, where he collected samples from the alleged gas chambers. He concluded that there was no evidence of cyanide residues sufficient to indicate the use of these chambers for mass murder. His report became central to Zündel's defense and later to Holocaust denial narratives.
However, Leuchter’s methodology, qualifications, and conclusions have been dismantled on every front.
1. Lack of Qualifications
Fred Leuchter’s claims to expertise were exposed as fraudulent during the Zündel trials. Under oath, he admitted he had no formal training or qualifications in chemistry, toxicology, or engineering. His own testimony revealed the depth of his incompetence:
"I am not a chemist. I am not an engineer. I am not a toxicologist."
This admission alone renders his report scientifically meaningless.
2. Flawed Methodology
Leuchter’s sampling methods and analytical procedures were riddled with errors:
Illegal Sampling: Leuchter chipped materials from Auschwitz structures without proper permissions, compromising the integrity of his samples.
Contamination: The samples were exposed to environmental factors that degraded any potential traces of cyanide over decades.
Misinterpretation: Leuchter failed to account for basic chemical and environmental differences between gas chamber walls and walls exposed to air, leading to faulty conclusions about cyanide presence.
3. Scientific Refutation
Legitimate scientific studies have thoroughly debunked Leuchter’s findings. A notable rebuttal came from forensic scientists Jan Markiewicz and the Institute for Forensic Research in Kraków in the 1990s. Their research demonstrated:
Cyanide residues were present in the walls of the gas chambers, consistent with the use of Zyklon B for mass killings.
Leuchter’s failure to detect cyanide in some samples was due to his flawed methods and misunderstanding of chemical processes, not evidence of the gas chambers’ nonexistence.
The Importance of Credibility in Addressing Holocaust Denial: Robert Jan van Pelt and Deborah Lipstadt
In the fight against Holocaust denial, the credibility of those who address denialist claims is of utmost importance. When confronting pseudo-scientific narratives like the Leuchter Report, it is critical to rely on experts whose authority, rigor, and objectivity are beyond reproach. Two such figures—Holocaust historian Robert Jan van Pelt and historian Deborah Lipstadt—have provided incisive critiques of the Leuchter Report and other denialist arguments. Their credentials and scholarly contributions not only reinforce their critiques but also highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of Holocaust denial narratives.
Who Is Robert Jan van Pelt?
Robert Jan van Pelt is a preeminent Holocaust historian, architectural historian, and professor at the University of Waterloo. His reputation as one of the world’s leading experts on Auschwitz and Holocaust-related studies stems from decades of meticulous research and groundbreaking publications.
Credentials:
Van Pelt is the co-author of Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present, a definitive study of Auschwitz's history. This work, based on extensive analysis of Nazi documents, eyewitness accounts, and physical evidence, has received widespread acclaim and multiple awards for its scholarly rigor.
He served as an expert witness in the landmark trial Irving v. Lipstadt (2000), where Holocaust denial itself was put on trial. Van Pelt’s testimony, particularly his analysis of Auschwitz’s gas chambers, played a pivotal role in exposing David Irving's denialist claims as baseless and fraudulent.
Objectivity:
Van Pelt’s work is rooted in primary evidence, including Nazi architectural plans, forensic investigations, and survivor testimonies. His conclusions reflect a methodical and unbiased approach, earning him respect across academic and legal communities.
Relevance to the Leuchter Report:
In his book The Case for Auschwitz, van Pelt thoroughly critiques the Leuchter Report, a central piece of denialist propaganda. He methodically exposes its amateurish methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and the unqualified nature of its author, Fred Leuchter. Van Pelt concludes:
"The Leuchter Report is at best amateurish and at worst fraudulent. Its claims fail every standard of scientific rigor and professional accountability."
Van Pelt’s unparalleled expertise in Auschwitz’s architectural history and his commitment to factual accuracy make his critique of the Leuchter Report authoritative and irrefutable.
Who Is Deborah Lipstadt?
Deborah Lipstadt is a historian specializing in Holocaust studies and Jewish history. She holds the Dorot Chair in Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University and is renowned for her work confronting Holocaust denial.
Credentials:
Lipstadt is the author of several acclaimed works, including Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory and History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier. The latter recounts her defense in the libel case brought against her by Holocaust denier David Irving.
The Irving v. Lipstadt trial not only vindicated her work but also set a precedent in exposing Holocaust denial as a deliberate distortion of historical facts. Her victory demonstrated the strength of evidence against denialist propaganda.
Objectivity:
Lipstadt approaches Holocaust denial with a commitment to evidence-based scholarship, focusing on the tactics and motivations of denialists. Her work is widely respected for its clarity, impartiality, and depth.
Relevance to the Leuchter Report:
In Denying the Holocaust, Lipstadt examines the Leuchter Report as a case study in pseudo-science. She demonstrates how it is used to lend an illusion of legitimacy to denialist arguments while being riddled with methodological errors and ideological biases. Lipstadt writes:
"The Leuchter Report is not just bad science—it is an assault on truth, designed to lend a veneer of legitimacy to denialist propaganda."
Her critique underscores how denialist figures, including E. Michael Jones, rely on such flawed reports to propagate their narratives.
Why Their Inclusion Matters
The inclusion of Robert Jan van Pelt and Deborah Lipstadt in the conversation about Holocaust denial is essential for several reasons:
Established Authority: Both van Pelt and Lipstadt are internationally recognized experts in their respective fields. Their scholarship has been extensively peer-reviewed and validated through rigorous academic and legal scrutiny.
Direct Engagement with the Leuchter Report: Both scholars have analyzed the Leuchter Report in depth, exposing its methodological flaws, the lack of qualifications of its author, and its role in denialist narratives.
Neutrality and Evidence-Based Conclusions: Their critiques are not ideological attacks but evidence-based assessments rooted in historical and scientific rigor. This commitment to truth lends their work unparalleled credibility.
Impact on Denial Narratives: By dismantling the Leuchter Report, van Pelt and Lipstadt undermine one of the key pillars of Holocaust denial. Their work highlights the intellectual and moral failure of relying on pseudo-science to deny documented atrocities.
A Call to Uphold Truth
The critiques of Robert Jan van Pelt and Deborah Lipstadt serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of credibility in confronting Holocaust denial. Their scholarship, grounded in evidence and tested under scrutiny, stands as a bulwark against the pseudo-science and propaganda that denialists attempt to pass off as legitimate research.
Holocaust denial is more than an assault on historical truth—it is an affront to humanity’s moral obligation to remember and confront the atrocities of the past. As Robert Jan van Pelt writes:
"Auschwitz is like a rumbling volcano: it demands acknowledgment, not denial. To ignore it is to ignore the very foundations of our shared humanity."
Let us honor the memory of the Holocaust’s victims by rejecting denialist narratives and embracing the light of truth. The work of van Pelt and Lipstadt exemplifies the courage and rigor required to uphold facts and resist the darkness of denial.
E. Michael Jones’s Reliance on Zündel and Leuchter
E. Michael Jones’s Holocaust denial arguments frequently reference the Zündel trials and the Leuchter Report as evidence against the systematic extermination of Jews during World War II. By relying on these sources, Jones ties his credibility to the legacy of a convicted propagandist and a debunked pseudo-scientific report.
Jones’s failure to engage with the overwhelming body of evidence documenting the Holocaust is a glaring omission. Eyewitness testimonies, Nazi documents such as the Wannsee Conference protocols, and forensic studies conducted with modern techniques all converge to affirm the historical reality of the Holocaust. Jones, like Zündel and Leuchter, bypasses these sources in favor of discredited narratives that align with his ideological agenda.
What This Means
The reliance on Ernst Zündel and the Leuchter Report reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of Holocaust denial. This narrative collapses under scrutiny, as its foundations are built on the work of unqualified individuals, faulty methodologies, and deliberate distortions of historical evidence. By invoking such sources, E. Michael Jones perpetuates a legacy of denialism that is not only factually baseless but also morally reprehensible.
Holocaust denial is more than a rejection of historical truth—it is a betrayal of humanity's moral obligation to remember and confront the atrocities of the past. As Robert Jan van Pelt reminds us:
"Auschwitz is like a rumbling volcano: it demands acknowledgment, not denial. To ignore it is to ignore the very foundations of our shared humanity."
In the pursuit of truth, claims like those of Zündel, Leuchter, and Jones must be exposed for what they are: a retreat from reason, an assault on truth, and an affront to the memory of millions. Let this stand as a call to reject denial and embrace the light of evidence, reason, and accountability.
Flawed Methodology
Selective Evidence: Jones ignores the vast body of Nazi documentation, including the Wannsee Conference protocols, which explicitly outline the "Final Solution.” Historians like Christopher Browning (Ordinary Men) and Jean-Claude Pressac (Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers) provide exhaustive evidence of Nazi planning and execution of genocide.
Ideological Bias
Jones’s interpretation of history is ideologically driven, framing Jewish communities as inherently subversive. This bias undermines the credibility of his arguments. Robert Wistrich (Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred) highlights the dangers of conflating Jewish identity with political movements like communism, a tactic central to Nazi propaganda.
3. A Catholic Perspective: The Theological and Moral Failings of E. Michael Jones’s Views
From a Catholic perspective, E. Michael Jones’s views on the Holocaust are theologically and morally indefensible. His justification of Nazi atrocities and engagement in Holocaust denial directly contradict Church teaching, undermine the principle of human dignity, and betray the Catholic commitment to truth, reconciliation, and justice.
The Catholic Church, particularly through the Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate (1965), explicitly rejects antisemitism and affirms the spiritual kinship between Christians and Jews. This declaration states unequivocally:
"The Church reproves every form of persecution against whomsoever it may be directed."
Holocaust denial—a deliberate dismissal of the historical reality of Jewish suffering—is a grave affront to this teaching. Pope St. John Paul II, during his visit to Yad Vashem, called the Holocaust an “unspeakable tragedy” and a “horror that must never be forgotten.” Similarly, Pope Benedict XVI condemned Holocaust denial as “a sin against truth.” Pope Francis has echoed this condemnation, describing denial as “[i]nsanity and a grave offense against the truth.”
These papal statements reflect the Church’s unwavering commitment to historical truth and reconciliation. They underscore that denial or distortion of the Holocaust, whether through minimization or outright rejection, is incompatible with Catholic faith and moral integrity.
At the heart of Catholic teaching is the principle of human dignity—the belief that every person is created in the image and likeness of God and thus possesses inherent worth. Denying or justifying the Holocaust undermines this principle by trivializing the suffering of millions and dehumanizing both victims and survivors. As Pope Benedict XVI warned, Holocaust denial is “a falsification of history that must be firmly rejected,” for it not only distorts reality but also perpetuates harm and division.
Jones’s views, by excusing or denying the atrocities of the Holocaust, represent a profound betrayal of these Catholic values. His positions contradict Nostra Aetate and the consistent teachings of recent popes, all of whom have reaffirmed the Church’s mission to uphold truth, justice, and the dignity of all people. Catholics are called to reject these falsehoods and to honor the memory of those who suffered, ensuring that such atrocities are never forgotten. As Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope St. John Paul II remind us: truth is a cornerstone of moral and spiritual life, and its rejection is a betrayal of our shared humanity.
4. What Is at Stake?
Historical Truth: Denial of the Holocaust undermines our commitment to historical integrity.
Moral Responsibility: Perpetuating denial is an offense against survivors and victims.
Humanity’s Future: A society that rejects facts and logic in favor of ideology risks descending into chaos, as prophesied by Friedrich Nietzsche’s "will to power."
Conclusion: An Invitation to Reason
E. Michael Jones’s arguments fail the test of reason, facts, and theological integrity. Yet this article is not a condemnation of Jones or his followers. It is an invitation—an invitation to humility, to engage in respectful dialogue, and to embrace the truth.
To those who cite Jones, I ask: Will you provide evidence, engage with logic, and elevate the conversation beyond ideological rhetoric? Or will you retreat into arrogance and ignorance? The choice defines not only your stance on history but also your humanity.
I invite all readers to rise above mere narrative and join in the pursuit of truth, for in truth lies our path to justice, peace, and a society worthy of the name "human."
One sincere question:
How do you reconcile the inherent diversity within Jewish communities—spanning religious, cultural, political, and ideological spectrums—with your assertion of a unified, deliberate plan to undermine societal values, and what verifiable evidence can you present of this alleged coordination across such diverse and often conflicting groups?
Likely Response by Jones
Jones might argue the following:
1. Shared Ideological Framework
Despite diversity within Jewish communities, Jones could claim that Jewish history and religious teachings (e.g., the Talmud) create a collective identity or ethos that promotes opposition to Christian and traditional societal norms.
2. Historical Patterns
He might cite examples of Jewish involvement in movements such as Bolshevism, Freudian psychoanalysis, or the Frankfurt School as evidence of what he perceives as a consistent pattern of undermining traditional values.
3. Cultural Influence
Jones would likely point to Jewish prominence in industries like Hollywood or finance as evidence of disproportionate influence on cultural and moral norms, framing this as a deliberate effort to reshape society.
4. Coordination Through Elites
Instead of asserting direct coordination by all Jewish individuals, Jones might argue that influential Jewish elites share ideological goals that drive broader societal trends, consciously or unconsciously.
A Sourced and Credible Rebuttal
1. Jewish Diversity Refutes the Notion of Unified Intent
Religious Diversity: Judaism encompasses a wide range of beliefs and practices, from Orthodox to Reform, Conservative, and secular Jews. The idea of a monolithic religious agenda ignores this diversity.
Source: Jonathan Sarna, American Judaism: A History. Sarna documents the pluralism within Jewish religious life, especially in the United States, which undermines claims of a unified strategy.
Political and Cultural Diversity: Jewish communities have participated in diverse political movements, from socialism to conservatism, and have made contributions to various ideological currents. There is no evidence of a single, cohesive Jewish agenda.
Source: Deborah Dash Moore, Jewish Americans in the Twentieth Century. Moore highlights the political and cultural diversity among Jewish Americans, showing how their contributions defy monolithic categorization.
2. Misrepresentation of Historical Patterns
Jewish Participation in Revolutionary Movements: While some Jews were involved in revolutionary movements, these were individual choices shaped by specific historical contexts, such as persecution and socioeconomic exclusion. The majority of Jews were not revolutionaries but sought stability and security.
Source: Antony Polonsky, The Jews in Poland and Russia. Polonsky provides evidence that Jewish participation in revolutionary movements was often motivated by self-preservation, not an inherent agenda to destabilize societies.
Freudian Psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School: While Jewish individuals like Freud and members of the Frankfurt School contributed to intellectual movements, their ideas were not representative of Jewish communities as a whole. These movements were shaped by broader cultural and intellectual currents, not by Jewish identity.
Source: Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination. Jay examines the Frankfurt School’s critical theory in its historical and intellectual context, dismissing claims of a specifically Jewish agenda.
3. Jewish Influence in Hollywood and Media
Economic and Cultural Factors: Jewish immigrants played significant roles in Hollywood’s founding due to their exclusion from other industries and their entrepreneurial spirit. However, their primary goal was economic success and cultural assimilation, not undermining societal values.
Source: Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Gabler argues that Jewish studio heads sought to create an idealized version of America to assimilate into mainstream culture, not to erode traditional values.
The Diversity of Media Ownership: Today, media ownership is highly diverse and includes individuals from numerous ethnic and religious backgrounds. The focus on Jewish figures selectively ignores this broader diversity.
Source: Ben Bagdikian, The New Media Monopoly. Bagdikian highlights the consolidation of media ownership across corporate interests, showing that control is not dominated by any single group.
4. Lack of Evidence for Coordination
No Evidence of Conspiracy: Claims of a coordinated effort among Jews to undermine societal values are rooted in conspiracy theories that lack empirical support. Jewish individuals, like members of any group, act based on personal motivations and circumstances, not a collective agenda.
Source: Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide. Cohn examines how conspiratorial ideas about Jewish coordination have been fabricated and perpetuated over centuries without factual basis.
Complex Societal Changes: Societal changes, including shifts in sexual norms or cultural values, are driven by broad historical, technological, and social forces, not by the actions of any single group.
Source: Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature. Pinker attributes societal changes to broader trends in human progress and modernization, not specific ethnic or religious influences.
Final Question to Jones
If Jewish individuals are diverse in their beliefs and goals, and no verifiable evidence exists of a coordinated plan, why do you attribute broad societal changes to an alleged Jewish agenda rather than examining the complex, multifaceted factors driving these shifts?
This question underscores the fallacy of attributing collective intent to a diverse group and invites a more nuanced, evidence-based discussion of societal change.