Larry Darby, now infamous in atheist circles for having given David Irving a platform on which he could spread his views, received a mysterious email from someone complaining about me. Strangely, this person has apparent knowledge about the conversation I had with Juel and posted about the past two days. Could it be the same person?

I won’t quote heavily from Darby’s missive, but it’s interesting that he starts out by citing this email correspondent as proving that he has “support” for the “revision of conformist history.” If I remember correctly, Holocaust Deniers like to call themselves “revisionists” rather than deniers. It’s also interesting that Darby emphasizes the fact that his correspondent is a theist. Is that really relevant? I don’t know, but perhaps Darby is anxious for whatever kind of support he can find. I know that he doesn’t have support among atheists for his views.

This isn’t surprising because despite Darby’s constant emphasis that he defends real Free Thought and all his critics oppose Free Thought (rather than allowing that they merely oppose giving falsified, hateful history a platform), he doesn’t appear to believe much in Free Thought when it comes to criticism of himself. I’ve been informed that people who disagree openly with Holocaust Denial and recommend books by critics of Holocaust Denial get kicked off of his email list or are not allowed to join to begin with.

Anyway, in quoting from this email, Darby says “I do not know who Cline is, but apparently the person writing to me is referring to one of a few knee-jerk opinion pieces written by people ignorant of fact following the informative and delightful presentation by highly regarded British historian David Irving.” It comes as a surprise to me that he does “not know who Cline is” because Darby wrote to me twice as recently as two months ago.

And by whom is David Irving “highly regarded”? Holocaust Deniers. He has little or not credibility left with real historians — the most that anyone appears willing to say about him is that he is a good archivist. Other than that, to call him “highly regarded” strikes me as rather disingenuous. Except in the field of Holocaust Denial, that is. It’s interesting that Darby makes Irving’s appearance sound so innocuous, not for a second acknowledging that he is the least bit controversial.

The piece in question is anything but “knee-jerk,” but I guess a serious rebuttal to what I wrote is out of the question. Strange how similar this attitude is to that of Juel’s, so let’s move along to what he quotes from the person who sounds suspiciously like Juel:

I have noticed with interest that some guy named Cline is trying to shut you up because you want to give David Irving a fair hearing.

I have tried to shut Darby up? Well, if that were true I’m pretty sure that Darby would know who I was. I’d love to know what it is about my single post — one page out of over 20,000 — that constitutes trying to shut anyone up. It’s so unimportant to Darby that he can’t even be bothered to rebut it when he attacks it, so it’s unlikely that he considers it an example of trying to shut him up. Could it be that Juel simply isn’t being truthful?

 

Every thing that comes out of a court room is not “the gospel” (pardon the expression). ... Judges must feather their own nests and they certainly do.

This is one reason why I think Juel wrote to Larry Darby — this appears to be a direct reference to what I wrote about Irving’s trial above. Notice, though, that Juel doesn’t bother to explain what was mistaken about the court decision. This decision is horrible for Holocaust Deniers who support David Irving because it underscores just how atrocious his “scholarship” was, but it’s not as though they are capable of rebutting the court’s conclusions.

Notice also how Juel suggests that the judge feathered his nest — it sounds to me like he is accusing the judge of having financial motives for his decision, though I’m not sure. Whatever he is trying to say, it seems that he is making accusations that deserve to be supported. I wonder if he would succeed in a British court in the same way that Lipstadt and Penguin did?

Juel wonders why I am “going to such extremes over WW2 History,” but I wonder what he means by “extremes.” I wrote one post about Larry Darby inviting David Irving, a second about C-Span inviting David Irving, and his name appears in a review of a book on Holocaust Denial. Do three pages really qualify as “extremes”? Hardly. On the other hand, Juel writes several impassioned emails and Larry Darby devotes an extended portion of a newsletter about it.

 

He says that Atheism is solely the non-belief in gods. Yet he goes to great extremes to discredit David Irving and you. What has that to do with gods?

Here we go with “extremes” again. Juel is correct that posts about David Iriving have nothing to do with gods, but a post about Larry Darby inviting David Irving to speak before an atheist group is definitely about atheism. Although I write about many things besides atheism and gods, I can’t be accused of that in this case.

Yes, atheism is solely about the non-belief in gods. So what does an invitation to David Irving to speak have to do with gods? I find it curious that Juel didn’t ask Larry Darby this. Could it be that Juel is applying a double standard?

Juel proceeds to accuse me of being afraid of the “TRUTH,” but without providing any evidence of this. Curious, since Juel accused me of fraud. Isn’t is rather similar to fraud for a person to make accusations that they don’t or can’t support?

Darby claims to have found where David Irving “mentioned one Austin Cline in the context of atheists expelling me,” but Irving merely links to the aforementioned piece rather than mentioning me by name. The words David Irving uses for his link are “US Atheists expel top Alabama official for hosting David Irving’s meeting,” which helps demonstrate the poor quality of Irving’s “scholarship” since there is nothing in the piece about anyone “expelling” Darby from anything.

I certainly haven’t expelled him from anything and I am unaware of anyone else doing so either. What would he be expelled from? It is probably not a coincidence that the only other people who might think that I have “expelled” anyone is National Vanguard, a white supremacist group. Karen Anderson describes me as “American Atheists’ official Austin Cline,” even though I’m not even a member of American Atheists, much less an official. Her scholarship is as good as David Irving’s — and these are the sorts of people Larry Darby thinks are the “vanguard” of “Free Thought”?

Larry Darby then goes on to accuse his critics of being “enemies to Liberty” and antagonists to Free Inquiry. Why? None of Darby’s critics deny that he and Irving have the liberty to question of deny the Holocaust. No one denies that both have a right to express their views and engage in free inquiry into the Holocaust. The only criticism has been that fighting for someone’s right to speak isn’t the same as giving them a platform to speak on.

Similar criticisms could be made for giving a platform to someone who denies that the Earth is round, or who insists that they were abducted by aliens. You can’t justifiably be called an enemy to liberty or free inquiry for objecting to helping such people spread their ideas and refusing to endorse them.

I, for example, don’t publish articles from Holocaust Deniers even though I would fight laws that tried to ban Holocaust Deniers from being published at all. These two positions are fully compatible, so why does Darby act like criticism of giving Irving a platform is the same as an attack on his right to speak at all? It’s implausible that the logic of this escapes him. I have to wonder if he feels threatened in some fashion?

In his email newsletter the following day, Darby provides more from this Juel who “confirms” that he is “speaking of Austin Cline of about.com.” I am described as an “incorrigible Truth Denier” (isn’t it interesting how the “Denier” label is applied to critics of Holocaust Denial?) and as being in the middle of “Zionism-Judaism.”

Juel doesn't have any basis for this assertion except for my criticism of Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Deniers. Certainly no one who has read what I have had to say about Zionism would accuse me of being a Zionist. I can imagine someone thinking that I don’t criticize Zionism enough, but I suppose that wouldn’t be strong enough for Holocaust Deniers.

This raises another question: why do Holocaust Deniers keep bringing up Zionism? Is it because it’s easier to criticize Zionism than it is to make a case against the Holocaust and, so, they hope to tarnish the latter through association with the former? Is anti-Zionism simply regarded as a “safer” way to express anti-Semitism? I don’t know, but after such exposure I have a little more sympathy for those who are inclined to see anti-Zionism as a mask for anti-Semitism.

I also wonder if Juel believes me to be a Jew. In my limited interaction with anti-Semites and Holocaust Deniers, I have always found that they end up believing that I am Jewish. I’m not sure why that is the case, but it’s a pretty consistent pattern and it might explain why he would think that I am “right in the middle” of “Zionism-Judaism.”

Read also: Part 1, Part 2, Part 4

 

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...