If you have never heard of David Irving, you're in good company. He has faded into obscurity somewhat, but in the early 1990s through the early 2000s Irving was heavy player in the Holocaust denier community—that band of tin-hat armchair historians and anti-Semites who hawk the idea that the Nazi's genocide of Jewish people was a hoax. Irving was one of its chief shills, and for a decade traveled the globe spewing pro-Nazi revisions of history.
Irving's persistent anti-Holocaust gas-bagging attracted the attention of legitimate Holocaust historian Dr. Deborah E. Lipstadt. She penned a scathing indictment of Holocaust deniers called Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory and stated, "Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda… He is most facile at taking accurate information and shaping it to confirm his conclusions." For her troubles, Irving sued Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, for libel in British court. For nearly four years Lipstadt and her legal team were forced to trot out the history of the Holocaust, including eyewitnesses, to assert her claim Irving was a "dangerous spokesperson" for Holocaust denial. The saga was turned into the 2016 film Denial starring Rachel Weisz. (Spoiler: He lost.)
Any rational thinker could take a quick look at Irving and make a corollary to modern individuals and organizations that trade in manipulated facts and outright lies against "mainstream" ideas or universally understood truths. Irving is fundamentally no different than Alex Jones, who peddles conspiracy theories, or Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer, who sell prejudice and more contemporary alt-right rhetoric. Their anger and paranoia, their hyperbole, and the constant whiff of conspiratorial doom they perceive in the democratic winds are nothing new in the American political landscape. The sitting president slid into the Oval Office with an economically frustrated electorate stirred into anger with undercooked nonsense about a Kenyan-born Barack Obama, climate change hoaxes, and "fake news." The past is always prologue.
While it's Pollyanna to believe American will ever get to a place where we have a complete electorate who thinks rationally about things that come from the mouths of elected officials, it's worth understanding the issue and impact of conspiracy theories and the denial of established facts. So Esquire spoke with Dr. Lipstadt, who had just returned to Emory University in Atlanta after a whirlwind tour of Europe for the premiere of Denial.
Conspiracy is the root of denial.
I think that most denial—whether it's climate denial, Holocaust denial, vaccine denial, or Newtown denial—rests in a conspiracy theory, and America has a long history of conspiracy theories. People who've believed the moon landing was fake, that Kennedy was killed by the CIA, etc. So those can exist independent of any political or economic climate. Having said that, I do think that when there is economic stress coupled with a sense among some people, a cadre of people—be it a class, be it an ethnic group, be it a religion—they're getting "the short end of the stick," that can enhance it, especially if it feels another group is getting "the long end of the stick." So it's a constellation of things. I don't think that just because you have an economic downturn that you're going to have conspiracy theories. But I do think those kind of things help bring it about.
The media plays a role.
It's very easy to talk about "the media," and we've done a lot of that lately, too glibly so. I do think that at times there are portions of the media that play upon these ideas. During the presidential election, during the early months, the president of CBS said Trump was "great for ratings." Trump may not be telling the truth, but he's the best thing that's happened to ratings. Ultimately the media is a business, so it's gotta sell tickets, get viewers, things like that... I wouldn't look for culpability, but I would say the media, though not singularly, has a special responsibility for pointing to the absurdity of certain claims, and the mainstream media has begun to do that in recent months by saying if a claim was made without evidence or if it's clearly a lie. That's very important and very significant. But I think it's incumbent on all of us. There's a plethora of information now available to us, and it's great, but I think we have to be particularly vigilant. We've been given this gift of an "information superhighway," but with every gift come responsibility. I think now more than ever.
Your beliefs can betray you.
When people began denying the Holocaust in the late-'80s and early-'90s many people said to me, "Well, look, I certainly believe the Holocaust, but Irving is a reputable person. Maybe there's something to be said about gas chambers, maybe there's certain questions about this, that, or the other." It ends up with people doubting established facts. I'm not saying there is orthodoxy in every system—very few people agreed with Galileo—but things have to be checked, you need to validate your sources. The upshot though is that when you claim, say, the voting system is rigged, without any evidence, without any proof, you're suggesting to people that the democratic system is corrupted and that their votes don't count, and that is very dangerous.
You come out with a preconceived notion that it's all rigged. Once you believe everything is rigged, then the truth doesn't matter.
Trump has mastered non-truths.
It's very difficult, but I'm hoping, with the exception of his die-hard supporters, if he does enough of this, people will begin to be skeptical about the things he says. But it's a terrible thing when you're skeptical about the things the president of the United States says. I am not an alarmist, but we are facing a very difficult situation, a potentially harmful situation.
People look for someone to blame. When they are frightened and feel that the system is against them it is comforting when someone comes up with a unified answer, especially one that says: It's not your fault; it is the "system" that is out there to screw you.
Still, use your gut.
Think about the American Firsters of the 1930s. Had their anger about being drawn into overseas entanglements taken hold, Germany would have won the war.
Double check things before you circulate them. Doesn't matter if it is pro- or anti- the cause you believe in. Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't make it true. Be suspicious.
