Ernst Zundel

Ernst Zundel

A few years ago, everyone in Canada new Ernst Zundel. He was our leading “neo-Nazi.” He was regularly in and out of prison for denying the Holocaust. 

Zundel’s profession was graphic design. A Jewish friend of mine had some dealings with him, or perhaps some dealings with someone who had some dealings. And he reported something that made us both uneasy. Zundel had turned down a job from someone who asked him to doctor a photo of some factory to hide evidence of pollution. Because it was unethical.

He was a man of principle.

My friend assumed that Hitler must have been a man of principle too. But if so, how can we be sure that our principles are right, and theirs are wrong? Had Hitler won the war, would we look on Churchill as the monster?

I find that conclusion not just morally unacceptable, but logically. You cannot fudge morality; as Kant demonstrated, it is indisputable. It is the one indisputable thing: do unto others, as it is most commonly put.

Hitler had no principles. Hitler and the Nazis were all and only about the urge for power and the law of the jungle. Scholars and historians still argue about just what the Nazi program was; even the Nazis did not know. Were they socialists, as they claimed, “radical moderates,” or were they on the right? William L. Shirer, who was there, observed that Hitler said different things to different audiences. He said whatever he thought they wanted to hear. There was no principle involved but power, and whatever achieved power. The triumph of the will.

Zundel was the polar opposite. And the same has to be true of anyone claiming to be a neo-Nazi today. It is not what anyone wants to hear. They have to be doing it on principle, if perhaps misguided principle, because it only does them harm personally and ensures no one will ever consent to giving them any position of power. A modern neo-Nazi is the opposite of a Nazi.

Accordingly, all our measures against neo-Nazis are misdirected. We are targeting the wrong people. We are only persecuting people of unshakeable principle, the very people least likely to ever become real Nazis. Zundel was no doubt right: he was simply asking questions.

Indeed, the application of the hate laws to his case was obviously illegitimate. The charge was that, by expressing doubt that the Holocaust actually happened, he was fomenting hatred against an identifiable group. Isn’t that the opposite of what he was doing? He was denying an accusation against Germans that could inspire hatred. For comparison, would it really be a hate crime against Christians to deny that the Jews killed Christ? Why is sauce for the goose here poison for the gander?

The real Nazis, if they are real Nazis, are certain to instead call themselves “Antifa.” It is the properly cynical power play. And they will want to prevent people from asking questions.

Friend Xerxes reports approvingly, “In Rwanda, it is now a crime to deny the genocide. It is illegal to deny the Holomodor in Ukraine. Sixteen European countries have laws prohibiting denial of the Holocaust.”

This was the law that sent Zundel to prison in Canada, then in Germany. And there is an obvious problem here. Consider this: it is illegal in France to deny the Armenian genocide. It is illegal in Turkey to say it happened.

We cannot trust governments to legislate truth. Governments are the ones who commit the genocides. Then they try, with such laws, to scapegoat the common people. The only guarantee of truth is free discussion.