A Conversation with Prof. Egon Flaig
The following German interview with Prof. Egon Flaig appeared several weeks ago on the antinationalist website “Endstation Rechts.” It is particularly interesting because it acknowledges that the BRD’s “Holocow” approach to “Holocaust” dogma has not only failed to squelch “Holocaust” Revisionism, it has been disastrous for German intellectual life and therefore self-defeating. Who can blame the good professor for covering his posterior by rhetorically heaping praise on the draconian law (Paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code) that enforces the “Talmudic Inquisition” to which he objects?
On 30 April 2008 we met with Prof. Flaig in a Rostock wine cellar to discuss critical aspects of our present Erinnerungskultur (cult of remembrance) and the politics of history. Here we are releasing the first part of this discussion, and we are also posting commentary at the end of this aticle. With regards to commentary, we have to follow the guidelines limiting expression of opinion in Germany.
ENDSTATION RECHTS: Prof. Flaig, several months have passed since you were the topic of lively discussions in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In retrospect, how do you judge those events?
Prof. Flaig: First of all, let me express my gratitude to you for allowing the debate to take place in this open format. However I must confess that the controversy surrounding the debate did not particularly affect me at the time and still does not do so. In my view we are dealing here with a Debattenunkultur (culture of phony debate) that is causing fundamental disruptions in our ability to conceptualize, both historically and intellectually.
ENDSTATION RECHTS: Just what do you mean by that?
Prof. Flaig: An intellectual schism took place in the areas of historiography and political discussion in the 1990s -- a schism whose extent is poorly understood. We are now dealing with a grotesque complementarity of scientific relativism in the context of “linguistic turn” and moral fundamentalism in the public realm. Both these monsters are now marching in lockstep, which is wreaking havoc with German intellectual life.
ENDSTATION RECHTS: Perhaps we should briefly define “linguistic turn.” This is an expression borrowed from philosophy that refers to a change in modern thinking: it treats systems of thought as reflexes of language and culture. In other words: we can no longer reliably use language as an instrument to describe the world. Now it is the other way around: the subjects and their related thoughts have become the products of a cultural Sprachspiel (word game.) Is this explanation compatible with your understanding of “linguistic turn?”
Prof. Flaig: Yes.
ENDSTATION RECHTS: And what does this have to do with the cult of remembrance as it relates to the case of Auschwitz? I’ll explain it to you. With the “linguistic turn,” the phenomenon of relativism has now invaded the natural sciences. {Translator: Do not confuse relativism with relativity!} During the Enlightenment, science enabled us to comprehend what was objective and irrefutable intersubjectively (between the various disciplines.) Today, however, most scientists, like laymen, are doing nothing except playing Sprachspiele (word games.) Basically, it makes no difference what one thinks today. Every kind or mode of thought is equally valid, since it is nothing but an expression of cultural identity. This attitude is destroying the very basis of science. If there is nothing objective to be debated, what is the point of discussion? If we accept that differing methods of comprehending the world are all equally valid, then it is as valid to practice voodoo as to study atomic physics. In this mode of nonargumentative debate, scientists can inform each other what they are thinking at the moment, maybe over coffee and a sweet roll, but they no longer have any binding criteria to consider one thesis with more convincing than any other. And now this infectious scientific relativism has spread to the “Auschwitz Case.”
However, “Holocaust” concerns the foundations of our ethical understanding of ourselves. According to the concept of “linguistic turn,” human rights are just a game, a play of words. The general public does not accept this idea, however. Fortunately an openly acknowledged, publicly held moral fundamentalism has so far held the last lines of defense. Considered in this light, the articles critical of me that appeared in the Ostsee-Zeitung at the beginning of the year should be interpreted differently. In those articles, a moralized (and therefore depoliticized) public opinion was subconsciously defending itself, not against me, but rather against the consequences of its own unspoken premises. Where Auschwitz is concerned we have to oppose relativism precisely because it is taking over everywhere. When someone begins arguing differentially we find that moral relativism is behind such arguments.
ENDSTATION RECHTS: If we understand you correctly, you are saying that scientifically and historically as well as publicly there is no such thing as unprejudiced open debate concerning “Holocaust.”
Prof. Flaig: That is true. In my view this moralistic fundamentalism developed in the 1990s and has taken the place of rational argument, step by stop.
Of course we must clarify our relation to “Shoah,” but this “Shoah Discourse” has now attained enormous dominance. This development began with the Historikerstreit (“Battle of the Historians”) during the 1980s. Jürgen Habermas’s ideas forced scientific debate onto the platform of public moralizing. Today I must confess that I too did not protest against that, and so in this regard I am my own victim. It was grotesque how they dealt with the problems of “Revisionism” and increasingly slandered historians such as Ernst Nolte. It is the core concept of the Enlightenment that mankind expands his knowledge of the world step by step on the basis of rational and objective argumentation. Since we are all prone to error, science by definition has to progress through one mistake after another. Whoever intends to pursue science critically and without prejudice in the spirit of the Enlightenment must be constantly challenging and testing his knowledge. He must be prepared to revise it when this becomes necessary. Revisionism per se is a large part of the core substance of the Enlightenment.
When the scientific process of revising history is placed under a general cloud of suspicion, scientists no longer have opportunity to evaluate arguments in accordance with objective criteria. Even worse, persons with intellectual interests – the heart and soul of the Renaissance and Enlightenment on account of their open and objective quest for truth and justice -- lose their respected position in society. In the intolerant culture of “politically correct stupidity” as Rainer Paris calls it, the intellectual simply ceases to exist. And why is this?
It is because in moralistic debates we no longer have to justify our arguments. Argumentation itself has been debased: moralizing makes all arguments equally good and equally bad. Even worse: moralizing creates a new hierarchy that is radically anti-intellectual. The Gutmenschen (do-gooders) are at the top of this hierarchy, and the winner of the debate is the person who screams most loudly about his moralistic superiority.
ENDSTATION RECHTS: Does that mean that you are speaking out against Section 130 of the Penal Code that criminalizes expressions of doubt concerning “Holocaust?”
Prof. Flaig: Oh no, I’m not doing that at all. There are significant differences between Revisionists and Revisionists. Some Revisionists are motivated by the quest for truth, which is completely legitimate. Specifically, researchers must be allowed to discuss numbers. For example, at the beginning of the 1990s, a plaque was displayed at Auschwitz that enumerated four million (Jewish) victims. However, this allegation did not withstand scientific investigation. In the 1960s the Jewish “Holocaust” researcher Raul Hilberg had estimated the number at slightly over one million. This has nothing to do with moral relativization of atrocities committed at Auschwitz. On the contrary, such research is necessary so that the monstrous events can be explained as a process brought about by technical, logistical, infrastructural, organizational, political, demographic, ethnic and ideological considerations (to name just a few.) Without explanations there can be no science. However, scientific “explainability” requires that all details must be open to discussion and debate, without exception. Otherwise a realm of “unexplainability” is created in the same undesirable way as was done by the inquisitions of the various religions. Is the “Holocaust” any less bestial because “only” one million persons lost their lives at Auschwitz? Whoever is not prepared to discuss these questions openly and objectively is not only deviating from scientific guidelines, he is playing into the hands of the neo Nazis. There is nothing more damaging to the “culture of remembrance” than to refuse rational argumentation and not correct obvious errors. Such refusals make it much easier for Revisionists of the other sort to dismiss “Holocaust” as fantastical propaganda. Because of the Revisionists of this other sort, who are not concerned with truth but are rather attempting to erase past events, I am thankful for the existence of Section 130 of the Penal Code. Paragraph 130 is society’s last line of defense against the delegitimization of all claims to truth. This delegitimization is supported by cultural relativism that is based on the “linguistic turn.” That is the reason why I demanded additional legislation against “denial of genocide” last spring in the Greifswalder student magazine “Moritz”. I specifically mentioned the genocide committed against the Armenians there. I did so with heavy heart because in the long run, even such laws as these will not be able to preserve the truth.
Source: ZioPedia.org (Translator: James Damon)
