Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2003, Page 69
Extrapolation, Exaggeration, or Exculpation?
Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq.
President, AFF
It has always struck me that the issues at the forefront in dealing with cults have broad
scale application and can be fruitfully considered in analogical contexts with those raised in
other areas. This was most recently driven home to me by reading a number of books
analyzing the works of Holocaust deniers. Professionals and academics often write these
works, which are sometimes supported by well-financed ―institutes,‖ propounded in
conferences run by alleged scholars, and published in widely circulated books and
pamphlets.
A recent work, Denying History, by Michael Schermer and Alex Grobman and published by
the University of California Press, has a very enlightening analysis of some of the issues
raised in an inquiry seeking to determine how and why those claiming that the Holocaust
never took place or that its horrors have been deliberately exaggerated reached those
conclusions.
Reading this work, I was struck by how many parallels exist to criticisms of the ―anticult
movement‖ or of scholars or professionals who describe the harms related to cult activities.
In this piece, I would like to deliberate provocatively and cite some of the issues the authors
of this work address and invite readers to recognize the analogies to the field of cults. I
believe that the analogies may go both ways, relating sometimes to cult critics and
sometimes to cult defenders.
What stands out to me in this book‘s analysis is the strong propensity of Holocaust deniers
to avoid intellectually honest discussion of differences and instead use numerous devices to
denigrate the views or character of those with whom one disagrees. Holocaust deniers, for
example, call Holocaust scholars ―extremists,‖ ―Holocaust hobbyists,‖ and assorted other
names (p. xv). Does that remind you of the characterization of cult critics as ―religious
bigots‖ or even, in at least one article, ―terrorists‖?
Second, the Holocaust deniers rely on the incredulous nature of the asserted horrors in
order to reject the personal reports of survivors and affirm the cynical assurance of
perpetrators of atrocities that if the victims survived and told of the experience, ―the rest of
the world would not believe what happened – and people would conclude that evil on such a
scale was just not possible‖ (Terrence Despres, The Survivor in Denying History, p. 49).
Does this sound like the denigration of ex-member reports by calling them ―atrocity tales‖?
Holocaust deniers point to ―engineering studies‖ that claim it was impossible to construct
crematories using poison gas, even though these ‗studies‖ were authored by persons having
no qualifications. Does this not recall claims that Aum Shinrikyo could not have had the
technical capability to produce Sarin gas?
In analyzing why academics might be led to conclusions supporting Holocaust deniers, the
authors of Denying History cite the studies of cult researchers Stephen Kent and Theresa
Krebbs, noting that professionals might have found ―themselves the unwitting tools of
religious groups striving for social acceptance and in need of an imprimatur of an academic‖
and showing how scholars‘ ―deception becomes self-deception‖ (p. 57).
Schermer and Grobman also criticize the relativistic approach of historians who, for
example, assert an afrocentric view of the origination of Aristotle‘s ideas in the face of fact
errors (pp. 237-240) or that paleontologists and archeologists conspired to cover up
Extrapolation, Exaggeration, or Exculpation?
Herbert L. Rosedale, Esq.
President, AFF
It has always struck me that the issues at the forefront in dealing with cults have broad
scale application and can be fruitfully considered in analogical contexts with those raised in
other areas. This was most recently driven home to me by reading a number of books
analyzing the works of Holocaust deniers. Professionals and academics often write these
works, which are sometimes supported by well-financed ―institutes,‖ propounded in
conferences run by alleged scholars, and published in widely circulated books and
pamphlets.
A recent work, Denying History, by Michael Schermer and Alex Grobman and published by
the University of California Press, has a very enlightening analysis of some of the issues
raised in an inquiry seeking to determine how and why those claiming that the Holocaust
never took place or that its horrors have been deliberately exaggerated reached those
conclusions.
Reading this work, I was struck by how many parallels exist to criticisms of the ―anticult
movement‖ or of scholars or professionals who describe the harms related to cult activities.
In this piece, I would like to deliberate provocatively and cite some of the issues the authors
of this work address and invite readers to recognize the analogies to the field of cults. I
believe that the analogies may go both ways, relating sometimes to cult critics and
sometimes to cult defenders.
What stands out to me in this book‘s analysis is the strong propensity of Holocaust deniers
to avoid intellectually honest discussion of differences and instead use numerous devices to
denigrate the views or character of those with whom one disagrees. Holocaust deniers, for
example, call Holocaust scholars ―extremists,‖ ―Holocaust hobbyists,‖ and assorted other
names (p. xv). Does that remind you of the characterization of cult critics as ―religious
bigots‖ or even, in at least one article, ―terrorists‖?
Second, the Holocaust deniers rely on the incredulous nature of the asserted horrors in
order to reject the personal reports of survivors and affirm the cynical assurance of
perpetrators of atrocities that if the victims survived and told of the experience, ―the rest of
the world would not believe what happened – and people would conclude that evil on such a
scale was just not possible‖ (Terrence Despres, The Survivor in Denying History, p. 49).
Does this sound like the denigration of ex-member reports by calling them ―atrocity tales‖?
Holocaust deniers point to ―engineering studies‖ that claim it was impossible to construct
crematories using poison gas, even though these ‗studies‖ were authored by persons having
no qualifications. Does this not recall claims that Aum Shinrikyo could not have had the
technical capability to produce Sarin gas?
In analyzing why academics might be led to conclusions supporting Holocaust deniers, the
authors of Denying History cite the studies of cult researchers Stephen Kent and Theresa
Krebbs, noting that professionals might have found ―themselves the unwitting tools of
religious groups striving for social acceptance and in need of an imprimatur of an academic‖
and showing how scholars‘ ―deception becomes self-deception‖ (p. 57).
Schermer and Grobman also criticize the relativistic approach of historians who, for
example, assert an afrocentric view of the origination of Aristotle‘s ideas in the face of fact
errors (pp. 237-240) or that paleontologists and archeologists conspired to cover up
