This paper will outline how Holocaust deniers legitimize themselves on the Internet through the creation and maintenance of web sites. In this paper, I will explain the nature of hate online, and discuss the specific nature of Holocaust denial and the discourse surrounding it. I will also discuss the difference between the terms Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism. I will outline the major themes that deniers assert. I will compile and select some of the most popular Holocaust denial web sites and I will categorize them and organize them into different typologies. Through these categories, I will illustrate the manner in which the deniers legitimize their arguments through the design, word selection, and language on their web sites. For this paper I have analysed sites that deal with Holocaust Denial only. There are many hate sites that include Holocaust Denial, however, their major focus is hate and I have decided not to include them in this paper.

According to Tom Nunn, “Hate groups are clubs or organizations whose sole purpose is to show other groups of people, whether social or racial groups, in an unfavorable or prejudiced light. The sites seem interested in giving an image as non-hate groups, that they are in fact love groups.” (Nunn, 1999)

Hate groups are very diverse in that they spread their information in many different forms online. The following categories include: Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi, Skinhead, Christian Identity, and Black Separatist. The web site Hatewatch at http://www.hatewatch.org , categorizes hate groups into the following: White Supremacy, Racist Music, Racist Skinheads, Neo-Nazism, Anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denial, Christian Identity, Black Racism, Anti-Gay, Anti-Christian, Anti-Muslim, and Anti-Arab. Matt Hale, group leader of World Church of the Creator was interviewed on Hatewatch on October 13, 1997. He said of his group, "we recognize the white race as the race that has created all worthwhile culture and progress on this planet." (Dolan, 1999)

Hate groups are increasingly using the World Wide Web to promote racist and extremist views, according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The number of websites promoting hate has more than doubled in the last year, from about 1,400 to more than 3,000, according to the center's associate dean, Rabbi Abraham Cooper. (Page, 2000) Much of the growth has been in the United States, where First Amendment protections allow material that would be illegal in many countries around the world. The Southern Poverty Law Center suggests the following guidelines for dealing with hate groups:

1. Stay away from white supremacist events.

2. Organize an alternative event.

3. Don't try to stop white supremacist events.

4. Place ads in the local newspaper.

5. Form community anti-racism groups.

6. Respond quickly to hate crimes with a show of unity.

7. Focus on victim assistance.

8. Research hate crime laws in your community and state.

9. Encourage multi- cultural education in local schools.

10. Find unique ways to show opposition. (Dolan, 1999)

According to the Anti-Defamation League http://www.adl.org, Internet "speech that is merely critical, annoying, offensive, or demeaning and is protected by the Constitution." It is only when the activities of online hate groups rises to the level of criminal conduct, as defined by the District of Columbia and the 40 states with hate crime laws, that criminal charges can be pressed. In addition, online attacks against the person of specific individuals may be prosecuted, which has happened with a number of email threat and harassment cases.

Stanley Barrett studied the right wing in Canada and he found that there are varying degrees of right wing organizations. Some organizations are just very conservative (he labeled them the fringe right) while other groups were racist, anti-Semitic, and exhibit violence and terror (he labeled them the radical right). (Barrett,9)

Raymond Franklin compiled a list of hate sites with his collaborators and created www.hatedirectory.com. The hate directory is a 63-page listing of every hate group site that the owner Raymond Franklin and his collaborators have found on the Web. While Franklin’s motivation for making his directory is unclear, Franklin gives his preface on the first page as "The Hate Directory is maintained and presented as an aid in identifying and tracking the proliferation of hate oriented use of the Internet and other new electronic media. The directory is an historical document as well as a current reference, and includes current sites as well as those no longer in operation." (Franklin, 2001)

With over 15 sites per page in alphabetical order, reading through it was a very daunting task. Toward the end of the list, I found listings for chat-rooms, and message boards with a common purpose - to disseminate hate between its members.

The First Amendment protects most forms of speech but the line begins to fog as people begin advocating action. Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, a white supremacist web site, said in a 1999 interview with the Denver Post that, "Unless the government decides to suspend the Constitution, the only way they could harass us is to find something that somebody has posted,'' he said. "Because we certainly don't advocate it.'' (Nunn, 1999)

Hate sites contain a great deal of information for the public. Such information includes a text library, a graphics library, messages boards, chat rooms, an Aryan dating service and they even own their own servers located in West Palm Beach, Fla., Miami, and Louisiana.

Hate sites want to recruit members. According to Black "As far as recruiting, the Internet has been the biggest breakthrough I've seen in the 30 years (Nun, 1999) He further commented that “Prior to the 'Net, when we had to rely on printed literature and leaflets and occasional public meetings, we were limited in the number of people we could reach. Now we can reach potentially millions of people.” (Nunn, 1999)

Hate groups also need to reach people through interaction. Many sites have listservs, which are like a running message board, however the only way to gain access is through email. To join a listserv, one must subscribe using their email address and then they can send a message to the whole group using a common email address. Hategroups use listservs to gather people from all around the world and to discuss issues, organize conventions, and to recruit more people. A person simply has to ask to have their name and email address added to it and they will then receive every email that is sent to the listserv until they ask to be removed.

Hatewatch was first started in 1995 by a Harvard Law School librarian named David Goldman, Hatewatch was the first major site to track online hate groups -- the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, Klansmen, black nationalists and gay bashers who saw the Internet as their chance to spread their messages to the world. It attracted incredible media coverage, helped to focus public attention, provided a reference for law enforcement and attracted 1 million visitors a year.

Film critic Roger Ebert attacked Hatewatch for giving free publicity to haters, providing a "virtual supermarket" of hate tools for bigots of all stripes. While other sites, like the ADL's, flagged the lies and distortions on hate sites, Hatewatch merely provided links to sites -- where the groups could describe themselves however they wanted.
Hatewatch is an effective tracking tool. If the Internet was going to turn small, isolated groups into a large, organized movement, Hatewatch was going to ensure that such an expansion took place in the open. It succeeded in that goal, drawing thousands of visitors a day and extensive media coverage.

For hate groups, the Net is a cheap and easy way to reach vast audiences under a cloak of anonymity. "The lunatic fringe might be on the fringes, but they understand the power of the Internet as well as anyone in society," says Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks hate groups. The center estimates there are more than 2,300 "problematic" Web sites, including more than 500 extremist sites authored by Europeans, but hosted on American servers to avoid stringent anti-hate laws in Europe. (Perine, 2000)

The U.S. constitutional right to free speech protects most of these sites. Some European nations, however, lack the same free-speech standards. So, like other Internet policy issues such as data privacy and encryption, Europe's standards on hate speech clash with American ones. It's another instance where there's little or no consensus on how to govern this global medium.

"A few years ago, a Klansman needed substantial effort and money to produce and distribute a shoddy pamphlet that might reach a few hundred people," says Mark Potok, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which also monitors hate groups. "Today, with a $500 computer and negligible costs, that same Klansman can put up a slickly produced Web site with a potential audience in the millions." (Perine, 2000)

Jared Sandberg states that before the World Wide Web, white supremacists used to recruit the old-fashioned way--through leaflets and face-to-face meetings.” Organizations like the Ku Klux Klan want to expand their ranks beyond young, educated people. The Web gives them a powerful tool to attract savvy and privileged Netsters. Don Black, a former Klan member who hosts one of the pioneering white-supremacist Web sites hopes one day to start his own TV network online. We suddenly have a mass audience rather than a small clique of subscribers.”
(Sandberg, 1999)

Hate groups like to address children and teenagers. Don Black's Stormfront Web site devotes a section to youth. The section of this site is dressed with online games, crossword puzzles, contests, polls and is designed by Black’s 10 year old son. (Sandberg, 1999)

Sites like Posse Comitatus and the National Socialist Hitler Youth Legion offers downloadable material such as Mein Kampf or tunes titled Violent Solution and Go Back to Africa. Another section of the site offers anti-Semitic software, including a lengthy interactive comic strip depicting Jews as conspiring rodents grubbing for money and power. (Sandberg, 1999)

Some sites want to reach rebellious teens. The Ku Klux Klan web site tells teens that they were brainwashed as children (shows like Sesame Street telling you how great it was to go to an integrated school), and discriminated against (there is no White College Fund). Resist and you'll be a hero, says the Klan site. (Sandberg, 1999) As I will show, Holocaust denial aims at a different audience with different aims and goals.

Holocaust denial is a specific hate group that claims that the murder of approximately six million Jews in the Nazi genocide did not occur. (Eaglestone, 8). Some deniers like Carlos Porter refer to the Holocaust as the “Holoco$t” (Carlos Porter, 2001) claiming that it is all a hoax perpetuated by rich powerful Jews. Porter further claims that the Holocaust is a world Jewish conspiracy to gain money and power for Jews in Israel and the Diaspora. Holocaust denial has emerged after over two decades of propagandizing as an important ideology of the diverse hate movement in the 1990s. While appearing as a scholarly inquiry, Holocaust denial serves as a powerful conspiracy theory uniting otherwise disparate fringe groups (Liberty Lobby, Heritage Front, Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, the Aryan Nations and racist skinheads). On the surface, Holocaust deniers portray themselves as individuals and groups engaged in a legitimate quest for historical "truth” and intellectual inquiry. (Anti-Defamation League, http://www.adl.org ) “Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy.” (Anti-Defamation League, 2001)

Deniers have adopted the term "revisionism" in order to mask and legitimate their enterprise. The term “revisionism” is a legitimate term used to challenge how historians perceived their experiences. Historical revisionism is legitimate because historians interpret the past from different perspectives. As the nature of history can never be objective, Holocaust deniers seek to revise history. They claim that the fate of history has been written and controlled by Jews. Furthermore, they argue that since the world is under Zionist control, Jews have created an atmosphere where there is world sympathy for the state of Israel and for World Jewry.

The term “revisionism” comes from the post-World War I historical revisionists of the 1920s and 1930s who successfully challenged the previously dominant view of exclusive German guilt for causing the Great War. (Austin, 1996). They claim that the accepted premise that Nazi Germany engaged in a premeditated campaign of systematic genocide against the Jews of Europe during the period of the Second World War is one that does not stand up to honest scholarly scrutiny.

The word “deny” alludes to the fact that there exists a body of discourse that the fringe group denies. The revisionists do not deny that Hitler's government engaged in persecution of, and discrimination against Jews in Germany and German-controlled countries. They do admit that there was an existence of concentration camps. They argue that the anti-Semitic actions of the Nazi government were in large part a legitimate response to Jewish transgressions and disloyalties during wartime. Furthermore, the revisionists postulate that the Jews provoked Hitler to initiate a war. They further argue that the measures taken and the use of concentration camps were not qualitatively different from similar wartime and post-war actions of the western allies and the Soviet Union. They deny the existence of any master plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe.

Holocaust deniers seek to question and doubt the Holocaust to a mass audience. While Holocaust denial has become an article of faith among the militants and followers of the contemporary hate movement, its success does not depend upon conversion to that faith among the general public. Their goal is to spread skepticism and doubt to a mass audience so their views can be considered more mainstream and less marginalized.

Holocaust denial has been widely embraced within the otherwise disparate contemporary hate movement because it serves as a legitimate way of hiding anti-Semitism. It also provides a legitimate means to create future genocides by attempting to show that these crimes never took place. (Austin, 1996) Holocaust denial provides contemporary legitimacy through the debate of historical events. Many neo-Nazis who once embraced the reality of the Holocaust as the essence of the National Socialist mission can now take a political stand and promote Holocaust denial. Holocaust Denial has now become a political movement in which right wing conservatives can present their ideas to the public and they will not appear as anti-Semitic or bigoted (Austin, 1996). Many of them (mostly in the United States) defend their claims with the first Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Holocaust Deniers insist that for over fifty years, Jews have been systematically propagandizing the Holocaust with deliberate lies. These lies include materials inserted into the educational curriculum at all levels of instruction; the content of Holocaust-related material, including film and television. There is a vast amount of Holocaust literature, public rituals of Holocaust remembrance, and a federally supported museum built in Washington, DC. They believe that there is a vast Jewish conspiracy that revolves around all forms of social life, including the institutions of education, culture, the media and the government. (Austin, 1996).

They also believe that the Holocaust is a myth and they state that this myth evokes a sense of guilt in the white, Christian world. Deniers believe that the power Jews have gained due to this guilt is used to advance an international Jewish agenda centered in the Zionist enterprise of the State of Israel.

Deniers argue that the “manufactured” guilt over the Holocaust led to the United States support for the establishment of the Jewish State. They believe that once they have been shown the "truth," that there was never any legitimate basis for their feeling of guilt, deniers assume that the real victims will rise up in revolt and take revenge on the Holocaust myth conspirators in an appropriate manner.

There is a distinction between the terms denial and revisionism. One of the more dangerous aspects of contemporary Holocaust denial is the fact that deniers attempt to present their work as reputable scholarship under the veil of "historical revisionism." The term "revisionist" is a legitimate term, as it denotes a reevaluation of history, in terms of perspective and methodology.

Historical revisionism is a legitimate, respectable and necessary approach to historical analysis. Each new generation acquires new information, new facts and new methods that were not available in the past. Contemporary historians, armed with new documentary, archaeological and anthropological data, are in a improved position to assess the slavery era in the American south than were historians writing during slavery or in the decades immediately since most of them were white. (Austin, 1996). Gerda Lerner argues that women are not the only group which have been “forgotten” in recorded history. Ruling elites have failed to take into account the histories of women, slaves, lower classes, proletarians, and colonials. She further states that women are the one group, which has remained the longest in subordinate status. (Lerner, 53) As a female historian she uses revisionism to challenge male historians who wrote from a patriarchal point of view and failed to take into account women’s experiences. African-American historians are now doing the same thing with regard to important contributions of African-American history. Revisionist historians bring the issues into public discussion and clarification. Historical revisionism attempts to enhance and extend our understanding of history through continual re-interpretation of existing historical data.

Holocaust deniers have adopted the term "revisionism" as an attempt to make themselves appear respectable and legitimate. However, as Robert Eaglestone argues, history should be written objectively, but it cannot. Furthermore, historians cannot report all the facts from the past. They must be selective and they often report from their own political or social point of view. History is also retrospective. Eaglestone claims that things happen forward but we learn them backwards. Historians write from different perspectives, like ethnicity, culture, religion, race, sexuality, and gender. They also choose to focus on certain events in history. Some take a feminist approach. Others take a Marxist approach to history, looking at class and structure. (Eaglestone, 21) He claims that history can never be objective because each historian focuses on historical data from various methodologies, philosophies. As Eaglestone analyses in the Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving trial (), Irving failed the conventions of a legitimate historian. He distorted historical evidence, falsified statistics, falsely attributes conclusions to reliable sources, manipulated documents, and quoted books inaccurately. (Eaglestone, 2001) If one would analyse Irving’s perspective, it would be a racist one. Like David Irving, there is not a qualified historian among them. Mark Weber, editor of the Journal of Historical Review, a self-proclaimed "revisionist" journal, has a Masters degree in European history. David Irving does not have a University degree but claims to be a historian. His only credentials are that he is a popular and controversial novelist who writes about Hitler and World War II. Arthur Butz, one of the leading Holocaust deniers, is a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Northwestern University. Fred Leuchter claims he is a chemist and engineer, but has not been trained as an engineer at all. Leuchter has a Bachelor’s degree in History.

Legitimation (Latin, 'making lawful') is the manner and process by which a political system receives justification. A concept is legitimate if considered valid by the population.

Max Weber made an important contribution to the understanding of legitimacy. Weber stressed the importance of followers' beliefs. He distinguished between legal-rational authority, which rests on the belief in the legality of rules on which those with authority act; traditional authority, which rests on the acceptance of those chosen to rule in accordance with the customs and practices of tradition; and charismatic authority, which rests on devotion to an individual leader believed to possess exceptional powers. These three types are 'ideal' or 'pure' types. (Merquior, 1980)

The fourth level of legitimation is the concept of the symbolic universe. “These are bodies of theoretical tradition that integrate different provinces of meaning and encompass the institutional order in a symbolic totality…” (88) The symbolic sphere relates to the most comprehensive level of legitimation. Legitimation now takes place in terms of symbols and not in everyday experiences. “ The symbolic universe can be thought of all socially objectivated and subjectively real meanings; the entire historic society and the entire biography of the individual are seen as events taking place within the universe (Berger and Luckmann, 89).” This symbolic universe gives a sense of order in the funny universe we live in (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). The symbolic universe 'hardens' and 'thickens' with habits and experience to take on a sense of objective reality. I am living and acting under a subjective cover of apparent order and meaning. We are socialized into accepting the symbolic universe around our institutions as legitimate we just take it for granted.

According to the Berger and Luckmann, the "symbolic universe", is a device for legitimation and in turn needs to legitimize itself to be accepted in society. Such situations may take place with the emergence of rebels in the society. In order to cope, societies have developed a number of different "conceptual machineries" for the purpose of maintaining a legitimate symbolic universe. (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) They discuss two applications of conceptual machineries; 1) therapy, a method which attempts to stop people from deviating from the norms of society, and 2) annihilation, a method that attempts to liquidate all of the concepts outside of the symbolic universe.

Holocaust deniers attempt to alter the symbolic universe by using all of the norms and values in the symbolic universe and replacing them with the terms Holocaust skepticism, Open debate of the Holocaust, and Holocaust revisionism. They are exchanging concepts within the symbolic universe and questioning history. This shift in the symbolic universe is disturbing because it to most people, it is not an example of anti-Semitism. It appears legitimate because it is disguised as intellectual inquiry, intellectual debate, and freedom of speech. Few deniers actually represent themselves as anti-Semitic. If they appear honest and sincere and they do not express or disseminate any anti-Semitic discourse then they can be part of the symbolic universe. I will show how they accomplish this.

Below are the basic arguments that most Holocaust deniers claim:

1) The Holocaust did not occur because there is no single "Master plan" for Jewish annihilation.

2) There were no gas chambers used for mass murder at Auschwitz and other camps.

3) Holocaust scholars rely on the testimony of survivors because there is no objective documentation proving the nazi genocide.
4) World War II was a slaughterhouse of unprecedented proportions for everyone involved - not just Jews, who made up perhaps 2% of the total fatalities.
5) The Nuremberg trials were a "Farce of justice" staged for the benefit of the Jews.(ADL, 2001)

Throughout these web sites, the common themes are that the gas chambers never existed and that Jews died of natural causes such as typhus or starvation. Fred Leuchter, who claimed to an engineer, wrote the famous “Leuchter Report”, which attempted to prove that Auschwitz did not have gas chambers because of the absence of Zyklon-B gas in the area where the gas chambers would have been. David Irving, a famous British writer and a self proclaimed historian denies that he is a Holocaust denier. However, it is evident in his lectures and when he speaks at conferences, he has shown to be a Hitler sympathizer and a Holocaust denier. Many deniers such as Arthur Butz will argue that “…during both world wars Germany was forced to fight typhus, carried by lice in the constant traffic with the east. That is why all accounts of entry into the German concentration camps speak of shaving of hair and showering and other delousing procedures, such as treatment of quarters with the pesticide Zyklon-B.” (Butz, 1991)

I analysed eight Holocaust denial web sites (in English) and organized them into the following categories: Organizational, Personal, and Publishing House/Bookstore. Organizational web sites were usually larger than personal web sites and often contain an area where users can buy books and videos. These sites did not reflect the opinions and ideologies of one person, but of an organization. Many organizational sites also published materials as well. Some Personal sites include The Zundelsite, Arthur Butz’s site, Carlos Whitlock Porter and David Irving’s Focal Point Publications. These sites are specifically dedicated to the life and work of a specific Holocaust denier. The personal sites are not necessarily coded for size. They are labeled personal because they do not represent an organization or a corporation. Personal sites outline their biography, their work, and their fight for the truth in history. The commonality of many personal sites depicts Holocaust deniers as martyrs and victims.

I have given the heading of Organizational to CODOH (Committee on the Open Debate of the Holocaust) and The Adelaide Institute. I have classified the last category Publishing House/Bookstore. The sites that can be classified under this category are the IHR (Institute for Historical Review), Noontide Press, and The Barnes Review. I have labeled this category as publishing house or bookstore however, please note that most Holocaust denial web sites sell materials such as books, videos, or periodicals directly from their site.

For my analysis, I will illustrate how these web sites create and maintain their legitimacy to their audience. I will attempt to answer the following questions. What words or phrases are used to appear more legitimate? How is language used on the sites? Are there any apparent uses of anti-Semitic phrases or words, images, or symbols? Are the sites multilingual? How are their sites organized? Are the sites united in any way? Do they support one another? Are there any forms of interactivity?

I will present broad trends amongst the selected sites I have analysed. All of these sites possess the common themes that: 1) the gas chambers did not exist, 2) there was no final solution and Adolf Hitler never ordered the extermination of Jews, and 3) the number of Jews murdered was greatly exaggerated. The various methods Holocaust deniers use to legitimize themselves are the following. They benefit from their University credentials to establish their authority, web site design, word selection, anti-Zionist as opposed to anti-Semitic claims, and the American flag with a disclaimer detailing their right to free speech supported by the first Amendment of the United States constitution.

I will also analyse other aspects of the site, including: the commonality of the web sites, is there an underlying theme, what are the forms of interactivity (mailing list, newsgroup, chatroom, announcement list), and do the sites support one another in their claims. I will also indicate if the sites contain information (database) or they only provide links to other sites (portal web site).

The names of the web sites are listed below with their prospective URL’s.

The Zundesite, http://www.zundelsite.org/

Arthur’s Butz’s web site http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/

Carlos Whitlock Porter’s Made in Russia: The Holocaust http://www.cwporter.com

Institute for Historical Review http://www.ihr.org/

The Adelaide Institute http://www.adelaideinstitute.com

Committee on the Open Debate of the Holocaust http://www.codoh.com/

The Revisionist Newsletter, published by CODOH http://www.codoh.org

Focal Point Publications http://www.fpp.co.uk

Foundation Vrij Historisch Onderzoek http://www.vho.org

Web sites labeled organizational are larger sites, that often hold conferences, publish, and sell material such as books and videos. They represent the views of an organization (or pseudo-organization). For this paper, I analysed Ingrid Rimland and Ernst Zundel’s Zundelsite, Arthur Butz’s personal web site, David Irving’s Focal Point Publications, Foundation Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Bradley Smith’s CODOH (Committee on the Open Debate of the Holocaust), Fredrick Toben’s Adelaide Institute, Carlos Whitlock Porter’s Made in Russia: The Holocaust, David Irving’s Focal Point Publications, The Institute for Historical Review (IHR).

I decided not to analyse four known web sites. I decided to omit Michael Hoffman’s Campaign for Radical Truth in History at http://www.hoffman-info.com because Hoffman focuses not only on the Holocaust but on all aspects of hate towards Jews. The Ostara web site at http://www.ostara.org was not appropriate for my analysis since the site is anti-Semitic (white supremacy and anti-Semitism) and it does not focus on Holocaust denial.

“OSTARA, THE GODDES OF SPRING AND NATURE RENEWAL PRESENTS A COLLECTION OF CONTROVERSIAL WEB-LINKS, BOOKS, DOCUMENTS & WEBSITES. BECAUSE OF WEBSPACE LIMITATION, MOSTLY ARE IN GERMAN. A SITE DEDICATED TO THE WHITE RACE AND PATRIOTS.” (Ostara, 2001)

I chose to omit The Barnes Review at http://www.barnesreview.org/ and Noontide Press at http://www.noontidepress.com because both are anti-Semitic publishing houses. The Barnes Review is dedicated to honouring Hitler and the Third Reich. It does publish books on Holocaust Revisionism and its primary role is a book publisher, bookstore, and a publisher of a bi-monthly journal. The site also contains an email newsletter. This publishing house focuses on Zionism, General History, Jews, Ancient History, Communism, World War II, and Miscellaneous items of interest. At first glance, the site appears to be sympathetic to Hitler and Germany. Willis Carto, the director of the Barnes Review, was one of the founders of the IHR (Institute of Historical Review), the world’s largest anti-Semitic publisher. In the late 1980’s Carto had a fall out with other members of the IHR and left the organization to form the Barnes Review, named after one of the most prominent American "revisionist" historians, Harry Elmer Barnes.

    Noontide Press is the retail division of the IHR. Users can purchase material advertised from the IHR through Noontide Press. The IHR maintains a selection of books online for users to download for free. It also gives a thorough description of each book in their catalogue and a link to Noontide Press if web users want to purchase the book in print format.

    It appears that the Noontide Press does not hold any political or ideological views. It only sells and publishes books and tapes. It contains a catalogue and a mailing address for book orders. E-commerce is not enabled on this site. There are no forms of interactivity such as a mailing list, or newsgroup. The Noontide Press does not appear to take a political or social position. It does not advertise itself as being its own organization. It identifies itself as being associated to the IHR but there is no literature on the site and there is no indication that the Noontide Press is an organizational unit.

centre devoted to providing truth and history to the public. Its parent company Legion for the Survival of Freedom is a non-profit educational publisher that does business under various publishing imprints. It operates two organizations, Noontide Press and the IHR. (IHR, 2001) The IHR web site is divided into the 2 areas: a

section called “Files on this site” and “Navigation Aids” The section “Files on this site” is an index of the material on the site, leaflets, the Journal of Historical Review, Books on-line, the IHR update, and a list of upcoming conferences as well as information about the most recent conference. The section entitled “Navigation Aids” are type of finding aids that help the user navigate through the site. These include a search engine, a directory, a list of new files, links to other Revisionist sites, and about the IHR.

The IHR sounds like a legitimate organization. On the title page, its mandate is stated below: “This site offers scholarly information and thoughtful commentary, from a revisionist perspective, on a wide range of historical issues, including the "Holocaust," Auschwitz, World War II, Stalin, Hitler, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Hiroshima, Pearl Harbor, the Palestine/Israel conflict, Zionism, the "Jewish question," the Bolshevik revolution, and much more. This material is provided by the IHR free of charge, as a public service. It may be copied and printed, but please observe the copyright notice. The Institute for Historical Review is non-ideological, non-political, and non-sectarian. It is recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational and publishing enterprise.” (IHR, 2001). This site mostly focuses on Holocaust Denial and it claims to be non-ideological, and non-political but its members are claim to be conservative, when in fact they are

anti-Semitic. The Institute’s mandate is to "bring history into accord with the facts." (IHR, 2001)

The name suggests an Institution that studies history. The organization is non-profit and it is known to be the world’s largest anti-Semitic publishing house. The IHR also presents conferences and other social gatherings. It labels itself an institute with a staff of scholars, writers, editors, and historians. “It sounds like a research centre in an established University: it produces a journal, complete with scholarly footnotes and apparatus hold conferences and so on. It is, however, an organization dedicated to Holocaust denial (Eaglestone, 2001). Its journal is called the Journal of Historical Review, which can be read bi-monthly, in print and electronic format. The IHR resembles a resource centre but it is a really an anti-Semitic organization.

In their page called “A Few Facts about The IHR” they defend their claims by saying that they are not anti-Semitic or racist. They claim that they do not deny the Holocaust. They take a revisionist perspective, in other words, they do not deny the event, but they challenge its accuracy and severity. The IHR claims that they have support from the many intellectuals including Arthur Butz, of Northwestern University, historians like David Irving and Robert Faurrison, and gas chamber specialists like Fred Leuchter, Jr. All the people mentioned above were found not to be legitimate in their field since all three are not historians. Furthermore, Leuchter admitted to lying about being a professional engineer and chemist. He does not hold a University degree. Whether these people are intellectuals are not, it does not matter. They are all anti-Semitic. As Stanley Barrett explains in his book,” Is God a Racist? We get an impression that the radical right wing consists of thugs and nut cases, poorly educated and mentally disturbed people. He argues that many consist of middle class, well educated, well traveled, and intelligent, but racist none the less” (Barrett, vii)
    The Journal of Historical Review claims to be “the leading periodical of its kind in the world, appearing six times yearly in an attractive, handsomely illustrated magazine format.” (IHR, 2001) Publication first began in 1980 and the IHR claims to attract a wide, diverse audience. It also claims that the world’s most prestigious University libraries subscribe to its journal. The IHR gives the impression that its organization and journal are authoritative and scholarly. It is true that many University libraries subscribe to this anti-Semitic journal. The reason is simple. Academic libraries have a collection development policy that must fulfill the requirements of the University. The library must not censor or filter out items that may be offensive to some members of the University community. The academic library has an obligation to offer material that is pertinent for the research needs of the University community. Since many Universities have material relating to the Holocaust, librarians feel it is essential to expose all research about the Holocaust. To differentiate between the two types of material, the Library of Congress has created the subject headings “Holocaust Denial”, “Holocaust Denial Literature” and “Holocaust, Jewish-- errors, inventions”
    The IHR claims that a reader of their journal has an interest in understanding the world today. This broad statement can be applied to anyone. They claim that the reader is fed up with wartime propaganda that is passed off as "history." The IHR promotes a “sane and healthy future for the reader, his family and his country, indeed for all humanity, and realizes that it can be achieved only through an understanding of history based on truth and reality.” (IHR, 2001).
    The IHR claims to have a network of scholars and activists who work to distinguish between historical facts and propaganda by conducting research studies and exposing the facts about history that has social-political relevance today. (IHR, 2001).
    The IHR is funded through sales of books, cassette tapes, and subscriptions to its Journal, and donations from supporters around the world.

The Zundelsite is a large personal web site devoted to the life and times of Canadian Holocaust Denier Ernst Zündel. It is designed and maintained by Ingrid Rimland, a well-known American novelist and Holocaust denier. Her site represents the most popular and largest Holocaust Denial web site. Ms. Rimland holds a doctorate in education.

The site is organized into University-type courses like Revisionism 101, Revisionism 201, and Revisionism 301. This site also contains articles, a biography of Ernst Zundel and Ingrid Rimland, photographs, a daily newsletter called Z-Grams that gets distributed via email. Z-Grams are the daily news written and compiled by Ms. Rimland. They contain news and current issues in the world of revisionism and world Jewry. Z-Grams resemble a daily news report on the issues between World Jewry and Holocaust revisionism. Her play with words and language attempt to construct Jews as the enemy and Holocaust Deniers as victims. The Z-grams keep a close eye on the Jewish community, mostly in the United States, Canada, and Israel. As well, conferences and events may be advertised on this mailing list. The web site also contains articles and pamphlets as well as a bookstore where users can fill out a form and order books from Ms. Rimland. There is a search engine and many flashy, animated graphics. On each page there is an animated image of the American flag and the following disclaimer:

“The concepts expressed in this document are protected by the basic human right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as applying to the Internet content on June 26, 1997.”

The Zundelsite has a list of links to “friends and foes” (Zundelsite, 2001) and a link to their Revisionist Satellite Television station. There is an article on famous deniers called “The Victims of Zion”. This article gives a brief biographical sketch on famous Holocaust deniers like Dr. Fredrick Toben, Dr. Robert Faurrison, James Keegstra, Paul Rassimier, Arthur Butz, and others. There is a section called language materials where users can read Zundelsite articles in nine languages. Another section is called Basic Revisionist Articles. This section of the site attempts to introduce the subject to people with articles such as - The Nizkor/Zundelsite Electronic Debate (Introduction to Revisionism) , The Victims of Zion , The Zündel Struggle in Cartoons, Holocaust Revisionism in a Nutshell, Auschwitz: Myth and Facts, Did Six Million Really Die? , Inside the Auschwitz Gas Chambers, Fred Leuchter index, Anti-German Propaganda in pictures, and the Simon Wiesenthal Index

Arthur Butz’s personal web site advertises his controversial novel entitled, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. His book was written from the perspective of a historian. Dr. Butz has a doctorate in Electrical Engineering and is currently a tenured professor at Northwestern University in Illinois in the Electrical and Computer Engineering department. He is not a historian. His personal web site is hosted on the web server of the University. The web page is mostly comprised of text and the fact that his education is in engineering, not in history, greatly reduces his legitimacy. On Butz’s site, there are various articles he has written after his controversial 1976 book published by the IHR.

His web page was created in 1996 as a means to disseminate information about his other research interests. On the site there are research papers he wrote for various Revisionist conferences. His site is very simple and does not contain much information. Unlike the others sites, he does not devote his life to Holocaust Revisionism. The site is basically a promotional tool for his book and his ideas and beliefs. His site does not contain a mailing list, nor a search engine or guestbook. There are no links on his site and it has not been updated since 1998. Butz’s site is the only one that is hosted by Northwestern University. Since his site is mounted on the University server it has caused a several problems. Some University alumni have threatened to stop contributing to their University because they do not want to fund Butz’s anti-Semitic research. Butz’s book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (which is outlawed in Canada) resembles a legitimate work by an historian or archivist. His web site does not appear as legitimate as the IHR or the Zundelsite. I will not describe his claims or arguments. I would argue that his academic credentials make him less credible and legitimate. His research interest does not stem from scholarly investigation, but rather, hatred and bigotry towards Jews. It is the fact that he holds a PhD that justifies him to appear scholarly and legitimate.