An address by Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review, given at the University of Oregon in Eugene, on November 3, 2007. Weber was introduced by Orval Etter, a retired professor and founder of the Pacifica Forum, which had invited Weber and organized the meeting. (A report on the meeting is posted here.)

The other week Orval Etter sent me a copy of an article entitled “The First Casualty” that he had written in 1951 – fifty-six years ago – for the newsletter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. / 1 In the piece he pointedly criticized the official and generally accepted view of America’s role in World War II.

I was impressed, and even moved, to read his essay because in it he cited and highlighted the work of prominent revisionist historians of those years, including William Henry Chamberlin and George Morgenstern, writers who had greatly influenced me in my own youth and development, and whose writings I have helped, over the years, to publish, distribute, and promote through the Institute for Historical Review.

But as I read Orval Etter’s article, I was also saddened to reflect how, in many ways, the intellectual climate in our country is worse today than it was when that essay was written. If more people, and especially our political leaders, had taken to heart the words of William Chamberlin, of George Morgenstern, and, yes, of Orval Etter, our world, and our nation, might have been spared so much of the pain, suffering, death and destruction we’ve seen during the past half-century – in Vietnam, in the Middle East, and, of course, right now, in Iraq.

During the past five decades, the insights and warnings of those dissident writers have instead been all but buried in a cacophonous storm of deception, lies, and hateful propaganda that has made possible the catastrophic conflicts of our era, including the tragedy of Iraq.

Along with that storm of propaganda has come a climate of “politically correct” intimidation – a broad effort to smear and silence dissident voices. As part of that campaign, the bigots have been at work in recent months trying to shut up Desmond Tutu, Norman Finkelstein, Jimmy Carter and, on a much more modest level, your speaker here this afternoon.

Behind the emotional rhetoric about “hate,” the arguments of those who don’t want you to hear what I have to say are the same arguments used by bigots throughout history. They insultingly suggest that they are astute and perceptive enough to see right through my supposedly fallacious and hateful presentation – even without actually listening to what I say – but that you are not smart enough or discerning enough to be able do so.

To the bigots and would-be censors, I say this: In an open and democratic society, people should be encouraged to hear and evaluate conflicting points of view, to make up their own minds about the merit, or lack of merit, of even very controversial and emotion-laden perspectives. Here