According to a NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/book ... itism.html
New York Times wrote:Lipstadt’s new book, “Antisemitism: Here and Now” — completed long before the massacre at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, but made all the more timely in its wake — underscores how vain that millennial hope was. Written as a series of letters to two composite characters, a “whip smart” Jewish college student and a well-meaning gentile law professor, Lipstadt’s book aims not to break new scholarly ground but to awaken her audience to the nature, persistence and scale of the threat, along with the insidious ways in which it seeks to disguise itself.
But Lipstadt isn’t just interested in compiling a list of insults, outrages and assaults. Anti-Semitism, to adapt a phrase, is the hate that dare not speak its name, and Lipstadt is at her best when she removes the guises under which it travels.
Actually, as we will see, she is only interested in compiling a list of insults, outrages, and assaults.
The text of the book can be found at one of these links:
https://archive.is/MqTYR or https://archive.is/NtyZy
I will quote from the relevant chapter and add my own comments.
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:Holocaust Denial: From Hard-core to Soft-core
A MATTER OF ANTISEMITISM, NOT HISTORY
Dear Professor Lipstadt:
Thank you for that sobering and thought-provoking series of letters. I’d like to move our conversation in a slightly different direction. I know that fighting Holocaust denial has long been a central focus of your professional life and that you have persistently confronted deniers and their historical distortions.
Please don’t think I’m minimizing your accomplishments in this area, but aren’t deniers the equivalent of flat-earth theorists who are peddling an utterly bogus and thoroughly discredited version of history? Why should we take them seriously and give their perverted and unquestionably false view of history the dignity of a response? How much of an impact do they really have?
Dear Abigail and Joe:
Abigail, you’re not the first person to ask me this question. Sometimes I ask it of myself. When I first began researching and writing on this topic, colleagues would frequently tell me I was wasting my time. “These people are dolts,” they would insist. “Forget about them.” In truth, I thought the same thing when I first heard of Holocaust deniers. I, too, dismissed them as not worthy of serious analysis. Then I looked more closely, and I changed my mind.
Denial flies in the face of basic logic. The Holocaust has the dubious distinction of being the best documented genocide in the world. For deniers to be right, all survivors would have to be wrong.1
All survivors do not need to be wrong. In fact, the first two "Holocaust Deniers" were survivors Josef G. Burg and Paul Rassinier. Further, I describe in my post here that under 5% of Auschwitz survivors even mention gas chambers. Further, a Jewish source even claims over half of testimonies at Yad Vashem are "unreliable":
Ratio of obvious liars to claimed "eyewitnesses"?
Germar Rudolf also refutes this "best documented genocide in history" claim in his article here:
The Lies and Deceptions of Deborah Lipstadt
quotes for no evidence or little evidence of the 'holocaust'
"Survivors" who deny the holocaust.
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:Who else would have to be wrong? The bystanders, those non-Jews who lived in the cities, towns, and villages in eastern and western Europe and watched as their Jewish neighbors were being marched away, to be put on trains to concentration camps or to be shot in the woods and left to die in ditches.2 The scores of historians who have studied and written about the Holocaust over the past seventy years would either have to be part of this massive conspiracy or have been completely duped.
As seen above, there is no question that many survivors are wrong. I address this inherently fallacious point in my thread
Debating: Responding to arguments claiming there are no "reliable/respected sources" denying the holocaust?
The Most Ridiculous Testimony
The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:But, above all, the perpetrators themselves—those who actually admitted their guilt—would have to be wrong. Survivors say, “This was done to me.” Perpetrators say, “I did it.”3 In criminal cases, the perpetrator’s admission of guilt has more clout than the victim’s accusation. How can deniers explain that in not one war-crimes trial since the end of World War II has a perpetrator of any nationality denied that these events occurred? They may have said, “I was forced to kill,” but not one asserted that the killing did not happen.
There are plenty of reasons why someone would lie. I could also say:
It is not necessary to wonder how, technically, such mass lying was possible. It was technically possible because it took place.
It is also not true that nobody denied that genocide occured.
D. Liptadt demolished on another lie: 'No perpetrator of any nationality ever said it didn’t happen'
the misleading 'No Nazi ever denied gas chambers'
"But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:Finally, why has Germany shouldered the enormous moral and financial responsibility for the crimes committed in the Holocaust, if it did not happen?4 Of course, according to the deniers, the answer to this question is quite simple: German officials were forced into a false admission of guilt by “the Jews,” who threatened to prevent Germany’s reentry into the family of nations. But this, too, makes little sense. German leaders had to know that admitting to a genocide of such proportions would impose upon the nation a horrific legacy that would become an integral part of its national identity. Why would a country take on such a historical burden if it were innocent? Moreover, seventy years after the end of the war, with Germany now a global political and economic leader, it could have proclaimed that “it’s not true; the Jews made us say this back in 1945.” Instead, the German government created a massive memorial in Berlin to the murdered Jews.
Did they have a choice? I seem to remember the country being invaded on both fronts.
William Henry Chamberlin, explained the situation of former East Germany in 1963:
"The so-called DDR (initials for German Democratic Republic) is neither German nor democratic nor a republic. It is a totalitarian police regime, completely subservient to the will of a foreign power, the Soviet Union." (William Henry Chamberlin, The German Phoenix (Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1963), p. 129.)
Professor Arthur Butz described the political landscape of West Germany, where the USA and UK occupation powers had the right to manage Germany's domestic and administration affairs, as well as nullify German legislation:
"The entire political structure of West Germany was established by the U.S. government. This includes the control of newspapers and other media, the control of the schools, and the constitution of the Bundesrepublik. As a puppet creation, this ‘German’ political establishment necessarily had an interest in the lies of the conquerors and behaved accordingly." (Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), p. 293. Online: http://vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/)
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:There is yet another bit of illogic on which deniers depend. They demand to be shown the one specific piece of evidence that would prove to them there was a Holocaust: Hitler’s written order authorizing the murder of all of Europe’s Jews. In all likelihood, Hitler realized the folly of affixing his signature to such an order, which, had it become public, many might not have accepted. More important, historians are not troubled by the absence of such a document. They never rest their conclusions on one document, particularly in this instance, when the Third Reich left a vast cache of evidence attesting to a government-directed program whose goal was the annihilation of the Jewish people. Deniers, of course, will insist that “the Jews” have forged these documents. But if that were the case, why didn’t the Jews also forge the all-important document from Hitler himself?
Unsurprisingly, no document is mentioned by Lipstadt. Coincidentally, all the documents describing the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" speak in terms of expulsion or resettlement or deportation: not mass murder. The hoaxters sometimes claim that "resettlement" was a "code-word" for extermination, but that makes no sense. The allegation that "deniers" claim that jews, rather than the Soviet Union, are responsible for document forging is simply absurd.
The "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" - Extermination or Ethnic Cleansing? A Review
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:The list of illogical arguments goes on. Deniers contend that had the Third Reich, a regime they describe as the epitome of efficiency and power, wished to murder all the Jews, it would have ensured that no witnesses remained alive to testify about the death camps. Therefore, the fact that there were survivors alive at the war’s end constitutes proof that there was no genocide and that the survivors’ testimonies are lies. One need not be familiar with any documentary evidence to recognize the fallacious nature of this argument. The Third Reich was also intent on winning the war, which it did not do. Therefore, the assumption that the Third Reich succeeded at all it set out to do is false. Anything based on that premise is equally false.
Struck by the complete lack of logic in any of their claims, I initially dismissed the Holocaust deniers and their theories out of hand. Then two respected historians suggested that I take a closer, more systematic look. They wondered how deniers—given the implausibility of their arguments—had been able to attract any adherents at all. Though still skeptical, I took up their challenge and thought this would be, at most, a two-year project before I moved on to other matters. I was wrong.
It soon became apparent to me that deniers were a new type of neo-Nazi. Unlike previous generations of neo-Nazis—people who celebrated Hitler’s birthday, sported SS-like uniforms, and hung swastikas at meetings where they would give the Sieg Heil salute—this group eschewed all that.5 They were wolves in sheep’s clothing. They didn’t bother with the physical trappings of Nazism—salutes, songs, and banners—but proclaimed themselves “revisionists”—serious scholars who simply wished to revise “mistakes” in the historical record, to which end they established an impressive-sounding organization—the Institute for Historical Review—and created a benign-sounding publication—the Journal for Historical Review.6 Nothing in these names suggested the revisionists’ real agenda. They held conferences that, at first blush, seemed to be the most mundane academic confabs. But a close inspection of their publications and conference programs revealed the same extremism, adulation of the Third Reich, antisemitism, and racism as the swastika-waving neo-Nazis. This was extremism posing as rational discourse.
Ah, yes, more ad hominems. Anyone who dares to question the official dogma is a "neo-Nazi extremist" -- and yet, she has provided no actual reason to believe the holocaust. The nazis already had these prisoners in concentration camps, killing those who survived would have been a lot easier than successfulling winning a 2-front war.
By this logic, the fact that Lipstadt has just been caught lying about how "no nazi or survivor denied..." her arguments have collapsed. Pathetic.Deborah Lipstadt wrote:Abigail, in your letter you compliment me for consistently confronting deniers. While I have spent time exposing their lies and inconsistencies, I have not entered into debate with them. They will tell you that I am afraid to. The truth is that they are liars, and one cannot debate a liar. It is akin to trying to nail a blob of jelly to the wall. Generally speaking, people differentiate between facts and opinions—you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. But in the case of deniers, there are facts, opinions, and lies. In 2000, when I was on trial in London for libel, having been sued by David Irving—then one of the world’s leading Holocaust deniers—for having called him a denier, my defense team and I tracked all of his “proofs” back to their sources and found that embedded in the claims he made about the Holocaust were falsifications, inventions, distortions, changes of dates, or some other form of untruth. Once these lies were exposed, his arguments collapsed.
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:Among the leading purveyors of Holocaust denial arguments are far-right, neo-Nazi, and white power groups. Their adulation of Nazi ideology, “Aryan” superiority, and, above all, Adolf Hitler make them perfect candidates for denial. They are masters of inconsistency. They argue that murdering the Jews would have been entirely justified but that it never happened. I suppose you could call this the “no, but” argument: “No, it didn’t happen. But it should have.”
There is plenty of racial hatemongering among those who push the standard holocaust narrative.
Famous holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel himself said that every Jew should hate Germans... not nazis, but Germans: viewtopic.php?t=7168
There is also no question that many orthodox Jews are racial supremacists, including rabbinical authorities. Lipstadt does not castigate these "leading purveyors" of judaism. See: http://www.cwporter.com/jewrac.htm
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:It should be obvious that Holocaust denial is, quite plainly, a form of antisemitism. It’s not about history. It’s about attacking, discrediting, and demonizing Jews. The claims of the deniers—that the Jews planted evidence, got German prisoners of war to admit to crimes they did not commit, and forced Germany to shoulder a tremendous financial and moral burden when the war ended—are predicated on the notion of the mythical power of the Jews, which, they firmly believe, was extensive enough to realize this vast conspiracy. Unconcerned about how their actions would affect millions of people and with only their own political and financial benefit in mind, the Jews created the myth of the Holocaust in order to obtain a state of their own and extract vast amounts of money from Germany. Then, according to this so-called “theory,” they proceeded to displace another people from their land in order to gain sovereignty for themselves. These assertions rely on classic antisemitic tropes, the same ones found throughout two thousand years of antisemitic accusations. Just as the Jews persuaded the Roman Empire, then the rulers of Palestine and much of the rest of the world, to do their bidding and crucify Jesus, so, too, they persuaded the Allies to create evidence of a genocide for their own financial and political gain.
Of course, it was not simply "the Jews" but all of the allied governments, mainly America, Britain, the USSR. The lampshades and soap at Buchenwald as well as the "Gas chambers" at Dachau, which are universally discarded as hoaxes even by historians that believe the holocaust narrative, were fabricated by the USA. The USA also helped the USSR cover up the Katyn massacre.
How much of it was a Soviet invention?
US 'helped Russia cover up Second World War Katyn Forest massacre'
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 22111.html
Deborah Lipstadt wrote:Now back to your question: Should we be worried about these people? To be honest, while I don’t think they are an imminent threat, I do believe that there is room for concern. Deniers have learned to use social media to their advantage. On Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2017, a survivor was interviewed on a BBC radio program. The producers were “shocked” by the “staggering” number of “brazen” Holocaust denial and antisemitic phone calls and social media posts they received. Though they had previously broadcast programs on the Holocaust and had received some antisemitic and denial comments, this response, one producer told me, was “unprecedented…unlike anything we have seen before.” They were so deeply unsettled that they invited me to appear on a subsequent program that addressed Holocaust denial.7 But denial is not something engaged in only by the Far Right. In many segments of the Muslim community, including among European Muslims, there is also an inclination to deny this historical reality. There are schools in Europe where teachers find it difficult to teach about the Holocaust because the students insist that it never happened, and the material the teachers present is dismissed by the students as false.8 As has become evident in recent years, there are those on the far left who also engage in denial. During a BBC interview in September 2017 on leftist antisemitism within Britain’s Labour Party, Ken Loach was asked to comment on a session at the party’s annual conference where a participant called for a “yes or no” discussion of the Holocaust. Loach’s rather ambiguous response: “I think history is for us all to discuss, wouldn’t you?”9
Ultimately, it’s hard to gauge whether deniers have increased in number or are just good at using social media to make themselves seem more numerous than they actually are. While either alternative is disturbing, the deniers clearly feel more emboldened than ever before.
Deniers are not the equivalents of flat-earth theorists, nor are they just plain loonies. Theirs is not a cognitive error that can be rectified by showing them documentation or evidence. They are, pure and simple, antisemites, and their agenda is to reinforce and spread the very antisemitism that produced the Holocaust. They can’t be completely discounted.
No wonder Lipstadt refuses to debate. All she does is:
- Make totally false statements & hasty generalizations
- Calls anyone that disagrees with her a "neo-Nazi" and "anti-Semite" by invoking the false equivalence fallacy
- Claims she cannot debate because her opponents are "liars"
It almost reads like satire, but I think she actually believes this.
Does the strong Jew tendency towards mental illness assist in their 'holocaust' fantasies?