Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:In his video lecture #1 at Yale, starting at minute 30, he talks about a knowledge about the world he once had, a product of studying and professors, and the big crisis he went through when he found out it was all false. He's nebulous about what he's talking about. He doesn't say. I think it's the holocaust.
You're wrong there. He is talking about Zionism, not the "Holocaust" at all. He actually says: "I don't usually make a commitment on intellectual or theoretical topics unless I've studied them fairly closely." Zionism was supposed to be the exception.
But then, whenever he mentions the "Holocaust" in whatever historical, non-financial, "industry" context, he makes it clear that he has never studied the topic at all and knows next to nothing on it, and yet he systematically treats revisionists as spiteful loonies. This would be flagrant intellectual dishonesty in anyone not grandstanding in the so-called superior moral ways he always adopts. In him, however, it is doubled by what I would call moral shabbiness.
Personally, I believe he knows he is lying when he panders to the audience by saying, for instance, that Irving is "a Nazi." Even if he is not consciously lying -- even if he really believes everything he says about "Holocaust deniers" (the propaganda expression he always uses) -- a person of his self-assumed moral integrity should be more careful with the words.
As someone who has gone to some trouble to get information on what the "revisionists" are saying, I feel every bit as entitled to consider Finkelstein a pious fraud as he feels free to consider Irving "a Nazi".
I have no doubt of his high intelligence and thoroughness, but neither have I of his lack of moral integrity when it comes to reality denial through blind "Holocaust" affirmation, in spite of self-serving, and indeeed acknowledged, nearly total ignorance on the subject. Of course, if it's not really ignorance, then his case seems even worse.