Monday, May 29, 2017

Senator McCain still pushing the Russian interference conspiracy


On May 16 Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reportedly said that scandals within the Trump's administration are reaching "Watergate size and scale."  He is still pushing the “Russian stole the election” conspiracy.  On a visit the Australia McCain proclaimed Vladimir Putin is a greater threat to the world than ISIS: “I think ISIS can do terrible things and I worry a lot about what is happening with the Muslim faith,” he told Australian ABC state television Monday. “But it’s the Russians who tried to destroy the very fundamental of democracy,...” McCain admits that, "I've seen no evidence they succeeded, but they tried and they are still trying to change elections.”  The timing of his remarks could not have been worse following the Manchester bombing.

McCain is basing his conclusions of a bogus “dossier.”  This is the same group of memos apparently supplied by a former British intelligence agent and paid for by Trump’s opponents.  When it was presented to the President and Vice President, Biden told reporters he and President Obama did not ask the intelligence community to corroborate the claims because they didn’t take them seriously. Biden claimed, “As a matter of fact, the president was like, ‘What does this have anything to do with anything?'” He continued, “It surprised me in that it made it to the point where the agency, the FBI thought they had to pursue it.”

These memos were something the press already had for some time.  They were not publicizing them because they lacked credibility.  When information based on these memos was released they were edited to enhance their credibility.  BuzzFeed made a major mistake by publishing the unedited collection.  The cover page reveals its bogus nature.  Although it is not a government document it was supposedly compiled by someone with an intelligence background.  No one with experience in intelligence would label a document with a “sensitive source,” Confidential.

This is the nonsense McCain saw fit to forward to the FBI.   McCain claims, "This is becoming more and more bizarre, in fact you can't make it up."  The problem is, it that it can be made up and the Senator knows it.  McCain does not see ISIS as a threat.  He was more than willing to pose with them for a photo op.  He may be able to plead ignorance, but the “moderate” who arranged this event was fully aware of the background of the participants.  There is no dispute about the terrorist backgrounds ofAbu Mosa, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Muhammad Noor.


Radicals from Minnesota and Chechnya and places in between have descended on the Middle East to advance the “Arab Spring” and to hone their martial skills.  They have committed unspeakable atrocities including cannibalism.  They have virtually wiped out the remnants of the Christian communities in the areas they controlled.  After our “success” in Libya Senator McCain should be less bellicose.   

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Will Andrew Breitbart be Receiving Any Apologies?


It appears that Anthony Weiner has pleaded guilty to transferring obscene material to a minor and will register as a sex offender.  Will Jeffrey Toobin, CNN‘s senior legal analyst, and Chris Hayes apologize for the remarks they made about Andrew Breitbart?  Back in May 2011 they questioned Breitbart’s credibility.

Jeffrey Toobin: What Andrew Breitbart was insinuating about him with young girls and stuff is outrageous and frankly it’s to bad he got to say that stuff on CNN. 

Chris Hayes: It‘s so preposterous.  Am I wrong in my level of outrage that this person who‘s been so discredited so many times, is such a serial manipulator of the media is allowed to just come on and spout off like this?

MSNBC contributor Alex Wagner of the “Huffington Post” added his opinion: I think that Andrew Breitbart as a source has been largely discredited.


Jeffrey Toobin: The person who has been pushing the story the most is Andrew Breitbart who has been consistently inaccurate in portraying democrats member of the Obama administration as doing things on video that they have not done.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Michael Savage - Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder


The New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt has revealed why James Comey has achieved the successes he has achieved so far.  In an article Schmidt quotes Comey’s friend Benjamin Wittes, “The ceremony occurred in the Blue Room of the White House, where many senior law enforcement officials — including the Secret Service director — had gathered. Mr. Comey — who is 6 feet 8 inches tall and was wearing a dark blue suit that day – told Mr. Wittes that he tried to blend in with the blue curtains in the back of the room, in the hopes that Mr. Trump would not spot him and call him out.”  This is an obvious indication that Comey attended the advanced camouflage course at the Jacques Clouseau Institute.  He is almost invisible in the photograph.  Like a chameleon he blends into the background.  His bright red necktie only adds to his invisibility.
A popular CNN source: Ms Trigglypuff

















Wednesday, May 17, 2017

President Trump Allegedly Reveals Classified Information

The Washington Post announced that the President “revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week.”  He is not “alleged” to have revealed this information.  He indisputably revealed this information.  The Post learned this from “current and former U.S. officials.”  Who were these “current and former U.S. officials?”  They “spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.”  They were concerned about the sensitivity of the subject.  Apparently they were not concerned about going to jail for leaking classified information.  There were only 3 U.S. officials aside from the President, attending this meeting: National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Senior Adviser for Policy, Dina Powell.

Dana Powell claimed, “This story is false.  The President only discussed the common threats that both countries faced.”  H.R. McMaster said, “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”  Secretary of State Tillerson stated, "During that exchange, the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations."  But why rely on these officials when there are so many anonymous sources?

It is understandable that Democrats would accept the Post’s claim.  Senator Mark Warner tweeted, “If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community.  Risking sources methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians.”  However, Republicans should be more skeptical considering the record of the establishment media.  Senators McCain and Graham both agree with the Post’s claim that Trump revealed classified information but assert that the President did not break the law.  House speaker Paul Ryan’s spokesman Doug Andres remarked, “We have no way to know what was said, but protecting our nation’s secrets is paramount.  The speaker hopes for a full explanation of the facts from the administration.”  Perhaps Ryan could demand an explanation of the facts from the Post. 

This is all part of the left’s desperate attempt to find evidence of impeachable “treason” by President Trump.  It began with the Steele dossier, a document described as a “garbage document” by Bob Woodward.  Even the cover of the document reveals its bogus origin.  No experienced intelligence officer would classify sensitive sources as “Confidential.”  Yet the media, many politicians and many leaders in the intelligence community are risking what little credibility they have left on this “garbage.”

Senator Chuck Schumer warned the President, “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.  So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”  The intel community can be a powerful adversary.  However, it also has a problem with credibility.  John Brennan denied that the C.I.A. had illegally hacked into the computers of Senate staff members conducting an investigation into the agency’s detention and torture programs.  In 2011, when he was President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, he claimed that American drone strikes had not killed any civilians.  In both cases Brennan was shown to be incorrect.  James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, has admitted lying to the Senate on the N.S.A.’s bulk collection of data.  James Comey may also be found to have perjured himself.  It took the FBI years to analyse 33,000 emails but only days to analyse 650,000.

Thousands of people are investigating this administration hoping to be the next Woodward and Bernstein.  They will grasp at any straw.  They have reported on “Scoopgate” where the President got two scoops of ice cream while others received only one.  Does this scandal compare with the 2011 incident where the Obama administration gave the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent?  The U.K.’s Daily Telegraph reported, “The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called ‘special relationship’, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.” 




Monday, May 15, 2017

Comments on Deborah Lipstadt’s speech “Behind the lies of Holocaust denial” removed by TED



1.  TED’s Comment On My Removal.
2.  Transcript of Lipstadt’s Speech
3.  Comments By Reviewers
4.  My Rebuttal to TED

1.  TED’s Comment On My Removal.

Re: Your comment on TED.com
TED Conversations Team <contact@ted.com>
 
Fri 5/12, 7:29 AM
Dear JOHN DIETRICH, 

Your comment (full text below) has been removed according to our TED.com Terms of Use: http://www.ted.com/termsofuse. 

If you’d like to rephrase your comment and rejoin the conversation, please review our guidelines for community participation: http://www.ted.com/about/our-organization/our-policies-terms/community-guidelines

Sincerely,
 The TED Conversations Team

Full Text:

“If you disagree with me you are a Nazi.” That is Lipstadt’s argument elaborated by Tessi Jordan: “these revisionists were just the same hateful people that caused the holocaust. Haters. Racists. Supremacists.” Her arguments are actually a form of “racism prejudice parading as rational discourse.” Her “the best documented genocide in the world” becomes Tom Harris’ “greatest mass murder in history.” Apparently Harris knowns nothing of Stalin or Mao. Or am I being a Nazi for pointing out that they hold the record for mass murder. History must continuously be revised. New information becomes available. To shut it down is not defensible. Losing a lawsuit means nothing. Ask Leo Tolstoy.

https://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_lipstadt_behind_the_lies_of_holocaust_denial/transcript?language=en
Ideas worth spreading
https://www.ted.com/search

2.  Transcript of Lipstadt’s Speech

Deborah Lipstadt: Behind the lies of Holocaust denial
TEDxSkoll · 15:30 · Filmed Apr 2017

0:12 I come to you today to speak of liars, lawsuits and laughter. The first time I heard about Holocaust denial, I laughed. Holocaust denial? The Holocaust which has the dubious distinction of being the best-documented genocide in the world? Who could believe it didn't happen?
0:39 Think about it. For deniers to be right, who would have to be wrong? Well, first of all, the victims — the survivors who have told us their harrowing stories. Who else would have to be wrong? The bystanders. The people who lived in the myriads of towns and villages and cities on the Eastern front, who watched their neighbors be rounded up — men, women, children, young, old — and be marched to the outskirts of the town to be shot and left dead in ditches. Or the Poles, who lived in towns and villages around the death camps, who watched day after day as the trains went in filled with people and came out empty.
1:30 But above all, who would have to be wrong? The perpetrators. The people who say, "We did it. I did it." Now, maybe they add a caveat. They say, "I didn't have a choice; I was forced to do it." But nonetheless, they say, "I did it." Think about it. In not one war crimes trial since the end of World War II has a perpetrator of any nationality ever said, "It didn't happen." Again, they may have said, "I was forced," but never that it didn't happen.  Having thought that through, I decided denial was not going to be on my agenda; I had bigger things to worry about, to write about, to research, and I moved on.
2:23 Fast-forward a little over a decade, and two senior scholars — two of the most prominent historians of the Holocaust — approached me and said, "Deborah, let's have coffee. We have a research idea that we think is perfect for you." Intrigued and flattered that they came to me with an idea and thought me worthy of it, I asked, "What is it?" And they said, "Holocaust denial." And for the second time, I laughed. Holocaust denial? The Flat Earth folks? The Elvis-is-alive people? I should study them? And these two guys said, "Yeah, we're intrigued. What are they about? What's their objective? How do they manage to get people to believe what they say?"
3:13 So thinking, if they thought it was worthwhile, I would take a momentary diversion —maybe a year, maybe two, three, maybe even four — in academic terms, that's momentary.
3:25 (Laughter)
3:27 We work very slowly.
3:29 (Laughter)
3:31 And I would look at them. So I did. I did my research, and I came up with a number of things, two of which I'd like to share with you today.
3:39 One: deniers are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are the same: Nazis, neo-Nazis — you can decide whether you want to put a "neo" there or not. But when I looked at them, I didn't see any SS-like uniforms, swastika-like symbols on the wall, Sieg Heil salutes —none of that. What I found instead were people parading as respectable academics.
4:15 What did they have? They had an institute. An "Institute for Historical Review." They had a journal — a slick journal — a "Journal of Historical Review." One filled with papers —footnote-laden papers. And they had a new name. Not neo-Nazis, not anti-Semites —revisionists. They said, "We are revisionists. We are out to do one thing: to revise mistakes in history." But all you had to do was go one inch below the surface, and what did you find there? The same adulation of Hitler, praise of the Third Reich, anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice. This is what intrigued me. It was anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, parading as rational discourse.
5:19 The other thing I found — many of us have been taught to think there are facts and there are opinions — after studying deniers, I think differently. There are facts, there are opinions, and there are lies. And what deniers want to do is take their lies, dress them up as opinions — maybe edgy opinions, maybe sort of out-of-the-box opinions — but then if they're opinions, they should be part of the conversation. And then they encroach on the facts.
5:54 I published my work — the book was published, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory," it came out in many different countries, including here in Penguin UK, and I was done with those folks and ready to move on. Then came the letter from Penguin UK. And for the third time, I laughed ... mistakenly. I opened the letter, and it informed me that David Irving was bringing a libel suit against me in the United Kingdom for calling him a Holocaust denier.
6:32 David Irving suing me? Who was David Irving? David Irving was a writer of historical works, most of them about World War II, and virtually all of those works took the position that the Nazis were really not so bad, and the Allies were really not so good. And the Jews, whatever happened to them, they sort of deserved it. He knew the documents, he knew the facts, but he somehow twisted them to get this opinion. He hadn't always been a Holocaust denier, but in the late '80s, he embraced it with great vigor.
7:10 The reason I laughed also was this was a man who not only was a Holocaust denier, but seemed quite proud of it. Here was a man — and I quote — who said, "I'm going to sink the battleship Auschwitz." Here was a man who pointed to the number tattooed on a survivor's arm and said, "How much money have you made from having that number tattooed on your arm?" Here was a man who said, "More people died in Senator Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in gas chambers at Auschwitz." That's an American reference, but you can look it up. This was not a man who seemed at all ashamed or reticent about being a Holocaust denier.
7:56 Now, lots of my academic colleagues counseled me — "Eh, Deborah, just ignore it." When I explained you can't just ignore a libel suit, they said, "Who's going to believe him anyway?" But here was the problem: British law put the onus, put the burden of proof on me to prove the truth of what I said, in contrast to as it would have been in the United States and in many other countries: on him to prove the falsehood.
8:26 What did that mean? That meant if I didn't fight, he would win by default. And if he won by default, he could then legitimately say, "My David Irving version of the Holocaust is a legitimate version. Deborah Lipstadt was found to have libeled me when she called me a Holocaust denier. Ipso facto, I, David Irving, am not a Holocaust denier." And what is that version? There was no plan to murder the Jews, there were no gas chambers, there were no mass shootings, Hitler had nothing to do with any suffering that went on, and the Jews have made this all up to get money from Germany and to get a state, and they've done it with the aid and abettance of the Allies — they've planted the documents and planted the evidence.
9:21 I couldn't let that stand and ever face a survivor or a child of survivors. I couldn't let that stand and consider myself a responsible historian. So we fought. And for those of you who haven't seen "Denial," spoiler alert: we won.
9:42 (Laughter)
9:44 (Applause)
9:50 The judge found David Irving to be a liar, a racist, an anti-Semite. His view of history was tendentious, he lied, he distorted — and most importantly, he did it deliberately. We showed a pattern, in over 25 different major instances. Not small things — many of us in this audience write books, are writing books; we always make mistakes, that's why we're glad to have second editions: correct the mistakes.
10:23 (Laughter)
10:25 But these always moved in the same direction: blame the Jews, exonerate the Nazis.
10:34 But how did we win? What we did is follow his footnotes back to his sources. And what did we find? Not in most cases, and not in the preponderance of cases, but in every single instance where he made some reference to the Holocaust, that his supposed evidence was distorted, half-truth, date-changed, sequence-changed, someone put at a meeting who wasn't there. In other words, he didn't have the evidence. His evidence didn't prove it. We didn't prove what happened. We proved that what he said happened — and by extension, all deniers, because he either quotes them or they get their arguments from him—is not true. What they claim—they don't have the evidence to prove it.
11:27 So why is my story more than just the story of a quirky, long, six-year, difficult lawsuit, an American professor being dragged into a courtroom by a man that the court declared in its judgment was a neo-Nazi polemicist? What message does it have? I think in the context of the question of truth, it has a very significant message. Because today, as we well know, truth and facts are under assault. Social media, for all the gifts it has given us, has also allowed the difference between facts — established facts — and lies to be flattened.
12:15 Third of all: extremism. You may not see Ku Klux Klan robes, you may not see burning crosses, you may not even hear outright white supremacist language. It may go by names: "alt-right," "National Front" — pick your names. But underneath, it's that same extremism that I found in Holocaust denial parading as rational discourse.
12:46 We live in an age where truth is on the defensive. I'm reminded of a New Yorker cartoon. A quiz show recently appeared in "The New Yorker" where the host of the quiz show is saying to one of the contestants, "Yes, ma'am, you had the right answer. But your opponent yelled more loudly than you did, so he gets the point."
13:07 What can we do? First of all, we cannot be beguiled by rational appearances. We've got to look underneath, and we will find there the extremism. Second of all, we must understand that truth is not relative. Number three, we must go on the offensive, not the defensive. When someone makes an outrageous claim, even though they may hold one of the highest offices in the land, if not the world — we must say to them, "Where's the proof? Where's the evidence?" We must hold their feet to the fire. We must not treat it as if their lies are the same as the facts.
14:02 And as I said earlier, truth is not relative. Many of us have grown up in the world of the academy and enlightened liberal thought, where we're taught everything is open to debate. But that's not the case. There are certain things that are true. There are indisputable facts — objective truths. Galileo taught it to us centuries ago. Even after being forced to recant by the Vatican that the Earth moved around the Sun, he came out, and what is he reported to have said? "And yet, it still moves."
14:46 The Earth is not flat. The climate is changing. Elvis is not alive.
14:54 (Laughter)
14:56 (Applause)
14:58 And most importantly, truth and fact are under assault. The job ahead of us, the task ahead of us, the challenge ahead of us is great. The time to fight is short. We must act now. Later will be too late.
15:23 Thank you very much.
15:24 (Applause)

3.  Comments By Reviewers

Mordecai Abendingo Posted 10 days ago
Wow!! I am stunned!!
Ms. Lipstadt, stated, "Many of us have grown up in the world of the academy and enlightened liberal thought, where we're taught everything is open to debate."
As a child of two academics, who grew into an academic himself, there are 3 things that must be said.
1. There is no such thing as "enlightened liberal thought". This is a completely self serving and biased perspective held by many in academia. It is based on the sheltered and privileged existence most academics experience within the bubble of higher education. Everyone understands there are historical "facts", scientific facts, mathematical facts, etc..., but even the most hardcore academics agree, nothing is as black and white as simple "fact" versus "fake". Like you said, "truth is not relative."
2. True "debate" comes from listening to the other side, either academically or politically. In reviewing the recent protests at U.S. universities, how many of the speakers being protested were liberal? The answer is 0. Where were the Liberal professors (those who make up over 80% of Academia) fighting against this type of "enlightened liberal" response. Once again, "truth is not relative."
3. Finally, as a fellow academic, I am disappointed Ms. Lipstadt would use something as tragic as the Holocaust and as toxic as Nazism to clearly attack a sitting American president. You may dislike him, and many do, but it is truly disgusting to connect anyone to Nazism, Racism, etc... who you simply disagree with. I understand we live in divisive times, but throwing out labels like this does not help.
(reposted after being removed, and I will continue to repost it. We should be here to debate ideas and challenge our preconceived notions )

Monte Abednago Posted 9 days ago
Weird comment. At no point did I hear Ms. Lipstadt attack a sitting president. It continues to amaze me that when individuals, both great and small, state very clearly things that we should hold as moral truths, those individuals are denounced as attacking the president. Soooo...it is now an "attack" to state we should search rigorously for the truth in the same way that stating the we should not mock people with disabilities is an "attack" on the president.

Steve Donnelly Posted 8 days ago
In reply to:
Weird comment. At no point did I hear Ms. Lipstadt attack a sitting president. It continues to amaze me that when individuals, both great and small, state very clearly things that we should hold as moral truths, those individuals are denounced as attacking the president. Soooo...it is now an "attack" to state we should search rigorously for the truth in the same way that stating the we should not mock people with disabilities is an "attack" on the president.
Monte Abednago
As to whether she referred to a sitting president, I think "even though they may hold one of the highest offices in the land if not the world" could refer to no one else. Perhaps you mean only that her words were not an attack?
The first portion of her talk, 11 minutes about the holocaust deniers, was all to set up current right-wing opinion as equivalent to whacko holocaust deniers, and by extension, Nazis. That might be an attack. And she does not neglect to mention the KKK and cross-burning.
Attacking the sitting president with speeches is an honored and protected American tradition. But when she says "The time to fight is short. We must act now.", what does she mean? Although she won her case against Irving in court using words and facts, she is oddly vague about how we should fight now.
Does she intend that we should engage in debate between "indisputable facts — objective truths" and extremist lies "parading as rational discourse."? Or is she making a veiled call for mob violence, or organized violence masquerading as a mob. Is she attacking free speech?

Tessi Jordan Posted 9 days ago
I think that Ms. Lipstadt did listen to the other side. I think she did think carefully about whether or not it was possible that the holocaust did not happen, and I think she answered this query with her opening statements about how many other sources would have to be wrong for the holocaust not to have happened.
I think she DID consider both sides of the debate, and the "revisionists" came up short.  That is the entire point of this talk. The entire point. That the revisionists have no legitimate claim at all.
The rest of the talk, is about WHY someone would try to...well.... lie. Lie to try to create an entirely different story about what happened. Not to continue question whether or not the holocaust happened, because it is well established that it did, but what would motivate someone to lie about it.
Listen carefully, because the answers that she found, were that basically these revisionists were just the same hateful people that caused the holocaust. Haters. Racists. Supremacists.
There really wasn't any debate going on. There is no debate about whether or not the holocaust occurred. She just wanted to explore the reasons why people would lie about such a thing.

Steph Schein Posted 12 days ago
Anyone who yearns for true GREATNESS must hear this talk.
What can we do when truth and fact are under assault?
We, who have facts and evidence:
1. We must not be beguiled by rational appearances; look underneath; extremism is often veneered.
2. We must understand that truth is not relative.
3. We must go on the offensive with facts and evidence, not the defensive.
(going on the offensive with facts and evidence was formerly approached through formal education, but the current predicament reveals that formal education does not eliminate pernicious ignorance and it does not cure vindictive ignorance.
(When truth is placed on the defensive, that's a mark of systemic tyranny)
4. When someone makes a false claim, no matter what their position or rank, WE must hold their feet to the fire: We must ask where is the proof? Where are the facts? We must not treat their lies as facts.
5. Everything is not open to debate; there are certain things that are true; these are indisputable facts. Objective truths are indisputable facts.
6. The time to act is now.
7. Later will be too late.
8. There are facts, there are opinions, there are lies.
9. Deniers are wolves in sheep's clothing; let us not be mistake deniers.
________
A GEM of the highest value; this TED Talk is Cathartic.
A must-hear for anyone who is fully conscious in the current excruciating state of dystopia when even judges are under attack for applying wisdom or upholding the Constitution - for anyone suffering entrapment in denials of any sort - and for anyone who yearns for true greatness.
________
Listen also to: Samantha Power "A Complicated Hero.."

Bret Simmons Posted 12 days ago
Wow, that was remarkable. Truth is not relative. The time to act is now

Rebecca Buller Posted 11 days ago
This was an excellent talk. Facts, most assuredly, aren't relative. Very well done.

Lauren Dove Posted 12 days ago
Anyone who would try to revise the historical record of genocide using contradiction, praise or justification, could only be a cold and calculating person who, for whatever reason, commits a dangerous and sinister action that can only cause more pain and suffering.
This is an excellent talk, by an eloquent Professor. To support the importance of her work, I include a quote from “Atomic Suicide by Walter & Lao Russell,” to support why we need to care: “Epidemics of typhus, polio, smallpox, and many other things have upset the normal growth of individuals and nations. Two thirds of middle Europe were wiped out by bubonic plague. A war tomorrow might draft you out of your comfortable home, your bed, your work and your relaxation. Your own desired normalcy can be ended in a flash, and an abnormalcy take its place, which you do not desire. Instead of a happy Hungarian family and comfortable home of this minute, some are dead, and some are in prison, or exiled to Siberia in the next hour. This is true, is it not? It is quite a familiar picture to the whole world, and not one person in all the world remains untouched by the abnormalities which have upset the great orderly rhythmic growth which Nature intends for all creating things, and will give to them if they cooperate with Nature in keeping that normal rhythm of her orderly unfolding of all creating things. Normalcy of environment is a necessity of all Creation.”
We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent.

Melita Tessy Posted 7 days ago
There are indisputable truths. That is the biggest takeaway for me. It's dumb I had ever even slightly denied that.

Tom Harris Posted 7 days ago
Wow - I was really with her until she said, "The climate is changing." Why bring up the climate debate - there is GREAT controversy in the field among experts, unlike Holocaust history. Bringing climate change in at the end like that stopped me from sharing the video - too bad.

Jim Bedford Posted 7 days ago
I think you are mistaken, and that Deborah Lipstadt's comment that "The climate is changing" is not in any way a reference to the weather or "global waming", but to an apparent willingness for public opinion to be swayed by "Fake News"
Tom Harris Posted 7 days ago
In reply to:
I think you are mistaken, and that Deborah Lipstadt's comment that "The climate is changing" is not in any way a reference to the weather or "global waming", but to an apparent willingness for public opinion to be swayed by "Fake News"
Jim Bedford
I don't agree - look at her statement in context:
"The Earth is not flat. The climate is changing. Elvis is not alive. And most importantly, truth and fact are under assault. "

Thomas Laker Posted 7 days ago
In reply to:
Wow - I was really with her until she said, "The climate is changing." Why bring up the climate debate - there is GREAT controversy in the field among experts, unlike Holocaust history. Bringing climate change in at the end like that stopped me from sharing the video - too bad.
Tom Harris
There is not GREAT controversy in the field of climate change. Holocaust denial is an extreme of denying something that factually happened, where as denying climate change, is disregarding all the evidence that has been collected and presented. They are slightly different, but both completely ridiculous and very damaging in their own right.

Tom Harris Posted 7 days ago
In reply to:
There is not GREAT controversy in the field of climate change. Holocaust denial is an extreme of denying something that factually happened, where as denying climate change, is disregarding all the evidence that has been collected and presented. They are slightly different, but both completely ridiculous and very damaging in their own right.
Thomas Laker
Equating, or even suggesting similarities between, the greatest mass murder in history, a known historical tragedy, with computer generated forecasts of possible future climate problems, events that have yet to unfold, is disrespectful to the victims of the Holocaust and their families. There is no rational comparison at all.

Harry Gard Posted 6 days ago
In reply to:
Equating, or even suggesting similarities between, the greatest mass murder in history, a known historical tragedy, with computer generated forecasts of possible future climate problems, events that have yet to unfold, is disrespectful to the victims of the Holocaust and their families. There is no rational comparison at all.
Tom Harris
So, you're going to pull out the "We are not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!" debate tactic from Animal House (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxvT8KKdFw). The similarities are not found in comparing the emotional toll of massive genocide versus that of climate change (although climate change may eventually cause far more widespread devastation in lives lost - "events that have yet to unfold," as some say). The similarities are in the denial of facts supported by, in the case of the holocaust, the witnesses and photographic evidence, and in the case of climate change, the fact that "97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position," according to NASA. So, if the 3% of scientists who are not in agreement with climate change constitutes "GREAT" controversy, then you're correct in that part of your statement. I think to deny either the holocaust or climate change goes against the evidence.

Tom Harris Posted 4 days ago
In reply to:
So, you're going to pull out the "We are not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!" debate tactic from Animal House (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxvT8KKdFw). The similarities are not found in comparing the emotional toll of massive genocide versus that of climate change (although climate change may eventually cause far more widespread devastation in lives lost - "events that have yet to unfold," as some say). The similarities are in the denial of facts supported by, in the case of the holocaust, the witnesses and photographic evidence, and in the case of climate change, the fact that "97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position," according to NASA. So, if the 3% of scientists who are not in agreement with climate change constitutes "GREAT" controversy, then you're correct in that part of your statement. I think to deny either the holocaust or climate change goes against the evidence.
Harry Gard
I stopped reading your post when you wrote, "So, you're going to pull out..." since I obviously did not say anything like that and you are just putting up a straw man argument to knock down. I have no patience for arguments that start with a logical fallacy.

Dale Farrow Posted 5 days ago
In reply to:
Equating, or even suggesting similarities between, the greatest mass murder in history, a known historical tragedy, with computer generated forecasts of possible future climate problems, events that have yet to unfold, is disrespectful to the victims of the Holocaust and their families. There is no rational comparison at all.
Tom Harris
very good point you made on computer generated forecasts of possible future climate problems compared to historical facts and even then there are the deniers.

Tom Harris Posted 4 days ago
In reply to:
very good point you made on computer generated forecasts of possible future climate problems compared to historical facts and even then there are the deniers.
Dale Farrow
Thanks.

Brendan Maloney Posted 10 days ago
A good and necessary Talk, as far as it went, and Deborah - a Jewish warrior queen - is a suitable name for this speaker, indeed.
But I am a deep historian and am disappointed that she, like so many others treating this important topic, did not cite the fact that the Jewish Holocaust of World War Two was only the most recent of MANY murderous pogroms against Jews. Please examine this map of Jewish expulsions before continuing on here:
https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/gifs/expuls.gif
They started 2000 years ago with the two Jewish revolts against the brutal Roman occupation of Palestine, the first resulting in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The latter was led by the messiah Simon bar Kokhba and wiped out two entire Roman legions. Rome retaliated by killing 580,000 Jews and razing to the ground 50 fortified towns and 985 villages. THIS was the long prophesied War of Armageddon between the forces of light and darkness, written in code by Jews under Roman oppression and close scrutiny, my friends. Folks still anticipating it don't know history. That bus left the station two millennia ago!
And since Christianity was Romanized a few centuries after its birth, the Roman persecution of Jews persisted into modern times, with a lot of help from churches that later parted from the Church of Rome, of course.
I am an Atheist, by the way.

Brendan Maloney Posted 10 days ago
Besides the terrible burden of being considered "killers of Christ," though crucifixion was strictly a Roman form of execution, another powerful dynamic in antisemitism through history is the financial aspect. Jews were often forced to become moneylenders because of s biblical proscription against Christians handling money.
Many pograms occurred when Christian nobles could not repay their debts: mobs were whipped into a frenzy by the nobles' priests and descended on Jewish ghettos, killing and pillaging. No moneylender, no debt.
I believe that the greatest impetus behind the World War Two Holocaust was greed: The Great Depression hit Germany harder than most nations because of heavy reparation payments levied upon it for World War One. Currency was so devalued that it took a bushel of Deutsch marks to buy a loaf of bread.
Historians often regard war as state sanctioned theft, so it shouldn't be too hard to imagine, after seeing the map I provided above, that Jews in Germany were killed for their money and possessions.

P Meier Posted 10 days ago
In reply to:
A good and necessary Talk, as far as it went, and Deborah - a Jewish warrior queen - is a suitable name for this speaker, indeed. But I am a deep historian and am disappointed that she, like so many others treating this important topic, did not cite the fact that the Jewish Holocaust of World War Two was only the most recent of MANY murderous pogroms against Jews. Please examine this map of Jewish expulsions before continuing on here: https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/gifs/expuls.gif They started 2000 years ago with the two Jewish revolts against the brutal Roman occupation of Palestine, the first resulting in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The latter was led by the messiah Simon bar Kokhba and wiped out two entire Roman legions. Rome retaliated by killing 580,000 Jews and razing to the ground 50 fortified towns and 985 villages. THIS was the long prophesied War of Armageddon between the forces of light and darkness, written in code by Jews under Roman oppression and close scrutiny, my friends. Folks still anticipating it don't know history. That bus left the station two millennia ago! And since Christianity was Romanized a few centuries after its birth, the Roman persecution of Jews persisted into modern times, with a lot of help from churches that later parted from the Church of Rome, of course. I am an Atheist, by the way.
Brendan Maloney
Deep history can be a double edged sword , in this and several other instances past persecution is the " low hanging fruit " for genocide in the present . If a group has always been considered inferior then that's ok ? obviously not , but I hope you get my point .

Ms. Lipstadt's talk was not meant as a history lesson, but as a right now - happening - in your face every day (it seems ), thing .
We can't have lies being held up as the truth is what I took away from this talk .

Brendan Maloney Posted 10 days ago
In reply to:
Deep history can be a double edged sword , in this and several other instances past persecution is the " low hanging fruit " for genocide in the present . If a group has allways been considered inferior then that's ok ? obviously not , but I hope you get my point . Ms. Lipstadt's talk was not meant as a history lesson , but as a right now - happening - in your face every day ( it seems ) , thing . We can't have lies being held up as the truth is what I took away from this talk .
P Meier
It is much harder for Holocaust deniers to sustain their denials when there is so much historical precedent. Any lawyer standing before the Supreme Court knows that precedent is all-important.
An estimated 809 million beautiful humans have been killed in religious conflicts. Lined head to toe, their bodies would circle the 25,000 mile long equator 34.6 times. That is still happening today, of course.
But in your book, perhaps we should only consider those who have died in the last two generations? Professor Lipstadt is a history professor, so of course this Talk was a history lesson.

Marko Kujundžić Posted 11 days ago
Why do Nazis or Neonazis deny the Holocaust in the first place? Considering their worldview shouldn't they be proud of it? What would be the point of exonorating Hitler by portraying him as innocent when what you want is for people to accept the evil of him?
Let's say you manage to hide the evil he did and he gets accepted as an average politician. The next time someone commits a genocide everyone is still going to think it's wrong. They might even say that Hitler would not approve, seeing how he's considered just another stateman now.
I understand the deceit of it, I just don't think the deniers thought it through in the first place.

Felix Gao
Posted 12 days ago
I have to say it is an excellent speech for a right time. In Wolrd War 2, we did wipe out Fascism for a moment , but not for ever. The tendency to recover Militarism in Japan, Neo-Nazism in Europe looms large these day. Nothing has ever caused so much and harmed so deeply as Fascism did to human being. Face up to history, keep in mind we are whole as human, and think for our future generations.

Adam Payne Posted 12 days ago
The biggest issue I see with the truth, is that it's usually not "Politically Correct", and for some reason it's better to be politically correct than honest. There are is another talk that discusses political correctness, and which I agree with. It's more important to be emotionally correct and honest, than politically correct. Having to dodge the truth of a matter because it hurts someones feelings or might offend someone is insane to me. If something that is true offends you, then maybe you should question your conscience as to why it bothered you and attempt to find a solution within. Blind hatred of anything or anyone is always toxic. It eliminates the ability to empathize with or to look at an issue from any other perspective which limits options when dealing with the issue.

Whitney Carr Posted 12 days ago
So you don't think that the use of politically incorrect language doesn't distort the minds of people who hear their leaders or the media say certain words that are discriminatory towards marginalized groups? I agree being emotionally open and empathizing with people who don't agree with you is very important to start a conversation, but it is so easy to turn a majority of society against a small fraction of the population with subtle actions and words. It happens all the time. It happened in Germany. That coupled with the post-fact era is very very dangerous. I think being sensitive to how we treat and portray minority groups is very important in today's society to better their lives and not turn society against them.

Paul Randall Posted 2 days ago
Sad and quite offensive that at the end Dr. Lipstadt compared holocaust deniers to climate change "deniers". Horribly offensive actually - not only to Jews and the other holocaust victims, but also to the scientists she speaks of, who do not question whether or not climate changes as the "denier" label infers, but question specifically the human causality behind climate change, a narrative that is supported more by environmentalism than science. It was disappointing to realize this was certainly Dr. Lipstadt's real (dare I say hidden) motive behind this talk.
On the other hand, Dr. Lipstadt could have picked a better group or class to compare holocaust deniers, groups who actually do promote revisionist lies as if they are valid opinions. For example, lobbyist for the porn industry say porn celebrates and liberates women, when in fact the porn industry sits atop of a vile human trafficking industry. Another example she could have mentioned are abortion lobbyists who promote abortion as being pro-women, pro-children and an issue of women's heath or women's rights, claiming abortion is rare and small part of the work they do. But in reality abortion is a gruesome act of a mother killing her unborn child and abortion counts have reached nearly 160 million in the US since 1973. Both of these are examples of modern day horrors, and both have their defenders and deniers, and both make better comparison to holocaust deniers.

Jamie Zemran Posted 3 days ago
There are lies on both sides which do not help. I often hear how Auschwitz was built to exterminate Jews etc. but it was not. The Poles were the original scapegoat and the racist view that the Germans held of the Poles at the time was that they were lazy and would not work. So work camps were built with the slogan "Work sets you free" above the gates. A couple of years later the Nazis changed their focus and the rest if history but the whole story should be up and open for debate and the non Jewish part should also be taught as it was just as wrong to mass murder the other 5 million people. Why, when someone murders 11 million people, do we only focus on the majority group and forget all the others whose lives were just as viciously stolen? My point being that in our lesser deception we fuel the deniers deception. They can make claims about our lies and the reasons why we do not tell the truth.

Robyn Broyles Posted 3 days ago
I was stirred and excited by this talk right until the point near the end, when Dr. Lipstadt undermined *everything* she had said previously. To emphasize her point that facts remain regardless of the force with which they are opposed, she quotes Galileo saying, at the end of his famous trial, "And yet it moves." ***But there is no evidence Galileo ever uttered those words!*** They first appeared on a painting dated to at least a decade after the events of the 1633 trial, after Galileo's death. The first document explicitly attributing the quote to him is dated 1757, over 100 years later, in _The Italian Library_ by Giuseppe Baretti.
I agree with every word Dr. Lipstadt said about the importance of standing up for the truth in the face of lies such as those told by Holocaust deniers. And I am dismayed that she (in good faith, I am sure) mistakenly repeated an (almost certainly) untrue statement to support that thesis.

Deborah Lipstadt Posted 3 days ago
Please see my notes to the talk. I make it quite clear that he is purported to have said this but that there is no evidence to that fact.

4.  My Rebuttal to TED

My comments on Lipstadt’s speech were made in haste and included two minor errors.  I attributed a quote by Thomas Laker to Thomas Harris.  I also cited Leo Tolstoy as an example of a lawsuit that proved later to be inaccurate.  I was thinking of Nikolai Tolstoy and although the European Court of Human Rights decided his penalty in a libel suit violated his rights, it did not overturn the libel verdict.  There is also evidence that the Government withheld information during the trial.

Aside from these correction, I stand on my previous claims.  Lipstadt and her supporters equate revisionism with holocaust denial and neo-Nazism.  “Deniers are wolves in sheep's clothing.” “They had a new name. Not neo-Nazis, not anti-Semites —revisionists.”  “You may not see Ku Klux Klan robes, you may not see burning crosses, you may not even hear outright white supremacist language. It may go by names: ‘alt-right,’ ‘National Front’ — pick your names. But underneath, it's that same extremism that I found in Holocaust denial parading as rational discourse.”  Tessi Jordan believes, “revisionists were just the same hateful people that caused the holocaust.”

Lipstadt’s “the best documented genocide in the world” becomes Tom Harris’ “greatest mass murder in history” and Felix Gao, “Nothing has ever caused so much and harmed so deeply as Fascism did to human being.“  Apparently they have no knowledge of Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung.  Lipstadt asks, “Who could believe it didn't happen?”  People will deny the evidence of their own eyes if it is contrary to their deeply held beliefs.  Millions died in the Soviet Union and they went unnoticed.  To point out the atrocities committed by progressives is to be labeled a denier.  “The staggering toll of communist repression in Eastern Europe or Soviet occupation of the Baltic states are trotted out, as if fully acknowledging Nazi genocide would somehow lessen the significance of other atrocities.”

Lipstadt states that, “today, as we well know, truth and facts are under assault.”  Truth and facts have always been under assault.  There are few historical events that are more surrounded with mendacity than the Second World War.   Numerous people have been exposed as bogus survivors and several American politicians have had uncles who liberated Auschwitz.  Jamie Zemran points out, “in our lesser deception we fuel the deniers deception.”  The Nazis committed enough crimes to have them condemned in the court of history.  Why was it necessary to fabricate claims or to taint evidence by obtaining it through torture?  Even today respected historians are repeating the myth that the Nazis made lampshades from human skin.  Lipstadt refers to a cartoon in the New Yorker to illustrate the point that people who scream the loudest win an argument.  Most people will agree that it is the progressives screaming the loudest today. 

One of the most difficult issues to be dealt with is matter of the causes of anti-Semitism.  Brendan Maloney’s “moneylender” motive is not sufficient.  Jews, for understandable reasons played a prominent role in the Bolshevik revolution.  According to Pavel Sudoplatov this was because “they had the education to fill these jobs.”  Their role in the revolution must be downplayed or bogus excuses are made for their prominence.  Regardless of their motives this has resulted in a great deal of anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe.  Today there are people who do not distinguish between patriotic Jews and those following a more “progressive” agenda.. 

One almost universal Jewish characteristic is their great respect for their history.  It is what makes Jews, secular and religious, Jewish.  They put a great deal of emphasis on injustices they have suffered.  This is illustrated by Brendan Maloney who states Lipstadt, “did not cite the fact that the Jewish Holocaust of World War Two was only the most recent of MANY murderous pogroms against Jews.”  Maloney along with Lipstadt uses this to criticize Church.  Jews are understandably sensitive about anti-Semitism.  As Schopenhauer reportedly said, “if you step on a Jew’s toes in Frankfurt, the international press from Moscow to San Francisco breaks into howls.”

Lipstadt used the occasion to criticize the President and opponents of global warming.  She claims that someone who holds “one of the highest offices in the land, if not the world” must he held accountable for making “outrageous claims.”  “We must hold their feet to the fire.”  Is she advocating cruel and unusual punishment?  She states, “We must not treat it as if their lies are the same as the facts.”  Did she criticize the previous President?  Is anyone advocating for lies being treated as facts?  Finally for those concerned about Global warming I recommend Leonard Nimoy’s youtube on the coming ice age: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo