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
No comments:
Post a Comment