Scrapbookpages Blog

September 9, 2016

New movie about Deborah Lipstadt will open nationwide on Oct. 21, 2016

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust, movies — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 8:40 am
Rachel Weiss will play Deborah Lipstadt in new movie

Rachel Weiss will play Deborah Lipstadt in new movie

A news story, which you can read in full here, has this headline:

She had to prove the Holocaust happened

How does one prove that something happened? It either happened or it didn’t.

Deborah Lipstadt

Deborah Lipstadt

The news article begins with this quote:

Begin quote

ATLANTA – You’ll need your imagination for this one. [You can say that again.]

At issue is that it’s hard to imagine anyone having to prove in a court of law that the Holocaust happened [the way that the Jews say that it did].

Deborah Lipstadt did it, though, and her story has been made into a film called “Denial,” set to be released in New York on Sept. 30 and nationwide on Oct. 21.

Lipstadt, a professor of modern history and Jewish Holocaust studies at Emory University, was sued by prominent Holocaust denier and British historian David Irving in the 1990s, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The film and her book that it’s based on, “History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier,” recount how Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in England for calling him a “Holocaust denier.”

End quote

Of course, the Holocaust HAPPENED, but did it happen the way that David Irving wrote that it did, or did it happen the way that Debra thinks that it did.

David Irving

David Irving

I’m with David Irving on this one. I have met him. He’s a walking encyclopedia, as I have said many times. However, he is now old and senile, as am I. He will not be able to defend himself adequately now.

 

45 Comments »

  1. Although Lipstadt and her supporters have loudly proclaimed that the trial “proved the Holocaust” Irving v. Penguin had nothing much to do with the Holocaust.  Judge Gray specifically stated, “It is no part of my function to attempt to make findings as to what actually happened during the Nazi regime.” Irving opened the case telling the court, “I have never held myself out to be a Holocaust expert, nor have I written books about what is now called the Holocaust.” The case is better described as a wide ranging questioning of Irving’s competence as a historian; an ex post facto effort to substantiate Lipstadt’s statement that Irving had falsified historical facts.

    What the Trial was really about
    Judge Gray broke the alleged falsification of historical facts into 4 elements: “(a) 19 specific individual criticisms of Irving’s historiography culled from his life’s body of work…; (b) his portrayal of Hitler… (c) his claims in relation to Auschwitz (d) the bombing of Dresden.” Items (a), (b) and (d) are historical minutia. Irving’s claims about Auschwitz related to Krema II, almost exclusively. These claims were off the cuff remarks to generally right-wing listeners. He is also way over his head when it comes to discussing the operations of Auschwitz…not having read either Germar Rudolf, Pressac, or Carlo Mattogno.
    In fact, Irving seems to believe in the Operation Reinhard camps and in extensive killings by the Einsatzgruppen.
    Lipstadt is crowing about having vanquished a Strawman.

    Lipstadt wrote in History on Trial that she did not testify in the case, did not issue a statement to the press, did not give interviews, did not understand the arguments being made, did not understand the
    evidence. She had a $12,000,000 defense team- Irving had no attorney and appeared in court carrying his papers in a shopping bag.

    David Hare’s last Holocaust exploitation movie was the absurd The Reader. (A beautiful ex-Auschwitz camp guard baths and then has sex with 15 year old boy. There is also a trial)

    What is humorous/ironic is the distortion and dishonesty in a movie about “A Battle to Defend the Veracity of Historical Facts.”

    CODOH has a very good set of articles about the case.

    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/3442/
    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/3693/
    http://www.codoh.com/library/document/3698/

    Comment by david499 — September 9, 2016 @ 11:32 am

    • David….For some reason the links didn’t work for me.

      JR

      Comment by jrizoli — September 9, 2016 @ 11:54 am

    • You wrote: “The case is better described as a wide ranging questioning of Irving’s competence as a historian; an ex post facto effort to substantiate Lipstadt’s statement that Irving had falsified historical facts.”

      I have read Irving’s books. He did NOT falsify anything, as far as I know.

      Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2016 @ 12:13 pm

      • You are correct that no falsification was found although there was a mistranslation of one document.

        As background, Richard J. Evans, a British history professor, was hired to justify Lipstadt’s comment that Irving, “falsified history.”
        Evans and his team spent two years examining all of Irving’s books, papers, personal papers and speeches in painful detail and presented a 740-page “Report” for the defense.
        Evans came up with 19 possible ERRORS.
        Judge Gray discussed the faults of Irving at length. The alleged distortions related to Irving’s presentation of various minor points of minor events.
        Some were.
        1. Hitler’s trial in 1924,
        2. Crime statistics for Berlin in 1930,
        3. The events of Kristallnacht,
        4. The aftermath of Kristallnacht,
        5. The expulsion of Jews from Berlin in 1941 (based on Hitler’s War, 1977 edition)

        Judge Gray also found that Irving was remiss in quoting German figures of fatalities in the Dresden bombing
        and in his analysis of Hitler’s anti-Semitism.
        To put the matter simply, Judge Gray found that Irving relied on German or National Socialist sources too much and on
        testimony of people like Marie Vaillant-Couturier too little.
        An example is Gray’s criticism of Irving’s portrayal of Hitler’s role in the 1923 Putsch:
        “Irving ought to have appreciated that Hofmann’s allegiance to Hitler rendered his testimony untrustworthy”.

        It is worth noting that defense witness Christoph Browning admitted the key role Irving played in destroying the myth of a “Hitler Order” for the
        mass murder of all European Jews, (and the myth that planning and direction came from Berlin)

        “I would say that there had been substantial study of the Holocaust; the Trunk book, in terms of the Jewish Council’s, Hilberg in terms of the apparatus,
        Schloenus in terms of the pre-Holocaust bureaucratic process. What had not been studied before you [Irving] published was a particular focus on
        decision-making process and Hitler’s role. That is one part and, in so far as we can confine ourselves to that, indeed, your publication of
        Hitler’s War was the impetus for the research in that area.”

        Comment by david499 — September 9, 2016 @ 2:33 pm

    • “Although Lipstadt and her supporters have loudly proclaimed that the trial “proved the Holocaust” Irving v. Penguin had nothing much to do with the Holocaust. Judge Gray specifically stated, “It is no part of my function to attempt to make findings as to what actually happened during the Nazi regime.” Irving opened the case telling the court, “I have never held myself out to be a Holocaust expert, nor have I written books about what is now called the Holocaust.” The case is better described as a wide ranging questioning of Irving’s competence as a historian; an ex post facto effort to substantiate Lipstadt’s statement that Irving had falsified historical facts.”

      In an odd way I agree with you. If Irving HAD won it would have simply proved that Lipstadt committed libel, not that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
      Though undoubtedly deniers would have painted it that way, just the same way they dismiss it because Irving lost.

      “What the Trial was really about
      Judge Gray broke the alleged falsification of historical facts into 4 elements: “(a) 19 specific individual criticisms of Irving’s historiography culled from his life’s body of work…; (b) his portrayal of Hitler… (c) his claims in relation to Auschwitz (d) the bombing of Dresden.” Items (a), (b) and (d) are historical minutia. Irving’s claims about Auschwitz related to Krema II, almost exclusively. These claims were off the cuff remarks to generally right-wing listeners. He is also way over his head when it comes to discussing the operations of Auschwitz…not having read either Germar Rudolf, Pressac, or Carlo Mattogno.”

      Didn’t matter, Richard Green and Robert Van Pelt thoroughly refute Rudolf and Mattogono.
      You do realize that Pressac agrees with real history and that the Krema were gas chambers, right?

      “In fact, Irving seems to believe in the Operation Reinhard camps and in extensive killings by the Einsatzgruppen.”

      Well, about that, Irving’s beliefs shift back and forth depending on what day it is and his mood. However, he is right to believe in both because the Reinhard Camps were death camps and the Einsatzgruppen did shoot over a million Jews on the Eastern Front.

      “Lipstadt is crowing about having vanquished a Strawman.”

      Just curious, would you feel the same way if he’d won?

      “Lipstadt wrote in History on Trial that she did not testify in the case, did not issue a statement to the press, did not give interviews, did not understand the arguments being made, did not understand the
      evidence.”

      Who cares? She wasn’t there by choice.

      “She had a $12,000,000 defense team- Irving had no attorney and appeared in court carrying his papers in a shopping bag.”

      Whose fault is that? Irving sued Lipstadt, not the other way around. Penguin (?) defended her because they stood to lose money by pulling her book off the shelf and either getting rid of it or modifying it. That was a smart business decision. Plus, they stood by their author, which is the absolutely correct thing to do.

      “David Hare’s last Holocaust exploitation movie was the absurd The Reader. (A beautiful ex-Auschwitz camp guard baths and then has sex with 15 year old boy. There is also a trial)”

      Oh, I don’t know. I rather liked it but that may also be that I have a thing for Kate Winslett. Truth be told that and Valkyrie are the last two “historical dramas” I’ve watched.

      “What is humorous/ironic is the distortion and dishonesty in a movie about “A Battle to Defend the Veracity of Historical Facts.”

      Well, it defend historical FACTS.

      “CODOH has a very good set of articles about the case.”

      Good as in better than the normal crap they dish out or good crap?

      Comment by Jeff K. — September 9, 2016 @ 6:34 pm

      • -In an odd way I agree with you. If Irving HAD won it would have simply proved that Lipstadt committed libel, not that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
        Though undoubtedly deniers would have painted it that way, just the same way they dismiss it because Irving lost.-

        That is a non sequitur if you understand the case. Irving was suing Lipstadt for calling him a
        “Denier.” Irving denied being a “denier.” He did then and still does believe in large parts of the Holocaust story. The only part of the current Holocaust Tale that he denied was the existence of
        gas chambers at Auschwitz.

        I say current Holocaust Tale because Irving does “Deny” that there was a “Hitler Order” or planning of the Holocaust by Hitler. It is worth noting that Irving was shown to be factually correct on this. Intentionalism, (ie. the claim that Hitler planned and ordered the Holocaust) is pretty much a failed Holocaust theory.

        And, Actually, Gray found that Lipstadt did defame Irving when she claimed that he had a painting of Hitler hanging on his wall, that he was going to conventions with Arab terrorists, and that he acted improperly with the glass plates photographs of Goebbles’ diary. If Irving had stuck to these defamations, he would have won the suit.

        -Who cares? She wasn’t there by choice.-
        I care particularly since Lipstadt is braying out that she is battling for the Truth”
        She heehawed out that she was a “witness” for the Holocaust and she ended
        up dodging witnessing anything, saying anything, or understanding anything.

        “She had a $12,000,000 defense team- Irving had no attorney and appeared in court carrying his papers in a shopping bag.”
        Whose fault is that?-

        It is not a fault. I am commenting on the Court system.
        Irving made a string of tactical mistakes in the suit because he could not afford legal
        advice. He was overwhelmed by defendants hired experts. Irving v. Penguin shows
        how Money buys “justice.”

        Comment by david Merlin — September 9, 2016 @ 8:23 pm

        • “-In an odd way I agree with you. If Irving HAD won it would have simply proved that Lipstadt committed libel, not that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
          Though undoubtedly deniers would have painted it that way, just the same way they dismiss it because Irving lost.-

          “That is a non sequitur if you understand the case. Irving was suing Lipstadt for calling him a
          “Denier.” Irving denied being a “denier.”

          At the point that Lipstadt wrote her book Irving was a denier.
          To be honest I think he made a big deal about nothing. I read Lipstadt’s book, she barely mentions him. At the time Irving brought the libel suit the book itself only sold about 2,000 copies in the UK. In the late 80’s/early 90’s Irving proclaimed himself a Holocaust denier, Leuchter’s report apparently converted his way of thinking.

          “He did then and still does believe in large parts of the Holocaust story. The only part of the current Holocaust Tale that he denied was the existence of
          gas chambers at Auschwitz.”

          He’s waffled a great deal. I think now (again, this may not be current) he believes in Auschwitz gas chambers.

          “I say current Holocaust Tale because Irving does “Deny” that there was a “Hitler Order” or planning of the Holocaust by Hitler. It is worth noting that Irving was shown to be factually correct on this. Intentionalism, (ie. the claim that Hitler planned and ordered the Holocaust) is pretty much a failed Holocaust theory.”

          Not really worth discussing. I’m a functionalist, though not radically so.

          “And, Actually, Gray found that Lipstadt did defame Irving when she claimed that he had a painting of Hitler hanging on his wall, that he was going to conventions with Arab terrorists, and that he acted improperly with the glass plates photographs of Goebbles’ diary. If Irving had stuck to these defamations, he would have won the suit.”

          I don’t remember any of that. Probably not worth discussing.

          -Who cares? She wasn’t there by choice.-

          “I care particularly since Lipstadt is braying out that she is battling for the Truth”
          She heehawed out that she was a “witness” for the Holocaust and she ended
          up dodging witnessing anything, saying anything, or understanding anything.”

          She was not required to and she had enough expert witnesses to render her testimony unnecessary.

          “She had a $12,000,000 defense team- Irving had no attorney and appeared in court carrying his papers in a shopping bag.”
          Whose fault is that?-

          “It is not a fault. I am commenting on the Court system.
          Irving made a string of tactical mistakes in the suit because he could not afford legal
          advice. He was overwhelmed by defendants hired experts. Irving v. Penguin shows
          how Money buys “justice.”

          Again, Lipstadt and Penguin both needed to defend themselves against Irving’s suit. To do otherwise would be a bad business decision by both. IRVING brought the suit against THEM, are you saying they didn’t have the right to defend themselves? They should have rolled over? Why?

          If I go out tomorrow and sue Chevrolet or Nissan they would do the same thing, bring in corporate lawyers and experts to refute me. That’s simply a good business decision.

          Comment by Jeff K. — September 9, 2016 @ 10:19 pm

          • “Not really worth discussing. I’m a functionalist, though not radically so.”

            Whether or not Hitler ordered the mass murder of all European Jews is the very
            heart of Holocaust belief. Either you believe that there was an order and a plan
            organized by Hitler or you don’t.

            BTW Your “functionalist” beliefs would have gotten you in trouble in 1948!

            Comment by david Merlin — September 10, 2016 @ 8:33 am

            • “Whether or not Hitler ordered the mass murder of all European Jews is the very
              heart of Holocaust belief. Either you believe that there was an order and a plan
              organized by Hitler or you don’t.”

              That’s a rather simplistic view of how the Nazi Government functioned under Hitler. Did Hitler detemine what method the doctors used during the Euthanasia program? No. He authorized it and let them determine method of execution.

              Hitlers main focus once war started was the war. Once the decision was made he allowed those directly involved to determine best methods. Hitler was not a micromanager.

              “BTW Your “functionalist” beliefs would have gotten you in trouble in 1948!”

              I don’t know what that has to do with anything.

              Comment by Jeff K. — September 10, 2016 @ 10:48 am

              • You wrote: ” Did Hitler detemine what method the doctors used during the Euthanasia program? No. He authorized it and let them determine method of execution.”

                I wrote about this on this blog post:
                https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/euthanasia/

                Hartheim castle is now a memorial site dedicated to the children who were allegedly perfectly normal, and could have gone to school like other children, but those mean ole Nazis killed them.

                Comment by furtherglory — September 10, 2016 @ 12:20 pm

                • I don’t want to spend a lot of my time writing here….I’m reading now the pdf version and actully have the hard copy book of the War Crimes and Other Essays by Carlos Porter. Lots of interesting information in the book. The point of discussion here is the euthanasia program.
                  I am giving you the link to the pdf of the book when you down load it….. open it….. do Control f on your keyboard notice bottom left screen and put in the word euthanasia….lots of good information there. You can save a lot of time by Control F on any word that might interest you if it’s in the book it will come up.
                  I read a book or two a month maybe more and don’t like to engage in big long debates on the internet or blog sites ….if your interested enough do your own research get back to me here. This is especially written for our resident HoloHuxster Jeff.
                  Since Jeff has all the answers. The book shows what the HoloHuxsters say and what the actual truth is on many issues.

                  http://velesova-sloboda.vho.org/archiv/pdf/porter-war-crimes-trials-and-other-essays.pdf

                  JR

                  Comment by jrizoli — September 10, 2016 @ 12:45 pm

                • “This is especially written for our resident HoloHuxster Jeff.
                  Since Jeff has all the answers. The book shows what the HoloHuxsters say and what the actual truth is on many issues”

                  Bad Jim. I told you to stop giving me book suggestions.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — September 10, 2016 @ 1:09 pm

                • “Hartheim castle is now a memorial site dedicated to the children who were allegedly perfectly normal, and could have gone to school like other children, but those mean ole Nazis killed them.”

                  Do you think the Nazis only murdered children? The T-4 program swept up adults as well. Frankly, I’d rather been an adult, they allowed children to starve death. Gassing is faster.
                  You are also neglecting the 14f13 Program, that pulled the concentration camp system into the T-4 Program. That program murdered sick and starving inmates.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — September 10, 2016 @ 1:08 pm

                • Jeff……
                  http://velesova-sloboda.vho.org/archiv/pdf/porter-war-crimes-trials-and-other-essays.pdf

                  Search for euthanasia…

                  JR

                  Comment by Jim Rizoli — September 10, 2016 @ 1:26 pm

                • Bad, bad, BAD, Jim. I’ve told you to stop giving me reading suggestions.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — September 10, 2016 @ 1:35 pm

                • Simple request….as Jesus said “don’t throw your pearls before swine”……No offense to pigs here.

                  JR

                  Comment by Jim Rizoli — September 10, 2016 @ 2:20 pm

                • I’m the book of John he also said,”let he who is without sin,cast the first stone”, when he spoke of the lady they were gonna kill. I think all of us here could use that one. I think that’s how the King James Version words it.

                  Comment by Tim — September 10, 2016 @ 2:43 pm

                • “Simple request….as Jesus said “don’t throw your pearls before swine”……No offense to pigs here.”

                  Jim, I’ve already told you. After the debacle of “The Bad War” and “A Judge Looks at the Evidence” you cannot give me reading suggestions.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — September 10, 2016 @ 3:19 pm

                • You wrote: “You are also neglecting the 14f13 Program, that pulled the concentration camp system into the T-4 Program. That program murdered sick and starving inmates.”

                  Gerald Fleming wrote the following in his book “Hitler and the Final Solution”:
                  Begin quote
                  Heydrich, who presided over this fateful conference and ultimately “gave the finishing touches” to the minutes of the proceedings, which had been prepared by Eichmann, prudently refrained from documenting any mention regarding the “special treatment” of the Jews not fit for labor.

                  The Nazi term “special treatment” (Sonderbehandlung) is believed be a euphemism which meant death in the gas chamber.

                  Eichmann was convicted of Crimes against Humanity by the Israeli court and was executed on May 31, 1962. He was the first and only person in the history of the world to ever be convicted of a crime that was not a crime when the act was committed and by a country that did not exist when the act was committed.
                  End quote

                  Comment by furtherglory — September 10, 2016 @ 2:18 pm

                • I’m not sure what your comment has to do T-4 or 14f13.

                  “Eichmann was convicted of Crimes against Humanity by the Israeli court and was executed on May 31, 1962. He was the first and only person in the history of the world to ever be convicted of a crime that was not a crime when the act was committed and by a country that did not exist when the act was committed.”

                  Murder is a crime.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — September 10, 2016 @ 3:02 pm

                • That one I didn’t get. Israel wasn’t a country yet,so they basically shouldn’t be putting a case on Eichmann? That’s how it sounds to me .

                  Comment by Tim — September 10, 2016 @ 5:03 pm

                • You wrote: “Murder is a crime.”
                  Eichmann was not charged with murder. He was charged with “Crimes against Humanity”.

                  Comment by furtherglory — September 10, 2016 @ 7:49 pm

                • I stand corrected:

                  “Trial of Eichmann

                  Adolf Eichmann’s trial began on April 11, 1961 in Jerusalem, Israel. Eichmann was charged with 15 counts of crimes against the Jewish people, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in a hostile organization.

                  Specifically, the charges accused Eichmann of being responsible for the enslavement, starvation, persecution, transportation and murder of millions of Jews as well as the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Poles and Gypsies.”

                  http://history1900s.about.com/od/1960s/qt/Eichmann-Trial.htm

                  Comment by Jeff K. — September 10, 2016 @ 7:55 pm

                • Okay. What were you referring to when you said something about how Eichmann was charged and put on trial,in a country that didn’t exist,when he committed the crimes. What does that mean. They didn’t have jurisdiction since the country wasn’t around then?

                  I still say there was something shady with Eichmanns defense team. His counselor only argued 3 capital murder cases. One was Euchmanns,the 2 previous were at,Nuremberg . His attorney had a shit track record. Would you pick an attorney that has already lost the only two other capital cases that he argued ( I may be giving his attorney too much credit when I say he,”argued” those other 2 cases).

                  We got a capital murder case here,and there was only 2 people on his defense team. When I went to court all those years ago,I had 3 people on my defense team. I was only fighting a felony assault charge. My whole point there is this. If you’re gonna argue a case that involves the life of a person,you’re gonna have more than a couple people on that team.

                  One charge they pinned on him,I found interesting. You said he was charged with “deporting people”. Did his attorney argue any of that shit. I don’t care what anyone says,that charge right there is gonna put doubt in any rational persons mind.

                  Think about it. It’s gonna prove,murder was not the original intent. “Final solution,ultimate solution “,use all the cutesy fartsey,colorful terms and polysyllabic words you want to describe the shit. At the end of the day,the deportation charge ( which by the way,I think is a piss ignorant charge) is gonna show,what ever killing may or may not have taken place,was clearly no the original game plan.

                  What’s really f–led up about all this shit,there’s so many countries out there,that would be just as culpable as the nazis ( I made sure I said nazis and not Germans,due to the fact,that there’s clearly not to many discerning people out there,when it comes to this subject).

                  I don’t remember this quote verbatim. I think,it was Stalin that said it ( he was the text book example of,”the asshole from hell”, but he had some pretty logical ideas). The quote went something like this. “The winning side in a war,is the side that decides what the truth is”. F–kin A right. For all that idiots short comings,he summed up this war,pretty damn good ( okay. So that’ll work with any war).

                  That saying worked pretty good for Nam. The war wasn’t even over yet,and the victors got to start mass producing lies. They were even smart enough to figure out how to use Americans to spread their BS lies. Jane “The Hanoi Whore”Fonda. They knew how to work that skanks ass.

                  Comment by Tim — September 10, 2016 @ 8:48 pm

      • “David Hare’s last Holocaust exploitation movie was the absurd The Reader. (A beautiful ex-Auschwitz camp guard baths and then has sex with 15 year old boy. There is also a trial)”
        -Oh, I don’t know. I rather liked it but that may also be that I have a thing for Kate Winslett. Truth be told that and Valkyrie are the last two “historical dramas” I’ve watched.-

        It is not the genre but the brazen Hypocrisy of the screen writer. I could watch mummies chase
        Rachael all night but Hare is a charlatan.

        In an opinion piece Hare wrote in the Guardian newspaper (UK) • Sept. 3, 2016
        https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/03/david-hare-nothing-but-the-truth-about-a-holocaust-denial

        In 2010 I was first approached by the BBC and by Participant Media to adapt Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial for the screen. My first reaction was one of extreme reluctance. I have no taste for Holocaust movies. It seems both offensive and clumsy to add an extra layer of fiction to suffering which demands no gratuitous intervention.

        Least we forget, Hare’s The Reader was a sex romp between a beautiful and illiterate ex-SS guard and a 15 year-old boy. The ex-guard would shower the boy and then have sex with him.
        The Hare also has an Auschwitz based trial in the Reader.
        So much for having “extreme reluctance” to add a layer of fiction.

        Comment by david Merlin — September 10, 2016 @ 7:25 am

        • She got laid by a 15 year old boy? Lucky bastard. All the time I spent trying to get into Susie Rotten Crotches pants. Don’t know who this little shit is,but he just become my new hero. She’d bathe him. Damn! This little son of a bitch was the pimp from hell. I salute him.

          Comment by Tim — September 10, 2016 @ 7:36 am

          • Yes indeed. An example of Hare’s sensitivity to Holocaust survivor’s

            Comment by david Merlin — September 10, 2016 @ 7:52 am

  2. As we all wait we breathless excitement for the opening date of this new movie – ‘Denial’, let us take a look at what the real Deborah Lipstadt has been up to recently.

    According to the Atlanta Jewish Times, dated August 23rd, “our Debs” addressed a meeting of 150 guests at an annual get-together called the “Young Israel of Toco Hills”. You can just imagine that in reality these folk are a bunch of tiresome old farts, ugly wrinklies, and assorted Jews who have seen better days, but want to pretend to each other – as well as the outside world – that they are the fresh face of “young Israel”. I’ve no doubt that some of them are even more chronically ill than poor old Hillary Clinton ( and that’s saying something! ).

    Debs was introduced to the meeting by a Rabbi named Adam Starr, who described her as “a Rachel Weisz lookalike”. Now whether he was being mercifully kind and polite to Ms. Lipstadt, or if he was humorously pointing out the glaring incongruity between the attractiveness of the actor, and the frumpiness of the real thing – I wouldn’t like to say.

    But the good Rabbi obviously does have a sense of humour, because he went on to describe Debs as “One of the Great Jewish Leaders of Our Times. ( and believe-it-or-not he announced this without bursting out laughing himself – which all good stand-up comics know is an absolute requirement in their profession.) But I thought to myself – well, on the battlefield itself, in the courtroom trial against David Irving, she didn’t open her mouth during the entire proceedings, so will she go down in the sacred texts of Jewish history as the “Quiet Leader of the Jews”, or “Deborah The Silent”?

    During her address to the meeting she deeply and scholarly divided those awful “anti-semites” into four categories;- 1) extremists; 2) enablers; 3) polite anti-semites; and 4) accidental anti-semites. “The demarcations are not strict” she said “but one person can be in more than one category.” ( Oh lor! – how complicated can it all get. )

    It would appear that it’s “the accidental anti-semites,” who are causing Ms. Lipstadt the most anguish, because they have “integrated and absorbed prejudicial attitudes to the point that they often are unaware that their views are anti-Semitic.”

    Lipstadt spoke of a friend who was the only Jew in a New York nursing school. When the friend went to a celebratory lunch with a group of non-Jewish nursing students, one of them talked about bargains and said to Lipstadt’s friend: “Now, Barbara, you would be interested in this.”

    Barbara, who thought fast, replied that she didn’t know Jews were the only ones smart with their money.

    The woman who made the remark about bargains probably thought she was paying a compliment, Lipstadt said. She added “that most people usually don’t know how to respond to accidental prejudicial remarks.”

    Now, most people wouldn’t bat an eyelid about a totally innocent and good-hearted exchange between two women taking lunch together – so why Debs has got turn such an incident into a scholarly treatise for a serious debate about anti-semitism, I really can’t imagine. And why the members of “Young Israel” up in the Toco Hills want to hear all this stuff is anyone’s guess – ( that’s of course, if their hearing is still in good shape! )

    But I will say this for Debs, she did conclude her address with a rather humorous remark: “An anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews more than necessary.”

    Comment by Talbot — September 9, 2016 @ 10:44 am

    • No shit? Atlanta Jewish Journal. I’m surprised they haven’t tried to sue the U S Army,because General Sherman led the attack on Atlanta,and a lot of Jews died.

      That brings a question to mind. How many southern Jews were slave owners? Hey. Get ahold of the NAACP and tell them to sue the pants off Israel when we get a number on my question. I’ll back the blacks on that one. It would be kind of funny with all the greed the Jews have,if they ended up like Shylock the Jew

      Comment by Tim — September 9, 2016 @ 11:00 am

    • You wrote: “But I will say this for Debs, she did conclude her address with a rather humorous remark: “An anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews more than necessary.”

      Are you saying that Lipstadt thinks that it is “necessary” to hate Jews, but it is wrong to hate Jews MORE than necessary?

      Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2016 @ 12:03 pm

      • Lipstadt was speaking before an exclusively Jewish audience, so she could well be sharing an “in-house” joke with them. She is fully aware of Jewish shenanigans over the years and also what many gentiles think of this behaviour. So she was probably sharing a “tee-hee – aren’t we naughty” moment with her audience.

        Comment by Talbot — September 9, 2016 @ 12:31 pm

        • “Sharing”? Is “she” the in house joke she was sharing with her fellow Hebs?

          Comment by Tim — September 9, 2016 @ 2:27 pm

      • “More than necessary”. Does she have any concept on how language works. Well for everyone that hates the Jews ,this dumb shit just gave you the thumbs up. Remember though,we live in a politically correct society. So please make sure you keep an eye on how much you hate the Jews,okay.

        Oh yeah. Where the hell did she come up with 12 mill for legal counsel ? Sounds like she hired Johnny Cochrans Dream Team.

        Comment by Tim — September 9, 2016 @ 2:24 pm

  3. Well at least they got a Jew playing the part. She’s married to James Bond,so at least she has that going for her

    Comment by Tim — September 9, 2016 @ 10:23 am

  4. Lipstadt, Dorot Professor (what’s a dorot?) of Jewish and Holocaust Studies is nothing but the tenured, highly paid academic equivalent of a troll.

    WE should have such trolls.

    Comment by Jett Rucker — September 9, 2016 @ 9:43 am

    • Is that professional envy on your part? Knowing she’s a respected academic while you are stuck on the lunatic fringe of history?

      Comment by Jeff K. — September 9, 2016 @ 10:02 am

  5. I guess it all comes down to how you define your terms on the Holocaust happening.
    Did Six million die. No! Did Hitler have a plan to exterminate the Jews? NO! Were people mass killed using Zyclon B Gas? NO!
    Were people mass killed by anything? NO!
    So did the Holocaust happen? Not according to the facts presented by the true events.
    I you want to believe the Horror Disneyland version of the event than I guess it did.

    JR

    Comment by jrizoli — September 9, 2016 @ 8:53 am

  6. Rachel Weisz is way too hot to play Deborah Lipstadt.

    Comment by Jeff K. — September 9, 2016 @ 8:45 am

    • You wrote: “Rachel Weisz is way too hot to play Deborah Lipstadt.”

      I was going to write something like that, but I didn’t. Rachel is very beautiful, but she will be wearing heavy makeup to look ugly in the film.

      Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2016 @ 12:08 pm

      • They will have to age her.

        Comment by Jeff K. — September 9, 2016 @ 12:36 pm

      • I was gonna say something along the same lines,but it would’ve been a bit on the sexist side.

        Comment by Tim — September 9, 2016 @ 2:29 pm

        • Rachel Weisz IS hot, Tim.

          Comment by Jeff K. — September 9, 2016 @ 6:11 pm

      • Years ago Lipstadt visited Faurisson in France and he asked her: ‘Are you married’, to which she replied with a ‘No’ – enough said.

        Comment by Fredrick Toben — September 21, 2016 @ 9:32 pm

        • “Years ago Lipstadt visited Faurisson in France and he asked her: ‘Are you married’, to which she replied with a ‘No’ – enough said.”

          Where did the Jews go, Fredrick? The ones you say lived, the ones the Nazis didn’t murder?

          Comment by Jeff K. — September 22, 2016 @ 5:11 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: