Discussion:
Denial
Add Reply
islander
2017-04-17 15:05:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.

After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."

I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Gary
2017-04-17 16:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
I would never deny the holocaust. I have no doubt the Jews suffered a great
deal in those years. But I do not think six million were killed.

According to the head Jew -- there were seven million Jews in Europe in 1937. If
six million died -- then how is it that after the war two million go Israel, a
half million go to America and there were still two or three million in Europe ?
I'd guess the actual number of deaths was closer to two or three million.

BTW, it would take at least a quart of gas to kill a person. I wonder ......
what kind of container did the Germans have that would store six million quarts
of gas ?
wolfbat359
2017-04-17 20:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
I would never deny the holocaust. I have no doubt the Jews suffered a great
deal in those years. But I do not think six million were killed.
According to the head Jew -- there were seven million Jews in Europe in 1937.
Odd! This site says there were 9.5 million Jews in Europe in 1933

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005161

Holocaust Encyclopedia

If
Post by Gary
six million died -- then how is it that after the war two million go Israel, a
half million go to America and there were still two or three million in Europe ?
I'd guess the actual number of deaths was closer to two or three million.
BTW, it would take at least a quart of gas to kill a person. I wonder ......
what kind of container did the Germans have that would store six million quarts
of gas ?
The Germans first tried to put them in the back of trucks and Run Carbon Monoxide into the back of the truck! Appears it does not take much Zyklon B gas
to kill a person:

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-06.html


As a reference, one can look at "The Merck Index" and the "CRC handbook of Chemistry and Physics", or consult any manual dealing with toxicity and flammability of chemicals. For HCN, a concentration of 300 ppm (parts per million) kills humans within a few minutes, while the minimal concentration that can result in an explosion is 56,000 ppm.
Gary
2017-04-17 22:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
I would never deny the holocaust. I have no doubt the Jews suffered a great
deal in those years. But I do not think six million were killed.
According to the head Jew -- there were seven million Jews in Europe in 1937.
Odd! This site says there were 9.5 million Jews in Europe in 1933
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005161
Holocaust Encyclopedia
If
Post by Gary
six million died -- then how is it that after the war two million go Israel, a
half million go to America and there were still two or three million in Europe ?
I'd guess the actual number of deaths was closer to two or three million.
BTW, it would take at least a quart of gas to kill a person. I wonder ......
what kind of container did the Germans have that would store six million quarts
of gas ?
The Germans first tried to put them in the back of trucks and Run Carbon Monoxide into the back of the truck! Appears it does not take much Zyklon B gas
http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-06.html
As a reference, one can look at "The Merck Index" and the "CRC handbook of Chemistry and Physics", or consult any manual dealing with toxicity and flammability of chemicals. For HCN, a concentration of 300 ppm (parts per million) kills humans within a few minutes, while the minimal concentration that can result in an explosion is 56,000 ppm.
In order to explain my opinion of the holocaust properly -- I will have to make
a lengthy answer to you. I hope you will be patient with my efforts as I try
to explain where I got my numbers from.

I read a book a few years ago. It was written by the one of only two guys to
escape from Auschwitz. Title "I Cannot Forgive" by Rudolf Vrba. Rudy was
Jewish and was from Czechoslovakia. He was there from June 1942 until April
1944. He was also a most courageous man.

When he finally escaped he made his way back home and sought an audience with
the most important Jew in his area. He told him what Auschwitz was like. It
was through him that the West learned about the death camps.

In his book, Vrba quotes the leading Zionist who in 1937 was asked about the
Jewish plight by British Royal Commission. He said --

Here Vrba quotes Weizmann ---

...Doctor Chaim Weizmann, first President of Israel, when he addressed a Zionist
convention in London in 1937 ?

He said: "I told the British Royal Commission that the hopes of Europe's six
million Jews were centered on emigration. I was asked: `Can you bring six
million Jews to Palestine?' I replied: `No.' The old ones will pass. They will
bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a
cruel world . . . only a branch will survive, . . . They had to accept it . . .
If they feel and suffer they will find the way - beachareth hajamin - in the
fullness time ... I pray that we may preserve our national unity, forit is all
we have."

This quote has always bothered me. Weizmann was the head European Jew. If he
counted 6 million -- then he was right. His brother was the head Jew in the
USSR. Between them they knew all things. We know that about 3 million European
Jews survived WW2. The numbers don't add up. To put it nicely.
wolfbat359
2017-04-18 01:20:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary
Post by wolfbat359
Post by Gary
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
I would never deny the holocaust. I have no doubt the Jews suffered a great
deal in those years. But I do not think six million were killed.
According to the head Jew -- there were seven million Jews in Europe in 1937.
Odd! This site says there were 9.5 million Jews in Europe in 1933
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005161
Holocaust Encyclopedia
If
Post by Gary
six million died -- then how is it that after the war two million go Israel, a
half million go to America and there were still two or three million in Europe ?
I'd guess the actual number of deaths was closer to two or three million.
BTW, it would take at least a quart of gas to kill a person. I wonder ......
what kind of container did the Germans have that would store six million quarts
of gas ?
The Germans first tried to put them in the back of trucks and Run Carbon Monoxide into the back of the truck! Appears it does not take much Zyklon B gas
http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-06.html
As a reference, one can look at "The Merck Index" and the "CRC handbook of Chemistry and Physics", or consult any manual dealing with toxicity and flammability of chemicals. For HCN, a concentration of 300 ppm (parts per million) kills humans within a few minutes, while the minimal concentration that can result in an explosion is 56,000 ppm.
In order to explain my opinion of the holocaust properly -- I will have to make
a lengthy answer to you. I hope you will be patient with my efforts as I try
to explain where I got my numbers from.
I read a book a few years ago. It was written by the one of only two guys to
escape from Auschwitz. Title "I Cannot Forgive" by Rudolf Vrba. Rudy was
Jewish and was from Czechoslovakia. He was there from June 1942 until April
1944. He was also a most courageous man.
When he finally escaped he made his way back home and sought an audience with
the most important Jew in his area. He told him what Auschwitz was like. It
was through him that the West learned about the death camps.
In his book, Vrba quotes the leading Zionist who in 1937 was asked about the
Jewish plight by British Royal Commission. He said --
Here Vrba quotes Weizmann ---
...Doctor Chaim Weizmann, first President of Israel, when he addressed a Zionist
convention in London in 1937 ?
He said: "I told the British Royal Commission that the hopes of Europe's six
million Jews were centered on emigration. I was asked: `Can you bring six
million Jews to Palestine?' I replied: `No.' The old ones will pass. They will
bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a
cruel world . . . only a branch will survive, . . . They had to accept it . . .
If they feel and suffer they will find the way - beachareth hajamin - in the
fullness time ... I pray that we may preserve our national unity, forit is all
we have."
This quote has always bothered me. Weizmann was the head European Jew. If he
counted 6 million -- then he was right. His brother was the head Jew in the
USSR. Between them they knew all things. We know that about 3 million European
Jews survived WW2. The numbers don't add up. To put it nicely.
It appears there were 6 million Jews in Russia, Romania in 1900! I am sure a lot of those died in WWII. Odd this 6 million figure seems to always be floated around for Europe, Russia and Russia-Romania. In fact it says "Originally Posted by New York Times, November 1st, 1905

From 1800 to 1902 he caused 6,000,000 Jewish families to be expelled from Russia [...]" So six Million Jews out of Russia and where to and according to the article there were still 6 million Jews in Russia! The 6 million seems to be bandied about from 1900 in diverse situations. I find it hard to take it serious! I there were 9.5 million Jews in Europe then the figures become more real! If you study the dates and sayings you come up with 6 million for everything, Course in 1937, there was a figure of 2,000,000 Jews to Israel - http://www.truetorahjews.org/weizmann:

http://balder.org/judea/Six-Million-140-Occurrences-Of-The-Word-Holocaust-And-The-Number-6,000,000-Before-The-Nuremberg-Trials-Began.php

Sorted by date:
1900

Originally Posted by Stephen S. Wise, New York Times, June 11, 1900

There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.


1902

Originally Posted by Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th Edition, 1902, page 482

While there are in Russia and Rumania six millions of Jews who are being systematically degraded...
1903

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), September 18th, 1903, page 6

[...] six million downtrodden brethren.
1904

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), February 19th, 1904, page 2

[...] where five or six million people existed under persecution.
1904

Originally Posted by The Jewish Criterion (Pittsburgh), October 7th, 1904

[...] the final and definite deliverance of the six millions of Russian, Roumanian and Galician Jews [...] transporting five or six million people over the sea.
1905

Originally Posted by New York Times, January 29th, 1905

He declared that a free and a happy Russia, with its 6,000,000 Jews, would possibly mean the end of Zionism, since the abolition of the autocracy would practically eliminate the causes that brought Zionism into existence.

Also at:

https://archive.org/stream/TwoHundredSixMillionJewsAllegationsFrom19001945/TwoHundredSixMillionJewsAllegationsFrom1900-1945_djvu.txt
mg
2017-04-17 16:15:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:05:42 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Is it only the political right and not the political left
that uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public opinion?
Aren't people who think that only one party (the other
party), does it deniers, also?
El Castor
2017-04-17 19:45:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:05:42 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Is it only the political right and not the political left
that uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public opinion?
Aren't people who think that only one party (the other
party), does it deniers, also?
"The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010
mg
2017-04-17 20:20:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:45:09 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:05:42 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Is it only the political right and not the political left
that uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public opinion?
Aren't people who think that only one party (the other
party), does it deniers, also?
"The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010
Yes, indeed. I rest my case.
islander
2017-04-18 01:51:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:05:42 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Is it only the political right and not the political left
that uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public opinion?
Aren't people who think that only one party (the other
party), does it deniers, also?
"The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010
An argument of the kind, "they are just as bad" is a fallacy. The movie
is about the acts of Irving whose appeal was to the right wing
anti-Semitic crowd. His bigoted acts weren't limited to Jews, however,
and the movie used his anti-black sentiments as evidence of his
distortion of the truth for political gain.

I'm surprised that you did not complain about use of the court to
convict Irving of hate speech. He attempted a freedom of speech
defense, but the judge was having none of it.
mg
2017-04-18 02:12:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:51:58 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:05:42 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Is it only the political right and not the political left
that uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public opinion?
Aren't people who think that only one party (the other
party), does it deniers, also?
"The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010
An argument of the kind, "they are just as bad" is a fallacy. The movie
is about the acts of Irving whose appeal was to the right wing
anti-Semitic crowd. His bigoted acts weren't limited to Jews, however,
and the movie used his anti-black sentiments as evidence of his
distortion of the truth for political gain.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with recapping the story of
a Holocaust denier and a bigot as told in a movie that you
saw. The problem is that the broad, sweeping conclusions
that you arrived at from watching the movie says more about
you than it does the movie and just because Irving was a
liar and a bigot, that doesn't mean that all people on the
political right, or all people who disagree with you, are
liars and bigots, and it doesn't mean that all people on the
left are not.
Post by islander
I'm surprised that you did not complain about use of the court to
convict Irving of hate speech. He attempted a freedom of speech
defense, but the judge was having none of it.
billbowden
2017-04-18 02:50:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:51:58 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
"The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010
An argument of the kind, "they are just as bad" is a fallacy. The movie
is about the acts of Irving whose appeal was to the right wing
anti-Semitic crowd. His bigoted acts weren't limited to Jews, however,
and the movie used his anti-black sentiments as evidence of his
distortion of the truth for political gain.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with recapping the story of
a Holocaust denier and a bigot as told in a movie that you
saw. The problem is that the broad, sweeping conclusions
that you arrived at from watching the movie says more about
you than it does the movie and just because Irving was a
liar and a bigot, that doesn't mean that all people on the
political right, or all people who disagree with you, are
liars and bigots, and it doesn't mean that all people on the
left are not.
No, it doesn't work that way. All people on the right are bigots by
definition. There is no other way to describe them.
Post by mg
Post by islander
I'm surprised that you did not complain about use of the court to
convict Irving of hate speech. He attempted a freedom of speech
defense, but the judge was having none of it.
mg
2017-04-18 04:26:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:50:09 -0700, "billbowden"
Post by billbowden
Post by mg
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:51:58 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
"The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010
An argument of the kind, "they are just as bad" is a fallacy. The movie
is about the acts of Irving whose appeal was to the right wing
anti-Semitic crowd. His bigoted acts weren't limited to Jews, however,
and the movie used his anti-black sentiments as evidence of his
distortion of the truth for political gain.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with recapping the story of
a Holocaust denier and a bigot as told in a movie that you
saw. The problem is that the broad, sweeping conclusions
that you arrived at from watching the movie says more about
you than it does the movie and just because Irving was a
liar and a bigot, that doesn't mean that all people on the
political right, or all people who disagree with you, are
liars and bigots, and it doesn't mean that all people on the
left are not.
No, it doesn't work that way. All people on the right are bigots by
definition. There is no other way to describe them.
Actually, that's not true unless you are using your own
private dictionary and sweeping generalizations are a type
of logical fallacy.
Post by billbowden
Post by mg
Post by islander
I'm surprised that you did not complain about use of the court to
convict Irving of hate speech. He attempted a freedom of speech
defense, but the judge was having none of it.
El Castor
2017-04-18 07:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:05:42 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Is it only the political right and not the political left
that uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public opinion?
Aren't people who think that only one party (the other
party), does it deniers, also?
"The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010
An argument of the kind, "they are just as bad" is a fallacy. The movie
is about the acts of Irving whose appeal was to the right wing
anti-Semitic crowd. His bigoted acts weren't limited to Jews, however,
and the movie used his anti-black sentiments as evidence of his
distortion of the truth for political gain.
I'm surprised that you did not complain about use of the court to
convict Irving of hate speech. He attempted a freedom of speech
defense, but the judge was having none of it.
You have no idea of what free speech is all about. I have no use for
David Irving, but he was convicted in Austria. Europe does not know
the meaning of free speech -- which is why we have the First
Amendment. Should anti-Semitic speech be prosecuted in the United
States? Would you vote to convict?
islander
2017-04-18 14:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 08:05:42 -0700, islander
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Is it only the political right and not the political left
that uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public opinion?
Aren't people who think that only one party (the other
party), does it deniers, also?
"The rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39592010
An argument of the kind, "they are just as bad" is a fallacy. The movie
is about the acts of Irving whose appeal was to the right wing
anti-Semitic crowd. His bigoted acts weren't limited to Jews, however,
and the movie used his anti-black sentiments as evidence of his
distortion of the truth for political gain.
I'm surprised that you did not complain about use of the court to
convict Irving of hate speech. He attempted a freedom of speech
defense, but the judge was having none of it.
You have no idea of what free speech is all about. I have no use for
David Irving, but he was convicted in Austria. Europe does not know
the meaning of free speech -- which is why we have the First
Amendment. Should anti-Semitic speech be prosecuted in the United
States? Would you vote to convict?
We agree that Irving was a despicable piece of work and he accumulated
suits against him including the conviction that you mentioned in
Austria. But, the movie was about when he brought a libel suit against
Lipstadt and Penguin Books in England. Lipstadt accused Irving of being
a Holocaust denier, falsifier and bigot who manipulated and distorted
the truth. Under British law, it was up to Lipstadt, the defendant, to
prove her claim. So, it is not as simple as you assume.

Irving's attempt to hide behind a free speech argument was not relevant
because he was essentially arguing that Lipstadt had harmed him with her
criticism of his work. The defense team for Lipstadt and Penguin Books
argued successfully that he was a habitual liar, distorting the truth
for political purposes. He was held responsible for the expenses of the
defendants and that drove him into bankruptcy.

He is still out there, lecturing to audiences that are sympathetic to
his bigoted views, so his right to free speech has not been denied.
But, the court decision also upheld the right of people who are critical
of deniers, falsifiers and bigots to call it as they see it.

So, yes. I would have sided with Lipstadt.
d***@gmail.com
2017-04-17 16:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
It's very important to frame the argument. Otherwise little jewish boys and girls might understand that Communism in Christian Russia was the raison d'etre of Adolf Hitler, and why he launched operation Barbarossa as soon as he became der Fuhrer of Germany.
Also American attorney Untermyer set-up the Jews of Germany for a glorious holocaust when he told them to make themselves personna non grata in Germany by boy-cotting German business. For an even more glorious ZIONISM as in COMMUNISM.
You can imagine how difficult it is being superior to an illiterate world for two thousand years. Eventually we got the Rothschilds and then Karl Marx. Is Communism for gentiles better than Christ? Karl marx thought so.
Spain was VERY Christian in 1936, but a Communists government took over calling themselves deceptively enough the republicans.
If you read the torah and Tanakh, which is nothing but the first half of every Christian bible you'll know GENOCIDE was a way of life for the ancient Hebrews. Did 14 man squads take prisoners in War Zone C?
So we saw the whole world saw what it means to declare a people ANY people "the enemy" of the state. Or to label counntries "the axis of evil" ans write books title "an end to evil". Evil exists in every nation and if you've read your ten commnandments, you know its face.
mg
2017-04-17 20:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT),
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
It's very important to frame the argument. Otherwise little jewish boys and girls might understand that Communism in Christian Russia was the raison d'etre of Adolf Hitler, and why he launched operation Barbarossa as soon as he became der Fuhrer of Germany.
Also American attorney Untermyer set-up the Jews of Germany for a glorious holocaust when he told them to make themselves personna non grata in Germany by boy-cotting German business. For an even more glorious ZIONISM as in COMMUNISM.
You can imagine how difficult it is being superior to an illiterate world for two thousand years. Eventually we got the Rothschilds and then Karl Marx. Is Communism for gentiles better than Christ? Karl marx thought so.
Spain was VERY Christian in 1936, but a Communists government took over calling themselves deceptively enough the republicans.
If you read the torah and Tanakh, which is nothing but the first half of every Christian bible you'll know GENOCIDE was a way of life for the ancient Hebrews. Did 14 man squads take prisoners in War Zone C?
So we saw the whole world saw what it means to declare a people ANY people "the enemy" of the state. Or to label counntries "the axis of evil" ans write books title "an end to evil". Evil exists in every nation and if you've read your ten commnandments, you know its face.
"When we deny the evil within ourselves,
we dehumanize ourselves, and we deprive
ourselves not only of our own destiny
but of any possibility of dealing with
the evil of others."
--J. Robert Oppenheimer
El Castor
2017-04-18 07:38:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Kick up a cloud of dust if you wish, but the Left, together with it's
Islamic friends, is the locus of the new anti-Semitism.

"UCLA’s “Jewish” Problem and the Rise of New Anti-Semitism
By Arielle Mokhtarzadeh
By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html

"The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left
by Michael Lerner"
"In this brief manifesto for Jewish progressives, Lerner cogently
argues that anti-Semitism on the Left is due to a failure to
understand the unique nature of Jewish oppression. Through a broad
sketch of Jewish history, he delineates how Jews, feared by ruling
powers as challengers to authority, have been allowed to acquire just
enough wealth and authority so that others--from Polish peasants to
urban African Americans--can deflect their angry discontent onto them.
Lerner convincingly applies this analysis to Jews in America and
refutes charges from the Left that Jews today are oppressors and not
oppressed."
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Fools-Anti-Semitism-Left/dp/0935933050
islander
2017-04-18 14:49:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Kick up a cloud of dust if you wish, but the Left, together with it's
Islamic friends, is the locus of the new anti-Semitism.
"UCLA’s “Jewish” Problem and the Rise of New Anti-Semitism
By Arielle Mokhtarzadeh
By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html
"The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left
by Michael Lerner"
"In this brief manifesto for Jewish progressives, Lerner cogently
argues that anti-Semitism on the Left is due to a failure to
understand the unique nature of Jewish oppression. Through a broad
sketch of Jewish history, he delineates how Jews, feared by ruling
powers as challengers to authority, have been allowed to acquire just
enough wealth and authority so that others--from Polish peasants to
urban African Americans--can deflect their angry discontent onto them.
Lerner convincingly applies this analysis to Jews in America and
refutes charges from the Left that Jews today are oppressors and not
oppressed."
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Fools-Anti-Semitism-Left/dp/0935933050
Jews are not inoculated against criticism. When the Israelis abuse
their power over the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank they deserve
to be criticized. When Jews take the side of Israel, they inherit that
criticism. That is not anti-Semitism.

But, you keep insisting on the argument "they are just as bad" as if it
excuses the behavior of Irving. It is a logical fallacy. Anti-Semitism
is wrong no matter who does it. It is bigotry, just as anti-black,
anti-Hispanic, anti-gay, anti-Muslim or any other attempt to paint all
members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or sex with the same brush.
El Castor
2017-04-18 19:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Kick up a cloud of dust if you wish, but the Left, together with it's
Islamic friends, is the locus of the new anti-Semitism.
"UCLA’s “Jewish” Problem and the Rise of New Anti-Semitism
By Arielle Mokhtarzadeh
By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html
"The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left
by Michael Lerner"
"In this brief manifesto for Jewish progressives, Lerner cogently
argues that anti-Semitism on the Left is due to a failure to
understand the unique nature of Jewish oppression. Through a broad
sketch of Jewish history, he delineates how Jews, feared by ruling
powers as challengers to authority, have been allowed to acquire just
enough wealth and authority so that others--from Polish peasants to
urban African Americans--can deflect their angry discontent onto them.
Lerner convincingly applies this analysis to Jews in America and
refutes charges from the Left that Jews today are oppressors and not
oppressed."
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Fools-Anti-Semitism-Left/dp/0935933050
Jews are not inoculated against criticism. When the Israelis abuse
their power over the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank they deserve
to be criticized. When Jews take the side of Israel, they inherit that
criticism. That is not anti-Semitism.
But, you keep insisting on the argument "they are just as bad" as if it
excuses the behavior of Irving. It is a logical fallacy. Anti-Semitism
is wrong no matter who does it. It is bigotry, just as anti-black,
anti-Hispanic, anti-gay, anti-Muslim or any other attempt to paint all
members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or sex with the same brush.
Of course anti-Semitism is bad, no matter who engages it, but don't
kid yourself, hatred of the Jews of Israel has been twisted by the
Left, particularly on college campuses, into a new and particularly
virulent manifestation of plain anti-Semitism. It is simply
undeniable.

"Jewish students battle rising anti-Semitism on campus"
"Anti-Semitic activity on U.S. campuses continues to be on the rise. A
2016 study conducted by the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that
seeks to combat anti-Semitism on college campuses, found the number of
incidents involving “the suppression of Jewish students’ freedom of
speech and assembly” doubled from last year. “We’re really concerned
for this new year,” said Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, AMCHA’s cofounder and
director. “(Anti-Semitic behavior) really tends to completely shut
down and obliterate the presence, the opinion and the safe space for
one particular group. It’s not a matter of incivility, it’s a matter
of intolerance.” As reported by Newsweek, more than a dozen Jewish
student events were violently disrupted this year at schools coast to
coast, including Boston University, University of Maryland and
University of Florida. And on the University of California campuses,
anti-Semitic graffiti reading, “Zionists should be sent to the gas
chamber” has appeared on the walls of buildings, and a UCLA student’s
impartiality on a judicial board was questioned due to her involvement
in the Jewish community."
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/03/jewish-students-battle-rising-anti-semitism-on-campus/
islander
2017-04-18 22:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Kick up a cloud of dust if you wish, but the Left, together with it's
Islamic friends, is the locus of the new anti-Semitism.
"UCLA’s “Jewish” Problem and the Rise of New Anti-Semitism
By Arielle Mokhtarzadeh
By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html
"The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left
by Michael Lerner"
"In this brief manifesto for Jewish progressives, Lerner cogently
argues that anti-Semitism on the Left is due to a failure to
understand the unique nature of Jewish oppression. Through a broad
sketch of Jewish history, he delineates how Jews, feared by ruling
powers as challengers to authority, have been allowed to acquire just
enough wealth and authority so that others--from Polish peasants to
urban African Americans--can deflect their angry discontent onto them.
Lerner convincingly applies this analysis to Jews in America and
refutes charges from the Left that Jews today are oppressors and not
oppressed."
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Fools-Anti-Semitism-Left/dp/0935933050
Jews are not inoculated against criticism. When the Israelis abuse
their power over the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank they deserve
to be criticized. When Jews take the side of Israel, they inherit that
criticism. That is not anti-Semitism.
But, you keep insisting on the argument "they are just as bad" as if it
excuses the behavior of Irving. It is a logical fallacy. Anti-Semitism
is wrong no matter who does it. It is bigotry, just as anti-black,
anti-Hispanic, anti-gay, anti-Muslim or any other attempt to paint all
members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or sex with the same brush.
Of course anti-Semitism is bad, no matter who engages it, but don't
kid yourself, hatred of the Jews of Israel has been twisted by the
Left, particularly on college campuses, into a new and particularly
virulent manifestation of plain anti-Semitism. It is simply
undeniable.
"Jewish students battle rising anti-Semitism on campus"
"Anti-Semitic activity on U.S. campuses continues to be on the rise. A
2016 study conducted by the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that
seeks to combat anti-Semitism on college campuses, found the number of
incidents involving “the suppression of Jewish students’ freedom of
speech and assembly” doubled from last year. “We’re really concerned
for this new year,” said Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, AMCHA’s cofounder and
director. “(Anti-Semitic behavior) really tends to completely shut
down and obliterate the presence, the opinion and the safe space for
one particular group. It’s not a matter of incivility, it’s a matter
of intolerance.” As reported by Newsweek, more than a dozen Jewish
student events were violently disrupted this year at schools coast to
coast, including Boston University, University of Maryland and
University of Florida. And on the University of California campuses,
anti-Semitic graffiti reading, “Zionists should be sent to the gas
chamber” has appeared on the walls of buildings, and a UCLA student’s
impartiality on a judicial board was questioned due to her involvement
in the Jewish community."
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/03/jewish-students-battle-rising-anti-semitism-on-campus/
You cannot help yourself, can you?
El Castor
2017-04-19 06:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Kick up a cloud of dust if you wish, but the Left, together with it's
Islamic friends, is the locus of the new anti-Semitism.
"UCLA’s “Jewish” Problem and the Rise of New Anti-Semitism
By Arielle Mokhtarzadeh
By now, the incident in which a Jewish student at the University of
California, Los Angeles was almost denied a position on the student
government Judicial Board based solely on her Jewish identity, has
made waves across the country. It has served as a catalyst for
conversations about the politicization of identities, and the rise of
what has come to be known as new anti-Semitism."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-mokhtarzadeh/uclas-jewish-problem-and-_b_6934552.html
"The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left
by Michael Lerner"
"In this brief manifesto for Jewish progressives, Lerner cogently
argues that anti-Semitism on the Left is due to a failure to
understand the unique nature of Jewish oppression. Through a broad
sketch of Jewish history, he delineates how Jews, feared by ruling
powers as challengers to authority, have been allowed to acquire just
enough wealth and authority so that others--from Polish peasants to
urban African Americans--can deflect their angry discontent onto them.
Lerner convincingly applies this analysis to Jews in America and
refutes charges from the Left that Jews today are oppressors and not
oppressed."
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Fools-Anti-Semitism-Left/dp/0935933050
Jews are not inoculated against criticism. When the Israelis abuse
their power over the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank they deserve
to be criticized. When Jews take the side of Israel, they inherit that
criticism. That is not anti-Semitism.
But, you keep insisting on the argument "they are just as bad" as if it
excuses the behavior of Irving. It is a logical fallacy. Anti-Semitism
is wrong no matter who does it. It is bigotry, just as anti-black,
anti-Hispanic, anti-gay, anti-Muslim or any other attempt to paint all
members of a race, ethnicity, religion, or sex with the same brush.
Of course anti-Semitism is bad, no matter who engages it, but don't
kid yourself, hatred of the Jews of Israel has been twisted by the
Left, particularly on college campuses, into a new and particularly
virulent manifestation of plain anti-Semitism. It is simply
undeniable.
"Jewish students battle rising anti-Semitism on campus"
"Anti-Semitic activity on U.S. campuses continues to be on the rise. A
2016 study conducted by the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that
seeks to combat anti-Semitism on college campuses, found the number of
incidents involving “the suppression of Jewish students’ freedom of
speech and assembly” doubled from last year. “We’re really concerned
for this new year,” said Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, AMCHA’s cofounder and
director. “(Anti-Semitic behavior) really tends to completely shut
down and obliterate the presence, the opinion and the safe space for
one particular group. It’s not a matter of incivility, it’s a matter
of intolerance.” As reported by Newsweek, more than a dozen Jewish
student events were violently disrupted this year at schools coast to
coast, including Boston University, University of Maryland and
University of Florida. And on the University of California campuses,
anti-Semitic graffiti reading, “Zionists should be sent to the gas
chamber” has appeared on the walls of buildings, and a UCLA student’s
impartiality on a judicial board was questioned due to her involvement
in the Jewish community."
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/03/jewish-students-battle-rising-anti-semitism-on-campus/
You cannot help yourself, can you?
Funny. I was just thinking the same thing about you. (-8
d***@gmail.com
2017-04-23 16:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Denial" which is the story
of Deborah Lipstadt, an American history professor who specialized in
Holocaust history and her legal battle with David Irving, a Holocaust
denier. Irving sought the approval of the extreme right by picking
issues that could not be proved and inflating them into a dialog that
discounted the gas chambers and which claimed that Hitler opposed the
abuses against Jews. In the end, a British judge ruled that Irving had
intentionally misrepresented history and had lied to support his bigoted
political views.
After the judgement, Irving seemed confused and declared, "I'm not a bigot."
I thought that it was well done and could serve to inform the viewer of
how the political right uses "alternative facts" to manipulate public
opinion.
Years ago, I remember reading David Irving saying what upset him so much about the glorified holocaust was that the jews have made Untermyer's decision to secrifice the jews of Germany to a glorious Zionism in Palestine is that Hitler's raison d'etre was NOT the Jews. It was in, Mr. Irving's view, bringing Communism to a Christian country. The jews a vengeful people have made "the holocaust" into what it is. They should blame the Jew Untermyer who told all the jews of Germany to Boycott Germany.
There is going to be tomorrow another sick jew show on Hitler by Jews, and of course no mention wll be made about the Communism as a subversive force in Christian Europe and Russia that made it all possible.
Loading...