A Holocaust Revisionist Critique of
the Thinking of Deborah Lipstadt
copyright 2006
Preliminary Note: In the interest of fairness and accuracy, the following
essay was emailed to Dr. Deborah Lipstadt prior to its publication on the
CODOH web site. She was asked to identify any problems, errors, misinterpretations,
falsities, etc. If need be, these would be eliminated or corrected.
Paul Grubach and CODOH have no desire whatsoever to publish any false or
misleading material. Quite predictably, she never responded.
I. The Importance of Deborah Lipstadt
In her 1993 critique of the Holocaust revisionist movement,
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Dorot
professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, Deborah
Lipstadt, attacked British historian David Irving and labeled him “one of
the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.”1 In
response, Irving sued Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin UK, for libel.
The subsequent trial in London, beginning in January 2000, received world-wide
coverage, as the media spotlight fell upon the historiography of the Holocaust
and the ongoing battle between traditional and revisionist views of the
Jewish tragedy in WWII.
The trial ended in April of 2000. Irving lost his case and Lipstadt’s
victory was front page news worldwide. However, the trial’s implications
were far from over. As historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen so rightly
noted in The Washington Post’s Book World, “The trial was an event,
covered around the world, of substantial social and political importance.”2
The Daily Telegraph of London proclaimed the Irving-Lipstadt courtroom
drama did “for the new century what the Nuremberg tribunals or the Eichmann
trial did for earlier generations.”3 “A ll critics agreed,” Bookmarks
Magazine noted, “that Lipstadt’s story is a fascinating one and an important
historical lesson for the record.”4 The influential Kirkus Reviews
claimed that Lipstadt’s version of events, History on Trial, is “A
fascinating and meritorious work of legal—and moral—history."5 Even
the contemporaneous Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, took the time
out from meetings with President Bill Clinton to praise Lipstadt for her
“important victory on behalf of the Jewish people.”6
Although well known attorney Alan Dershowitz claimed that Lipstadt’s
victory was the most important courtroom defeat for Holocaust “denial” in
recent history, Irving didn’t lose his case because of any inherent flaw
in Holocaust revisionism.7 For one thing, the maverick British historian,
who represented himself in court, is not a lawyer, and he squared off against
a very talented legal team. But just as importantly, David Irving
himself has stated that he is not an authority on the Jewish tragedy of
WWII or Holocaust revisionism. Indeed, he has admitted that he has
not even read important Holocaust revisionist studies--most notably, Arthur
Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.8
Even the trial judge, Mr. Justice Charles Gray, pointed out in his final
ruling that Irving was at a disadvantage because he could not cross-examine
Lipstadt in regard to his claim that there was an international Jewish conspiracy
to silence him. “Irving has been greatly hampered, “ the British magistrate
noted, “ in presenting this aspect of the case by the unexpected decision
of the Defendants, in full knowledge of the allegations which Irving was
making about the conduct of Lipstadt, not to call her to give evidence and
to be cross-examined by Irving. It goes without saying that the Defendants
were perfectly entitled to adopt this tactic but it did place Irving, acting
in person, at a disadvantage.”9
In the eyes of the mainstream media, Deborah Lipstadt has emerged as
one of the world’s most important authorities on “Holocaust denial.”
Establishment media sources have “lionized” her, and she is looked upon
as a major defender and spokesperson for the Jewish community in particular,
the forces of “morality, peace and justice” in general. The state
of Georgia’s most important newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution,
put it in these terms: “In Britain, as in the United States, she had been
widely portrayed as the defender of good against David Irving’s bumbling
prince of darkness.”10
In contrast to this bombastic picture, Lipstadt, in a refreshing burst
of honesty, hinted that she really did very little to deserve this exaggerated
praise. “During the [press] interviews,” she writes, “a number of
reporters commented on my ‘dignity’ during the trial. Since I had
done nothing but remain silent, I was, at first, perplexed by their reaction.”11
It is important to penetrate and analyze her thinking, because
it is reflective of a large and powerful segment of the Jewish community
in particular, the Western mainstream media in general—two entities that
wield enormous power and influence. Her books and statements express
in a very clear way the distorted ideological line of thought that “justifies”
and “legitimates” the current sociopolitical status quo in parts of the
world today.
II. Lipstadt’s Dogmatic View of Holocaust Revisionism and Her
Refusal to Debate
One of Lipstadt’s most important claims is that Holocaust
revisionism is utter nonsense, on a par with flat earth theory, implying
that her orthodox view of the Holocaust is as certain as our knowledge of
the earth’s spherical nature. In her own words: “[Holocaust revisionist]
arguments make as much sense as flat-earth theory.”12
Here we have an excellent example of the fallacy of “faulty analogy.”
As logician Alex C. Michalos points out, this flaw in reasoning is committed
when the analogous or compared things have more differences than
similarities.13
In addition to scientific experiments that can be performed here on earth
to demonstrate the earth’s spherical nature, there are photographs from
outer space.14 By way of contrast, one of the foremost Holocaust authorities,
historian Raul Hilberg, admitted that scientific proof for the existence
of the “Hitler gas chambers” is missing. No authentic and genuine
autopsy report exists to show that Jews were killed with poison gas.
No one has ever produced any photographs of Jews being gassed.15
As the late Jean-Claude Pressac (widely considered to be an authority
on the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers) has pointed out, in the blueprints,
construction documents and work orders that trace the construction and subsequent
use of the buildings that allegedly housed the “Auschwitz gas chambers,”
there is no explicit reference to the use of gas chambers or Zyklon B for
homicidal purposes.16 This was also reluctantly admitted at the Irving-Lipstadt
trial in London.17
Notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after
WWII, no documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or
program has ever been found. Hilberg admitted as much during his testimony
in the 1985 trial in Toronto of Revisionist activist Ernst Zundel.18
Lipstadt herself confirms there is no written order from Hitler authorizing
the destruction of the Jews.19
One of the most important pieces of “evidence” traditionally adduced
to “prove” the “Holocaust” is the testimony of Rudolf Höß , a commandant
of Auschwitz. Lipstadt and Christopher Browning (a prominent Holocaust
historian who was a part of her defense team at the Irving-Lipstadt trial)
have admitted that Höß ’s confessions are unreliable, as he had been tortured
by the British into confessing to a fantastic and unbelievable number of
murders.20
Dr. Lipstadt insists “the existence of the Holocaust [is] not a matter
of debate.”21 But as we have just pointed out, negating this viewpoint
is the fact that all the necessary photographic, documentary, and scientific
evidence needed to prove Lipstadt’s version of the Holocaust is missing.
Lipstadt adds this most revealing caveat to her claim that Holocaust
revisionism is as absurd as flat earth theory: “However, in dramatic contrast
to flat-earthers, they [Holocaust revisionists] can cause tremendous pain
and damage.”22 This may be interpreted as an implicit admission that
Holocaust revisionism has much more credibility that she cares to publicly
admit. If Holocaust revisionism is inherently ridiculous and absurd, the
equivalent of flat-earth theory, how could a public airing of it possibly
cause “tremendous pain and damage?” A public airing of a belief system
that is inherently stupid and foolish would be a golden opportunity for
Lipstadt and her colleagues to expose its absurdity and subject its proponents
to public humiliation, and ultimately, relegate the Revisionist movement
to the dustbin of history.
“When I received invitations to debate deniers,” she writes, “I
consistently declined, explaining that while many things about the Holocaust
are open to debate, the existence of the event is not.”23 To debate
the Holocaust skeptics, Lipstadt insists, “would give them a legitimacy
and stature they in no way deserve. It would elevate their anti-Semitic
ideology—which is what Holocaust denial is—to the level of responsible historiography—which
is what it is not.”24
Despite what Lipstadt writes, if hard evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming
and the claims of Revisionists ridiculous, to engage the latter in debate
would not lend them credibility and respect. Quite the contrary!
Crossing swords with these “cranks” would be a golden opportunity for Lipstadt
to expose their quackery and stupidity. Only if Revisionism has intrinsic
validity will it gain stature by a public hearing. The Jewish lady’s
refusal to debate carries with it the implicit recognition that Revisionism
has more legitimacy than she cares to admit.
Even if Revisionism is pure balderdash, the public interest would still
be served if it was given serious attention in the mainstream media.
The truth of the traditional view of the Holocaust could be proven anew.
Lipstadt has been quoted as saying that she is “only interested in getting
at the truth.”25 If this is so, then a more complete perception of
the truth would be gained in a public debate where her “Holocaust fact”
clashed with “Holocaust denial fiction.”
Karl Popper, a prominent philosopher of science, proposed that a statement
(a theory, a conjecture) has the status of belonging to the empirical sciences
if, and only if, it is potentially falsifiable.26 If the Holocaust
cannot be questioned nor debated, and must be blindly accepted as a “fact,”
then it is not falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is not
a scientific theory. Lipstadt’s position violates the cannons of good
science. A true scientific theory is open to continuous question and
debate.
Lipstadt’s ulterior agenda is, I believe, readily apparent. What
she is saying is that one must accept the traditional view of the Holocaust
doctrine without question, a priori. She wants to prevent the
public and mainstream media from giving Holocaust revisionism a fair and
public hearing, because once the public does this, this would spell doom
for her traditional version of the Holocaust.
Furthermore, her position is self-contradictory. She writes: “Deniers,
I argued, should be stopped with reasoned inquiry, not with the blunt edge
of the law.”27 Reasoned inquiry includes the fair and reasoned examination
of the opponent’s arguments, and a willingness to publicly debate the opposition.
Refusing to debate your opponents is not “reasoned inquiry.”
She continues: “Deniers…distort, falsify, and pervert the historical
record and, consequently, fall entirely outside the parameters of any historical
debate about the Holocaust.”28 If this is indeed an accurate description
of the methods of “Holocaust deniers,” then it would be in the best interests
of Lipstadt and her fellow establishment historians to publicly debate them,
because this would be a golden opportunity to publicly expose their distortions,
falsifications, and overall idiocy. It would be a wonderful opportunity
to expose the “Holocaust deniers” as the fools and charlatans that we allegedly
are. If the “Holocaust deniers” really do distort, falsify and pervert
the historical record, Lipstadt should relish the idea of debating them,
because this would be an opportunity for her to expose them and help destroy
the revisionist movement once and for all.
It appears as though Lipstadt’s “justification” for refusing to debate
is nothing more than a conscience-salving self-deception designed to cover
up her fear and insecurity in regard to the validity of Holocaust revisionism.
It is actually a somewhat favorable sign for Holocaust revisionism that
some of its major detractors like Deborah Lipstadt refuse to debate.
It sends the implicit message to the public at large that Holocaust revisionism
has more credibility than its opponents dare to publicly admit.
Her real ulterior agenda was laid bare by California psychology
professor Kevin MacDonald. At the Irving-Lipstadt trial he pointed
out: “They [the Jewish-Zionist Holocaust lobby] think…that their version
of events [should] be accepted as the truth and that dissent from certain
of these tenets should be viewed as beyond the pale of rational discussion.”29
Lipstadt wants her Jewish-Zionist version of the Holocaust to be accepted
as “the truth,” and all dissent or questioning of it to be rendered taboo.
In this way her traditional view of the Holocaust will be accepted by mainstream
society without question. It thus becomes self-perpetuating.
III. Are Holocaust Revisionists Fascists and Nazis? Lipstadt’s
Serious Omission
Another of Lipstadt’s most important dictums is that Holocaust
Revisionism is intimately connected to a neo-fascist/neo-Nazi political
agenda, adding: “One of the tactics the deniers use to achieve their ends
is to camouflage their goals. In an attempt to hide the fact that
they are fascists and anti-Semites with a specific ideological agenda, they
state that their objective is to uncover historical falsehoods, all
historical falsehoods.”30
In History on Trial, Lipstadt makes a determined effort to “prove”
that Holocaust revisionism is, in essence, a “neo-Nazi movement.”
In this regard, she quotes her defense attorney, Richard Rampton: “The bridge
between Holocaust denial and the Hitler apology from antisemitism is very
easy to build, because what more would an historian who is an anti-Semite
want to do in the exculpation of Hitler…what more would he want to do than
to deny the Holocaust?”31
Rampton further charged that David Irving deliberately ignores or attempts
to “rationalize away” evidence that does not fit his preconceptions.
In his own words: “What he [Irving] does not like, he ignores .”32
This charge could very well hurl back at his client, Deborah Lipstadt.
In her 1993 book, Denying the Holocaust, she cited an article
by a noted expert on political extremism, Laird Wilcox.33 In that
1988 article, Wilcox pointed out that possibly 25% of Holocaust revisionists
are neo-Nazi apologists, which meant that the majority, 75%, were not.
She must have been aware that Wilcox made this point, because she briefly
discussed the Wilcox article in which he made this point. Yet, because
it contradicts her claim that Holocaust revisionism is a “fascist/neo-Nazi
movement,” I believe she ignored it and failed to bring it to the attention
of her readers. Thus, Rampton’s charge—that Irving ignores what he
does not like—hurls right back at his client, Deborah Lipstadt.
IV. Miscellaneous Criticisms of Lipstadt’s View of the “Nazi Final
Solution”
A comprehensive discussion of the National Socialist “Final
Solution” to the Jewish Question is beyond the scope of this article.
However, a few important comments are called for, since this is a topic
of discussion in Lipstadt’s books.
Lipstadt has discussed the current debate among establishment historians
concerning the nature of the “Final Solution.” She writes that “intentionalists
contend that Hitler came to power intending to murder the Jews and instituted
an unbroken and coherent set of policies directed at realizing that goal.
In contrast, functionalists argue that the Nazi decision to murder
the Jews did not originate with a single Hitler decision, but evolved in
an incremental and improvised fashion.”34 Yet, nowhere in History
on Trial or elsewhere (to my knowledge) does she cite the evidence from
the Irving-Lipstadt trial that undermines both viewpoints.
Judge Gray made this statement in his “Final Judgment,” which Lipstadt
failed to inform her readers of: “In this connection, Irving, in order
to rebut the claim that Hitler displayed a vindictive attitude towards Jews
on this (or any other) occasion, drew attention to the willingness of Hitler
on occasion to approve some merciful disposal for individual Jews or groups
of Jews. Irving instanced the permission given by Hitler for 70,000
Jewish children to leave Romania and travel to Palestine. Longerich
[a German defense expert for Lipstadt’s defense team] agreed that there
were times when Hitler exempted certain Jews from deportation or extermination.”35
If Hitler ultimately intended to murder the Jews of Europe and wipe them
off of the face of the earth, why would he allow 70,000 Jewish children—the
seeds of future Jewish generations—to escape the National Socialist grasp
and leave for Palestine? It is evidence like this that calls into
question all traditional views of the Final Solution, and which Lipstadt
fails to bring to her reader’s attention.
Lipstadt tries to explain away the fact that there is no single document
to prove the existence of the infamous “Nazi gas chambers.” In her
own words: “[Historians] do not, as Irving kept demanding, seek a
‘smoking gun,’ one document that will prove the existence of the gas chambers.”36
This is very misleading. Let us assume for the sake of argument
that historians found an authentic and genuine document (i.e., forensic
studies showed that is was not a forgery), dated between 1941 and 1945,
signed by Adolf Hitler and it stated: “I, Adolf Hitler, hereby order that
all Jews under German control are to be murdered in homicidal gas chambers.”
If such a document were found, this would be proof that the National Socialists
did have a policy (or at least attempted) to murder Jews in gas chambers.
In fact, historians have found a single document that proves that
Hitler did order into existence a policy to kill the incurably sick.
In October 1939, Hitler had
one of his secretaries type on his own headed notepaper a memorandum that
contained this order: “Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are commissioned
with responsibility of extending the authority of specified doctors, so
that, after critical assessment of their condition, those adjudged incurably
ill can be granted mercy-death.”37 Here we have a single document
proving that Hitler did authorize the incurably sick to be killed.
So if there was a written order from Hitler authorizing the incurably ill
to be killed, why wasn’t there a written Hitler order to mass murder Jews
in gas chambers?
By the mere fact there is no single, authentic and genuine, war-time
document ordering the mass murder of Jews in gas chambers is just one more
good reason to be skeptical of the existence of the “Nazi gas chambers.”
(Establishment historians offer only twisted and contorted rationalizations
as to why there is no single document ordering the mass murder of Jews in
gas chambers.)
Lipstadt continues. She claims that not a single document, but
a “convergence of evidence” proves the existence of the “Nazi gas chambers.”
In her own words: “[Historians] seek a nexus or convergence of evidence
[to prove the existence of the Nazi gas chambers].”38
Here, Lipstadt puts forth the worn out and fallacious “convergence of
evidence proof” for the traditional view of the Holocaust that has been
refuted by revisionists in other studies. Revisionist historian Mark
Weber revealed that one could use a convergence
of evidence to “prove” that inmates were gassed en masse at Dauchau concentration
camp, where it is now generally agreed there were no homicidal gassings.39
A convergence of evidence (complete with eyewitness testimonies, expert
reports, and an onsite, physical study of the murder weapon itself) could
be employed to “prove” the Germans murdered prisoners in “steam chambers”
at Treblinka.40 But it is now agreed no one was ever murdered in such
a manner, as this “convergence of evidence” is entirely false. In point
of fact, the evidence used to “prove” homicidal gassings in Auschwitz-Birkenau,
Treblinka, etc. is not really qualitatively different from the evidence
used to “prove” the mythical gassings at Dauchau and in the phony “steam
chambers” of Treblinka.
For a thorough refutation of this “convergence
of evidence proof,” I refer the reader to the analysis of Revisionist scholar
Carlo Mattogno.41
V. Does Deborah Lipstadt Have the
Psychological Characteristic of an Extremist?
Two experts on political extremism,
Professor John George and Laird Wilcox, pointed out that one psychological
characteristic of a political extremist is that she openly advocates double
standards and feels no guilt for so doing.42 As we shall soon see
in the following sections, Lipstadt appears to display this psychological
characteristic in regard to the race and ethnic intermarriage issues.
It is somewhat ironic that she condemns her ideological opponents of extremism,
yet she herself exhibits a prominent characteristic of a political extremist.
VI. The Zionist Politics and Hypocritical
Double Standard of Deborah Lipstadt
In order to understand the agenda
and emotional driving force behind Lipstadt’s behavior and public pronouncements,
one has to know something about her intense political sympathies.
Lipstadt points out that she is an “openly
identifying Jew,” and owns up to an early perception that her Jewish ethnic
group is different from the surrounding non-Jewish society.43 “As
a young child,” she reminisces, “I remember sensing that these Central European
Jewish homes, with their heavy, dark furniture and steaming cups of tea
accompanied by delicate homemade strudel and other distinctly European pastries,
were different from those of my American schoolmates.”44
She expresses pride in the fact that, early
in life, she marched in solidarity with those who wanted to implement Black-White
integration policies in the United States: “My mother and I marched in Harlem
in solidarity with the Birmingham-Salem civil rights protestors. We
took a vicarious pride in the fact that Andy Goodman, one of the civil rights
workers murdered in Mississippi, had lived down the block from us and we
always pointed out this building to visitors.”45
Early in life, she did not have a passionate
attachment to Israel and political Zionism: “In 1966, anxious to experience
travel abroad, I made a relatively impetuous decision to attend Hebrew University
in Jerusalem. Though my family were supporters of Israel, I was not
driven by a Zionist commitment.”46 Yet, when she visited Israel for
the first time, it was akin to a religious experience: “Going to Israel
was not a purposeful choice but was to have a life-changing impact.”47
In Lipstadt’s own words: “It was time to go ‘home’ [Israel].” Never
before had I thought of Israel with such emotion.”48
The politics of Deborah Lipstadt are pervaded
by a hypocritical double standard. She actively worked to create a
racially integrated, multicultural society in the United States. And,
all throughout her books she pays lip service to “racial equality,”
and ardently condemns non-Jews that reject ethnically integrated, multiracial
societies outside of Israel. Yet, she most passionately identifies
with Israel—an ethnically segregated society whose government actively works
to ensure Jewish supremacy and to destroy any chance of an egalitarian,
multiracial society from developing between Jews and Arabs.
Far from working for an integrated society
in which Jews and Arabs functioned as social and political equals, the Jews
who founded Israel created a society in which Israeli Jews dominate "Israeli"
Arabs, a separate and unequal society in which discrimination against non-Jews
and Jewish supremacy are an integral part of the established social order.49
Diplomat, international lawyer and statesman
(a former Undersecretary of State in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations),
the late George W. Ball, describes in stark terms the racist foundations
of the Jewish state that Lipstadt so ardently identifies with: “The Jewish
plan for an exclusively Jewish state, free of the inconvenient presence
of native peoples was scarcely new. Theodor Herzl [founding father
of modern Zionism] had laid out the framework for such a system in 1898,
when he sought a charter from the Ottoman Sultan…One of the provisions of
that abortive charter gave the [Jewish Colonial] Society the power to deport
the natives, and Herzl sought such powers whether the new Jewish homeland
was to be in Argentina, Kenya, Cyprus or Palestine. The Jewish Land
Trust incorporated this doctrine in its rules, which designated all of its
properties exclusively for Jewish use and even prohibited the employment
by the Jewish tenants of non-Jews, thereby forcing such persons to seek
employment abroad.”50
Predictably, the Zionists ended up producing
an Athenian democracy for Jews and second-class citizenship or feudal servitude
for non-Jews.51
Just recently, an important Israeli official
made it perfectly clear that it was a goal of Zionist policy that Israeli
Jews in Jerusalem are to be segregated from Palestinian Arabs in order to
make certain that Jews remain the dominant element in that city, and that
the ethnic/racial character of the city remains predominantly Jewish.
In the article's own words: " Israel 's separation barrier in Jerusalem
is meant to ensure a Jewish majority in the city and not just serve as a
buffer against bombers, an Israeli Cabinet minister acknowledged Monday."52
This clearly contradicts Lipstadt’s publicly stated policy of favoring ethnically
integrated, multiracial societies where all ethnic and racial groups function
as social and political equals.
Why the contradiction? That is to say,
why does Deborah Lipstadt favor creating ethnically integrated, multiracial
societies in the United States and Europe, yet she most passionately identifies
with the Israel--an ethnically segregated state where Jewish dominance and
racialism are the order of the day?
Enter California State University Professor
Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist who Lipstadt bitterly attacks.
MacDonald pointed out that certain powerful Jewish groups favor ethnically
integrated, multiracial societies outside Israel because societies such
as these foster and accommodate the long-term Jewish policy of non-assimilation
and group solidarity.53
MacDonald and African-American intellectual
Harold Cruise observe that Jewish organizations view white nationalism as
their greatest potential threat and they have tended to support Black-white
integration policies presumably because such policies dilute Euro-American
power and lessen the possibility of a cohesive, nationalist Euro-American
majority that stands in opposition to the Jewish community.54
In a racially integrated, multicultural society
with numerous different and competing ethnic groups with divergent interests,
it is very unlikely the surrounding gentiles can ever develop a united and
cohesive majority to oppose the very cohesive Jewish community. “Tolerant”
gentile populations that have only a week and feeble sense of their own
racial/cultural identity are less likely to identify certain powerful groups
of Jews as alien elements against which they must defend themselves. Gentile
populations that have a strong racial/cultural identity are more likely
to identify certain groups of Jews as alien outsiders, against which they
must compete with. Thus, a racially integrated, multicultural society (outside
of Israel) is what most Jewish-Zionist groups prefer, because in such a
cultural milieu they can gain tremendous power and influence.55
Lipstadt bitterly condemns the personhood
and theories of Professor MacDonald.56 Yet, her hypocritical behavior
actually vindicates MacDonald’s theories. If the creation of racially
integrated, multicultural societies were truly her ultimate goal, we should
expect that she would insist on such society in Israel just as earnestly
as she insists on such a society in the US and Europe. But this is
not the case. She is proud of the fact that she marched in solidarity
with those who worked to build an integrated society in the US, yet she
most passionately identifies with an ethnically segregated, apartheid state
in the Middle East. This suggests that she is indeed using “racial
brotherhood” ideologies in the service of her own Jewish-Zionist nationalism.
V. The “Holocaust,” European and
Jewish Identity, and the Ethnic Double Standard
In her books, Lipstadt condemns
the Holocaust revisionist Institute for Historical Review (IHR) for bringing
to light some of the damaging effects of the lies and exaggerations in the
Holocaust story. In a tone of self-righteous hypocrisy, Lipstadt claims:
“[The former Director of the IHR] revealed another of the IHR’s true agenda
items with his warning that acceptance of the Holocaust myth resulted in
a radical degeneration of acceptable standards of human behavior and lowering
the self-image of White people. These racist tendencies, which the
IHR has increasingly kept away from the public spotlight, are part of the
extremist tradition to which it is heir.”57
In other words, it is “racist and extremist”
for non-Jewish Europeans to be the least bit concerned about the negative
effect that the Holocaust ideology has on the European identity.
Enter Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, an important
member of Lipstadt’s defense team who authored the very important anti-Holocaust
revisionist tome, THE CASE FOR AUSCHWITZ: EVIDENCE FROM THE IRVING TRIAL.58
He claimed that Holocaust revisionism is an evil assault upon the Jewish
self-image and identity. In a frank and honest discussion, he admitted that
when he read Holocaust revisionist literature, he “had come face to face
with a dangerous personal abyss.” His implicit conclusion is that this is
one of the main reasons why Holocaust revisionism should be attacked and
destroyed.59
Professor van Pelt then quotes Jewish writer
Erika Apfelbaum as to why Holocaust revisionism is “so evil” and why it
should be attacked and refuted. She stated: “Current Jewish history is deeply
rooted in Auschwitz as the general symbol of the destruction of the Jewish
people during the Holocaust. For someone whose past is rooted in Auschwitz,
the experience of reading through the revisionists’ tortured logic and documentation
is similar to the psychologically disorienting experience of sensory deprivation
experiments or solitary confinement in prison, where one loses touch with
reality. The insidious effect of reading this [Holocaust revisionist] literature
is to lose one’s identity as a survivor and, more generally, as a Jew. Therefore,
the revisionist allegations serve to dispossess the Jews from their history
and in doing so, in seeking to destroy a people’s history, a symbolic genocide
replaces a physical one."60
Consider the overall “moral” judgments in
this whole scenario. According to Lipstadt, van Pelt and the Holocaust lobby
in general, it is “evil, racist and extremist” for white gentiles to be
the least bit concerned about the damage that certain Holocaust lies and
exaggerations are doing to the European collective identity. Indeed, Europeans
and Euro-Americans are supposed to just meekly accept what the Jewish power
elite says about the Holocaust, no matter how damaging it is to the European
collective self-identity. Yet, it is positively demanded that Jews fight
against Holocaust revisionism, so as to protect and vindicate the Jewish
self-identity.
At the beginning of his tome, van Pelt quotes
Jewish-Zionist theologian and “moral beacon” Elie Wiesel. He says that the
alleged mass murder of Jews at Auschwitz “signifies…the failure of two thousand
years of Christian civilization…”61 He is clearly referring to all
European Christendom.
Further evidence showing that Lipstadt’s traditional
view of the Holocaust is indeed a psychological assault upon the entire
European world, and not just upon the Germans and those who were allied
with them during WWII, was demonstrated by the remarks of Israel’s Prime
Minister, Ariel Sharon, in a special Knesset session marking the 60th
anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. According to
The International Jerusalem Post, “Sharon blamed the Western allies
for knowing about the annihilation of Jews in the Holocaust, but doing nothing
to prevent it.” He said the “sad and horrible conclusion is that no
one cared that Jews were being murdered.”62
According to the “morality” of Lipstadt, van
Pelt, Wiesel, Sharon and the Jewish-Zionist power elite that they represent,
European Christians are supposed to meekly accept the aforementioned statements
as “the truth,” and any attempt to debunk certain Holocaust lies and exaggerations
and their ensuing moral implications is of course “racist, evil and extremist.”
Using language very similar to that of Apfelbaum,
the European Christian could say: “The insidious effect of reading the lies
and exaggerations in the Holocaust literature is to lose one’s identity
as a European Christian. Therefore, the ‘gas chamber’ tale and some other
false Holocaust allegations serve to dispossess European Christians from
their history, and in doing so, in seeking to destroy a people’s history,
a symbolic genocide replaces a physical one.” The problem is of course,
the predominate “morality” in the Western world doesn’t allow the European
Christian to think this way.
Just as Jews have the right to maintain a
good collective self-image, so too with non-Jews of European descent.
They too have the right to fight against those historical lies and distortions
that damage their collective self-identity.
VI Deborah Lipstadt and Her Hypocritical
Talk on Ethnic Intermarriage
Since Lipstadt’s pronouncements
on racial/ethnic intermarriage accurately reflect the duplicity, deception
and hypocrisy that characterize so much of what Jewish and non-Jewish mainstream
media outlets promote, a thorough discussion is called for.
When asked by Lipstadt’s attorney Rampton
about his views on interracial marriage, historian Irving stated: "I have
precisely the same attitude about this as [Lipstadt]...I believe in God
keeping the races the way he built them.”63
In response, Lipstadt writes: “As soon as
Irving said this, I began to pulsate with anger. This was not my view.
I was deeply troubled by intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews because
it threatened Jewish continuity. Color or ethnicity were entirely
irrelevant to me.”64 She goes on to say that she was very disappointed
that nothing was done to clarify her position on racial intermarriage at
the trial, and that false ideas were floating around about her position
on racial intermarriage.65
If ethnicity is truly entirely
irrelevant to her, and Jewish continuity was her only
concern, then we should expect that she would have adopted the following
policy. It is acceptable for Jews to marry non-Jews of any color or
ethnic group, as long as the non-Jewish partner adopts the Jewish religion
and Jewish cultural customs. But she did not adopt this policy; she
is flatly opposed to intermarriage—period. As the Jewish journalist
Dan Gutenplan pointed out: “[I]t was hard not to feel queasy listening to
Rampton quiz Irving about his attitude to ‘intermarriage between the races’—on
behalf of [Lipstadt] who has written, ‘We [Lipstadt and her fellow Jews]
know what we fight against: anti-Semitism and assimilation [of Jews and
non-Jews], intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews] and Israel-bashing.’”66
Furthermore, she may not be revealing how
she really feels about intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews.
As Jewish author Ellen Jaffe McClain pointed out in Embracing the Stranger:
Intermarriage and the Future of the American Jewish Community, Lipstadt
is simply flatly opposed to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews: “Although
people like Deborah Lipstadt, the Emory University professor who has written
and lectured widely on Holocaust denial, have exhorted Jewish parents to
just say no to intermarriage, much the way they expect their children not
to take drugs, a large majority of parents (and more than a few rabbis)
are unable to lay down opposition to intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews]
as a strict operating principle.”67 According to this, she is not
just “deeply troubled” by intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews—she loathes
it.
There is even evidence within History on
Trial itself that suggests Lipstadt may be engaging in deceit when she
claims that “ethnicity is entirely irrelevant to her.” On pp. 12-13,
she implicitly condemns the policy of the former Soviet Union on the issue
of the Holocaust, because of the USSR’s refusal to validate the concept
of a “Jewish ethnicity” by identifying the victims of the Holocaust as Jews.
In her own words: “To have identified the victims [of the Holocaust] as
Jews would have validated the notion of ethnicity, a concept contrary to
Marxist ideology.”
So let’s get things straight. She implicitly
condemns the Soviets for refusing to validate the concept of “Jewish ethnicity.”
(The reader is encouraged to read pages 12 and 13 to see for himself that
this is correct.) Yet, when it suits her ideological purposes
to condemn David Irving and weasel her way out of her dilemma, on page 182,
she claims that “ethnicity is entirely irrelevant to her.”
There is more evidence that she is possibly
being duplicitous when she claims that “color and ethnicity are entirely
irrelevant to her.” Dr. Oren Yiftachel,
an Israeli professor at Ben-Gurion University, pointed out that Israel is
not a democracy in the sense in which it is currently understood in the
West. Rather, it is an “ethnocracy”—a land controlled and allocated by ethnicity.
In his own words: “The Israeli regime is ruled by and and for one ethnic
group in a multi-ethnic reality. Factors that make Israel an “ethnocracy”
include the facts that 1) immigration to the Jewish state is restricted
to Jews only. Some 2.5 million displaced Palestinians who would like to
return are not allowed to migrate to Israel; 2) military service is according
to ethnicity; 3) economic control is based on race, religion, and ethnicity;
4) The country’s land regime entails transfer of land ownership in one direction,
from Arab to Jewish control, but never back again.”68
If ethnicity is entirely
irrelevant to her, then why does she passionately identify with apartheid
Israel--a state that is based on the principle that the Jewish ethnic group
is to be preserved for all time, and is to remain separate from and dominant
over non-Jews within the state?
Lipstadt may have made this
statement—“color and ethnicity are entirely irrelevant to me”—to meet the
propaganda needs of the moment. That is, to “refute” the allegation
of David Irving and hide her strong feelings of Jewish racialism.
Said claim does not appear to reflect her real feelings.
VII.
Closing Statement
The work of
Deborah Lipstadt contains fallacies, apparently false claims, omissions
and flawed judgment calls that are riddled with a hypocritical double standard.
One question remains.
Why Didn’t Deborah Lipstadt testify at the Irving-Lipstadt Trial?
She pointed out that Rampton was against putting her on the witness
stand. In his own words: “If we go to trial, I will probably not put
you in the witness box. You are being sued for what you wrote.
Having you give testimony will not advance our case. It will only
divert the judge’s attention from the main focus, David Irving.”69
She then adds that “according
to British law, Irving could not compel me to give testimony. I listened
to Rampton with mixed emotions. I was relieved that I would not have
to be cross-examined by a man whose views I abhorred and who certainly would
use the opportunity to cross-examine me as a way of ‘settling scores’ for
the wrongs he felt he had suffered. At the same time, I was disappointed
that I would not be able to openly express my contempt for him. I
feared that people would think that I was frightened of facing him.”
In the same vein, she adds:
“…I was worried we had made a tactical mistake, allowing Irving to portray
me as not only scared of facing him but having something to hide.”70
One suspects that Rampton,
being the shrewd attorney that he is, may have realized that it could end
up being a total disaster if Lipstadt was cross-examined by Irving.
Irving could have caught Lipstadt in the hypocritical double standards,
fallacies, omissions, bad logic, etc, that we have shown here.
One of Lipstadt’s defense
team experts, Dr. Richard Evans, was quoted as saying: “Irving is essentially
an ideologue who uses history…in order to further his own political purposes.”71
Should we take out the name of David Irving from the sentence and put in
Deborah Lipstadt’s?
She admits that Evans may
have “thought me a hyperbolic, American, Jewish woman who was more an ideologue
than an open-minded historian.”72 An “ideologue” is one that promotes
a body of ideas, distorted and untrue in the main, that serves the political,
social and psychological needs of a power elite. Based upon what has
been revealed in this essay, could Deborah Lipstadt be described as a Zionist
ideologue?
Prominent British intellectual
John Keegan made this most cogent comment: “Prof. Lipstadt…seems as dull
as only the self-righteously politically correct can be. Few other
historians had ever heard of her before this case. Most will not want
to hear from her again.”73
Is Deborah Lipstadt a self-righteous
Zionist ideologue that operates with hypocritical double standards?
I will let the reader be the judge.
At the dawn of a new age
of reason, Lipstadt’s books will, I believe, stand as a testament to the
political, moral and ideological corruption that currently pervades Western
Society.
Footnotes
1. Deborah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth
and Memory (The Free Press, 1993), p. 181, passim.
2. See Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s book review of Deborah Lipstadt’s History
on Trial in The Washington Post’s Book World. Online:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0060593768/ref=dp_nav_1/104-4071788-3073504?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books.
3. Quoted on dust jacket of Deborah Lipstadt’s History on Trial:
My Day in Court With David Irving (Harper-Collins, 2005).
4. Online. For URL, see footnote 2.
5. Ibid.
6. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.278.
7. Ibid, p.304.
8. Personal communication to Paul Grubach.
9. See The Hon. Mr. Justice Gray, “Judgment to be Handed Down on Tuesday, 11th
April 2000, Between David John Caldwell Irving and Penguin Books Limited,
Deborah Lipstadt.” Paragraph 3.7.
10. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p. 268.
11. Ibid, p.269.
12. Ibid, pp. 16, 301.
13. Alex C. Michalos,
Improving Your Reasoning (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), pp.109-110.
14. Irving Copi, Introduction
to Logic, 5th ed., (Macmillan, 1978), pp.486-491.
15. The Sault Star
(Canada), “Scientific evidence of Holocaust missing,” January 18, 1985,
p.A11; See Hilberg’s testimony in Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six
Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian “False News”
Trial of Ernst Zundel—1988 (Samisdat, 1992), p. 39. Online:
http://zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd09hilberg.html. Jean-Claude
Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (Beate
Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989), p.429. Online:
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0429.htm
16. Pressac, p.429.
Online:
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0429.htm.
17. See Paul Grubach, “Convergence
of Evidence: Reflections on the Irving-Lipstadt Affair,” The Revisionist.
Online:
http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/tr09irving.html.
18. Barbara Kulaszka, ed.,
Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian “False
News” Trial of Ernst Zundel—1988 (Samisdat, 1992), pp.24-25. Online:
http://zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd09hilberg.html.
19. Lipstadt, Denying
the Holocaust, pp.127-128.
20. Vanity Fair,
December 1993, p.117.
21. Lipstadt, Denying
the Holocaust, p.1.
22. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p.301.
23. Ibid, p.18.
24. Lipstadt, Denying
the Holocaust, p.1.
25. Vanity Fair,
December 1993, p.117.
26. The Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, 1967 ed., s.v. “Karl Raimund Popper,” by Anthony Quinton.
27. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p.xx.
28. Ibid, p.25.
29. Ibid, p.158.
30. Lipstadt, Denying
the Holocaust, p.4.
31. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p.260. Also, see Rampton’s statements on p.259.
32. Ibid, p.259.
33. See Lipstadt, Denying
the Holocaust, p.187. The article being referred to is Laird Wilcox,
“The Spectre Haunting Holocaust Revisionism, “ Revisionist Letters
(Spring 1989). Online:
http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/letters/rlspectre.html.
34. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p. 23.
35. See Hon.
Justice Mr. Gray, Paragraph 5.209.
36. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p.133.
37. See Raul Hilberg, The
Destruction of the European Jews: Student Edition (Holmes & Meir,
1985), pp. 225-226.
38. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p. 133.
39. See the
video, “The Weber-Shermer Holocaust Debate: The Holocaust Story in the Crossfire.”
Available online:
http://store.noontidepress.com/. Also, see Pat N. Mason, Jr. ,
"Exchanging Views on the Holocaust: Debating the Undebatable: The Weber-Shermer
Clash," The Journal of Historical Review, January/February 1996,
p.30.
40. See Paul Grubach, “Convergence
of Evidence: Reflections on the Irving-Lipstadt Affair,” The Revisionist.
Online:
http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/tr09irving.html.
41. Carlo Mattogno,
“’Denying History’?—Denying Evidence!: The Phony ‘Convergence of Evidence’
to ‘Prove’ the ‘Holocaust,’” The Revisionist, September 2005, Vol. 3, No.
1, pp. 9-44.
42. See discussion
in Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust
Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (University of California Press,
2000), p.88.
43. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p.283.
44. Ibid, p.3.
45. Ibid, p.5.
46. Ibid, p.6
47. Ibid, p.6.
48. Ibid, p.9.
49. See the study by Israeli
academic, Dr. Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State (Zed Books Ltd.,
1987).
50. George W. Ball and Douglas
B. Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel,
1947 to the Present (W. W. Norton & Company, 1992), p. 29.
51. Ibid, p.65.
52. Mark Lavie, “Barrier
Meant to Ensure Jewish Majority,” Associated Press Release, July 11, 2005.
Online:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/07/11/international/i073139D24.DTL
53. Kevin MacDonald,
The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement
in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger,
1998).
54. Ibid, pp. 255-257.
55. MacDonald, passim.
56. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, pp.151-159.
57. Lipstadt, Denying
the Holocaust, p.144; Denying History, p.17.
58. Robert Jan van Pelt,
The Case For Auschwitz: Evidence From the Irving Trial (Indiana University
Press, 2002).
59. Ibid, p.70.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid, p.6.
62. Liat Collins, “From
the Ashes,” The International Jerusalem Post, February 4, 2005, p.
3.
63. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p.182.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Lipstadt quoted in D.D.
Guttenplan, The Holocaust On Trial (W. W. Norton & Company, 2001),
p.209.
67. Ellen Jaffe McClain,
Embracing the Stranger: Intermarriage and the Future of the American
Jewish Community (Basic Books, 1995), p.18.
68. Washington Report
on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1999, p. 120.
69. Lipstadt, History
on Trial, p.53.
Ibid, p.89.
71. Ibid, p.43.
72. Ibid, p.67.
73. Ibid, p.282.
|