Sunday, March 12, 2006

A no-holds barred attack on me....

Some people have asked about some of the attack mail I receive. I thought, therefore, that I would post the following. It really calls for no comment, except that it says a lot about the mental state of the author.

The author threatens to publicize her email to millions of people, unless I apologize to Arthur Butz of Northwestern among others. I thought I would help her out by posting it here.

Actually, two things deserve comment. Even I, who am rarely surprised by these things, find myself a bit gob smacked at the correspondent's use of the murder of Ilan Halimi as proof of the world's awakening against the Jews.

In fact, I would have assumed that even virulent antisemites would try to distance themselves from this terribly gruesome act. It reveals a side of the antisemites that does their efforts no good.

And secondly, please note, that for someone who declares herself to not be an antisemite, she hardly misses any of the antisemitic canards.

Clearly not one of the sharper knives in the drawer.....

Dear Ms. Lipstadt,

I am appauled at your disgusting and one-sided attack of Dr. Arthur Butz at Northwestern University on FOX News. Have you no shame!! Although I am not anti-semitic, your Jewish greed is overbearing and crippling. The world is beginning to see the collective Jewish attempt to control the world economy and world media.

In fact, the recent arrest of Dr. Irving in Austria shows that European Jews are scared.

Another example: the recent killing of the French Jew raises interesting questions. There is no doubt that the world is beginning to feel the oppression of Jewish greed.

Why have attacks on Jews been increasing in Europe and Russia? Why is the Jewish media pressuring the arrest of people speaking out against the extent of the Holocaust? Why have the Jews written all major history books for! our young children to become indoctrinated with? Why have thousands of Palestians been slaughtered yet Jews will not accept the Palestian holocaust? Two-faced?

Why have the Jews created laws making freedom of speech a crime? Is it merely chance? Fortunately, you know the answer. Please call up Dr. Butz and extend your deepest apology!!

Please call Mr. O'Reilly and extend your apology!! Please write a letter to all students, faculty and Americans extending your apology!! Remember what you say... those who forget history are bound to repeat it.

Have you no intellect? The world Jews are doing exactly what the Romans did 2,000 years ago: they got arrogant, stupid and overextended their luck. By the end of the Roman empire, they had more enemies than allies. STOP your exaggeration of the Holocaust to simply get more $$$.

The world is catching on sister!! I ! have a feeling that you will probably not extend you apologies to the above mentioned individuals. Thus, let me do it for you. As you know, the internet is a beautiful thing. I will extend this e-mail to your president and faculty, to individuals of interest, to hundreds on my e-mail address list and have them send it to thousands more. Hopefully, within 5 days tens of thousands will read this e-mail. Good day...
[In a fashion that is typical of the people who send these kinds of attacks, the whole email was one long paragraph. I broke it down into shorter ones. I figured the stuff is hard enough to read as is... why make it any harder for the readers of this blog. Other than that, it is precisely as I received it.]


Deborah Lipstadt said...

You are right, Dave. I should have omitted the comment about the "sharpest knives..." It really was unnecessary as that was evident from the letter and people could draw their own conclusions.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Vot said...

You couldn't possibly be "cherry picking" to give the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is low IQ white trash? It seems to me that your more intelligent opponents are all facing lengthy jail sentences.

Deborah Lipstadt said...

No I am not cherry picking.

As for my so-called intelligent opponents....

Someone who was so intelligent would not have gone to a country where he knew there was a warrant for his arrest, publicly announced that he was coming, and then, after being arrested, told the court that he had not been a denier since the early 1990s when there was reams of evidence to the contrary.

Someone who was so intelligent would not have started a case which he [should have] known he was going to lose because he had lied and manipulated the evidence [as three different courts -- not including the Austrian] declared.

If he was so intelligent he should have known that once we followed his footnotes, his house of cards would collpase.

And so it has.

Nope, doesn't strike as too intelligent a modus operandi.

Vot said...

So anyone who dares to question the status quo is by definition a fool? If only Galileo had realised that.

Irving may well have acted foolishly in visiting Austria, nevertheless, his many books and his solo performance against your very expensive legal team, a performance which I believe won the praise of the judge, indicate that Irving is a very intelligent man.

Epaminondas said...

"Why have the Jews created laws making freedom of speech a crime?"

Fabulous !
(Funny I thought 'they' were all too busy getting gentile blood for Hamantaschen to be making ziono-fascist laws)

Is there any hope for the planet?
Ignorance must be the strongest force on earth

Keep on giving them all hell, DL

Deborah Lipstadt said...

To Voxceltica:

I don't think declaring someone to be a Holocaust denier, liar, racist and antisemite and saying that their conclusions are a travesty, unjustified, lies and so forth -- as the judge did -- qualifies as praise.

Vot said...

Hi Dave. I don’t quite see the point of your post. The point that I was making was that DL’s attempt to portray her opponents as low IQ white trash is false. You suggest a conflation of purpose between revisionist historians and Nazis and then proceed to assert that many of the most prominent Nazis were highly intelligent. How does this disprove my assertion that many of the most prominent revisionists, rather than conforming to the stereotype hyped by DL, are highly intelligent individuals? BTW, what have the chemists who invented Zyklon-B got to do with Nazism? Zyklon-B was invented as an insecticide.

I have read enough of the transcripts of the Irving trial to know that it was not the one sided walk- over victory you present it as. To give one random example David Irving’s exposure of Jan Van Pelt as a fraud and a pseudo-architect seemed to be fairly telling.

Your Galileo analogy is interesting. Are you saying that David Irving’s theories are basically right, but the speed with which he wants to inflict them on the world, is problematical? If you aren’t saying this your analogy is bogus.

“The only witness he produced without subpoena was a behavioral psychologist from California whose theory was that "Jews stick together."

Professor Kevin McDonald I pressume? Kevin McDonald has written a trilogy of books about the Jewish diaspora. His first two books were acclaimed by the Jewish establishment and McDonald’s professional credentials were accepted by the literary and intellectual community. After McDonald published his third book, a book which highlighted a conflict of interest between the Jewish community and the Gentile commmunity, McDonald was magically transformed into a “pseudo”-intellectual. Funny how that works isn’t it?

In your discourse on science you seem to be saying that we should draw a distinction between popular perceptions and the perception of experts and that the validity of a new idea should be established through peer review. It seems to me that this is exactly the opposite of the methodology being employed by DL and her fellow travelers. DL benefits from a system in which the established historians refuse to debate with holocaust apostates and in which the holocaust is promoted by direct appeal to what you call the “uneducated masses” through remembrance days, museums and the film and television industries. Madam Currie never faced the prospect of three years in jail for positing the existence of radium did she?

BHCh said...

Voxceltica is right when she claims that there are "clever" racists. Or should I say racists who use sophistry and bias in a more consistent way than their less sophisticated comrades?

Voxceltica's blog is a witness that she squarly falls in the category of "clever" racists.

Vot said...

From the trial transcripts:

"Irving: This is a point of some substance, my Lord. We need to know precisely what your qualifications are to offer your expertise to the court.... In Britain, of course, we have the Royal Institute of British Architects. Are you familiar with the fact that it is illegal in England to call yourself an architect unless you are registered with the RIBA?

Van Pelt: That is in most countries like that, yes, I know.

Irving: In Holland, the equivalent is the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten, am I correct?...

Van Pelt: Yes, Bond van Nederlandse Architecten.

Irving: ... Am I right in saying that you are not registered with the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten?

Van Pelt: I have never had any reason to do so since I never studied in an architectural school.

Irving: So you cannot legally pretend to be an architect, if I can put it like that?

Van Pelt: No, I could be prosecuted.

Irving: ... Rather like Mr. Leuchter was prosecuted in Massachusetts for pretending to be an engineer?

Van Pelt: Yes.

Irving: ... In other words, your expertise, as an architect, is the same as Mr. Leuchter's expertise was an engineer"

"It's interesting to me, since this kind of ad hominem is one of the hallmarks of the Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites I come across every day" catamont.

Some examples of catamont not using ad hominems:

"In its early days, people like Don Black and George Burdi and Dan Gannon showed their ignorance"

"Over the years, the level of intelligence has plummetted"

"Stupis is as stupid does"

"a level of intelligence equal to that of the average alt.revisionism denier"

Deborah Lipstadt said...

I have decided to shut down the interchange with Voxcelica. Early on I decided that this blog would NOT become a place where deniers could post their drivel and other people would have to spend good time answering them.

As Ecclesiasties said: "There is no end to the matter."

Well on this blog there isan end to the matter.

No more denial claims and counter-claims.

Vot said...

Fair enough! I respect your decision.

Vot said...

I thought this debate had been ended. Has something changed? If the debate hasn't ended I'd be delighted to respond to Dave's "erudite responses". Can the situation be clarified?

Deborah Lipstadt said...

Voxceltica: If you want to respond to someone do so directly. I will not let this blog become a place for deniers and those who sympathize with their views to try to prove things which were already proven in court.

When I decided to go back to having people post their comments, I made this fact quite clear:

To quote one of your own, Holocaust denier Bradley Smith: during the “Lipstadt trial… revisionists … failed n full view of the Western world.

In other words, the debate over these issues is finished. You had your day[s] in court. You had your appeals. You lost. Decisively. [The judge has nothing good to say about David Irving’s arguments, claims, or contentions regarding the Holocaust. Check it out at]

Finally, if you are so admiring of David Irving’s views, might I point out that last month in the Austrian court he recanted them and said he now believed there were gas chambers and he had seen documents that convinced him he was wrong.

Vot said...

Deborah, when you indicated that further discussion of the previous points made was unwelcome you will notice that I graciously accepted your decision. I respect the fact that this is your blog and that you have a right to decide what is and what is not discussed on this blog. I notice however that you have not, in fact, terminated the debate which was unfolding, but have continued to publish comments which are favourable to your position, this is why I have asked for clarification of your position. If the subject is closed please delete the responses made subsequent to your statement in which you clearly indicated a desire to terminate this debate. If you simply wish, as seems obvious, to edit any comments you are troubled by, why can’t you simply state openly that comments will only be published if they are supportive of your position? This might save people who are genuinely troubled by some aspects of your arguments from wasting their time.

Vot said...

"Voxceltica, closed means closed"

Correct me if I'm wrong Dave, but I think that it was you who failed to observe Deborah's instructions, so I'd cut back on the redundant reminders and pay more attention in future if I was you. You are a few posts too late to seize the moral high ground.