Thursday, 19 April 2007

Rationale for israeli collective punishment of palestinians

A short extract taken from "Michael Hoffman II" excellent lecture on Deborah Lipstahd and her comments calling Revisionist Historian David Irving... "Amalek".

Hoffman explains to the uninitiated the "insider language" used by certain Judaics to label their enemies as worthy of assassination.

You will be shocked at what you hear as it becomes clear that these ancient teachings are alive and well in the 21st century.

The concept of "Amalek" goes a long way to explaining the cruel collective punishments handed out to the Palestinians and the well known habit of Israeli thugs to assassinate opponents of the criminal Zionist State of Israel.





A dossier on Deborah Lipstadt

At the back of her mind: "I make up my mind before I have the facts. I see a blonde, I decide she is stupid. I see a Black, I decide he's shiftless [sic] and lazy. I see an Italian, I decide he is Mafioso. I see a Jew, I decide they [sic] are evil, greedy, conniving, etc." -- Deborah Lipstadt on prejudice

Lipstadt's March 2005 attempt to silence C-Span (dossier)

Lipstadt's violation of a Court Order on Discovery and its consequences

Deborah Lipstadt: a request for information

  • WE KNOW the reasons why Deborah Lipstadt was refused tenure at the southern California university where she used to teach, and transferred to her present lowly position at Emory, the "Coca-Cola" university of Atlanta. For court use in future, we should like to obtain chapter and verse. The L.A. University refuses to divulge data on personnel matters. Who can assist? This is believed to be one of the reasons why Lipstadt declined to testify on oath in London. [Confidential information to ]

IN 1992 Prof. Deborah Lipstadt (Professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and like the majority of her students there a Jew) published a book, Denying the Holocaust. The book had been commissioned by the Vidal Sassoon Center of Anti-Semitism, at the Yad Vashem Institution, in Israel. It contained a number of falsehoods, exaggerations, and distortions, about which many writers have commented. David LipstadtIrving sued her for libel in 1996; the case was tried in London for three months from Jan 11 to Apr 12 2000 (see separate index). The case brought her into great prominence, although she wisely did not speak a word or go into the witness box on oath, which would have exposed to her to the risk of an English prison if she were found guilty of perjury. Her neutral expert witnesses were found to have been paid sums of up to $250,000 from a fund set up by among others Steven Spielberg and the American Jewish Committee. Her heavily subsidised book was a publishing flop until then, enjoying what publisher Penguin Ltd (her co-defendant in the case, with her at Court, left) referred to tartly as "negative sales" (i.e. more unsold returns from bookstores than sales). By mid-2000 the minus sign was back on her royalty statements, and big booksellers like Barnes & Noble were finding it difficult to shift copies even after knocking 78% off the sales price.

A Deborah Lipstadt moment:

NEVER FORGET: "Deborah Lipstadt, author of the anti-revisionist polemic Denying the Holocaust, has assigned [Binjamin Wilkormiski's book] Fragments in her Emory University class on Holocaust memoirs.
"When confronted with evidence that it is a fraud [the author spent the war in comfort in Switzerland, not Auschwitz, and was not even a Jew], she commented that the new revelations 'might complicate matters somewhat, but [the work] is still powerful.'" --
In other words, who cares about fact or fiction where the Holocaust is concerned?

1: Deborah Lipstadt (right, with Penguin boss Forbes- Watson) announces that she is to speak June 9, 2002 in Portland, Oregon about David Irving. An Oregon media source speculates on whether the same kind of reception will greet her that her hirelings arranged for Mr Irving in May. Hearty souls wanting to exercise their First Amendment right to tell her what they think should contact B. [Some questions to ask her]

2: Coming to Atlanta, June 16, 2002: David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt: Holocaust Denial on Trial at the American Library Association's annual conference, Sun. June 16, 1:30-3:30pm. Lipstadt will be a dignitary at this ALA event. [Some questions to ask her] See page 14 of the ALA publication for a brief report on Lipstadt's presentation at this 2002 ALA conference

3: Great debating opportunity: Lipstadt lectures Sept 10, 2003 at US Holocaust Museum, Washington

Prof Deborah Lipstadt received an ecstatic welcome when she spoke in Feb 2005 at Brandeis University, and signed six million copies of her latest book (equally true).












Next time you see her ask her the following questions

. . . here are just a few:

  1. Prof. Lipstadt - why were you afraid to go into the witness box and expose yourself even to the questioning of an amateur like Mr. Irving? You effectively pleaded the Fifth Amendment, which is the traditional route of those with something to hide. (Mr. Irving subjected himself voluntarily to three weeks' cross examination by one of the world's leading trial lawyers, and he voluntarily made available to you his entire private and public papers.)
  2. are you aware that one of your main researchers, Dr. David Cesarani, said that Mr. Irving gave the defence some scary moments, particularly when their chief expert witness on the architecture of Auschwitz, Prof. Van Pelt, proved unable to explain what had happened to the bodies (i.e. the logistics of disposing, for example, of 450,000 Hungarian Jews' bodies in three weeks - around 50,000 tons of corpses, by a small Sonderkommando in one crematory building) [Internet link: see http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial3/DieZeit120400e.html]
  3. why did you not accept David Irving's challenge, made three times publicly in the courtroom, that he would halt the case in mid-trial if you could find any evidence of the holes in the roof slab of Crematorium II at Auschwitz - which still exists - through which "eye witnesses" in the pay of war-crimes prosecution teams claimed to have seen SS officers tipping the Zyklon B granules? Your own chief witness Van Pelt said there are no such holes in the slab, so somebody lied, right?
  4. why are you afraid of free debate? You have said there is no debate, but when push came to shove your highly paid Queen's Counsel felt it necessary to fill the courtroom every day for three months with over thirty lawyers, counsel, barristers, assistants, historians, and researchers, just to stand up against Mr. Irving, who appeared in court alone. Was your case really that weak?
  5. why have you and your friends done all you can to muzzle Mr. Irving - by putting pressure on publishers, broadcasters, television companies, and governments not to allow him to speak or to publish his widely acknowledged books? What are you scared of?
  6. in a trial which was about a very serious matter, why did you instruct your counsel to resort to smear tactics, branding Mr. Irving as an anti-Semite and a racist (although he, unlike your Counsel, frequently employs ethnic minorities as his personal staff), and although neither allegation was made in your book or pleaded in your initial Defence? Were you frightened of fighting the case on the facts of history?
  7. how much money have you made out of this trial (articles, speaking fees, etc.) already? That's what it's about, isn't it - money?
  8. do you think it right that your lawyers paid some of your so called "neutral" expert witnesses a quarter of a million dollars in inducements to testify in your favour? Those six million dollars put up by Steven Spielberg - you are a religious scholar: Have you never heard the Bible say, "Good wine needs no bush"? If your case is rock solid why was so much money swilling around that London courtroom? [Internet link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/payments.html]
  9. a new Zealand academic tribunal has just found that Prof. Richard Evans, your chief witness, was guilty of grossly distorting, misquoting, exaggerating, and polemicizing in his similar "expert report" on Dr. Joel Hayward, and totally lacking in the objectivity that is expected by a court of an expert witness. How do you feel about Evans now? [Internet link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Evans/NZReportExtract.html]
  10. have you read Norman Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry. Is he a racist and anti-Semite too?
  11. you have argued in your books and articles that Jews should never stoop to marrying outside their religion and race. Is that not racism in its purest and most evil form?
  12. who paid your own multi-million dollar legal expenses, and why did the British High Court, unusually, not allow you to reclaim them?
  13. Judge Gray found in his Judgment that three of the statements you made in your book against Mr Irving are in fact serious lies just as he claimed (the Stockholm terrorist conference, the Hitler painting "above his desk", the stealing or damaging of the Goebbels diaries from the Moscow archives. Have you removed them from the book's latest editions?) (Answer: You have not).
at

1 comment: