Lipstadt, Amalek and Irving

[Hektor]

Michael Hoffmann:

As I said, and you obviously ignored, you had the time to post your beliefs at a debate site which, admit it, you cannot back-up now that you have been challenged. That's the obvious fact of the matter, you are fooling no one with your weak excuses.

In the time it took you to post just once in this thread you could have told us why you belief in what you believe in, IF you really believe it in the first place.

I'd accept that someone is engaged elsewhere not having time for debate right now. But to post some evidence for some historical feat, like Einsatzgruppen killings behind the Eastern front should be feasible. However I take the guess that Mr Hoffman's evidence, may require some discussion before one can accept or dismiss it.
- The Blobel cop-out has been debated here. No physical remains, since Blobel made it vanish.
- The Jaeger Report has been discussed here. And it has been shown that it's quite dubious in its history, but als as a document.
- Then there is Babi Yar, Einsatzgruppen show trials etc.

That Einsatzgruppen and Auxiliaries killed politruks, communist party officials, partisans and their helpers is also not really in dispute. Good question of course what the evidence is there and how hard it is. Although it would be astonishing, if the Axis forces wouldn't have dealt with them rigorously. That's how such problems are solved in war time. Any army has done it that way in history, should the need arise. And the need for this behind the Eastern Front was more the urgent and severe. That part is of course blinded out in the mainstream debate.

We don't have to agree on everything facet of the Holocaust narrative being horse dung. At the moment some Revisionists seem however to be agreeable to some Holocaust lite version with "some gassings" in Treblinka or so. Why they say so is a mystery to me, but open for speculation. I don't see that from the evidence presented to us so far. It's obviously that the whole claim, name and blame game that the Holocaust is, is actually widely based on innuendo and not on empirically established and testable facts.

If the Holocaust Industry had hard facts and proof available, they won't utilize such denunciation and threatening tactics like they did against Irving, calling out Amaleks and avoiding debate. In fact they probably embrace it. Despite the pretense of belief, it seems that many actors in the industry deep down have a sense that what they're spreading isn't exactly the truth.

[Hannover]

Hoffmann knows his nonsense won't withstand scrutiny, hence his embarrassing excuses.
I will not let him get away unscathed.
A separate thread on his claims is forthcoming.

Lipstadt must be laughing herself silly at Hoffmann's pretense.

- Hannover

Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

[Hektor]

Hoffmann knows his nonsense won't withstand scrutiny, hence his embarrassing excuses.
I will not let him get away unscathed.
A separate thread on his claims is forthcoming.

Lipstadt must be laughing herself silly at Hoffmann's pretense.
...

Yes please, this one has another purpose than the "Einsatzgruppen-Question".

But I just want to make it clear that Revisionism is a testing of evidence and reinterpretation in the light of new, potentially ignored or suppressed evidences. It's not that I am saying that I know for certain that XYZ never happened - What I am saying is:
- That a lot of assertions are just atrocity propaganda - And hence had/have ulterior motives (atrocity propaganda was seen as key to reeducate Germans - A euphemism for grasping psychological control over them)
- That the evidence given for homicidal gassings, commonly "testimony" is dubious.
- That the documents and physical evidence don't match the assertions sometimes backed up with testimony.
- That there is a lot of evidences for what really happened are ignored in one way or the other, since they don't fit the Holocaust narrative.
- That the Holocaust narrative has been shielded against falsification in an institutional way and hence is not a scientific claim.

But given that the homicidal gassing claims are accusations (and have been made a public spectacle), the burden of proof for those claims is on the accusers including historians and researchers that are making the assertion. Until now - more than 70 years later - they failed to live up to that claim. They failed, despite having vast resources at their disposal. Hence the only reasonable conclusion is that we're dealing with atrocity propaganda lies that have been perpetuated as an academic paradigma.

And in all this the Amalekization of "Holocaust Deniers" fits the bill perfectly.

[Moderator2]

Mr. Hoffman:

Let me say, trolls do not last long at this forum. We do not have any trolls and when one is detected, it is removed. They do not last long here.
M2

Moreover, when and if I would have time to undertake such an exchange or debate, I would not do so in an Internet forum. With all due respect to Codoh, my experience has been that sites that permit posts by anonymous persons attract a fairly sizable number of trolls who are not interested in truly sharing knowledge about substantive issues, but have a psychological need to engage in ad hominem attack and calumny, which strikes this writer as having parallels with the Zionist and Talmudic mentality.

[Michael Hoffman]

To the Moderator

Thanks for the clarification. I may have a more expansive definition than the official one, however. To my mind a troll is an Internet user posting anonymously who engages in ad hominem attacks when his demands are not met, or his will is thwarted.

This section was initiated to discuss Lipstadt’s use of the ominous theological term “Amalek” to demonize David Irving. I thought that would be of some interest and even importance to revisionists. It is no one’s fault at CODOH that it has not piqued such interest thus far.

What is problematic is that in lieu of discussions of the substance of the topic (Lipstadt, Amalek and Irving), this writer has become the object of derision because I gave a brief reply in good faith to an off-topic question about the extent to which I believe the NS government committed war crimes. As part of my reply I made it abundantly clear that I have no time for an Internet debate on NS crimes. However, some respondents assigned me the obligation to surrender my time to their demands and when I did not, I was demeaned, including a schoolyard taunt along the lines of “Wait till Lipstadt finds out.” This is not serious historiography. It's malice.

I’m accustomed to this of course, and personally I consider it no big deal; this is what a public figure must expect. However, I regret that there appears to be nowhere online that a serious and courteous revisionist discussion can take place among researchers and activists of good will.

Michael Hoffman
http://www.RevisionistHistory.org

[Hannover]

To the Moderator

Thanks for the clarification. I may have a more expansive definition than the official one, however. To my mind a troll is an Internet user posting anonymously who engages in ad hominem attacks when his demands are not met, or his will is thwarted.

This section was initiated to discuss Lipstadt’s use of the ominous theological term “Amalek” to demonize David Irving. I thought that would be of some interest and even importance to revisionists. It is no one’s fault at CODOH that it has not piqued such interest thus far.

What is problematic is that in lieu of discussions of the substance of the topic (Lipstadt, Amalek and Irving), this writer has become the object of derision because I gave a brief reply in good faith to an off-topic question about the extent to which I believe the NS government committed war crimes. As part of my reply I made it abundantly clear that I have no time for an Internet debate on NS crimes. However, some respondents assigned me the obligation to surrender my time to their demands and when I did not, I was demeaned, including a schoolyard taunt along the lines of “Wait till Lipstadt finds out.” This is not serious historiography. It's malice.

I’m accustomed to this of course, and personally I consider it no big deal; this is what a public figure must expect. However, I regret that there appears to be nowhere online that a serious and courteous revisionist discussion can take place among researchers and activists of good will.

Michael Hoffman

Again, Hoffman is being insincere.

Hoffman apparently thinks he is special at this forum, why is unknown. Anyone & everyone are subjected to challenges on their posts here.

Hoffman now wants to avoid the consequences of HIS statements when no else is afforded that privilege at this forum.

As I said repeatedly, his plea 'I just have no time' just doesn't wash given the large amounts of time he has used in making other posts at this forum.

What we are witnessing is someone who has painted himself into a corner with assertions they cannot sustain, hence the excuses. It's generally called being 'busted'. He's gotten in over his head and knows it.

- What can be more "troll"-like than for HIM to post "mass murder" accusations against a people and then dodge challenges to those accusations?

- Where is Hoffman's "good will" when he dodges, obfuscates, and tries to deflects criticism of what HE posted?

- How "serious" can Michael Hoffman be taken when he projects his own behavior unto those who merely want to debate HIS assertions?

- Only those who cannot debate their claims dare to call challenges to their position 'discourteous'. I find it truly discourteous for someone to post their views and then make excuses for their inability to address the replies to it.

- Hoffman reminds me of the current leftist trend where any criticism of PC politics or a protected class of people is said to be 'not serious', 'not courteous', or 'not of good will'.

- It's good old fashion debate that brings the facts out. Debate that Michael Hoffman fears more than anything else. Yet Michael Hoffman labels such debate as "malice". Truly Orwellian.

What we see here is basic stuff; Michael Hoffman's utter inability to support what he claims to believe.
Now we see it, now we know. Keep that in mind.

Lipstadt must now be laughing herself silly at "public figure" Michael Hoffman.

BTW, a separate thread on Hoffman's assertions here:
'Challenge to Michael Hoffman on his "mass murdering of Jews" / 'holocaust' lite claims'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10751

Thanks, Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[flimflam]

It is not fitting to have an anonymous poster heckling someone who is not anonymous and has devoted the major part of their life to fighting Jewish lies. Have some respect, for Christ's sake.

Added note: I'm being sincere.

[Hannover]

It is not fitting to have an anonymous poster heckling someone who is not anonymous and has devoted the major part of their life to fighting Jewish lies. Have some respect, for Christ's sake.

Added note: I'm being sincere.

I can appreciate your sincerity, flimflam, but do not appreciate Hoffman's insincerity, disrespectful, and evasive behavior here.

I see no saintly status in someone who is afraid to debate what HE has said at this forum. I've even created a separate thread for HIS assertions.
'Challenge to Michael Hoffman on his "mass murdering of Jews" / 'holocaust' lite claims'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10751

You also seem to have missed Hoffman's rude evasion of the standards of this forum.
A forum where the moderators respectfully accommodated him, see their posts in this thread.

At least the now discredited David Irving and David Cole have made known the basis, however ridiculous, for their positions.
Michael Hoffman? Well, he knows he will be exposed, hence he dodges.

Call it what you like, but Hoffman's disrespect for the most read Revisionist forum in the world cannot be ignored.

Let's just say, with friends like Michael Hoffman who needs enemies?

- Hannover

Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

[Hektor]

To the Moderator

Thanks for the clarification. I may have a more expansive definition than the official one, however. To my mind a troll is an Internet user posting anonymously who engages in ad hominem attacks when his demands are not met, or his will is thwarted.

This section was initiated to discuss Lipstadt’s use of the ominous theological term “Amalek” to demonize David Irving. I thought that would be of some interest and even importance to revisionists. It is no one’s fault at CODOH that it has not piqued such interest thus far.
....

I agree with the purpose of the thread being usage of the term "Amalek" for David Irving. But it's practice that whenever a claim is made that forum members can challenge the claimant to specify and post evidence in support of the claim. I realize there is another thread on the "Einsatzgruppen" related claims. Evidence can be posted there.

The utterances of Deborah Lipstadt are funny for a number of reasons:
- I don't see her as a traditional Judaist (as opposed to Jew, which is an ethnic designation). She may for all that matters be an Atheist as many modern day Jews are. Which they btw. also justify with the Holocaust (Where was God?).
- To use that term is a bit of chuztpah. It's odd and draws attention to the character of the battle they may be engaging in.
- Take it in the context of their "denial of debate", which they are even proud of. And the fact that they engage in writing books against "deniers", which is odd, because if I had a case, I'd spend that offer on proving it. But that would require some real research and serious argumentation. Far easier to play on emotion and get results (public perception is that the Holocaust is the truth) that way that are desired.

The good thing is that the theater around Irving and Lipstadt actually exposed the "experts" as quite conniving spin-doctors that don't have a lot worth showing, when it comes to evidence. Merely innuendo and egg dancing around the hard issue, while leaving out the bigger picture on what the German/Axis policies towards Jews are. Now I don't say they were nice, but neither is taxation, warfare (justified or not), arrests, compulsory schooling, conscription, executing court order and what else a state monopoly on violence may do. But get this, they don't blame the state for being cold and cruel, they blame "Nationalism" (as long as it is for White people), "Racism" (a word they made up that actually hasn't clear meaning), "Anti-Semitism" (as is that doesn't have anything to do with the Jews behavior towards the society they try to exorcise this out).

On that matter I found the analysis and assessment of a certain Siegfried Passarge quite interesting. He was a German Geographer of Huguenot descent that had quite some insights in cultural/physical Anthropology and the relationships between the two. He applied the historical method when explaining the behavior (culture) of people in a very Weberian manner. Something that has fallen out of favor since WW2.

[Myths2LiveBy]

Deborah Lipstadt is in over her head in Denial.

I just read Michael Hoffman's review of Denial, and had to giggle at this line, reflecting on Lipstadt's "venomous glance" at Irving. Hoffman wrote,

"The filmmakers have done her image no favors with this less-than-noble—but quite possibly accurate—depiction of her person and reactions."

Lipstadt had a run-in with C Span in the aftermath of the trial. C-Span producer Connie Doebele had arranged to host Lipstadt as she discussed her book, History on Trial, at Harvard. Doebele planned to have David Irving appear in the same C Span production, to give his version of events. Lipstadt was outraged; she deployed her entire Rolodex of professors and journalists to attack Doebele: Richard Cohen vilified Doebele in an op-ed in the Washington Post, and C Span received 3,000 emails, mostly negative. Lipstadt revoked C Span's invitation to videograph the Harvard event. Doebele was made to recite her mea culpas at the knee of Richard Weinstein, manager of C Span's News Desk.

Doebele is one. classy. lady. Part of C Span's founding team, she has hosted and interviewed hundreds of authors and leading figures in American and world politics and literature. Together with Brian Lamb, Susan Swain and Peter Slen, she set a mold for C Span that is, alas, being eroded and increasingly showing a definite bias, one that is maintained through the intimidation tactics of the well-funded Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA). Doebele left C Span not too long after the Lipstadt flare-up, having served the network with character and grace for 25 years. Last I heard she was working out of Staunton, VA on video features of American history sites.

The "giggle" part refers to how C Span exacted a small measure of retribution for Lipstadt's defamation of their network and producer: the image of Lipstadt attached to the segment where Doebele apologizes is priceless -- take a look at this "less-than-noble" shot of Lipstadt, her stubby talons flared : https://www.c-span.org/person/?deborahlipstadt

[Myths2LiveBy]

It is not fitting to have an anonymous poster heckling someone who is not anonymous and has devoted the major part of their life to fighting Jewish lies. Have some respect, for Christ's sake.

Added note: I'm being sincere.

Agree

[Hektor]

Deborah Lipstadt is in over her head in Denial.

I just read Michael Hoffman's review of Denial, and had to giggle at this line, reflecting on Lipstadt's "venomous glance" at Irving. Hoffman wrote,

"The filmmakers have done her image no favors with this less-than-noble—but quite possibly accurate—depiction of her person and reactions."

Lipstadt had a run-in with C Span in the aftermath of the trial. C-Span producer Connie Doebele had arranged to host Lipstadt as she discussed her book, History on Trial, at Harvard. Doebele planned to have David Irving appear in the same C Span production, to give his version of events. Lipstadt was outraged; she deployed her entire Rolodex of professors and journalists to attack Doebele: Richard Cohen vilified Doebele in an op-ed in the Washington Post, and C Span received 3,000 emails, mostly negative. Lipstadt revoked C Span's invitation to videograph the Harvard event. Doebele was made to recite her mea culpas at the knee of Richard Weinstein, manager of C Span's News Desk.
...

Any person trying to be at least a bit objective can see what nefarious tactics are deployed to enforce the status quo in terms of societies general Holocaust beliefs. This time it's essentially bullying and implicit threats being made. And it's not an exception that this kind of things are happening, whenever someone is at odds with what Jews perceive as their interests.