An Evening (without evidence) with Deborah Lipstadt

By Carolyn Yeager

LAST NIGHT, EMORY U. PROFESSOR OF MODERN jEWISH AND HOLOCAUST STUDIES, Deborah Lipstadt, spoke to an estimated 150 mainly Jewish students at the McCormick Foundation Center forum at Northwestern University, north of Chicago, the long-time home of distinguished professor of engineering Arthur R. Butz.

Lipstadt's talk was arranged by Fiedler Hillel as part of “Northwestern Israel Week.” It's always like that because there is no general interest from students in what a Jew's Jew like Lipstadt has to say. Note that she is not a professor of history, as she's so often sloppily called, but merely of Jewish Studies. More recently, Emory University added “Holocaust” to her title, I would guess because of a book she wrote titled Denying the Holocaust.

Lipstadt is simply a promoter and apologist for everything Jewish; she is not a scholar. Germar Rudolf has shown very clearly that she ignores the scholarly method. So what did she talk about? As reported by Edmund Bannister, reporter for The Daily Northwestern, Lipstadt “traced the motivations of Holocaust deniers back to anti-Semitism, explaining that deniers were mistaken about the Holocaust and also consciously working to falsify history.” However, she presents NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS, in contrast to the revisionists who present evidence for every one of their arguments that the Jew-created version of the [Hollywood] Holocaust is false history. The revisionists [aka “deniers”] are correcting the falsified history of the Jewish storytellers.

“There are facts, there are opinions and there are lies,” Lipstadt said. “What deniers were trying to do … was take the lies and dress them up as opinions, and if they are opinions, they can be part of the conversation.” Is that it? But she doesn't tell us what she considers to be the “lies” that are dressed up as opinions. Germar Rudolf has shown that she is factually wrong in her own opinions. So who is right? I'll take Rudolf's knowledge of holocaust research over hers any day. And so should you.

One big opinion is that 6 million Jews (or even 5 million) were murdered in Europe by the German National-Socialist regime. There is NO evidence AT ALL for that – it's a complete fabrication. This is something that has to be taken on faith—as a social agreement that has been established—not as a proven finding in a murder case.

Lipstadt talks only about holocaust denial, not about the facts of the holocaust itself, which she just accepts at face value. She spoke of “three lessons she learned from researching Holocaust denial: 1) Holocaust denial comes from anti-Semitic prejudices rather than flawed thinking; 2) Holocaust deniers don’t usually seem anti-Semitic at first glance; and 3) denying the Holocaust is lying, not stating an opinion. Then, she moved on and discussed the trial that put her in the global spotlight.” She “moved on” without proving any of her "lessons", ie assumptions. This is the whole trick. Avoid getting tangled up in “proof” – in facts vs. fables. The trial with David Irving supposedly 'proved her right.' No, it didn't. The trial only found her not guilty of libeling Irving; it proved nothing at all about the truth of the holocaust.

Lipstadt's attempts at proof go like this: “The earth is not flat. The climate is changing. Elvis is not alive. The Holocaust happened.” Does this work for you? It is not only illogical, but irrational. The physics of the earth or the health status of Elvis can in no way be compared to the truth of the holocaust. It elicits a small laugh that allows her to end her talk on a friendly note, in spite of her total failure to demonstrate the “assault on truth” of her ambitious speech title, “Holocaust Denial and Alternative Facts: The Continuing Assault on Truth.”

Though she bandies about the term 'alternative facts' (which was actually coined by Trump aide Kellyanne Conway within the last six months) she never proves an actual untruth from a revisionist. It comes down to 'whatever a denier says, is an alternative fact.'

Why is it that the dumber the holo-hoaxers (think Elie Wiesel and Kenneth Waltzer {who still has not published his book, lol!}, for example, along with Lipstadt), the more attention and love the media gives them? In fact, Lipstadt has taken the place of Waltzer as the media's go-to “holocaust expert” after he messed up, which I, Carolyn Yeager, had something to do with.

To think that our universities host, and also hire these three as professors, tells us more than we want to know about their corrupt system. The fight goes on.