🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8eb000$j9r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Salvador Astucia  <fidel_goldberg@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <8e86qb$s2u$1@niwot.scd.ucar.edu>,
>  sog@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi) wrote:

>All because one judge called Irving a racist. Hmmmmm.  You've got a lot
>of faith in courts and judges.  

More than I have in brown-shirted thugs, Sparky.

>BTW, the judge also called Irving a
>racist.  

Based in part upon Irving's own statement that the AIDs epidemic
in Africa was "God's Final Solution [for] eliminating blacks" I'd
class him as a racist, too.

>But the question is, who was his racism directed against?

I fail to see why that is "the question". The *legal* question
raised by Irving's suit (which was "the question" before the court)
was whether Lipstadt libelled Irving by calling into question his
methodology and motives. The court found that she did not. As to
what you personally consider to be "the question", I'm afraid that
I am insufficiently versed in abnormal psychology to be able to
comment upon your mental processes.

>Certainly not Debra Lipstadt.  She's the same shade of white as Irving.

"Deborah". Besides, it's long been one of the bizarre conclusions of
the Nazi and neo-Nazi movements that Jews are somehow a "race", just as
they (or should I say "you"?) also contend that Indo-Europeans (a/k/a
"Aryans") are members of an anthropologically distinct
"race" instead of merely speakers of one of a particular family of languages.

Speaking as a layman, I just consider it one of the peculiar symptoms
of the psychosis.  

Mr. Irving's personal attitudes are revealed by his own statement from
the trial transcript (during his cross-examination of Professor Evans
on day 18 of the trial) indicating that he shares in this strange form
of mental confusion:

	I can never understand the difference between calling them [the
	Jews] a race or a religion. I do not wish to get into that
	region. I have never made any distinction.

Based on Mr. Irving's own contention that Jews are somehow a "race", I
can see quite clearly how his racism might be directed towards Professor
Lipstadt since he believes that, on the basis of her Jewishness, she can
be categorized as belonging to some sort of distinct "race".


>> From Leuchter to Irving,

>"From the redwood forests, to the gulf stream borders..."

I think you'll find that Woody Guthrie's ideology was quite distinct 
from yours.

>> the whole panoply of revisionist authors were shown to have
>> misquoted their "supporting" documents, falsified
>> quotes, fabricated evidence, and lied about basic science.

>Talmudic spin, obviously.  You're proving my point about how biased and
>unfair the Jewish controlled news media covered the Irving trial.

They scarcely covered it at all, "Sal"...even *after* the verdict.

>You're parroting their official line.

Unlike you, "Sal", I'm not parroting anybody.

As far as your contentions of "Talmudic spin" and "Jewish control" are
concerned, allow me to offer the following observations (gleaned from
a perusal of the actual transcripts, which you wish to so heartily to
ignore):

Sir John Keegan (one of the most respected military historians of WWII)
isn't Jewish, and I doubt if he's read much of the Talmud. In his
testimony, he characterized Irving's contentions as "perverse" and said
that they "defied reason". Amazingly enough, he was called as a witness
*by* Irving.  

Professor Richard Evans of Cambridge University (who also isn't Jewish)
in his expert witness report to the court on Irving's historical
methodology gave the following description of Irving's writings:

	I was not prepared for the sheer depth of duplicity,
	his numerous mistakes, and the egregious errors. They
	were not accidental, on the contrary it is obvious they
	were calculated and deliberate.

He further states (perhaps in reference to folks like you, "Sal"):

	Irving has relied in the past, and continues to rely in the
	present, on the fact that his readers and listeners, reviewers
	and interviewers lack either the time, or the expertise, to
	probe deeply enough into the sources he uses for his work to
	uncover the distortions, suppressions and manipulations to
	which he has subjected them.

On page 25 or his report, he says the following about Irving:

	Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship
	customary among historians that he does not deserve to be
	called a historian at all.

Finally, Justice Gray, the jurist who presided over this case and issued
the damning verdict against Irving, is not Jewish nor is he a member
of the "media". His qualifications as a Talmudic scholar are unknown
to me but I presume them to be minimal.

Steve