archives / bookstore / news / home
by Deborah Lipstadt
(Hoffman's rejoinder follows, below)
Feb. 23, 2006
In the last few hours Google Video removed two of revisionist Michael A. Hoffman II's three videos from its free video online website (http://video.google.com).
According to Hoffman [take anything a denier says with a grain of skepticism] he received the an e-mail from Google informing him that his "videos violate our Program Policies. The titles of the videos are listed at the end of this message. According to our policy, we are removing the following videos: World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan [and] Deborah Lipstadt, "Amalek" and David Irving..."
The video, which was a virulent attack on me by Hoffman, was introduced by David Irving. I had actually placed a link to the video on this blog.Hoffman attributes its removal to "behind-the-scenes pressure that was exerted on Google." In his statement about the removal he clearly attributes the pressure to me. Now here's the rub. I am sorry the video is gone. It was such a blatant example of the venomous hatred these folks feel towards Jews. It also was a prime illustration of their delusional conspiracy theories. I had used it in a number of speeches to illustrate their thinking.
I showed clips of it to some of my students to illustrate contemporary antisemitism. They got it without my having to say anything. Now it's gone....
[At least I know that there is lots more of this kind of stuff out there and I will easily find a replacement for this video. That's what modern Hebrew would describe as hatzi nechama, half a consolation.]
Hoffman Challenges Lipstadt on the Subject of Amalek and Accuses Her of Relishing David Irving's Conviction and Sentence
by Michael A. Hoffman II
Feb. 23, 2006
In the wake of the removal by Google of two of my videos from their online broadcasting service, Deborah Lipstadt in her Feb. 23 blog is now pretending that my video (Deborah Lipstadt, "Amalek" and David Irving) never troubled her.
She claims to have showed segments of it to her students (not the whole speech, of course) in order, it seems, to give them a zoological exhibition of species antisemiticus: "blatant example of the venomous hatred... a prime illustration of...delusional conspiracy theories."
These are the stock-in-trade cliches in which any original thinker is branded when any radical critique of a votary of Holocaustianity, Judaism or the alleged Auschwitz execution gas chambers obtains an audience.
Thus far Prof. Lipstadt has written in her weblog on three separate occasions concerning my now suppressed video, "Lipstadt/Amalek/Irving," beginning with her Jan. 27 entry and running through today, Feb. 23.
While my video was still online and being broadcast, she was not nearly so comfortable, or cavalier about the audience it was gaining. Only after her partisans successfully pressured Google to remove it (Google had no problems with it initially; Google has admitted it removed the videos only in response to complaints), she relaxed and posed as a champion of Google's broadcast of it. Note bene: these are sentiments she did not express while the video was online, only after it was censored and it looked as though the onus for the censorship might fall on her, did she state her opposition to the censorship.
Lipstadt does not want this censorship laid at her door or even within her camp, so she behaves as though the video of my speech never troubled her in the least, in fact it is an advertisement for the neanderthal spirit against which she and the forces of goodness are arrayed!
There are a couple of problems with this pose. Anyone who examines her two extended descriptions of my speech (the third is a brief allusion) will note a central evasion on her part. She never deals even tangentially with the main point of my talk, her identification of Mr. Irving as "Amalek" (more properly, an Amalekite). The understanding of how this term is applied to revisionists and Palestinians is a key to the comprehension of the Zionist-supremacist mentality.
Who is Amalek? What is required that Judaics do with Amalek? How is this requirement implemented today?
Lipstadt has not entertained these questions. Instead she puts me in the Judaic zoo where they keep on display the delusional conspiracy theorists, the haters of the Jewish people etc., where my humanity and intellect can be denied, where no one need confront the issues I raise or answer the points I make, where I am a species (antisemiticus), rather than an an eccentric but sincere researcher, a delving investigator, a thought-diver, as Melville called it.
As a species, we are all alike and we therefore have nothing to say. My study of Lipstadt and Amalek is just standard fare. All the anti-semites talk that way, as Lipstadt implies: "At least I know that there is lots more of this kind of stuff out there and I will easily find a replacement for this video."
That is how her public is to relate to me, in contemptuous psychiatric and criminological terms. No decent member of her audience is supposed to wander outside those boundaries, to ask, "Prof. Lipstadt, why did you and your colleagues label David Irving Amalek at a time when Orthodox Judaics were labeling Arabs as Amalek, the better to drive them from their land and kill them? Moreover, what does Orthodox Judaism require that Judaics do with Amalek?"
These are the serious and provocative questions that are not answered or even mentioned by Lipstadt and without being prodded by this writer, Lipstadt dares not broach. This is why, when my video was being broadcast and it was not certain that Google would withdraw it, she was not quite so sanguine about it as she is now, calling it a "revolting video attack...dripping with hatred... but, if you want to see what these people are like, it's worth watching. Just be forewarned: you need a strong stomach."
The accusation of "dripping with hatred" is Pavlovian. It is cited without proof or evidence because it is certain to evoke an automatic response from the votaries of Holocaustianity. My speech is an exposé of hatred, a jeremiad against assassination, dehumanization and "the howl of the primitive."
If Lipstadt's claim that she is sorry to see that my video has been removed by Google is sincere, she can write to Dr. Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO and request that the video be restored to online broadcast status.
I do not believe she will do this however, based in part on her approach to the trial of David Irving. She went on record as being opposed to his prosecution and then did nothing meaningful to prevent it. It seems to me that she relished his conviction and prison sentence, all cant to the contrary, as evidenced by the following statement in her Feb. 20 blog; "David Irving brought this down on himself....He knew the law in that country and yet he flagrantly violated it. As my friend Ken Stern said: if you don't like Thai drug laws, don't go to Thailand."
I think this is probably the real face of Janus Lipstadt. Her sentiments trivialize Irving's martyrdom in the cause of freedom of speech. Because he tested the Orwellian Austrian laws against "Holocaust" dissent he "brought it (three years imprisonment) on himself." In other words, he should have turned tail and ran and left the dictatorial status quo in Austria in place. Is this how freedom has been extended in the past? By truckling servility?
Observe the mocking quality of Stern's remark: comparing a writer to a drug trafficker, and Austria's mind control law to a narcotics law.
I am willing to appear in Deborah Lipstadt's classroom on camera, for the videotaped record. She need not violate her self-imposed taboo and debate me. I will simply answer questions from her students about Amalek, Irving and Lipstadt. Then let's submit the unedited videotape of the discussion to Google, with Lipstadt's imprimatur (which will tend to guarantee its broadcast and longevity).
If my work represents no threat to your house of cards, then accept the challenge, Prof. Lipstadt.
Meanwhile, your noblesse oblige, exhibited after my video has been safely placed in the trash by Google, is transparent dissimulation.
That's what Yiddsh would describe as "a sheyne mayse."
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, February 22, 2006 -- Two days after dissident historian David Irving was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Austria, Google Video removed two of revisionist Michael A. Hoffman II's three videos from its free video online website.
Hoffman received the following e-mail from Google: Google has been notified that your videos violate our Program Policies. The titles of the videos are listed at the end of this message. According to our policy, we are removing the following videos: World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan [and] Deborah Lipstadt, "Amalek" and David Irving. To review our Program Policies please visit: http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=27737&topic=1490
Hoffman's videos passed Google's review process and were approved for broadcast by Google last January. The finding of a "violation" almost a month later, can only be due to behind-the-scenes pressure that was exerted on Google.
Hoffman's video, which consists of a speech about Lipstadt introduced by David Irving, had been broadcast on Google since January 24, 2006 with, according to Google, 1708 "page views" in that time.
Writing on January 27, three days after the video debuted, Deborah Lipstadt lost no time in attacking it in her blog: "While I am generally reluctant to send people to antisemitic sites [why increase the traffic to these purveyors of hate?], I was recently alerted to a video from David Irving's Real History conference in which Michael Hoffman II, someone well known to those who are aware of the cohort of racists, antisemites, and deniers, engages in a virulent attack on me." http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2006/01/revealing-and-revolting-video-attack.html
In her blog, she carefully skirts the issue of Amalek, while making it seem as though Hoffman accuses her of hiring hit men to get Irving. What Hoffman analyzed in his speech was the assassination chic that runs the gamut from the dehumanization of Irving as an "Amalek," to the perverse celebration of the state terror that Israelis perpetrate with their assassinations of "suspect" Palestinians who are also labeled "Amalek," and which contributes to an atmosphere of hatred and intimidation.
Hoffman's video of an interview with Charles D. Provan, "World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan" was also removed by Google, again for failing to "comply with our guidelines." The Provan video had been on Google Video the longest of Hoffman's three videos-- since Jan. 19--registering 1668 "page views" in that time.
Hoffman states, "There is nothing that can be construed as illegal or 'hateful' in the interview with Provan, who believes in the Nazi gas chambers." However, Provan also believes that the execution gas chambers were operated in certain cases by Judaic collaborators. "I am not certain if Provan's video was censored by Google for that reason, or in order to muddy the waters by distracting attention away from the censorship of the video of my Lipstadt speech," Hoffman added.
Another video, "The Judaic Role in the Black Slave Trade" a speech by Prof. Tony Martin with an introduction by Hoffman, remains online at Google, as of this writing (Feb. 22). Viewers who wish to see it before it too is censored by Google, should click on the preceding link and view it immediately. Dr. Martin's speech has had 1699 page views since it was first broadcast on Google Video on January 21, 2006.
Hoffman observed, "Goggle prides itself on being at the cutting edge of Internet freedom, yet in the case of the censorship of two of my three Google videos, it has shown itself to be just as beholden to the fears, prejudices and superstitions of religious fanatics as any of the traditional print media. There is no nudity, pornography, racial invective or copyright violations in my videos.
"These videos are intellectual and ideological. They constitute a protest against racism and they contain radical critique, suppressed information and a unique perspective capable of inspiring original thinking and new approaches to perennial human issues. Google approved them a month ago. The grounds for removing them now is a result of dictates from self-appointed thought police to which Google submitted.
"Google is supposed to be dedicated to providing access to the whole spectrum of human knowledge and inquiry. But with their self-censorship of the Lipstadt and Provan videos, they demonstrate to the world that Google is not an information provider but an information gatekeeper, similar to the tired, discredited model perpetuated by the old media," Hoffman concluded.
Letters and faxes concerning Google's censorship may be addressed as follows:
Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google, Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
Fax: Attention Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO (650) 963-3299
archives / bookstore / news / home
RevisionistHistory.org Box 849 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA