Natalie Portman Challenges the Holocaust Uniqueness Doctrine
By Jonas E. Alexis on September 1, 2015
Deborah Lipstadt—whose greatest intellectual achievement is to call virtually anyone who disagrees with her a “Holocaust denier” or an “anti-Semite”—is an ideologue precisely because she does not allow truth and reason to guide her thinking.
“Frankly, my dear, I have no serious arguments. I only have ideology. And if you even dare to disagree with me here, then you are ipso facto an anti-Semite. I am Professor Deborah Lipstadt, and I welcome you to my world.”
[Editor’s Note: Deborah Lipstadt is a holocaust terrorist and it is time to get that phrase into the lexicon as she plays a roll similar to the Jihadi head choppers, to sew fear in the ranks of all non-believers.
I had to jump in here, rare for me to do because Jonas’ work does not need any help, because “Deborah the Lip” lives here in Atlanta and her holocaust kitsch is well known, but the news does not travel far. She was quoted at an all Jewish function once describing intermarriage as “holocausting the race”. There is no level to which this woman will not sink.
She was given an assignment to write Denying the Holocaust, but had the first version sent back for a rewrite. In the later lawsuit by David Irving against her for libel one of the discovery gems that he got is the letter requesting the rewrite. Her Lobby handlers wanted her to focus more on Irving as due to his reputation he was “our biggest threat at the moment”.
The book was a classic psychological operation
Her handlers fed her hoaxed research, like Irving having a huge painting of Hitler in his office behind his desk, and that his father served Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and much more. None of this was true but Lipstadt had no problem with putting it in.
Irving lost the case and the legal costs for both sides bankrupted him. A single judge heard the case and Irving later admitted that representing himself was a mistake.
David Irving in his prime
Lipstadt never testified. But he sacrificed all of his hard earned treasure to have the daily trial transcripts published over night during the trial, and where the above gem came from, including that she was paid $25,000 to write the book, in which I assume low paid interns helped.
One last gem I will share is another discovery document about a TV show that Irving was going to be on in Washington where the Jewish Lobby did their usual attempt to muscle the station into cancelling the show, which to their credit they did not. The Lobby people’s plan B was to insist they have one of their people in the show “out of fairness”, something they never accept when the situation is reversed.
Irving got his show guest’s report to his superiors where he stated that, “Irving is definitely not an anti-semite, but we will have to call him one anyway”. So that folks is why I don’t think it is an exaggeration to call these people holocaust terrorists, because unlike their smearing of Irving, they really are.
Please enjoy Jonas’ excellent piece below. He is one of our best writers, definitely the hardest working, and we are lucky to have him. As for Irving, I have three video shoots of trips he made to Atlanta which are among my archive treasures... Jim W. Dean ]
Noted German historian and philosopher Ernst Nolte once made the mistake of comparing the “Holocaust” to other crimes that have committed in history, such as Stalin’s extermination of the Russian people, the Armenian genocide, and Pol Pot’s crimes against humanity. For this, Jewish thought police Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University accused him of Holocaust denial, one of the most unpardonable sins of our age. Historian Joachim Fest defended Nolte on historical and rational grounds, and received the same treatment.
Nolte believes that “Auschwitz was contained in the principles of Nazi racist theory like the seed in the fruit.” He also believes that Hitler’s actions were monstrous. But that is not enough for Lipstadt. For her, Nolte has to do something better because the Holocaust, as the late Christopher Hitchens rightly put it back in 2001, is “a secular religion, with state support in the form of a national museum.” This secular religion, Jewish historian Tim Cole tells us, is “big business.”
Lipstadt is certainly enjoying this “big business.” For her, “Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism.” So, despite the fact that Nolte abides by the principles that make up the Holocaust narrative, he is an anti-Semite because he does not agree with Lipstadt. In 2011, Lipstadt told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that if Americans and Israeli politicians use the holocaust for political gains, then it is also similar to “soft-core denial.”
It is pretty obvious that Lipstadt—whose greatest intellectual achievement is to call virtually anyone who disagrees with her a “Holocaust denier” or an “anti-Semite”—is an ideologue precisely because she does not allow truth and reason to guide her thinking. In fact, she came to teach at Emory not because of her serious scholarship, but because of the Jewish influence in academe. As E. Michael Jones put it in 2009:
“Holocaust denial is another word for Jewish control of discourse, in particular historical discourse, in particular historical discourse about World War II. If an historian publishes something that a powerful Jew, which is to say a Jew with powerful backers, dislikes, that person will be punished.
“If the person in question lives by writing books, as David Irving once did, the Lipstadt brigade will get him blacklisted in the publishing industry. If the person in question is a professor, the big Jews will try to get him fired, as Deborah Lipstadt herself did in the case of Professor David O’Connell.”
One can say that Lipstadt’s ideological weltanschauung became quite apparent when she started to assign the book Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood 1939-1948to her students.
The Holocaust memoir of Benjamin Wilkomirski, Fragments came out in 1995 and enjoyed immediate success. Journalist Melissa Katsoulis writes that sales “across Europe and the English-speaking world were impressive. It won the prestigious Prix Memoire de la Shoah in France, the Jewish Quarterly’s prize in London and also its American equivalent, the National Jewish Books Award.
“Feted by critics, historians and book-buyers alike, Wilkomirski found himself fending off interview requests from television, newspaper and magazine editors, and for the next three years rose to become one of the most sought-after and well-loved survivors of Hitler’s atrocities.”
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen also supported the book, as well as major newspapers such as Publishers Weekly.
To everyone’s chagrin, Fragments was a complete hoax, a fabrication by a non-Jew. As Finkelstein puts it, “Half-fruitcake, half-mountebank, Wilkomirski, it turns out, spent the entire war in Switzerland. He is not even a Jew.”
That was bad enough. Yet Deborah Lipstadt stated the book was still “powerful as a novel”! But what about the people who plunked down the money to buy the book, thinking that it was actual history? Doesn’t Lipstadt owe them an apology?
Well, for the Holocaust establishment, a wicked ideology is more important than truth and reason. And once truth and reason are excluded from intellectual and political categories, then one is lost in the sea of irrational ideas, irresponsible assertions, mumbo jumbo, ideological interest, and complete hoaxes and colossal fabrications. After providing a frontal and rational attack on utilitarianism and its proponents, Emmanuel Kant wrote, “For what they discovered was never duty [objective moral principles which are universally binding], but only the necessity of acting from a certain interest [ideology].”
That certainly represents the academic life of Deborah Lipstadt. She frivolously argues that if a person says that Zionism is racism, then that person is ipso facto an anti-Semite. There is more. If the UN condemns Israel for mercilessly slaughtering the Palestinians, then that again is, in her own term, “legalized Anti-Semitism.” For her, Israel is always right. End of discussion.
In that sense, Norman Finkelstein is an anti-Semite (or self-hating Jew)! Lipstadt had this to say of Finkelstein:
“Think of the dirt you step in on the street and you know what kind of dirt I’m talking about. It has no importance unless you fail to clean it off your shoe before you go into the house.”
What we are seeing here is that Lipstadt is conforming the truth to her ideological desires and appetites. In other words, Lipstadt chose to suppress the real truth and substitute instead her own desires, which she spreads throughout her books and speeches and online writing. To understand the implications here, we must ask the deeper questions.
Is Fragments truth? Yes and no. In the Western rationalist tradition? No. In the essentially Talmudic tradition? It is, because it favors the ideological foundations of people like Lipstadt. This is why Lipstadt could only come up with the idea that the book is “a powerful novel.” In other words, she would prefer to promote a swift lie than to tell the truth about the book itself.
We are facing another intolerable situation here. Jewish ideologues such as Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida tell us that there is no such thing as absolute truth. They teach us all that we only have a text and interpretation to the text. But here Lipstadt is positing “absolute truth” about the “Holocaust”!
Throughout Denying the Holocaust, Lipstadt says that “attacks on the Western rationalist tradition have become common place.” This is certainly too good to be true.
How, then, is Lipstadt seeking to destroy the career of anyone who questions or challenges the central tenets of the Holocaust narrative? Why is she calling virtually anything that she does not like “anti-Semtism”? Why was she saying that there ought to be a “law against Holocaust denial”? Is that how the Western rationalist tradition works? You see, Lipstadt is carrying her own casket here. As E. Michael Jones rightly put it,
“In her professional activity Professor Lipstadt resembles less the scholar and more the political commissars assigned to units of the Soviet Army or the interrogators at the Cheka, the Soviet secret police, positions that were more often than not staffed by Jews, as Jewish historians have noted.
“Professor Lipstadt is the spiritual descendant of these Jewish investigators. Professor Lipstadt’s job is to shoot anybody in academe or publishing (the current equivalent of the Soviet army) who is not following the party line.”
Lipstadt also mentions Stanley Fish as one of the exponents of the idea that absolute truth does not exist. But Lipstadt, as E. Michael Jones would have framed it, cannot understand that Fish’s understanding of the text is drawn from his rejection of metaphysical Logos, the essence of all that exists.
What we are seeing here is that Lipstadt realizes that Fish’s essentially Talmudic interpretation of the text is becoming annoying and too demanding and certainly cannot stand intellectual scrutiny. If absolute truth does not exist, Lipstadt seems to realize, then the Holocaust narrative is a sham.
Deborah Lipstadt’s ideology has certainly come to an abrupt end recently when Hollywood celebrity and Jewish actress Natalie Portman said:
“I think a really big question the Jewish community needs to ask itself, is how much at the forefront we put Holocaust education. Which is, of course, an important question to remember and to respect, but not over other things.”
“What? You mean to tell me that the Holocaust is unique? Come on!”
The Jerusalem Post said that Portman “recalled learning about the Rwandan Genocide during a visit to a museum and being shocked that while the Holocaust figured prominently into her education, a contemporary genocide did not. According to the United Nations, 800,000 people, ‘perhaps as many as three-quarters of the Tutsi [tribal] population’ were killed during the course of the early ’90s genocide.”
“I was shocked that that [genocide] was going on while I was in school. We were learning only about the Holocaust and it was never mentioned and it was happening while I was in school. That is exactly the type of problem with the way it’s taught. I think it needs to be taught, and I can’t speak for everyone because this was my personal education.
“We need to be reminded that hatred exists at all times and reminds us to be empathetic to other people that have experienced hatred also. Not used as a paranoid way of thinking that we are victims. Sometimes it can be subverted to fear-mongering and like ‘Another Holocaust is going to happen.’”
The Holocaust establishment, of course, went berserk. Colette Avital, the chairwoman of the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors in Israel, responded:
“Natalie should understand that the Holocaust which befell us cannot be compared to other tragedies – our empathy notwithstanding. It was not merely hatred, it was a policy whose aim was to systematically wipe out a whole people from the face of the world.”
Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Jerusalem office declared,
“If [Portman] wants to express her sympathy with all victims of such tragedies, this is definitely not a smart way to do so.”
Interesting, isn’t it? The Israeli regime and their puppets in the West spent years saying that Saddam Hussein was the “new Hitler.” Then it was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former president of Iran, who was the “new Hitler.” Vladimir Putin is currently the “new Hitler” on the block. And now Avital is telling us that the so-called Holocaust “cannot be compared to other tragedies”? What in the world is that?
Jonah Goldberg wrote back in 2003 that “comparing Saddam to Hitler is justified.”
But comparing the “Holocaust” to other genocides is not justified, even though we have massive historical accounts indicating that what happened in Nazi Germany was just a footnote in the history of mankind. Something really fishy is going on here. As E. Michael Jones pointed out again,
“We live in a culture which erects monuments to Jewish culture. We also live in a culture which prohibits unauthorized interpretations of Jewish monuments. The Holocaust is the prime Jewish cultural monument of our day.
“So we have a federally funded Holocaust museum in Washington, but at the same time it is illegal in many countries of the world to question any of the self-contradictory assertions about the Holocaust….
“Questioning the number of people who died in concentration camps, whether they died in gas chambers or by other means, or whether there was a plan to exterminate Jews, can land you in jail in 13 countries in the world, even though the numbers have already changed a number of times and the term holocaust came from a by now abandoned assertion that the Jews were exterminated in pits of flaming kerosene.”
“Puppets of the Holocaust establishment are asking me to be an idiot. They want me to drop the Socratic method which I learned from the intellectual tradition and then to embrace a new rule which is essentially Talmudic. In other words, Goyim like me cannot ask serious questions about World War II. This is too demanding for me. For this very reason, they have accused me of Holocaust denial. If that is the way they want to go, so be it.”
The Holocaust establishment is certainly not being fair at all. They are giving lip service to academic inquiry and intellectual honesty and pursuit while at the same time they are doing their best to persecute and prosecute people who simply ask deep questions about the past. Dr Fredrick Töben, our good friend and a true fighter, is a classic example. He has been mercilessly and unfairly called a “Holocaust denier” by the powers that be. Why?
Well, he questioned the metaphysical nature of the Holocaust narrative. But since proponents of the Holocaust narrative do not present serious arguments, they have chosen to attack him personally by calling him a neo-Nazi or anti-Semite.
Legal scholar Uta Kohl of Aberystwyth University, Wales, writes without qualifications or serious thought that Toben had published “anti-Semitic material,” leaving the impression that the man is indeed an anti-Semite. Toben was trained in philosophy. In other words, asking deep questions is part of his intellectual patrimony.
So, the Holocaust establishment was asking him to drop his critical thinking skills, lower his intellectual standard, and embrace an ideology which is essentially anti-reason. Töben, after much reflection, refused. This was an unpardonable sin, and Töben ended up spending months in jail. Here is what he told me:
“I am a Holocaust questioner because that is what my philosophical training was all about – to question the veracity of what Holocaust historians have constructed in their narrative.
“Throughout these past seventy years this narrative has constantly changed while being fixed in legal concrete, and I object to such mechanism that has often protected outright lies at the expense of truth emerging, which directly impacts on our free expression – the hallmark of our civilization.”
Is this view outside the Western intellectual tradition? Absolutely not. To this very day, the state of Israel does not even recognize the Armenian genocide. As we shall see in the future, Jewish professors such as Bernard Lewis spent years at Princeton postulating that the event was not genocide. Did he ever spend a day in jail for embracing such a belief? No. Did the Holocaust establishment petition that he be fired from the university? No.
Töben continued to tell me:
“So, I question any aspect, any assertion made in those many Holocaust-Shoah narratives for truth-content, otherwise I would be offending against my philosophical training and would support the construction of an ideology.”
This view, which is rational and defensible, has cost Töben dearly. He said:
“I was forced into bankruptcy of $230,000+ because legal aid would not cover such proceedings [the cases against him].”
Töben was accused of being a racist, but he defused those charges by saying, “I am firmly anti-racist and I do not come at this in any way designed to undermine the Jewish community.”
But that answer still did not satisfy puppets of the Holocaust establishment, who mercilessly persecuted the good man. A few months ago, Töben sent me a message documenting how so-called sex education has invaded German elementary schools. In 2013, the Daily Mail itself gloriously reported that “Bestiality brothels are ‘spreading through Germany…’” That, of course, is freedom. But questioning or challenging the Holocaust ideology is a step too far?
Again, this manipulation is certainly getting on people’s nerves.
When Töben heard that I was challenging the Holocaust narrative, he warned me:
“Be wise, and if you can withstand the stress of being a dissenter without hurting your love ones, then the historical examples…should guide you through this legal minefield…There will be attempt to destroy your moral stance but remain firm because truth is your defense.”
This is almost the same thing that he told the Telegraph back in 2008:
“If you wish to begin to doubt the Holocaust-Shoah narrative, you must be prepared for personal sacrifice, must be prepared for marriage and family break-up, loss of career, and go to prison.”
I certainly appreciate men who submit to the truth and reason. I salute brave men who refuse to follow a wicked ideology. Töben certainly reminds me of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whom we have quoted extensively in the past:
“And thus, overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: will he remain a witting servant of the lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?”
 We will delve into the Armenian genocide in the future.
 Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Assault on Truth (New York: Penguin, 1994), 211.
 Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 104.
 Christopher Hitchens, “The Strange Case of David Irving,” LA Times, May 20, 2001.
 Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold (New York: Routledge, 2000), 1.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, “Holocaust Denial and Thought Control: Deborah Lipstadt at Notre Dame University,” Culture Wars, May 2009.
 Chemi Shalev, “Top Holocaust Scholar Blasts ‘Holocaust-abuse’ by U.S., Israeli Politicians,” Haaretz, December 16, 2011.
 D. D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002), 67-68.
 Jones, “Holocaust Denial and Thought Control: Deborah Lipstadt at Notre Dame University,” Culture Wars, May 2009.
 Melissa Katsoulis, Literary Hoaxes: An Eye-Opening History of Famous Frauds (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2009), 237.
 Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000), 67.
 Ibid., 60.
 Emmanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 433.
 Jones, “Holocaust Denial and Thought Control: Deborah Lipstadt at Notre Dame University,” Culture Wars, May 2009.
 Deborah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth (New York: Penguin, 1993), 17.
 Quoted in Jones, “Holocaust Denial and Thought Control: Deborah Lipstadt at Notre Dame University,” Culture Wars, May 2009.
 Quoted in Sam Sokol, “Natalie Portman: Holocaust is no more tragic than other genocides,” Jerusalem Post, August 23, 2015.
 Ibid; for other sources, see also Andrew Silow-Carroll, “From Natalie Portman, a history lesson worth hearing,” Times of Israel, August 26, 2015; Antonia Bloomberg, “Natalie Portman Says Jewish Community Focuses Too Much On Holocaust,” Huffington Post, August 26, 2015; Anne Cohen, “Natalie Portman Thinks Jews Focus Too Much on The Holocaust,” Forward, August 24, 2015; Gabe Friedman, “Natalie Portman says Jewish community is too focused on the Holocaust,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 24, 2015.
 Sokol, “Natalie Portman: Holocaust is no more tragic than other genocides,” Jerusalem Post, August 23, 2015.
 Anne Kornblut and Charles Sennott, “Saddam the new Hitler, Bush tells Europeans,” Sydney Morning Herald, November 22, 2002; “The World; Stalin to Saddam: So Much for the Madman Theory,” NY Times, May 4, 2003; “Saddam Hussein: The blundering dictator,” Economist, January 4, 2007; “Blair likens Saddam to Hitler,” CNN, March 1, 2003; Erwin Knoll, “Hussein Is The New Villain-of-the-month,” Chicago Tribune, August 17, 1990.
 “Hitler in the Twenty First Century:comparing Ahmadinejad and Hitler quotes,” Free Republic, August 3, 2006; Joshua Yasmeh, “Ahmadinejad: The next Hitler?,” Jewish Journal, February 1, 2007; “Christian Zionists: Ahmadinejad is new Hitler,” Y-Net News, July 18, 2007.
 Paul Johnson, “Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler?,” Forbes, May 5, 2014; Ian Traynor and Ewen MacAskill, “David Cameron warns of ‘appeasing Putin as we did Hitler,’” Guardian, September 2, 2014; Garry Kasparov, “Vladimir Putin and the Lessons of 1938,” Politico, March 16, 2014; “Sochi is to Putin what Berlin in 1936 was to Hitler, says Garry Kasparov,” Guardian, February 7, 2014; Ginger Adams Otis, “Prince Charles compares Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler during talk with Holocaust survivor,” NY Daily News, May 20, 2014.
 Comparing Saddam to Hitler is justified,” Townhall.com, February 19, 2003.
 See for example Norman M. Naimark, Stalin’s Genocide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Taner Akcam, The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012); Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990 and 2008); The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).
 E. Michael Jones, Assassins and Character Assassins (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), kindle edition.
 “Holocaust denier Frederick Toben backs George Brandis’ plans for discrimination law,” Sydney Morning Herald, March 13, 2014; Dan Goldberg, “Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben declared bankrupt in Australia,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 24, 2012; Katharine Gelber, Speech Matters: Getting Free Speech Right (Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 2011), 7, 92-93.
 Stephen E. Atkins, Holocaust Denial as an International Movement (Westport: Praeger, 2009), 233.
 Uta Kohl, Jurisdiction and the Internet: Regulatory Competence over Online Activity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 101.
 Quoted in David Barrett, “Holocaust denier Dr Fredrick Toben should not be extradited, says Liberal Democrat MP,” The Telegraph, October 4, 2008.
 Aislinn Simpson, “’Holocaust denier’ Gerald Toben arrested at Heathrow,” Telegraph, October 1, 2008.
 Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Solzhenitsyn Reader
(Wilmington: ISI Books, 2007), 558.
Jonas E. Alexis studied mathematics and philosophy as an undergraduate at Palm Beach Atlantic University and has a master’s degree in education from Grand Canyon University.
Some of his main interests include the history of Christianity, U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book , Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the first Century to the Twenty-first Century.
He is currently teaching mathematics in South Korea. He plays soccer and basketball in his spare time. He is also a cyclist. He is currently writing a book tentatively titled Zionism and the West.
Alexis welcomes comments, letters, and queries in order to advance, explain, and expound rational and logical discussion on issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, the history of Christianity, and the history of ideas.
In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, Alexis asks that all queries be appropriately respectful and maintain a level of civility. As the saying goes, “iron sharpens iron,” and the best way to sharpen one’s mind is through constructive criticism, good and bad.
However, Alexis has no patience with name-calling and ad hominem attack. He has deliberately ignored many queries and irrational individuals in the past for this specific reason—and he will continue to abide by this policy