quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon;
Howard Zinn - A People's History of the United States

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.

---

didn't see that coming
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"

quote:

---

Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon;
Howard Zinn - A People's History of the United States

---

congrats on your 18th birthday jon

---

i never got a chance to read it in high school and it is essential reading. . history is fascinating to me, i'd pretty much read anything about history, ancient history, 20th century, military history, i enjoy it all.
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"

Last edited by Jon; on Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:48 am; edited 1 time in total

baby's first dissident history
_________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.

---

hehe this is a guy whose knowledge of history doesn't exceed high school level.

_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"

ya thats me
_________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Location: Texas


As for "last book I read" ... Suttree is pretty badass. It took a while to get used to it, but once I did it was great. Definitely not one you'd consider an easy read, but definitely worth it.

---

I haven't, but every McCarthy I read shoots up near the top of my favorites list so I'm pretty close to binging. I've only read The Road, All The Pretty Horses, Suttree, and No Country For Old Men. I really want to finish the trilogy next, so The Crossing is probably next on my list.

The Big Short - Michael Lewis

I did not really care for it. I was expecting something like a macro level description of the financial meltdown and the crooks that perpetrated it. Instead the book focused more on how a few clever people got stinking rich betting against the trend. I could care less about that.
_________________
Give me a lever long enough and I shall move the world. - Archimedes

_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"

reading finkelstein will be jon's final step into becoming an uber-zionist orthodox jew as he is confronted with the depravity of modern "jewish" (actually zionist) culture and retreats into the chauvinistic traditions of his ancient blood god
_________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kublikhan
The Big Short - Michael Lewis

I did not really care for it. I was expecting something like a macro level description of the financial meltdown and the crooks that perpetrated it. Instead the book focused more on how a few clever people got stinking rich betting against the trend. I could care less about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fast Luck
hassan-i-asher: majorin in takin pictures
dreamin bout wayne from catalina wine mixers
listen little friend stay outta the deep end
cuz you're less street than vampire weekend

---

finkelstein basically reads someones work and then says anything he wants about it regardless of content; basically everything he writes is misrepresentation through restatement.

lol like you've ever read finkelstein beyond what people have posted on this forum
_________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
lol like you've ever read finkelstein beyond what people have posted on this forum

---

no he;s right i wouldn't read a non-fictional history book or any history book except maybe whats on wikipedia; in fact, the last non-fiction book i read was probably Russell Simmons, and before that Spike Lee.

Like usually, i just took some knowledge from google and wiki to make a post about finkel

finkelstein is awesome, he's probably the best debater i've ever seen. has a real knack for getting to the point and tearing apart people when they try to use sleight of hand on him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcWIaYJGlOQ

quote:

---

Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
reading finkelstein will be jon's final step into becoming an uber-zionist orthodox jew as he is confronted with the depravity of modern "jewish" (actually zionist) culture and retreats into the chauvinistic traditions of his ancient blood god

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by _Ataxia_

finkelstein basically reads someones work and then says anything he wants about it regardless of content; basically everything he writes is misrepresentation through restatement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisLui
finkelstein is awesome, he's probably the best debater i've ever seen. has a real knack for getting to the point and tearing apart people when they try to use sleight of hand on him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcWIaYJGlOQ

---

the irony is that you think i should have to come up with supporting facts to defame someone who's career is entirely based on defaming people through slander and deceit.

just to suppress your idiotic tendency to rage without provocation though, i will render some facts unto thine infinitesimal cognition.

He tried to disbar a attorney representing holocaust victims, claiming the lawyer was extorting swiss banks for destroying records of holocaust victims; when in fact the lawyer's were in possession of a report and investigation by Volcker uncovering a minimum of 46,000 accounts held by the banks that belonged to holocaust victims.
keep in mind that this number is out of over 6 million accounts whose records were destroyed by swiss banks.

"but chaos, the holocaust is a myth!!! just like jesus!!!" yes i know that's how your brain thinks jon, sadly humanity will just have to move on without you to the next point.

franken claims Israel is herding Palestinians into Nazi type death camps, and mass killing prisoners. quote::: “There was a famous case in 1995 of a
Palestinian who was shaken to death while in detention. And nobody
disputed the facts the Israeli pathologist’s office, the forensic
pathologists who were brought into the case, eventually it went to the
Israeli High Court of Justice they all agreed. And I’m quoting now from
the High Court of Justice Judgment : 'All agree that Harizad died from the
shaking.” If you go to Dershowitz’s book, he discusses the case and says,
quote, 'An independent inquiry found that he didn’t die from the shaking,
but from a previous illness.' That was just made up.”::: unquote

wow, that quote was a complete fabrication. kinda like when jater says, quote:: chaos_lod " i'm a fag " ::unquote yup, just like that.

right, finkel also thinks jews claim holocaust survival for sympathy. finkel says something along the lines of, apparently 1 out of 3 jews is a holocaust survivor.

hmm yes thats a serious academic there, someone to be taken seriously no doubt .



SEE Daniel Goldhagen - The New Discourse of Avoidance :

here is a small quote:

quote:

---

Before my book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, was published in Germany
last year, many launched attacks on it that have since been shown to be
gross misrepresentations of its contents. Der Spiegel was at the forefront
of the initial assault, publishing a lengthy cover story, "A People of
Demons?" Its central theme was the fictitious charge that I had revived
the notion of "collective guilt," in which Der Spiegel tried to blacken my
character, among other ways, by likening me to an American who during the
war wrote that Germans should all be sterilized.(1) Der Spiegel then
published another fictitious story claiming that the German translation of
my book was cooked, which was such obvious nonsense that it was ignored in
Germany.(2) These stories did, however, give a hint as to the depths of
dishonesty to which some would sink in order to impugn a book that told
long neglected truths that many desperately wished not to hear.

When my book was finally published in German, several things became clear
to the German public. The initial attacks constituted a discourse of
avoidance that deflected attention from the real issues, the new
materials, and the conclusions that my book brings forth. It was also
obvious that many of the critics simply did not want to discuss these
central issues that had hitherto never been forcefully put before the
public: Why did so many ordinary Germans (however many did) support and
even participate in the persecution of the Jews and how did long existing
anti-Semitism (however widespread it was) contribute to their actions?

Having failed with its earlier attempts, Der Spiegel is now resorting to
using a notorious anti-Zionist ideologue, Norman Finkelstein, to launch a
new discourse of avoidance, with its article "Goldhagen -- a Source
Trickster?"(3) Finkelstein’s piece, "Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s ‘Crazy’
Thesis," is a fifty page screed (stretched out over one hundred pages in
the book version to lend it more gravity), which relies systematically on
distortions, misrepresentations, out-of-context quotations, and outright
inventions, to present a fallacious case that I misrepresent the secondary
sources and that my arguments are self-contradictory.(4) Der Spiegel, in
making its case for Finkelstein’s "devastating result," obviously chose to
present what it believes are the strongest examples from Finkelstein’s
piece. So looking at the "best" that Finkelstein has to offer is
sufficient to reveal the general character of his work.

One of Finkelstein’s examples concerns the ritual murder charges (that
Jews killed Christian children for ritual purposes) during the nineteenth
century, and that twelve of the charges eventually led to trials between
1867 and 1914. I bring them up as a small part of a larger discussion of
how widespread, vehement, and hallucinatory the anti-Semitism was in
nineteenth century Germany (and Austria) where such canards had widespread
currency. Ignoring the other voluminous evidence regarding the wide scope
and great intensity of anti-Semitism in Germany during this period,
Finkelstein zooms in on the fact that prosecutors could not prove that
Jews had actually committed these invented crimes (these cases actually
went to trial!) and concludes that this shows that Germans were not
anti-Semitic, and I should have said as much.(5) He writes as if "ritual
murder" trials of Jews had to yield guilty verdicts before one is
permitted to conclude that the widespread currency of such charges in
Germany indicated anything at all about the character of anti-Semitism
among its people. Based on the relevant German secondary sources, which
Finkelstein’s footnotes indicate he has not read, I write: "Even liberal
newspapers took to printing all manner of rumors and accusations against
Jews, including ritual murder charges, as if they had been proven
facts."(6) Finkelstein would have people believe that this is either not
true or irrelevant to the discussion of how widespread and hallucinatory
anti-Semitism was in Germany, and that the only thing that matters about
the routine ritual murder talk and accusations is that a court of law --
where actual evidence must be presented -- could not convict any Jew on
the charge.

Finkelstein also attacks my discussion of the anti-emancipation petition
campaign in Bavaria in 1849.(7) In the original, New Left Review version
of his piece, he uses a qualification that I present in my own endnote,
where I openly discuss the complexity of the events and the contested
nature of some of the evidence, to suggest that what I write in the text
is a misrepresentation! Moreover, in order to make his case, he violates
scholarly practice by presenting another scholar’s words describing the
campaign, "spontaneous, extremely broad-based, and genuine...," as mine,
for which he attacks me as misrepresenting the real nature of the
campaign.( This conclusion about the nature of the opposition to Jewish
emancipation is from James Harris’ exhaustive, definitive book on the
subject, The People Speak! Anti-Semitism and Emancipation in
Nineteenth-Century Bavaria. I write: "James Harris’ study of the petition
campaign concludes that, in one region of Bavaria, five to six times more
Germans opposed than favored Jewish emancipation."(9) But Finkelstein --
whose notes indicate that he has not even consulted Harris, the expert on
the subject -- declares not only the opposite to be true but also that I
have misrepresented the record.

After I exposed this example of Finkelstein’s unscholarly legerdemain in
the Frankfurter Rundschau, Finkelstein doctored this section of his piece
for its sanitized publication in A Nation on Trial. Finkelstein’s New Left
Review version on p. 48 reads: "To further document the extent of German
anti-Semitism, Goldhagen recalls a ‘spontaneous, extremely broad-based,
and genuine’ petition campaign in Bavaria opposing the full equality of
Jews. Yet the corresponding note tucked in the book’s back pages reveals
that..." The same passage in A Nation on Trial on p. 21 reads: "Quoting a
scholarly study, Goldhagen recalls a ‘spontaneous, extremely broad-based,
and genuine’ petition campaign in Bavaria opposing the full equality of
Jews. Yet in the corresponding note buried in the book’s back pages,
Goldhagen himself cites credible evidence that..." So Finkelstein, in his
original falsified version, has my note "revealing" that my attempt to
show that my statement about anti-Semitism’s scope is a misrepresentation.
In the revised version -- which was doctored after Finkelstein got caught
-- Finkelstein has me quoting a "scholarly study" and then in my note
"cit[ing] credible evidence" that casts doubt on the general statement.
His now revised section, in which he still leaves out the relevant
evidence, is still a misrepresentation of my book, of Harris’ work, and
the historical record -- though as damning criticism of me, it hardly
makes sense.

Finkelstein has effectively conceded with his surreptitious alteration of
his text after the exposure of his falsehood that he fabricated the
original New Left Review example of my supposed misrepresentation of the
record. He does so without informing the reader. And when one sees the
real text of my book, which follows the conclusions of James Harris, it
becomes clear that Finkelstein’s charge here is just a calumny. If
Finkelstein were, in a similar manner, to change every one of his
misrepresentations of text so that his piece’s contents would accord with
the actual relevant texts, then his "textually" based case would
evaporate. It is worth emphasizing that this is one of Finkelstein’s
strongest, most unassailable examples, which, in so many ways, does
nothing more than reveal that Finkelstein has delegitimized himself and
has himself proven that he has no credibility.

A third example concerns a section in my book on the widespread posting of
signs in German cities and towns declaring "Jews Not Wanted." From that
section, Finkelstein quotes, out of context, three words, "Germans posted
signs," suggesting that I covered up that it was really "Nazis" who did
so.(10) The section in my book begins: "For the next two years, Germans
inside and outside the government succeeded in making life for Jews in
Germany... all but unbearable.... During this period, the society-wide
attack proceeded in an uncoordinated manner. Some of its aspects were
mandated from above, some initiated from below, the latter generally,
though not always, by avowed Nazis. The main, though not sole, initiators
of assaults upon Jews were the men of the SA, the brown shirt shock troops
of the regime." So I make it clear here that they were mainly Nazis,
specifically saying that most of them were SA men. I then write: "During
the 1930s, towns throughout Germany issued official prohibitions on Jews
entering them, and such signs were a near ubiquitous feature of the German
landscape."(11) These passages make it clear that it was principally Nazis
who were responsible (who else was in a position to make "official
prohibitions"?), so Finkelstein’s attack that I cover up that the signs
came from Nazis is a fiction, which he makes by quoting three words out of
context.

The fourth example regards his falsification of evidence concerning my use
of a source. The compiler of Hitler’s public pronouncements, Max Domarus
believed that Hitler’s many public declarations that the war would end in
the extermination of the Jews was put forward within the context of
foreign policy because, in Domarus’ view, Hitler believed that the
extermination would not be approved of in Germany. After Finkelstein
quotes this, he writes: "Yet, Goldhagen writes: ‘Hitler announced many
times, emphatically, that the war would end in the extermination of the
Jews. The killing met with general understanding, if not approval.’ The
endnote refers to Max Domarus."(12) With this Finkelstein, as he does
throughout his article, contends that I appeal to the authority of other
authors when they say the opposite of what I maintain. The texts of my
book and Domarus’ book show that Finkelstein has invented this notion in
order to invent yet another false charge against me.

The Domarus work to which I refer is a multivolume compilation of Hitler’s
speeches and proclamations. It contains an introduction by Domarus, where
he presents a different interpretation from mine of how to understand
Hitler’s not entirely consistent statements. Finkelstein falsely suggests
that I cite Domarus ("the endnote refers readers to Max Domarus") as a
supporter of my interpretation while concealing that he actually has a
different view; yet my book is as clear as can be -- following standard
scholarly practice -- that I am not citing Domarus, the interpreter, but
referring to the materials that he has compiled. The endnote reference
mark in my book is placed after my sentence "Hitler announced many times,
emphatically, that the war would end in the extermination of the
Jews,"(13) which is an undisputed fact. The single page in Domarus’ book
which I cite in this note is vol. 1, p. 41. It contains some of these
announcements and references to others. My sentence subsequent to the
endnote reference mark, "The killings met with general understanding, if
not approval," is clearly my view, which I spend the next four hundred
pages substantiating. There is no reference or appeal to Domarus’ views or
authority. The view of Domarus that Finkelstein cites is not on the page
that I cite but on vol. 1, p. 37. So Finkelstein has taken an endnote
reference -- which indicates exactly and only where readers can find the
relevant quotations from Hitler -- and invented the notion that it comes
after a sentence in my book where I state my own interpretation of the
data. It is on the basis of Finkelstein’s own deception that he then
attacks my integrity. For Finkelstein to make this and his many other
charges seem plausible, he must engage in this sort of falsification,
which he does again and again. Concocting these sorts of falsifications
requires effort and ingenuity.

It is only through such wholesale falsification of evidence that
Finkelstein can give surface plausibility to his attack. His two principal
charges are, on the face of it, absurd. The first is that I have falsified
secondary sources. After hundreds of articles have been written about my
book -- including very critical ones, some by scholars in the field who
are the authors of the secondary sources that Finkelstein cites --
suddenly Finkelstein, a man who is a self-proclaimed amateur in the field,
for the first time, "discovers" my alleged transgression. His second
charge is that my argument falls apart through internal contradiction.
Prior to Finkelstein’s second "discovery," one of the standard criticisms
of the book is that its argument was too tight, too neat, seamless.
Finkelstein can make this second argument seem plausible only through
out-of-context quotation, the manifest twisting of meaning, and blatant
misrepresentation. This is also his standard technique for inventing the
aspersion that I have misused sources.

In addition to misrepresenting the contents of my book and the secondary
literature, Finkelstein relies on a second technique of deception
throughout. He finds an instance where a scholar disagrees with my
interpretation about some point. He then asserts, as if it is uncontested
fact, that such a disagreement shows that I have falsified two things. The
first is my conclusions. It is an assumption of his entire piece that
whenever a disagreement over interpretation exists between any scholar and
me 1) that the other scholar is automatically correct, 2) that I know it,
and 3) that I have willfully hidden it. He typically presents other
scholars’ interpretations of data as facts, which makes it seem as if my
putting forward a different position is to deny uncontested facts.

---

WHAT THE FUCK.....
i don't even know where to begin with this barely legible, uncoordinated sack of monkey shit you've just spewed.....

hmm... kill yourself. imo.
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"

lmao are you really citing goldhagen, one of finkelstein's many eternally QQing academic victims?

im too high to parse that shit right now i might try tomorrow but i have a feeling its going to be just as nonsensical sober as it is now
_________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.

---

btw, "the holocaust," as a discreet event that occurred outside of the greater nazi movement and wwii, separate and distinct from other mass scale state violence of the third reich against leftists, communists, sexual and non-jewish religious minorities, slavs, poles, roma, etc. and "special" in a way that those examples of the reich's violence are not, did not happen. bye
_________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.

---

this is why i don't bother trying to talk to you or gn anymore extremist white-boy muslim and sadistic nincompoop misanthropist are the two most prolific debaters on this forum, it's pretty funny but kinda scary too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon;

I'm watching "American Radical - The Trials of Norman Finkelstein" and this Alan Dershawitz character is a real annoying little kike fuck.
He ruined Finkelstein's tenure at DePaul University because Finklestein (probably accurately) accused him of plagiarism in his shitty "The Case for Israel" book.
He also says Finkelstein "isn't an a teacher, a propagandist, not a scholar" , which couldn't be farther from the truth. How does this idiot have the a audacity to accuse Finkelstein of being propagandist after writing that steaming pile of shit "A Case For Israel" .....
It's pretty annoying how such an inferior clown can wield such power over someone much smarter and morally superior.
Lynch Dershawitz imo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by something
Alan Dershowitz wrote:

I was using the twain quote 14 years before Peters wrote her book. I have documentary and eyewitness testimony of this fact. Since I came across the Twain quote on my own it would have been absurd and wrong to cite Peters.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:51:55
To:dersh@law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: The Case for Israel…

Mr. Dershowitz, this may be true, but then why did you quote him incorrectly, and make the SAME EXACT MISTAKES in your quotations of him that Joan Peters did. Doesn’t that seem a bit too much of a coincidence? Especially if, as you said, you’ve been quoting Twain correctly for so long?

— Alan Dershowitz wrote:

The Twain quote in various forms has been quoted in numerous proIsrael books and pamphlets including Myths and Facts

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:59:24
To:dersh@law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: The Case for Israel…

I have no doubt about that Mr. Dershowitz. But you did not say you got it from Myths and Facts or other pro Israel books and pamphlets. You CITED MARK TWAIN, NOT those other publications. This means that you went directly to Mark Twain when you were quoting him, and you also said this on Democracy Now. So, are you ADMITTING now that you in fact did not get it directly from Mark Twain? If so, then why did you CITE him? And if you DID go directly to Twain, then why, again, do you make the SAME EXACT MISTAKES in quoting him as Joan Peters?

— Alan Dershowitz wrote:

Subject: Re: The Case for Israel…
From: “Alan Dershowitz” dersh@law.harvard.edu
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:19:44 +0000

Why do I not believe your claims of objectivity. You are as big a phoney as Finkelstein. Stop emailing me and get a life.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

---

lol dershowitz got totally owned in that but seriously that sounds like a bunch of bullshit, is there more to the plagiarist claims than "he got a mark twain quote from someone elses book, but direct cited mark twain"
cuz if not then who cares? yeah maybe some academic fucks but why would it MATTER
_________________
i zero bagged your mother

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fast Luck
hassan-i-asher: majorin in takin pictures
dreamin bout wayne from catalina wine mixers
listen little friend stay outta the deep end
cuz you're less street than vampire weekend

---

ya there's a lot of them, i think finkelstein put them all in his book "beyond chutzpah". it matters because he's plagiarizing a bunch of stuff out of a book that has been thoroughly discredited.

ShadowRun - sciene-fiction, fantasy

also if you watch the debate between finkelstein and dershowitz on democracy now it comes up that dershowitz cited things like a high school web site and some rinky dink paper from orlando to back up some of the claims in his book. he's supposed to be a harvard professor producing serious research so all these things really add up and call into question his motivations.