David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hannover » 3 years 2 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 3:39 pm)

Hadding said:
Ultimately it was a lot more useful just to read Walter Bruns' statement from the London Cage, since Irving was claiming to base his account of the shooting on that. Bruns' statement discredits itself with absurd claims, and also contradicts what Irving wants to make of it. Sad but true: David Irving relies heavily on people not checking his sources.

Indeed, the Walter Bruns nonsense and others supposedly involved in the bogus 'recorded conversations' recently came up in this thread:

'Clandestine Tapes of German POW'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10419

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the childish 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.


Image
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

flimflam
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby flimflam » 3 years 2 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:51 pm)

I don't believe Hadding Scott's articles on Irving and Weber would have been published on CODOH if Bradley Smith were still with us and I think Scott's articles are an insult to Smith and everything he stood for, and are totally inappropriate for CODOH. I think they should be retracted and apologies offered to Irving and Weber for publishing such garbage. Of the 7 billion people on the planet maybe 10 have done more than Weber and Irving to combat the insanity of the holohoax, but that is not good enough for Scott. His holier than thou attitude and juvenile insults and vocabulary are totally destructive to revisionism and really annoy the hell out of me.

The holocaust is a preposterous hoax, the focus now doesn't need to be the details of what happened in camp x on day y, the focus should be the worldwide propaganda campaign that effectively controls every government, every newsperson, and beyond that every academic to the last man/woman save Arthur Butz, and that has resulted in 25 years of US military attacks in the middle east and the deaths of millions, and it threatens to get worse before it gets better. The Zionists love it when the few people who are trying to expose the truth spend their time attacking each other. It's the Jews' 'culture of critique', the endless criticism of US religion, society, and tradition that is leading the west to cultural and racial suicide, applied to the revisionist movement. It should be shown the door at CODOH.

JoFo
Member
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:14 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby JoFo » 3 years 2 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:37 pm)

Well put, FlimFlam!!

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Werd » 3 years 2 months ago (Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:39 pm)

I think they should be retracted and apologies offered to Irving and Weber for publishing such garbage.

Irving is a complete and total arse.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2202.
And sometimes has has been very sloppy.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8135
Mark Weber is a greedy scumbag who has tried to corner the market on holocaust revisionism all for himself. And also conspired to sell noontide press mailing lists to the ADL. He also destroyed the Journal for Historical Review. Ted O Keefe blew the whistle on it years ago.
viewtopic.php?t=8284
He also betrayed revisionism live on FOX on Hannity and Colmes. He, like Irving, believes in limited gassings now.
Germar Rudolf published a devastating article on Weber this year. [last year - Thanks, M1]
http://codoh.com/library/document/3367/
What's next? Are you going to ask this chemist, this scholar, this gentleman who has kept the holocaust handbooks series going while The Barnes Review HAS PRETTY MUCH STOPPED CARRYING THE NEWER BOOKS IN THE SERIES...are you going to demand Rudolf apologize to Weber for what he wrote? Give your head a shake!

Weber and Irving are acting exactly like the Jews that want to destroy revisionism. THEY HAVE PUT A HUGE DENT IN IT only from which we are slowly starting to recover thanks to the endless work of Rudolf and Mattogno. Who else would end the journal of historical review, refuse to carry Germar Rudolf's books in the 90's, ensure that the IHR and the Barnes Review stop carrying updated and new installments from the holocaust handbook series, and treat other revisionists like Bellinger like shit and steal his manuscript about Himmler's murder? THOSE GUYS ARE DESTRUCTIVE TO REVISIONISM. Research what these two knuckleheads have done before you go and open your mouth. Time to catch up. This isn't the early 2000's anymore.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Moderator » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:30 am)

Everyone, get grip on your language.
And believe me, Bradley Smith had no problem with CODOH taking shots at Weber or Irving. A quick search of the CODOH main site reveals that.
Thanks, M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:41 am)

Flimflam said:

His holier than thou attitude and juvenile insults and vocabulary are totally destructive to revisionism....


I would like some specifics about what Flimflam sees as "juvenile insults and vocabulary" in my articles. I expect that instead of a response I will hear crickets chirping.

I don't see how anything could be more "destructive to revisionism" than for the head of the IHR to declare its mission pointless. Flimflam seems not to have taken any note of that.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2470
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby borjastick » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:27 am)

Ooh this is brewing up nicely.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

flimflam
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby flimflam » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:42 am)

An example of Scott's juvenile insults and vocabulary .... quoting - "Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker". I didn't even have to read the article. Not even my 12 y.o. daughter talks like that.

"And believe me, Bradley Smith had no problem with CODOH taking shots at Weber or Irving. "

Taking shots is one thing, a smear job is another.

Hadding
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:15 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hadding » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:35 am)

Flimflam says:

An example of Scott's juvenile insults and vocabulary .... quoting - "Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker". I didn't even have to read the article. Not even my 12 y.o. daughter talks like that.


Okay, so did you ever bother to read the article after you were offended by the title? You seem to say that you did not.

I promise you that the description of Mark Weber in the title was well justified by the content that followed.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Hannover » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:32 pm)

I feel that Hadding should be judged on the merits of his arguments in debunking Irving's 'holocaust-lite' nonsense, nothing else.
IMO, Hadding's demolition of Irving is irrefutable and well deserved. Anyone is welcomed to argue otherwise, specifics please.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.


Image

("specifics please" added as edit)
Last edited by Hannover on Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

sweetie pie
Member
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 2:49 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby sweetie pie » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:38 pm)

flimflam wrote: [...] Of the 7 billion people on the planet maybe 10 have done more than Weber and Irving to combat the insanity of the holohoax, but that is not good enough for Scott. His holier than thou attitude and juvenile insults and vocabulary are totally destructive to revisionism and really annoy the hell out of me.
.


I believe flim-flam is the same person as Allan Davis who wrote on Jan. 10, 2015 at https://jan27.org/comments/

“Heck, we don’t even consider David Irving, the historian, a holocaust revisionist.”

This kind of idiocy annoys the hell out of me (of course I’m easily annoyed). Irving is a fantastic historian, has done 10 times what you have done to combat the hoax, unless you’re A. Butz or R. Faurisson, has suffered 10 times what you have suffered for fighting the hoax, unless you’re J. Graf or E. Zundel, and has said, “more people died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s motor car in Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber of Auschwitz”. If that’s not good enough for you then to hell with you. This kind of asinine petty back-stabbing bickering, jealousy, self-righteousness, exclusivity, whatever, is entirely out of place in the revisionist movement.


David Irving said "more people died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s motor car in Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber of Auschwitz.” That was before he said that 2.4 million died in other gas chambers in various camps, and even some in Auschwitz.

I think Flim-flam is an associate of David Irving's and has taken on the job of waxing indignant whenever Irving is criticized. But he is anything but consistent -- he speaks of "combating the insanity of the holohoax," "to combat the hoax," and "the holocaust is a preposterous hoax" yet David Irving says otherwise, that the Holocaust happened. I think flim-flam needs to explain himself.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Werd » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:44 pm)

An example of Scott's juvenile insults and vocabulary .... quoting - "Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker". I didn't even have to read the article. Not even my 12 y.o. daughter talks like that.

And I guess that means flim flam will NOT be perusing the evidence I posted about Weber being a sellout and Irving being a dirty trickster from time to time. So bad that even Germar Rudolf had to start calling a spade a spade.

Flim flam is a crybaby who just lost a fight he thought he could win. He thinks we're stupid. :lol:

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Moderator » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:46 pm)

All, stop the name calling!!
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

flimflam
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby flimflam » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:15 pm)

When I was familiarizing myself with the hoax, and it took a few months, probably the most important info I got was from, in this order, D. Cole., Butz, Weber, and Irving. Of the 4 only Cole, Weber, and Irving have played an aggressive role in challenging the hoax in the public eye. Does that mean I want to denounce Butz? Hell no! Cole's Auschwitz vid, Weber's papers on Treblinka, Nuremberg, and others, and Irving's vids, in particular the ones where he discusses Churhill's sellout to the Jews, and the publication of the Zrba report by the WRB, played a major part in my education.

Even now, I can't help but mention Weber's 'Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe' as absolutely singular, an important and revelatory paper that if anything could wake up the comatose, that would do it, but ... of course, it doesn't.

These people, among others, have shown the persons who created the holohoax to be the most degenerate liars that the world has seen, and they have revealed the enormous lies they have told, and in Weber's case he's taking on the consequences of those lies. That's done, they did it, it can't be taken back.

Now I think the only thing comparable to the holohoax is the Salem witch trials, where pure phantasmagoria is turned into reality by an orchestrated campaign of lies. But the holohoax is vastly more sinister, it is promoted by every govt., every news organization, every academic, save Butz, on the planet. And the holohoax has led to the deaths of millions, and it promises to get worse.

So, given all that, do I really need to have Cole, Weber, or Irving, whisper in my ear every night .... 'it didn't happen'. No, I don't need that. They have revealed the lies, the absurdity of the hoax has been exposed.

And, still, the best references for the hoax, that is, the most persuasive to a student, are, I think, Butz, Cole, Weber, and Irving with the addition of E. Hunt's videos. There is another vid worthy of mention ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acPfPG457cw

So, with all they have done, the absurd attacks on them by Hadding Scott, I skimmed some of the garbage he wrote, and all the other flak, true or false, is not the important thing.

Are we fighting revisionists who have strayed off the ranch, or the holohoax? If the former, let's just turn over CODOH to FB and be done with it !

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: David Irving fans: How do you respond to Hadding Scott's analysis of the historian's revisionism

Postby Mulegino1 » 3 years 2 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:45 pm)

There is no doubt that David Irving, Mark Weber and David Cole have made significant contributions to revisionism.

Unfortunately, all three appear to be publicity hounds and this tends to interfere with their objectivity regarding the Holohoax; they want to question the narrative at a "comfortable" or kosher level of dissent (in Irving's case, this is understandable given his recent imprisonment), but fail to realize that, where it concerns the Holocaust Industry, any significant divergence from the official version in and of itself constitutes heresy. You cannot both disagree and make nice with the modern day inquisitors whose dogmatism would impress Turrecrematus or Cardinal Baronius with its intransigence and fanaticism.

One major problem I have with David Irving is that, while he possesses a vast knowledge regarding primary documentary sources, he appears to devalue physical evidence, or the lack thereof. For example, in the matter of the Hoefle Telegram, Irving implies the two million or so Jews who were described in the document as "sifted through" the camps in the General Government during Aktion Reinhardt must have been gassed, buried in gargantuan mass graves, then exhumed and burned on the outdoor cremation pyres, despite the fact that this was: A: Impossible from both a physical and logistical standpoint, and B: There is not one single shred of physical evidence that this occurred.

My own gut feeling is that Irving wants to reestablish his bona fides with the establishment by admitting that some (if not all) of the exterminationist legend is true.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests