Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Now, some people who are opposed to anti-Revisionism laws don´t even know that Zündel and Rudolf - two of the most important Revisionists worldwide - are in jail. They know that Irving is in jail, and oppose it.
As mentioned in another thread, Irving´s wife has said in a newspaper interview that she considers his "opinions" (notwithstanding the fact that he doesn´t have stable opinions) on the Holocaust "ridiculous", and that he doesn´t mind, because that´s just "a part of the game".
What exactly is she telling us? Isn´t she saying that Irving is a lunatic, a "mad Revisionist", that he´s just playing a game and isn´t really serious, because, well, nobody can seriously question the Holocaust? So, people are supposed to assume that that´s the reason for Holocaust denial?
This would point in the direction that as well Irving as his wife are Jews, or rather, are judeo-supremacists, and actually, a certain Hochhuth, author of a pro-Holocaust play called "The Deputy", has claimed that he has a Jewish mother. Irving, apparently, has denied this.
Now, Irving has constantly tried to portray himself as being a little bit of a "Nazi" - in the propaganda sense of the word - or being in some way linked to "Nazis". In the case against Lipstadt, he, according to the German newspaper FAZ, just happened to address the judge with the words "my (mein?) Führer". "Grotesque", was the verdict of the FAZ. I remember having seen a video where Irving talks to about 30 or 40 shouting German "skinheads", making the impression that he is their friend and their leader. Now I see that in a book about Goebbels, he has referred to him as being "a remarkable National Socialist chronicler" ("bemerkenswerten nationalsozialistischen Chronisten", don´t know the original words).
Irving is very eager to tell us that the Goebbels diary is authentic. German historian Ingrid Weckert wonders why "somebody who ought to have detailed knowledge of historical texts" would come to this conclusion about the entries from November 8 to November 11, which, as she shows, are obviously forged. But if Irving is an infiltrator, we wouldn´t have to wonder about why he thinks, or rather claims to think so. When Revisionists believe that the Goebbels diary is genuine, their position is to some extent weakened. Irving has this to say about the diary:
"May I just comment briefly, that people who try to skirt around the unpalatable content of the Goebbels diaries which I used in the Moscow secret state archives, and was indeed the first to exploit, by suggesting that they are somehow forged, are way off beam. ...Even if somebody forged only the pages about the 1938 Kristallnacht, the question arises, why? Nobody has ever used them (before me), and those plates have been there since 1945.
As for the allegation that I did not let Ingrid Weckert see them, as a courtesy I indeed sent her photocopies of the crucial November 1938 pages, a few weeks after my return from Moscow in 1992, and she was good enough to suggest one or two improvements to my transcription of the handwriting. She rather naughtily then passed on copies of those transcripts to other people, as I later learned! ...
Meanwhile...my book partially based on the diaries (which was Doubleday's selection as book of the month for May last year) is floating face-down dead in the water in the United States: If that doesn't satisfy your readers that the diaries were genuine, nothing will!"
Reading this letter, I am reminded of the way a man like Stephen Schwarz writes about his opponents, Justin Raimondo etc. You don´t have to be a judeo-supremacist to write like that, but the apparent lack of actual reasoning, the mild intimidation ("rather naughtily" and such expression) are common traits in the writings of judeo-supremacists. It appears that Irving isn´t interested in the truth about the diary; he is interested in telling us it is authentic.
Consider the first sentence: "...people who try to skirt around the unpalatable content of the Goebbels diaries...by suggesting that they are somehow forged, are way off beam." - "Unpalatable content"? And people who "try to skirt around" the Goebbels diaries, by "suggesting that they are somehow forged, are way off beam"? Irving writes like a Holocaust propagandist.
And let´s not forget the natural logics of infiltration. Irving would occasionally do something in order to gain the trust of Revisionists, precisely like HaCohen at antiwar.com utters a lot of anti-Israeli peace talk in order to fool the peace people.
I think Hitler himself quoted the philosopher Schopenhauer on the words that the Jews are "the great masters of lying/the art of lying", and they certainly are, and so understanding Holocaust propaganda, too, is difficult, and we wouldn´t have to be surprised by such a noteworthy scam as this one would be.
And think about that "fake Nazi", as the expression goes on the Zundelsite, Lincoln Rockwell, a Jew. Like Irving, Rockwell received enormous media attention. - This phenomenon is much more widespread than people assume. What about that guy posing as "awkward left-wing clown", Michael Moore, and at the same time inciting hatred for Saudi Arabia and actually portraying Bush in a favorable way? (He does both of these things in "Fahrenheit 9/11"). And again, the media covers M.M. extensively. Why? Whole institutes and think-tanks may be bogus. I seem to remember something about an institute called the "CATO Institute", which presents itself as "libertarian", but actually is neo-conservative.
Difficult to say what´s going on in Austria. But one possibility is that it actually is a mistake, and the Austrian authorities are not aware that they shouldn´t touch Mr. Irving, and it wouldn´t be possible to tell them.
I am sure about this. But even if I am sure, I may still be wrong. I think there ought to be some sort of inquiry into it. If we combine the knowledge that the participants in this forum have about David Irving, then it must be possible to get to a clear understanding of who he is and what he is doing, since we would then probably have a lot of knowledge and a lot of facts on the table.
Even if somebody forged only the pages about the 1938 Kristallnacht, the question arises, why? Nobody has ever used them (before me), and those plates have been there since 1945.
That statement is amazingly stupid.
1. It now appears that it wasn't just 'kristallnacht'.
2. No one used it because it brings more attention to the forgeries.
As for other silliness by Irving I suggest my post on the Bruns document.
The bogus Bruns document
Bogus alleged 'conversation' about Babi Yar
recorded conversations not
Irving has said 'More people died in the back of [someones] car than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz".
In a speech he said: "No one will ever convince me now that what we have been told happened in Auschwitz, Maidenek and Treblinka did actually happen". He is certain something "stinks" about this episode of history.
Irving testified in Zundel's defense. He exposed the Hitler Diarys.
He said "Paul Norris has turned up the evidence (from the British archives ) that our own 'Psychological Warfare Executive' were behind the entire gas chamber story"
He is probably the most experienced in the archives and has never found an 'Hitler Order' or anything else to support the hoax. He has said and written many other hoax destroying things.
I think any problems folk have with him are with his manner and character. Hey, who hasn't got personal problems?
Some of his history findings may not please some, and may be incorrect, even silly, but these findings are not usually part of the hoax story and need to be seen and examined in that light.
He is reported as saying he changed his mind about gas chambers. He had to be referring to fumigation chambers and was hoping to fool the court. They never bought the story but the Press predictably played it up.
He is on our side and he is suffering for it. We need to encourage and support him lest he looses heart and does fall.
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
The open attack and imprisonment of Irving is because of this lack of consistency. He has become a strawman. He is used by judeo-supremacists as the #1 Revisionist, which is ridiculous. You won't hear them talking much about the imprisonment of master chemist, and Revisionist par excellence, Germar Rudolf.
However, I got the impression that we was something of a motormouthed maverick, and, perhaps worse still, a motormouthed maverick gambler. In spite (or perhaps because of) the risks involved, he continued to roll the dice and up the stakes - the challange against Lipstadt was the height of absurdity, as all of us knew no judge in this country (the UK) would ever reach a verdict that could imply that the Holocaust hoax was just that. Irving should have simply shut up and confined his argument to his speeches and publications, but bizarrely went down the legal route - a route that was doomed to end at a dead end.
The final stakes were of course played by the Austrian government; OK, we are all agreed that the law in Austria is an ass, but Irving was a bigger ass for taking the risk and attending a meeting there. He must have known he was being watched, and that the Austrian authorities were ready to pounce at any time. I'd even suggest that he might have set himself up - as time has gone on he seemed to develop a bigger martyr complex. He is probably revelling in his jailtime; he'll probably come out and liken himself to Hitler in Landsberg, and will probably write his own 'Mein Kampf' just to prove the point.
When I heard that he had been arrested, I immediately felt anger at the Austrian government; but as time wore on this began to subside and be replaced with the view that Irving was little more than a clown who knew the risks yet still overplayed his hand. As someone who had vigorously defended him in the past, I felt seriously let down.
And yes, he has a considerable ego and made a serious mistake in taking on the defamation case on his own, and perhaps at all, which of course he can not admit. But he is one of the few good historians of the World War II period and does his own research, some of which has been unique, not relying only on the work of others. And arrogant in style, yes, he can be.
But hey, he's in prison at the mercy of our enemies at the moment. Let's cut him some slack at this time. The man can't defend himself very well just now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests