|
|
|
Hate sentence in Austria David Irving, an impoverished 68-year old British historian who disputes the official version of World War Two and, within that, the Jewish narrative known as the Holocaust, has been jailed today for 3 years by a court in Austria. His crime consisted in refutational remarks made in speeches to Austrian nationalist groups in 1989 in Vienna and the southern town of Leoben. I do not believe in the Great 1960’s Narrative either. I consider myself free to weigh the evidence as I have gathered and understood it, imperfectly or otherwise, and to believe what I will. I consider myself free to speak to my fellow Man about this, as any, belief. I consider that any racial or elite group that removes this basic right of free speech from me and threatens incarceration if I disobey to be fundamentally evil. Am I wrong? What is your opinion? UPDATE, 21.02.06The Austrian prosecutor has reacted to Irving’s filing of an appeal by moving to appeal the sentence.
Irving expressed his unfashionable opinions in Vienna and Leoben three years before the legislation under which he has now been prosecuted was even on Austria’s statute books. At the time, then, he was not committing a crime in Austria. It’s grim enough that this legislation is so repressive ... worse that it is retrospective. But that it is also apparently the Law of Schadenfreud, whereby the wretched Irving can be tormented at will post-trial, is alien to all civilised standards. I have never much interested myself in Irving’s colourful career. Certainly, I never considered him a sympathetic figure, much less a martyr. But that is what he will increasingly become to many observers shocked, like me, by the cold power of the state that has been employed against him. Comments:2
Posted by Phil on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:39 | # Irving’s conviction is an absolute disgrace and a stigma on a supposedly civilized country. 3
Posted by Alison on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:50 | # Im not sure i can believe what he believes although ive never read anything he has written. In fact i cant believe what he says. BUT people have a right to disagree. Quite simply. Im truly scared for the West. 4
Posted by Rick Darby on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:08 | # I do not know what the Great 1960s Narrative means, and I have every reason to believe David Irving is a crackpot. But your point stands: he should be allowed to say anything he damn pleases about the Holocaust without being banged up in prison for it. This “hate crimes/hate speech” business is like a cancer eating away at the freedoms our ancestors worked so hard, and in some cases sacrificed everything they had, to establish and defend. It seems to advance a little farther year after year, and I am afraid it has gotten into our cultural bloodstream, whence it can reach anywhere. Many thoughtful people speak out against it, but to little effect. Can anything more be done? I wish I knew. 5
Posted by Phil on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:10 | # The people putting these scholars in jail are moral criminals of the worst kind whose unacceptable, reprehensible, barbaric behavior can only trivialize the brutality that we know was actually visited upon the Jews by the Nazis and, ironically, can only defile the memory of the Jews who were brutally killed. This is a point I made in the first thread on Revisionism which had Steve Sailer de-linking us from his site. I could understand Sailer’s trepidation (with nice chaps like John Podhoretz accusing him of being “bigoted scum” etc.) but it was a sad day when it happened. 6
Posted by Phil on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:13 | # Since you can recant and grovel (like Irving did) and still get shafted, you might as well be a man and go down with your guns blazing! Friedrich, Irving laid out his case in England in the defamation case against Lipstadt and lost. There would have been no point in his repeating the same arguments again (especially since the truth is not a defence under these laws). 7
Posted by Ethnocentrist on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:29 | # Regarding Phil’s comment above; I do believe Sailer has once again de-linked this site for whatever reason. A small FYI for the bloggers. As to this travesty, regardless if Irving is a nutcase, this is blatant thought suppression. This can only be beneficial for our side as more and more people will be utterly shocked to hear one can go to prison for their words. People used to think this only happened in the Soviet Union or China and not in places like Austria. It will cause more people to start scratching their heads. 8
Posted by friedrich braun on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:41 | # Irving laid out his case in England in the defamation case against Lipstadt and lost. There would have been no point in his repeating the same arguments again (especially since the truth is not a defence under these laws). What’s ironic about all this is that by his own admission Irving knows next to nothing about the so-called holocau$t, he’s not a holocau$t historian and finds the topic boring; and he didn’t know that the trial (the one in England) was going to switch gears on him and be about the holocau$t. Here’s a thread on the verdict from the Revisionist Forum: http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2966&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 9
Posted by friedrich braun on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:48 | # I do believe Sailer has once again de-linked this site for whatever reason Sailer is half Jewish and sensitive to Jewish interests. 10
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:50 | # An utter travesty of justice. Notice how the Austrian ‘Holocaust’ laws mandate prosecution, not only for denial of the megahoax, but also for ‘diminishing’ its supposed scale. This last despite the fact that the official Holohoax memorial at Auschwitz has downwardly revised the numbers on two occasions. Also these ludicrous laws are on the statute books of, I believe, eight or nine European countries and should, of course, be repealed immediately. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:57 | # Rick, Elie Wiesel first used the term “holocaust” in 1963 in the context of the Bomb. Only thereafter did it seep very slowly into public consciousness as a description of the WW2 genocide of Jews, and the “h” became capitalised only during the early 1970’s. From that point on the mythification was industrialised and has now reached pseudo-religious proportions. For me, this latter was an anti-human development instigated by evil men for deeply materialist and power-related ends. Far from being a memorial to the victims of the camps - not just Jews, of course, and irrespective of how they came to perish - it has become a moral betrayal. 12
Posted by starimomak on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:29 | # Sailer is half Jewish and sensitive to Jewish interests. This is why ‘revisionism’ gets a bad rap, so many of its adherents suffer from MSO—Making ‘Stuff’ Up. Steve Sailer is adopted, and he certainly hasn’t published any DNA analyses of himself. He has written that he assumed he was jewish (presumably because he thinks himself high IQ, and jews are high IQ—he’s a bit of a blowhard, though I like his stuff). Looking at his picture, he looks about 110% north european to me. 13
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:49 | # Who,other than breast-beating Jews ,gives a shit about the Holocaust.Revionist history abounds,brought forward by “interest groups’i.e.,Muslims ,Jews,Niggers ,Left-wingers in general,et.al. When the right of free expression is abrograted,we no longer live in a society,but in a structured hive of workers,drones.and a {queen{ . Babbling about this shit by The Intelligentsia does nothing to alleviate the root cause-a utopian view of the future that exists only their minds.Time for we peons to revolt! 14
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:14 | # Let’s not get the cart before the horse. Freedom of speech is not a fundamental human right. Indeed, freedom of association is the sole fundamental human right. Freedom of speech can be constructed from freedom of association by the mutually consenting association between people who believe in freedom of speech and therefore practice it within the societies they form. There is a war to be fought but it is not over freedom of speech—rather it is over the opposition to freedom of likeminded people to form societies with territorial allocation to them within which they are able to live their beliefs without interference or parasitism from others. 15
Posted by Matra on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:18 | #
For someone “sensitive to Jewish interests” he’s spent a lot of time going after neocons like Feith, Ledeen, and others he suspects of putting Israel’s interests first. 16
Posted by onetwothree on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:18 | # Question: If the Germans really wanted to exterminate the Jews, how many survivors would their have been? Answer: A number equal to the number of BMWs that have left the plant missing their steering wheels. Of course, locking people up, enslaving them, stealing their possessions, leaving them to hunger, disease, and subsequent death are all horrible crimes. Somehow, they just aren’t enough. I suspect the next time a large camp system is set up, very few will complain during or after, as long as no gassings are involved—that’s a real problem. 17
Posted by Matra on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:32 | #
So says one Austrian history professor quoted by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4734570.stm I don’t think the link’s list of countries with laws against holocaust denial is complete. I thought it was illegal in Canada and just about every country in Western Europe other than Denmark. 18
Posted by Amalek on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:52 | # Despite Irving’s conviction, mixed signals are emanating from the enforced-orthodoxy camp nowadays. France and Germany have some of the toughest laws against what is quasi-theologically (or quasi-psychologically) called ‘Denial’. Yet in France Jean-Claude Pressac, hired by a Jewish foundation to furnish irrefutable evidence of ‘industrialised killing’ by gas at Auschwitz-Birkenau, failed to do so in a volume which has appeared in several editions. Each merely adduced ‘criminal traces’—circumstantial evidences of the crime—and steadily reduced the estimate of gassing deaths to below 500,000. This compares with the official tally of more than 1m (itself cut from 1.5m after Communism’s fall in Poland) announced to tourists at the camp. Pressac, who is now dead, was never threatened with prosecution under the Fabius-Gayssot Law. Three or four years ago in Germany, Dr Fritjof Meyer, a senior editor of the leftist newsmagazine ‘Der Spiegel’, published his researches in a small journal called ‘Osteuropa’. Meyer arrived at a similar drastically reduced death toll as Pressac by a different chain of reasoning. Moreover he dismissed the Krema II site—exhibited as the main killing centre—and revived an older version whereby the gassings principally occurred at converted farm buildings on the boundary of the camp complex. Meyer encountered the usual Zionist barrage of obloquy and fell silent. But he was never threatened with the law. It therefore seems that the legal fury currently directed at Irving, Zundel and Rudolf is designed to maintain control of what the Iranians correctly call the ‘myth’ of the Holocaust, bearing in mind that all potent myths embody a large admixture of truth. So long as the bare bones of the official account—Hitler was in charge, all European Jews were to be exterminated, gas-and-burn millions in a few centres, elaborate concealment of the truth to account for the near-absence of proper forensic proofs—so long, I say, as those elements of the narrative are not flatly ‘denied’, a good deal of leeway to chip away at the detail will be allowed gradually to leak into public discourse. Conceivably the authorities foresee the eventual abandonment of the legend, once it has served its purpose in extracting monies, inculcating guilt and insulating Israel from criticism. Licit revisions such as Pressac’s and Meyer’s carve huge holes in the schoolroom/TV legend still being generally disseminated. But they may be part of the process of quietly stealing away from the least tenable parts of the legend… and meanwhile high-profile prosecutions of flat-out ‘Deniers’, preferably presentable as neo-Nazis, serve notice that the legend will be abandoned at the masters’ discretion, not as and when scholars convince themselves and us that there were large dollops of atrocity propaganda in the fare dished up for 60 years. It would not be the first time that governments and their paymasters had sought to spare themselves ridicule for having insisted, a little too loudly and for a little too long, that the Emperor is handsomely attired. For the time being you may, if careful, criticise his fashion sense and point out that he shows rather a lot of flesh. But go carefully! PS: Another omen may be the unimpassioned reporting of the Irving sentence on the main BBC television news tonight, followed by a ‘Newsnight’ feature in which Jeremy Paxman interviewed Irving’s lawyer sympathetically, with emphasis on the absurdity of criminalising expressions of historical opinion. Of the two experts (both Jewish, of course) Anthony Julius opposed criminalisation for Britain and it was unclear whether David Cesarani’s championship of it, using the old fire-in-a-theatre tag, applied to the UK or only to Austria with its Nazi past. On this showing, Britain stands apart from most European nations. 19
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:18 | # Blah,Blah,Blah—-I see all these disonant diatribes,but no calls to ACTION! What’s wrong with calling ourselves the dominating race? We’re about %8 of the world population,developed most of what is called civilisation,have utter control over most economies,can dictate [in most cases] foreign governments’decisions,etc.,etc.-Have we all turned into ELOI? Until we start getting our shit together-AS WHITE MEN-we are seeing the downward slope of ciivilisation .Diversity is Death—Multiculterism is Suicide!! I I want to live in a White neighborhood,send my kids to a nigger-free school,work with people who speak English,not have to “press ! for Spanish,nor have MY ballot written in 3-6 different languages when voting,see my grand-son lose a job to an illegal alien,or put up with ‘GANGSTA-RAP"and Mexican low-rider noise at every stop-light. This is OUR country;LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!! 20
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:02 | # What compound’s this asinine verdict’s folly is the fact that Irving’s ‘offence’ was committed in 1989 and the law under which he was convicted was only passed in 1992. Such retro-active legislation is not concordant with our race’s approach to legal matters and owes much to malevolent alien influence. 21
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:04 | # Indeed, freedom of association is the sole fundamental human right. Which appears to be the strategy of the anti-immigrant Danisn Peoples Party.
22
Posted by karlmagnus on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:31 | # I have to say I think it’s unacceptable for an Austrian court to imprison a British historian for holocaust denial. We didn’t commit the damn thing, they did. If a French or Canadian court wanted to do so, that would be a different matter (though I would still oppose it on freedom of speech grounds) but an Austrian court doing so has to set new records for moral squalor. This will help Griffin and the anti-PC crowd in Britain, which could be helpful. 23
Posted by Daveg on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:37 | # I don’t remember him spending “a lot of time going after neocons” maybe I just missed all those columns. However, we can safely say that on the biggest issue of the day affecting Jewish interests, i.e. Revisionism, his reaction is predictable. Then you just don’t read Steve’s blog regularly. Steve takes a very hard line on neocon politics. Steve is a tireless and extremely effective advocate on issues that are important to people who want to live in a european majority society. You really don’t get much better than Steve. 24
Posted by Andrew on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:16 | # It was a bit rough, 3 years. 25
Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:15 | # Interesting that Cole’s recanting did not cover any of the actual issues - it was basically like a confession at a Stalinist show trial. 26
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:39 | # Question: If the Germans really wanted to exterminate the Jews, how many survivors would their have been? Before he left us, Effra was wont to observe that the Nazi regime was not as centralized as it is portrayed to have been. Instead, it consisted of competing baronies, as it were, and if that is true it is plausible that mass murders of Jews could occur in some places without a plan to kill the all. 28
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:56 | # Irving laid out his case in England in the defamation case against Lipstadt and lost…. I read the transcripts of the trial as it proceeded—at least for two or three days. It appeared that Irving was caught in a lie or two—particularly the “keine Vernichtung” thing. Let us contrast that with Elie Wiesel. Geysers of blood, and “10,000 went to their death every day in Buchenwald”. (Then there’s his celebration of the rape of German girls, in Night.) Since Buchenwald was in operation for 12 years, that works out to roughly 45 million killed in Buchenwald alone. According to the Red Cross, the figure was more like 52,000. Wiesel gets the Nobel Peace Prize. Irving gets three years in prison. 29
Posted by JW Holliday on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:54 | # So Sailer has some useful information on his website. So what? GNXP does at times also. Let us get to the fundamentals here: by promoting the viciously destructive idea of “citizenism” (which will be addressed here again in the future) Sailer reveals his true self. 30
Posted by Amalek on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:11 | # Elie Wiesel, as Robert Faurisson showed, is curiously reticent about the gas chambers, as was Primo Levi. It is a commonplace of Holocaust revisionism that they were not the central symbol of ‘industrialised killing’ or ‘genocide’ in the early post-war accounts of Jewish persecution, going unmentioned in the voluminous war memoirs of Eisenhower, De Gaulle and Churchill. There was much more stress on death from executions, forced labour, malnutrition, epidemics, forced marches etc. The American academic ‘Samuel Crowell’—who argues that ‘gas chamber’ is a misapprehension, innocent or otherwise, for an anti-gas air raid shelter—has pointed out the earlier occurrence of gassing as a hyperbolic fear among Jews who were decontaminated before emigration in the early 20th century. Gas acquired more horrific connotations through its use in the Great War—Hitler’s regret in ‘Mein Kampf’ that Jewish war profiteers had not been ‘held under gas’ is not a germ of his evil schemes of 20 years later, but an allusion to his frontline experience. Between the wars popular prophetic fiction such as ‘Things to Come’ were full of horror stories of urban populations being gas-bombed, and the Italians tried it on the Abyssinians, inter alia. ‘Putting your head in the gas oven’ became a favoured suicide method after mains gas became common, and this may explain why careless references to Jews being killed in gas ovens (conflating asphyxiation and coke-fuelled cremation) are still heard. There is a more diffuse horror of alienation through industrialisation—modern man as a robot, becoming a sacrificial victim fed into the insatiable maw of the Machine God- seen in such effusions as Fritz Lang’s ‘Metropolis’, said to be Hitler’s favourite film. In this reading Auschwitz-Birkenau becomes Moloch, gobbling up Jews and others when they are unfit to work: the reductio ad nauseam of the capitalist profit machine, an obvious inspiration for Jewish Bolsheviks in Soviet uniforms devising atrocity stories that would make people hate the Germans for the right reasons. In short, there was enough potential mass hysteria and political motives for a rumour about such an extermination method—coupled with the apparent disappearance of large numbers of potential victims—to gain primacy over the other grotesque stories of genocidal killing by steam, electricity and ‘brain-bashing machines’ which the Red Army propaganda department disseminated in the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps being overrun. The main drawback has been the near-complete absence of anything but witness testimony: often easily demonstrable as garbled feedback from wartime allegations, or involving logistical and chemical impossibilities. Like Falstaff’s encounter with the rogues in buckram, such tales tend to expand in the telling. Pressac and Meyer have downplayed the efficiency of the alleged mechanism without discounting it. Irving, if he is not simply doing a Galileo, may have decided to embrace this semi-denier position: he has adopted and discarded others over the years. It was a Jewish historian at Princeton, Arno Mayer, who got himself into hot water nearly 20 years ago by observing in a throwaway footnote that the gas chamber account rests on sources “at once rare and unreliable”. In July 2004 an impeccably orthodox historian, Timothy Ryback, pleaded in the Wall Street Journal for more careful preservation of the ruinous Auschwitz ‘Krema’ buildings on the grounds that “there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent”—no more should be lost by carelessness or over-enthusiastic curatorial embellishment. The gap between the righteous and the revisionists may be less of a chasm than either side suspects. 31
Posted by Daveg on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:53 | # If you want a European majority society (which I am not advocating or rejecting, but I certainly do not think people are “evil” for wanting that), then your “patient” is bleeding *badly* You need to stop the huge flows of lost blood before you can start to address the smaller “wounds”. There is a difference between being “bad” and not as “good” as you would like. 32
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:13 | # particularly the “keine Vernichtung” thing…. Sorry, that should have been “keine Liquidierung”. 33
Posted by Matra on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:00 | # I’ve just checked a bunch of neocon warblogs and there is near unanimity that the sentence is horrific. This response at YARGB is typical:
So they are using the Irving conviction and sentence as an example of European political correctness and US superiority. From friedrich’s link to Mark Weber:
The sentencing of an elderly historian to three years for political incorrectness is certainly bizarre and embarrassing, but I’m worried that instead of getting rid of anti-free speech laws Muslims and other foreigners in Europe will now push for the same legal protections from being offended. Things are bad enough as is with Nick Griffin being tried again and European governments putting pressure on media not to publish the Muhammed pictures. Things may get worse before they get better. 34
Posted by Matra on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:05 | # From the update:
I’d be curious to know what kind of sentences Austria hands down to violent criminals. Going by what I know of other EU states I wouldn’t be surprised if the average violent criminal gets less than three years. 35
Posted by starimomak on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33 | # Herr Braun, http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sykes.htm Sailer is adopted. Please link to any proof that he is Jewish or half-jewish. He did write once that he assumes he’s half jewish. And yes, its pretty easy to tell, even from a tiny picture 37
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:55 | #
That’s all very well to say here across the pond, far from the scene of the alleged crime. 38
Posted by PCA on Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:17 | # Well what can you say, Freedom of Speech did not exist when Hitler ran Austria and it still does not exist. How unfortunate (or is that ironic) that it now exists when discussing the Third Reich. It is amazing that people simply can’t grasp simple principals like freedom of speech. It is a principal above the merits of what is actually said. Almost all lay people fall into the trap of saying ‘but, what he said is wrong!’, when told that it is not about whether he is wrong or not, they simply stare wide eyed. It reminds me of the US abortion debate where people can only see Roe v Wade as a fight between abortion ‘good’ and abortion ‘bad’. The case is entirely about whether or not abortion is contained in the constitution and really the merits of abortion are peripheral (I know about Judicial Activism) to the legal point. 39
Posted by starimomak on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:32 | # I’ve always assumed I’m biologically half-Jewish (I’m adopted) I think that proves my point. And yeah—Kirk Douglas does look jewish. 40
Posted by Robert on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:19 | # I regard David Irving’s opinions as obnoxious, but he is entitled to them and regard his jailing for three years for expressing them as outrageous. Now the Austrian state prosecutor is seeking to have the sentence increased, on the grounds that those sympathetic to Irving would deny others their right to free speech were they ever to achieve power. In that case, I assume he will also be looking to jail the Communists. 41
Posted by Sam on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:05 | # Irving is a goose, however 3 years is a joke…. i think the majority of fair minded people across all races/religions will be appauled at his sentence… 42
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:26 | #
The difference being now it’s Kosher. 43
Posted by Andrew on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:38 | # That up date: If Irvine is a serial offender on False History and that is the reasoning for the appeal for an Increase, Then their would be thousands of the Post Modern Liar type Historians on trial that should be locked up for Life, or at least exiled to Saudi Arabia, and that is just the Journalists - Doctors - Professors- Politicians: Teachers- Lobotomized type. OO dear o me, there is so many, that Prosecution assertion is laughable. 44
Posted by L'Etat c'est moi' on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:54 | # Is the ethnic background of David Irving’s trial judge known with any certainty? The dark-haired, pale, balding, weak-jawed, slightly built man is less reminescent of Schwarzeneggar than of Jason Alexander. 45
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:28 | # Someone her said the particular law Irving broke was only on the books from 1992. Elsewhere Ive seen it said that it goes as far back as 1945 - I dont believe that. Ive also seen 1947 mentioned, again I dont believe that totally. Does anybody know where this law can be seen in English and that date from when it came into force. 46
Posted by JW Holliday on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:14 | # Robert: Now the Austrian state prosecutor is seeking to have the sentence increased, on the grounds that those sympathetic to Irving would deny others their right to free speech were they ever to achieve power. I read that also, which once again proves how shallow the thinking of the establishment is, and that the only reason they get away with these howlers is because of media control and state power. Mr. Prosecutor, let us assume you are correct. Let us assume that if “neo-Nazis” took power, they would outlaw speech that was in favor of multiracialism, miscegenation, etc. The difference is obvious. The “neo-Nazis” would not be hypocrites, outlawing certain forms of speech while at the same time declaring their state a “democracy”, full of “freedom”, following UN and EU charters that openly state that free speech is an essential human right. No, if past history is any guide, “Nazis” and “Fascists” would be quite open about the state they would set up. The difference, honored sir, is that the legitimacy of a “neo-Nazi” state would be based upon the defense of ethnic interests, while the so-called “legitimacy” of “western” states like Austria, UK, USA, etc. is based upon their self-proclaimed adherence to “freedom”, “democracy”, and “human rights.” But as the fellow at the Guardian pointed out, a democracy has no legitimacy if you do not allow all elements in the nation to express their opinions and use non-violent, political methods to affect change. A “democracy” that outlaws speech and bans political parties is obviously illegitimate; a “neo-Nazi” state that does the same is not illegitimate, because, as noted above, its aim is something quite different. Thus, what you, honored sir, have done to Irving is infinitely worse than anything “neo-Nazis” would do if in power, because you Sir, are a hypocrite who has undermined the very principles you think you are “defending.” 47
Posted by JB on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:38 | # I know the nazis were ubermensch and all that but does anyone here really believes it was possible for them to trick all those six or so million jews into taking those fake showers by the thousands every day and conceal to them (those in the camps) that they were being exterminated ? Being skeptical about such an extraordinary claim like this one seems rational to me. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1642411,00.html
http://www.ukar.org/wiesen25.html When a supposedly serious group like the SWC is engaged in exterminationist revisionism it’s a additional reason to be skeptical of their holocaust claims. 48
Posted by RobertinArabia on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:00 | # Arthur Butz’s Thoughtcrime A specific illustration. In order for something to be “obvious” it ought to be figuratively before our very noses. Let us look at two of the recently published and widely discussed books in support of the extermination legend, namely Auschwitz and the Allies by Martin Gilbert (biographer of Winston Churchill) and The Terrible Secret by Walter Laqueur (Director of the Institute of Contemporary History, London, and editor of the Journal of Contemporary History). The two books look at the subject from similar perspectives and cover much of the same ground. At the end of his long and copiously annotated study, Gilbert writes:[7] Between May 1942 and June 1944, almost none of the messages reaching the west had referred to Auschwitz as the destination of Jewish deportees, or as a killing centre. Nor had the name of Auschwitz made any impression on those who were building up what they believed to be an increasingly comprehensive picture of the fate of the Jews. On the other hand early in his shorter but also copiously annotated study Laqueur explains that mass exterminations at Auschwitz could not have been concealed, noting that Auschwitz was “a veritable archipelago,” that “Auschwitz inmates ... were, in fact, dispersed all over Silesia, and ... met with thousands of people,” that “hundreds of civilian employees ... worked at Auschwitz,” and that “journalists travelled in the General Government and were bound to hear,” etc.[8] I have no quarrel with such observations, as I made them myself, on the basis of essentially the same considerations.[9] Now the reader of Gilbert, Laqueur, and Butz can make a very simple determination. He is being told that (a) in the period May 1942 to June 1944, those interested in such matters had no information of mass exterminations at Auschwitz and (b) mass exterminations at Auschwitz could not have been concealed from the world for any significant length of time. Since he is hearing the same story from both sides then, by a process of inference necessary to those who want to form an opinion but do not have the time or means to become historians, he should assume both claims true. There was no information of mass exterminations at Auschwitz during the relevant period, and mass exterminations at Auschwitz would not have been kept secret. Therefore, there were no mass exterminations at Auschwitz. The conclusion is inescapable and requires only elementary logic. It is comparable to the syllogism: “I see no elephant in my basement; an elephant could not be concealed from sight in my basement; therefore, there is no elephant in my basement.” 49
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:54 | # Interestingly, Martin Gilbert is a Jew and his connection to the Churchill family was cemented by his position as amanuensis to Winston’s incorrigible son Randolph. 50
Posted by friedrich braun on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:30 | # “Germany” (or as I prefer to call it: the Judaized anti-German Bastardsate) is Israel’s Enforcer: Via Ajax: In what is a new twist to the story of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his campaign against the Holocau$t tale, it has now come to light that the Israelis plan to use the Germans to do their dirty work for them. Ahmadinejad has not commented on this issue on German soil, but it seems as though the Israelis want to press ahead with their campaign against him regardless. Just how far is this nasty little country prepared to stoop in order to protect their nasty lie? More here: Post a comment:
Next entry: Foreign Office won’t rock the Thai fishing boat
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Daveg on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:20 | #
Regardless as to the accuracy of people like Mr Irving, the methods employeed in Europe against them are scurrilous.
There should be no reason why someone can’t make a statement about the Holocaust, even a mistaken statement, and then be allowed to debate, refine or modify that statement as he wishes.
People should be much more concerned about this issue, but it does not get a lot of traction.
That said, the people esposing these theories could do themselves a favor and be more careful about the sweeping statement they make.
I recently watched the David Cole Video and have to admit this was one of the best Holocuast revisionist presentation I have ever seen. He was forced to recant under heavy (physical?) pressure from the JDL some years later.
David Cole
Still, the “mainstream” historians do rebut some of this.
But, the question is why can’t this debate take place?