Thursday, October 20, 2016

Latest news on David Irving and Lipstadt

Latest news on David Irving and Lipstadt
By Michael Hoffman
We have not had a great deal of extra time of late, hence, the dearth of these "On the Contrary" columns. Your editor has been laboring assiduously on completing “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome,” now nearly four years in the making. The delay has been mostly due to opening one door in the Vatican storehouse of arcana, only to discover seven more subterranean doors which lead to another dozen, which lead to…well, you get the picture. In the face of ever more intriguing, revealing and damning data, at what point does an author leave off and declare, finis?

At the risk of writing a three volume opus, which our budget cannot sustain, a demarcation line must be drawn and I’ve given myself until November 30 (St. Andrew’s Day), to stamp finis on this book, after which the task of proof-reading and compiling a comprehensive index will remain, which we reckon at about two weeks. Not to worry, the printing company that handles our work is noted for promptness in addition to superb quality, and it should be just six weeks after we turn the book in that it will be in our warehouse and ready to ship, God willing. 

Meanwhile, on the immediate frontline of this month’s war of ideas, we note that the “Holocaust” movie “Denial” — starring the glamorous beauty Rachel Weisz as Deborah Lipstadt, and a ferret-faced actor known for villainous roles, as David Irving — opens nationwide in the U.S. tomorrow, Oct 21. This flick is a flop: thus far, since it debuted in select cities on Sept. 30, it has earned a dismal $942,664. It looks as though its future will consist of little more than classroom screenings where students hostage to International Holohoax Week will be sentenced to sit through it and afterward write conformist term papers in line with its Tinseltown trompe l'oeil.

Is it not highly revealing, and downright hilarious, that our enemies attempt to defeat revisionist history by means of Hollywood movies rather than free and fair debate? 

Deborah Lipstadt wouldn’t be able to competently debate David Irving for five minutes. It would be the equivalent of having a custard pie pushed in her face, which is why she dared not take the stand and undergo Irving’s cross-examination during the libel trial (the movie claims that she was forbidden from doing so by her lawyers).

The custard pie analogy is apropos, in that Prof. Lipstadt knows next to nothing about her subject matter. She has the prestige she does based on media tricks of omission and monopolization. The powerful revisionist case is either omitted or burlesqued, while her point of view is the one favorably publicized.

By way of rebuttal, historian-scientist Germar Rudolf has penned Fail: "Denying the Holocaust” — How Deborah Lipstadt Botched Her Attempt to Demonstrate the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, which we recommend highly.

Moreover, whatever David Irving’s serious shortcomings vis a vis his defense of Adolf Hitler (and we think they are many), as a military historian of the World War II Atlantic theatre, he is without peer. As a young man he made his mark in historiography with his classic, The Destruction of Dresden and he remains the foremost authority on the contentious issue of the bombing of cities during that war: who started it, and how it was undertaken.



Last year Mr. Irving gave a speech on the so-called “Battle of Britain" to a history group in England, and this brilliant talk can be viewed above. The media declares that he is a “disgraced” author, but in this lecture one sees a champion of suppressed truth, on his steed jousting full tilt at the reigning stupidities that pass for “proven fact” in this new dark age, in which the religion of Holocaustianity holds dominion over the mind of man as surely as papalolatry once did.

In this videotaped talk Irving respectfully pays tribute to the valor of the wartime Royal Air Force (RAF) and its commander, Sir Arthur Harris. The mendacious British mainstream media, in headlines, subsequently reported to the British public that Irving had disgraced the RAF, and denounced its airmen as war criminals in the course of his talk.

The great thing about demonstrably false media lies like that one, is that they prove beyond any doubt that our enemies traffic in brazen deceit as the principal method by which they sustain their pious orthodoxies.  

Do yourself a favor by taking the time to listen to Irving's speech. You will, in the course of about an hour, obtain the best possible education on the secret history of the air war over Britain and Germany.

Finally, it is unfortunate that relatively few people are aware that Saint Deborah Lipstadt branded Irving with a hate speech epithet, “Amalek.” Her hate speech should not be forgotten or papered over, until she retracts what amounts to a shameful death threat, as we documented in our talk, “Lipstadt, Irving and Amalek,” which also available for viewing on YouTube:

 
__________

Revisionist History newsletter issue no. 86: 

The “Denial” Movie
Hollywood’s Revenge on Dissident Historian David Irving

With this issue you will be able compare relevant parts of the court transcript from the Irving vs. Lipstadt libel trial with the “Denial” movie. Learn of the extent of the bias against David Irving and how Hollywood tries to prove World War II allegations in movie theaters that otherwise couldn't be proved in the marketplace of ideas and free debate. Sections include: Caught in lie a before the move debuts; Summary verdict of presiding Justice Charles Gray; Concessions made by Irving; Hoffman’s analysis of the hype surrounding the film and of the verdict of the court in the trial; Lipstadt targets Irving as “Amalek;" Criticize Lipstadt and lose your job at Yale; Massacre against Germans denied by Lipstadt; Irving answers Lipstadt on Dresden. Order here.
____________

1 comment:

JR said...

M.A. Hoffman: "Moreover, whatever David Irving’s serious shortcomings vis a vis his defense of Adolf Hitler (and we think they are many), as a military historian of the World War II Atlantic theatre, he is without peer."

I'm puzzled about the reference to "his defense of Adolf Hitler." The past summer I've listened to several Irving's speeches, read a quarter of his Hitler's War, as well as material from his website (and even made an e-mail exchange with him on a historical detail not directly related to the Third Reich).
On the basis of that, I can say that David Irving
1) long ago revised his sceptical view about the massive scale of the so-called "Holocaust"
2) in recent years, revised his view about the existence (and role) of gas chambers. He openly, and comfortably, claims that gas chambers were indeed applied in extermination of people ... though the Auschwitz ones are a pure Disneyland.
3) revised his view that Hitler was unaware of the fate of the Judaics in the Third Reich in the period post-1941.

His statements on these points are all over Youtube. It would take hours for me to gather them.

I think I can do a good job in retelling David Irving's view on Hitler, in the context of the last point.
Hitler was thoroughly devoted to his role as a commander-in-chief in a total war. On else, he was given briefings. Himmler et al. kept away from him crucial facts of the new developments regarding the Jewish question.
With the information available to him, Hitler's *intuited* the terrible facts.
And, Irving suggests, he resorted to an attitude that has probably been a choice of many leaders through history, viz, a choice to ignore or, at times, pretend to ignore a matter that, however plausibly terrible, is not of a first-rate importance regarding the most vital interests of the nation.
On this point, it helps us to remind ourselves that Hitler was far less than an absolute dictator from the popular narratives. Ever since the Night of The Long Knives, Hitler was faced with the plain fact that his closest collaborators, like Goering and Goebbels, play games by executing his orders differently than the way they were given. In time, their self-will and independence only increased. Hitler accepted that loss of power quietly, likely seeing it as a necessary sacrifice in the large struggle - which was dramatic enough in and of itself. ... That is why it is realistic to claim that, after ten years in power, the very Führer could act like any small, mentally unprepared man: double-mindedly.*

Please keep in mind that this is just a sketch.

(*) And such a claim is obviously _not_ a real defense.


JR,
South-Eastern Europe