David Irving Gets 3 Years
Black N Red | 20.02.2006 18:54 | Anti-racism
Veteran Nazi hisorian and life-long Holocause denier David Irving is starting a jail-term in Austria.
Despite humilitatingly recanting on his revisionist views on the Holocaust, veteran Nazi historian David Irving, was today starting a 3 year jail term in Austria, where Holocaust denial is a criminal offence.
In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, Irving, who has addressed countless fascist rallies and meetings throughout his career, has always denied the "Holohoax" took place.
In a week where, strangely, fascists seem to be conveniently shedding their anti-Semitism, Irving told the court, ""I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz." He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.
As usual, we can expect Irving's Hitlerite supporters, who would deny 'free speech' to the rest of us, to try to wring sympathy out of well-meaning, but misguided liberals.
Anarchists do not believe in imprisonment, but they do not support terminal cancer either. Nonetheless, many will be chuckling about the latest mishap to befall this pompous fascist, who has really got off lightly. One day, justice may come, and it will not involve a jail cell, but a well-aimed bullet.
In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, Irving, who has addressed countless fascist rallies and meetings throughout his career, has always denied the "Holohoax" took place.
In a week where, strangely, fascists seem to be conveniently shedding their anti-Semitism, Irving told the court, ""I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz." He had pleaded guilty to the charge, based on a speech and interview he gave in Austria in 1989.
As usual, we can expect Irving's Hitlerite supporters, who would deny 'free speech' to the rest of us, to try to wring sympathy out of well-meaning, but misguided liberals.
Anarchists do not believe in imprisonment, but they do not support terminal cancer either. Nonetheless, many will be chuckling about the latest mishap to befall this pompous fascist, who has really got off lightly. One day, justice may come, and it will not involve a jail cell, but a well-aimed bullet.
Black N Red
Comments
Hide the following 83 comments
so ...
20.02.2006 20:02
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com.0
hypocrisy
20.02.2006 20:23
Then you are an anti-authority anarchist but want him killed with bullet??? That sounds like a strange brand of anarchism that denies freedom of speech and then kills anyone that has a supporter who may be also be against that. What kind of anarchy is this or have you just invented it?
You are also glorifying violence. Presumably you would also be in favour of Blair's laws - that would imprison you for saying that.
! ****** !
Predictable
20.02.2006 20:28
Antifash
Liberal wankers
20.02.2006 20:34
Charlie
Don't bother feeding the trolls
20.02.2006 20:36
Anti
"So..
20.02.2006 20:38
Not for fascists!
Black N Red
Free speech
20.02.2006 20:54
simmo
fascists!
20.02.2006 21:00
Maybe you should give up your paranoid conspiracy theories that anyone that disagrees with you must be a fascist - I am not. Stormfront? what is that - probably some gothic fantasy you dreamt about after watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
You are insulting me for being liberal, and then accusing me of being a fascist. It just makes you look stoopid. Admit it, you don't know.
Want to know why I haven't given my name. You have just threatened to kill anyone that disagrees with you.Doesn't take a genius to work it out does it?
Keep fighting the imaginary vampires - or take some pills.
!******!
Meet the New Thought Police, they are the same as the old one.
20.02.2006 21:38
a person professes to be an anarchist, but advocates imprisoning people he disagrees with and their summary execution for holding an idea??? Sounds more like Uncle Joe speaking there.
Pardon me, I thought the Spanish revolutionaries not fighting a brutal murdering dictatorship and not some tinpot "historians"- silly me.
I consider myself to be anarchist and two things occur to me:
1.) There will sadly always be a case for removing certain people from society to protect the public- but far less and more humanely and a lot less politicised than the present situation. What do we do with with serial rape murderers and paedophiles who cannot be re-integrated?
2.) Surely, for anarchism to truly work it has to be democratic. To be democratic it cannot dictate a central ideal. That is, if anarchism is purely defined as including only lefties and shunning "facists" and "liberals" do we not merely have totalitarian tyranny? Thus, anarchism will by its nature have to acknowledge the right-wing and respect free speech to arrive at democratic decisions, no? Anything else is the aspiration to power, no?
But hey, what do I know. I'm just a facist Liberal, or is that a liberal Facist???
P.S. If it's any consolation, I really did used to think exactly like the poster... and then I grew up a little.
M
Come And Get It!
20.02.2006 22:06
Liberachi
Black n Red
20.02.2006 22:10
This makes you a fascist in the loosest sense and an enemy of free speech specifically.
Fuck your agenda pal.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Suppression of fascism is a democratic act
20.02.2006 22:27
Those who are howling that Irving's "free speech" has been violated really are barking at the moon. The suppression of fascism is a purely democratic act. Denying racists and fascists--those whose aim and activity is to negate democracy--the freedom to speak and organise is an essential condition of democracy. Those who shelter and nurture racists and fascists under the guise of "free speech"--whether Irving or Danish newspapers set on splitting communities--are not democrats but apologists.
Der Hammer
M
20.02.2006 23:52
What you are is just a fucking idiot.
TR
Fuck You Hippy Scum
20.02.2006 23:58
Black N Red
Fascism
21.02.2006 00:01
Carla
Liberal democrat
21.02.2006 00:25
Call yourself what you like mate, but you are NOT an anarchist.
Tom T
Dippy Hippys
21.02.2006 00:31
ACAB
Whineing liberals
21.02.2006 01:06
Clapton Steve
Justice for Irving
21.02.2006 06:07
Play the same game
(A)
21.02.2006 06:45
When Irving had a meeting down here he was run out of town by anti-facsists, and damn right. But summary execution for expressing (bollocks nazi) views? Thats pretty Statist.
"If in order to win it were necessary to erect the gallows in the public
square, then I would prefer to lose" - Errico Malatesta
(A)
irony...
21.02.2006 08:52
No, we're are sticking up for EVERYONE'S rights. Including you, Black N Red, Charlie, etal.
I may think you are all a bunch of eejits and vice versa, but if you think that any minority group has the right to dictate what constitutes free speech, then you ain't anarchists... at the best authoritortarian.
Are Stalinist purges what you really want???
M
hippies, fascists, liberals and macho anarchists
21.02.2006 09:04
That's what happens when you mix gesture politics with the desire to APPEAR ideological sound.
If we leave it down to the macho anarchists/anti-fash brigade to police our thoughts (and the consequent words that emerge on paper or in speech) then ... this is the result.
Those who would defend liberty unto death (to paraphrase Voltaire) are now under attack themselves from those who would deprive us of this inalienable right under the pretext that they know better. What a sorry (and, one must admit, amusinging) contradiction. Some anarchism it is that, seeks to gain dominance at the expense of those 'not anarchist' enough.
Sounds to me like just another ignorant scared human reaction to something not quite grasped, but feared.
Whilst this is not the place to discuss the very real problems about the holocaust industry (perhaps it is not illegal yet - but the volunteer censors roam), nor the right setting to discuss the veracity (or not) of Irvins considerable works ... this is the place for those that believe that free speech is not a privalige BUT A RIGHT.
The fact that [you] can even begin to contemplate that the state has a right to police history and set down a mandate for truth indicates that [you] are more like the thing [you] despise than [you] think!
And here's the rub ...
... this is a circus sideshow, a distraction and a adjunct to the main event ... YES, The War On Terra.
Do you believe that it is a coincidence that, as we gear up to fight WW3 and fight the 'axis of evil', muslims and their detractors have been stirred up by cartoons and imprisoned historians?
Don't you think the juxtoposition is both ripe and the ultimate goal of the affair?
Classic one two war, Hegal in practice ... thesis, anti-thesis, meta-thesis ... problem, REACTION, solution.
To subtle?
Yeah.
Bash some heads instead.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
We think we can help
21.02.2006 09:20
this is how we do it west coast style
We have the apropriet pacilitees for dealing with those planning to assult your freedoms.
Our banker friends in Tel aviv are upset that you don't know who to shut up about, so we are upset to.
George and Dick
Corragio camaradi, ev'viva la anarchia!
21.02.2006 09:29
-Errico Malatesta
Leon Czolgosz
Gaetano Bresci
Sante Jeronimo Caserio
Michele Angiolillo
Luigi Lucheni
Danny
we have the experience
21.02.2006 09:32
Father and son having their freedoms restored
My union banking scam can find out where irvin hid his $$$billions of profit from the nazi war machine - in fact we helped him make it, bank it, invest it and ultimately disperse it.
Although we are good old boys here, and run a very nice line in ethnic cleansing (injuns) and financed eugenics movements around the world (ringworm anyone?), we can't have rouge operatives like irvin endangering our global $$$ luandering service for wall street ... Tel aviv must be safe.
You can't rely on that chimp of a grandson of mine, nor his sidekick - who can't even shoot a man right (and hogging up all that news space in the process - what about our glorious efforts in Aboo Grab sweept under the media mat?).
We can deal with any irvin crackerspawn too ... perhaps you balaclavered anti-facists can help us?
prescot bush
Double Standards
21.02.2006 10:08
Consequence
fucking cunts
21.02.2006 10:18
anarchist
Fragile
21.02.2006 11:11
One has to question the story when they are behaving so damned ridiculous. Who are the nazis?
Saucy
"fascism" - the slogan of champions
21.02.2006 11:49
fascist
debate coach
Piss Off You Fucking Hippy Vermin
21.02.2006 12:02
If this upsets you so fucking much you're either Nazis (and some of you are definitely fascist trolls) or the worst kind of liberals. Just go and blub into your pillows.
Black N Red
time to kill
21.02.2006 12:06
First off Saucy, the Austrian state choosing to prosecute anyone for anything bears no revelvance to the validity of the Holocaust so shut the fuck up.
RednBlack was right, we oppose the right of the Austrian state to lock up anyone.
Opposing all states does not equate to supporting everyone who is persecuted by the state.
There are far worse injustices listed here everyday to get so excited about one bastard being locked up other bastards.
Secondly, there is a debate about whether anarchists should reject the use of violence.
Personally I wouldn't kill Irving for spreading his poison but I will beat him up if I ever meet him, as surely as I would go for any BNP recruiters on my street.
Assassination should be reserved for heads of state and heads of corporations in my arrogant opinion.
Danny
Boo Hoo!
21.02.2006 12:10
Rentokil
Bullets
21.02.2006 12:14
Albie
"If you cannot do the time, don't do the crime"
21.02.2006 13:37
Irving knew what he was doing was illegal, but he did not even have the guts to stand by his own 'historical research' in court yesterday - so much for Irving having any principles. Like his beloved Furher when the chips were down he bottled it.
Deborah Lipstadt correctly argues that the state prosecution of Irving or Griffin encourages state censorship and makes them look like martyrs; not the sad, pathetic, pompous, muppets that they are. Intelligent, disciplined and well organised anti-fascists are always far more effective in fucking over fascism than any government, judge, court or state has ever been.
However, what is sickening to see is the neo-nazi fellow travellers and apologists crawling out of the woodwork on indymedia banging on about Irving's freedom of speech on this and other posts. All they are doing is reinforcing the old anarchist proverb: "Scratch a Liberal - find a Nazi".
All those who want to defend Irving's or Griffin's freedom of speech can first answer the following questions:
1. When and where did Irving or Griffin protest about my freedom of speech during the 1984-5 miners strike when I was arrested on a picket-line for using the word 'scab' in a private conversation to a mate over heard by a copper?
2. When and where did Irving or Griffin protest about the rights of the convoy when it got trashed by the police at the Battle of the Beanfield back in 1985?
3. When and where did Irving or Griffin protest about the media black-out of Irish republicans in the 1980's and 90's, if they really believed so much in the cause of free speech.
After twenty-years give just a single example when either Irving or Griffin defended anyones freedom of speech or rights apart from their own or fellow travellers?
Finally, freedom of speech does not include the right to falsify the past, anymore than the right to express your sexuality gives you the right to rape someone.
Taffy
Practicalities
21.02.2006 13:45
1. I shed no tears for that fascist cocksucker Irving - he made his bed, he can lie in it.
2. I don't believe in a "right" to free speech, or any other "natural right" - I loathe liberalism.
3. I've been an anarcho-communist (out of fashion these days, I know) since the early 80s.
Having said that, I think it's foolish for anarchists to celebrate Irving being silenced, for the simple practical reasons that:
1. It makes him a fascist and far Right martyr, and gives him and his beliefs a credibility and cachet his ravings would never merit on their own.
2. His 'arguments' can be, and have been, easily demolished. His evidence is sparse, his methodology seriously flawed. He's the Erich von Daniken of historians, and more bananas than Fyffes. My cat could probably out-argue him.
Suppression of fascist views just fails in the long term, although it may be very satisfying in the short. When a fascist becomes a 'prisoner of conscience' (cough!) then his views gain credibility, not just with convinced fascists but wavering wannabes, on the grounds of 'if they have to shut him up there must be something in what he says'. Never mind rights or principles, if you want to defeat holocaust denial and other fascist ravings you have to defeat them in public and kill them stone dead. "No platform for fascists" was a stupid slogan in the 80s when it failed abysmally, and it's no less stupid now when the Internet renders it impossible.
I also think it's a touch hypocritical that it's the Austrian State, which has never really come to terms with Austria's enthusiastic support for the Nazis in the 30s and WWII, that's prosecuted him for holocaust denial. Maybe it's trying to get some anti-nazi brownie points so that it doesn't have to deal with its own Nazi legacy.
Gerry
Gerry Gerbil
e-mail:
gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
David Irving Is A Victim Of His Own Arrogance
21.02.2006 16:26
I have never advocated the State prosecution of David Irving, Nick Griffin, or any other fascist, though I think the Irving and Griffin cases are different. The continued prosecution of Griffin and Collett does indeed give them more publicity (though I doubt many antifascists will be too depressed if they get sent down) and potentially makes them fascist martyrs (though again, the creation of 'fascist martyrs' is not in itself necessarily a bad thing.) While some on the Nazi Right might regard has-been Irving as a martyr, many also regard him as a traitor, who when the chips were down was prepared to recant the rubbish he has been peddling for most of his lifetime. He is very far from 'a prisoner of conscience'.
Irving, who has called survivors of Nazi death camps, "psychiatric cases", claiming that there were no Third Reich extermination centres, and who hails Hitler as a hero, is not just some deluded accademic though. He has made a good living for himself glorifying Hitler and the Nazis, and whipping up anti-Semitism. He has addressed fascist groups throughout the world, he is part and parcel of the neo-Nazi scene, and he must take his share of responsibilty for a rise in Nazi-apologism, in racist attacks, and in far-right thinking in general. Irving has blood on his hands.
David Irving knew that by going to Austria again to address a neo-fascist group, having already been expelled from the country, having an outstanding arrest warrant, and being barred from the country, he was inviting arrest. It has been argued that he was even 'excited' by the prospect of the publicity, packing far more clothes for example, than he needed for a short speaking trip. Certainly, David Irving did not expect to be sent down for 3 years, the dangerous game he has played for much of his lifetime has backfired, and once again he is the victim of his own arrogance.
David Irving is a fascist who has made a living tormenting the surviving victims of his hero's atrocities, and effectively spitting on the ashes of the dead victims of the Third Reich. Some posters on Indymedia may regard this lying hypocrite as 'a martyr to free speech' along with his fascist sympathisers, but most of us regard him as scum, and shed no tears over his downfall. Anarchists need to distinuish between liberty and licence.
Black N Red
Liberals will lead us merrily to the gas chambers
21.02.2006 16:39
And how is calling Irving a racist and a fascist an improper use of the term? Are you suggesting that he is neither of these?
The liberals who are posing as the defenders of "free speech" have certainly picked an interesting person to shelter within the folds of their skirts. Theirs is the same logic that Nazi war criminals shouldn't be pursued because the butchers of Auschwitz are "too old" and "it has been so long" (you old softies).
A democratic society should be free to suppress efforts to organise around racism and fascism, precisely because they are the greatest threats to democratic life.
Anon Y Mous
Effects on wider population
21.02.2006 17:44
"He has addressed fascist groups throughout the world, he is part and parcel of the neo-Nazi scene, and he must take his share of responsibilty for a rise in Nazi-apologism, in racist attacks, and in far-right thinking in general. Irving has blood on his hands. "
Yes, I agree completely. He deserves everything he gets, it's just a shame that it was the State that did for him rather than anti-fascists. I expect that he'll have an interesting time in the nick especially with non-white inmates as there won't be his usual posse of nazi knuckleheads to act as bodyguards.
"Some posters on Indymedia may regard this lying hypocrite as 'a martyr to free speech' along with his fascist sympathisers, but most of us regard him as scum, and shed no tears over his downfall."
True enough, most of "us" see him as the scum he is, but it's not our views that matter, it's how he's seen by the general public. I just know that the Mail, Express and Sun will be full of condemnation of his views but slagging off the prison sentence, saying that he's got a "right" to express "unpalatable" views. There will be substantial sections of the middle classes who'll feel sympathy with him, and I fear that his jailing will result in more fascist sympathisers. Ok, so who gives a stuff about the petit-bourgeoisie, you might say, but it's the middle classes that have historically provided the most fertile ground for fascist recruitment. I worry that even some working-class folk who're unaware of his history might feel some sympathy for his silencing.
Gerry
Gerry Gerbil
e-mail:
gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
Gerry
21.02.2006 17:53
I agree entirely Gerry, and hopefully David Irving will simply be tomorrow's fish and chip wrapper. The only protests organised in support of him have been by the barking-mad November 9th Society, who have twice managed to turn out a handful of oddballs for pickets outside the Austrian Embassy. And the predicted Far-Right protests at Irving's trial failed to materialise.
Black N Red
The mind boggles
21.02.2006 18:25
Would I be cynical to suggest that if it were Noam Chomsky that was being banged by any number of states, you'd be singing a very different tune. The concept of thought crime can cut both ways.
I'm all for the restraint of anyone who is engaged in undemocratic subversive terrorism/tyranny, but It's a sad state of affairs when people can be banged up for simply expressing themselves *linguistically*.
Today its Abu Hamza, David Irving etc. tomorrow it'll be Chomsky & Moore and then we'll all be grassing up our "unpatriotic" neighbours to the secret police for criticising El Presidente.
Thank god(/non-sectarian spiritual leader) we have some daring crusaders in our cause to bash them all up before we get that far!
What really is the difference between an antifacist and a brownshirt apart from fashion, music and whether or not you "like foreigners".
I really can see no other distinguishing feature.
M: Liberal surrender monkey
Liberals? Haven't they done a great job.
21.02.2006 18:43
I really can see no other distinguishing feature."
Then you deserve a kicking far more than Irving, you fucking scumbag.
Grackle
Monkey
21.02.2006 18:49
I really can see no other distinguishing feature."
You really are a very stupid person then aren't you?
Black N Red
"I say..."
21.02.2006 18:52
middle-class liberal hippy
What a charming bunch
21.02.2006 19:18
Are you mainly men, by any chance? Apart from alienating anyone with a serious interest in this debate, I thoroughly approve of your delightful tendencies to throw biological "insults" across the board, of course. But I do wonder whether the use of "bastard" is not really too old fashioned now that wedlock has gone out of vogue. I also wonder whether "cock sucker" is not being misused as well - it can be quite a pleasurable experience, I hear. Perhaps you could come up with some new swear words - and let's hope they scare all those otherwise interested and informed people right off the board, and we can go back to swopping insults and slanging. Wouldn't that be nice? In the meantime, I am sure it has made you all feel really big and clever. And I loved the suggestions of vicious self-righteous violence. Keep them up!
Of course, there is a strong case for arguing that you are bringing the board into disrepute and should be banned as a result (hello IMC istas!) but I suppose that even the people who want David Irvine silenced wouldn't agree to that.
c
Yesterday's chip wrapper
21.02.2006 19:29
Irving is being slated on the Nazi sites, he's no martyr. Even his pals N9S haven't updated their site, probably out of shame.
Jim Tall
SEXISM!!!
21.02.2006 19:32
Are you saying women can't be angry, or swear, or be anti-fascists?!
Carla
no difference
21.02.2006 20:01
Brownshirts and Unbathed tie-dyed A.N.S.W.E.R. monkeys are all the same.
Punjab
Punjab
21.02.2006 20:32
Red Punk
Charming
21.02.2006 20:52
I'm mainly a man. Are you mainly smug by any chance ?
>But I do wonder whether the use of "bastard" is not really too old fashioned now that wedlock has gone out of vogue.
Why ? After all, 'wanker' is still used as an insult and everyone masturbates.
>And I loved the suggestions of vicious self-righteous violence. Keep them up!
And I loved how you imply all violence is always wrong , without thinking it necessary to justify that assertion. Are you mainly a woman by any chance ? Since violence obviously isn't an option for you, would you walk by a woman being raped in the street or would you try to impress the rapist with your 'big and clever' feminine pacifism ? Any sensible person - man or woman - would use minimal force to end the attack. And why should it be any different if the victim isn't a woman but another persecuted minority ?
>bringing the board into disrepute
hahahahahahhahahahahaha. Try and come up with a PC insult I can throw at you.
Danny
dear Carla
21.02.2006 21:08
c
dear danny
21.02.2006 22:11
As for "wanker" the reason why it's not a terribly good insult is exactly right - everyone does it. How come it was made into an insult? Why do we carry on this demonising of a perfectly normal process?
etc etc
c
...
21.02.2006 22:13
M
50-odd posts
21.02.2006 22:59
I wrote this as a straightforward news item, not intending for it to be controversial. That it has attracted more than 50 posts, including some of the most specious arguments I have ever seen on Indymedia, says a lot.
During my life I've spent more than 2000 days as a political prisoner. David Irving isn't that, he is a vile, arrogant man, who has rubbed salt into the wounds of people who suffered torture and death because they were trade unionists, communists, travellers, anarchist, Jehovah's Witnesses, black, Jews, antifascists, disabled, or mentally ill. That there are people calling themselves 'anarchists', who are championing this creature to an extent that even his own fascist comrades are not, sickens me.
Black N Red
Black N Red
21.02.2006 23:12
Chomsky rubs salt in the wounds of a lot people. I guess just because you don't like the people he pisses off, that makes it acceptable?
Correct me if I'm wrong but Irving has never actually physically attacked someone or even conspired to do so.
I don't subscribe to Marylin Manson & KMFDM being responsible for or even the slightest bit contributory to Columbine High. How about you? Because your line of argument sounds very Tipper Gore to me.
M
Dear c
21.02.2006 23:24
Not unless your brain is in your stomach. Any argument is tested at the extremes so I can't see why you're nauseous.
>I have stopped many fights - men v men, women v men, men v women, women v women - without once needing, or wanting, to use violence.
Well you've been lucky or led a sheltered life. I assumed it was a given that you would accept the minimal use of violence to prevent rape or worse. You wouldn't have killed Hitler either would you ?
>Stands to reason that if you see two people trying to use violence against each other, adding more violence is not the solution.
Stands to reason that if you see one person using violence against someone defenceless, adding more violence may be the only solution. If I was a woman I'd carry a flickblade or learn a martial art.
>So you bully them into stopping, rather than asking them to think again. Then what? Around another corner, somewhere else....
No, don't follow you there. I'm not saying you shouldn't avoid using violence at all costs, just that sometimes ultra-pacifism is pathological. I think NVDA is the only logical choice for the peace movement, but as an anarchist I feel honour bound to kill Tony Blair if I can, much like I'd murder any mass-murderer without compunction or self-doubt. If I had killed Tony Blair five years ago I may just have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. I love my dog but if was rabid I'd shoot it myself.
>As for "wanker" the reason why it's not a terribly good insult is exactly right - everyone does it. How come it was made into an insult? Why do we carry on this demonising of a perfectly normal process?
Oh, I do agree. Not just normal but healthy. The trick is take insults as compliments, it annnoys your enemies and pleases your friends. I remember when I was 11 I called some kid in my class a wanker and he said 'Yeah, I'm a wanker. Maybe in 5 or 6 years when you reach puberty you'll wank too.' I was devastated then but since then I'm always secretly pleased to be called a wanker. Ilyen is wanting to start a religion based on masturbation to help reduce over-population.
Danny
You Really Are Beneath Contempt "M"
21.02.2006 23:32
"Chomsky rubs salt in the wounds of a lot people. I guess just because you don't like the people he pisses off, that makes it acceptable? "
Can't say I've read a lot of Chomsky, but I imagine the people he criticises are powerful people, like Bush, and Sharon maybe, is that right. Do you think that equates to the Holocaust M? Do you think that calling Bush a 'psychiatric case' is morally the same as calling some poor old woman who saw her whole family killed by Nazis a 'psychiatric case'; to even deny the truth of her experience, and Millions like her, and say she is telling 'fairytales'? Do you think there is any fucking comparison whatsoever? Because if you do you belong in the same moral sewer as David Irving.
Tom T
Good to see that the left still have so much faith in the state
21.02.2006 23:36
I don't think this is absolutely contradictory.
Good to see that the left still have so much faith in the state, even the anarchists.
S
M
21.02.2006 23:36
AB
etc.
22.02.2006 00:44
AB: kid= flase; middle-class= once upon a LONG time ago; flashy computer= nah. I just realised a few years ago that I live in a heterogenous universe and that expectations of everyone being in agreement with a homogenous world view is naive to the point of infantile egocentricity. If you think you can ban, beat and kill your way to achieving an ordered society perhaps you should read more history and less politics.
m
GO RICK GO!
22.02.2006 00:51
M's neighbour
3 YEARS??!!!!
22.02.2006 01:34
Howey
you are failing
22.02.2006 01:34
You and others are obviously failing to win your argument and hence resorting to insults right from the start.
fash-Stormfront-Fuck You Hippy Scum-Dippy Hippy-stick up for Nazis-Liberals-Monkey-Monkey
Maybe you can think of just one more, then you might win your argument? Hah, Hah! Somehow I don't think Indy*media would tolerate this abuse if it was directed at Zionists.
It is tony blair+Neo Labour chums who are the fascists killing thousands of innocents in Iraq.
You 'anti-fash's' however don't seem to get excited about that - that is what I am concerned about.
You claim to be an anti-authority anarchist. Surely there can be no greater authority than that which uses rule by the bullet?
Would Indymedia tolerate this if it came from a Muslim fanatic drumming up support for killing anti-muslim infidels? (No is the answer)
And..."I have never advocated the State prosecution of David Irving". Just an apologiser for it and prefer to use a bullet instead.
! ****** !
Boring
22.02.2006 01:44
Having spent 15 minutes reading through this lot, I am unconvinced by the pro-irving arguments, you seem to have nothing whatsoever to say apart from the most trite liberal toss. I don't see that you have won any argument whatsoever.
Chris L
Reply to M and Chris L
22.02.2006 03:37
"Eine Reich, eine Volk, I am sorry...............it wont happen again....honest your honour.....I am not a racist.....I demand my democratic rights.....bleat....bleat....bleat...its all a Jewish conspiracy......please don't hit me"
65 years ago they were marching across europe now they are reduced to trolling indymedia - Master race? Don't make me laugh.
Taffy
Defence Is not optional
22.02.2006 04:16
The Fascist Trolls treating Free Speech in isolation from other Rights are merely pointing one direction while running another. It's fine to rattle on about Freedom of Speech as though possessing obliges uttering. It does not. That would be a Duty. David Irving's Duty is to Truth not some self serving fetish for dead genocidal maniacs. His failure, the Failure of all Fascists, was to think worshipping power would protect him from that power.
When I believe and defend his right to Free Speech, I expect Mister Irving to keep his odious filth away from the impressionable. If he cannot do that I will condemn him. I expect Mister Irving to ensure he is scrupiously honest. If he cannot do that I will condemn him. There are many ways I will condemn him while defending his rights. Irving and Fascist Apologists only want the Rights not the Duties. It is the Duty of Everybody to condemn Genocidal Maniacs everywhere - without discrimination.
Jeremy Bethhams Apologist
General reply
22.02.2006 09:39
I think this begs the question of what the hell they are doing on IndyMedia since IMHO you can't find any more an extreme example of authoritarian & repressive thinking.
The irony is that these so-called anti-facists occupy the same chauvinistic mindset as Hitler & Stalin.
There have been frequents references along the lines of 'but it's the holocaust!' as though it was self-evident that there is some natural exceptionality that makes the lives/deaths of the victims of the 3rd Reich more worthy of reverence/taboo than the countless others lost under any other hideous regime. I don't know how you are supposed to measure such things, but it strikes me as being rather self-righteous to believe you confidently can.
Then we have the stance that they are somehow acting as agents of the survivors or their close family/friends. But no one has offered any evidence of such affiliations being anything further than a convenient stance. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the victims/survivors of the holocaust are in no short supply of elected agents to actually represent them.
Then we come to the ultrapredictable mechanism of accusing the free speech defence as being apologists, glorifiers or outright endorsers of Irving. Actually, I think the guy is a scumbag. But if we go locking up, beating up and shooting up everyone we disagree with we move swiftly into the 3rd Reich/Stalinist Russia etc etc.
It seems evident that, in true Daily Mail convention, no-one seems to have read any David Irving to cite in his prosecution. Which is difficult to understand since it seems his bibliography is entirely available, free in electronic format from his publishers website.
The most amusing part however is being called a facist for defending free speech for all and to be told I am a facist for it.
I've nothing more to add. I'll sleep better knowing that the anti-facists are every bit an anachronistic dud as the neonazis. Get some new enemies, you're old ones are already dead.
M
Nazi Lover
22.02.2006 11:08
2BON2B
Other Irving Thread
22.02.2006 11:16
Jim T
Irving's chief apologist
22.02.2006 11:46
Rico
"Freedom"
22.02.2006 14:13
What Is Freedom?
1. FREEDOM is living in a community of one's own kind, one's own folk and one's own race.
2. FREEDOM is being able to belong to a group of related persons which is not diluted by alien elements.
3. FREEDOM is being able to avoid seeing aliens around oneself.
4. FREEDOM is knowing that aliens will not compete for the material goods of one's own land, now or in the future.
5. FREEDOM is knowing that one's living space and that of one's descendants will not have to be turned over to aliens.
6. FREEDOM is being able to avoid alien influence and alien control.
7. FREEDOM is being governed by responsible members of one's own people.
8. FREEDOM is having a government which seeks to enable a people to defend its territory.
Auntie
Aliens
22.02.2006 14:20
Fish
Oh for a serious debate :(
22.02.2006 17:34
Ok, maybe this isn't so pedantic a definition, because it's important to understand what fascism was and is, and where it came from, in order to be able to fight it - know your enemy. What really pisses many of us off is when "fascist" becomes a throwaway insult to slag off anyone who disagrees with you or who you think has authoritarian tendencies, as has happened in this pisspoor excuse for a discussion. This seriously devalues the word and strips it of its meaning, which of course suits the real fascists down to the ground. "Fascist" and "fascism" refer to very specific things, and should only be used to describe those things.
It's a lazy, cheap and above all wrong argument to accuse Black N Red and others of being the same as the fascists even if you violently disagree with them, because they're not fascists by any stretch of the imagination. To wrte that there's no difference between "an antifacist [sic] and a brownshirt apart from fashion, music and whether or not you "like foreigners"", as you do, or that there was no difference between the Left and brownshirts in the 30s, as Punjab does, is a serious travesty of reality and a grievous insult to all those who fought, and still fight, nazis on the streets. This liberal view that each 'extreme' mirrors the other just doesn't wash - there's no moral or practical equivalence between far Right and far Left, and today's 'extremists' can soon enough become tomorrow's 'moderates' (anti-slavery campaigners, suffragettes, civil rights activists and direct action peaceniks come immediately to mind).
There is a serious debate to be had within anarchism, and the libertarian Left in general, on free speech, how much/little it should be limited for fascists and reactionaries, not to mention highly antisocial individuals, and if so how it should be limited (persuasion, direct action, violence, confinement). It's sure as fuck not happening on this board, though.
Gerry
Gerry Gerbil
e-mail:
gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
Debate then Gerbil
22.02.2006 19:24
It's not necessarily a debate between these things, these could be looked at as a sliding scale of tactical choices dependent on the situation, but if you want a serious debate its probably best to limit the swearing - ya basta !
1) persuasion
2) direct action
3) violence
4) confinement
1) A daft apprentice at my work was being socially isolated for expressing fascist views after being leafleted by the BNP at a football match. Sitting down with him for a few hours talking about race, civilisations and logic gave him the intellectual cover to rejoin his colleagues without losing face. Persuasion is preferable to isolation as it gains an ally as well as losing an enemy, and it is easy - if you can't out-argue the false arguments of fascism then you can't argue.
2) Some DA are aimed at persuasion / publicity, but where persuasion has failed then stopping fascist activity directly is the next step. Actions can be physical, devious, imaginative, hypocritical, underhanded, humiliating or whatever, as long as they are effective. That's what most posters here do and thats the step most of us are mostly aiming for.
3) As a last resort where other means have been exhausted to no effect and no other means are available, and where violence is already being employed by fascists, a minimal use of force is logical and perhaps even moral. If you are facing down the KKK or the BNP and they are taking lumps out of you then pacifism is death.
4) States only confine the weak and the weak can never practically confine the powerful except through kidnap or such ephemeral means.
As for fascist, I define that as any right-wing militaristic racist ( Blair, Bush, Irving, Pol Pot ), with capital F Fascist referring to the various self-confessed fascists ( Hitler, Griffin) and Fascisti as Mussolinis mob. I realise calling someone a fascist is an embarrassing cliche but I don't want to have to type 'right-wing militaristic racist' everytime.
Danny
No, no, no!
22.02.2006 19:44
(and everyone else on this thread who is advocating murder (???), violence and intimidation)
Please do not tar anyone else with the same brush. Do not, for one thing, call yourselves simply "anarchists", as though there is no other form of anarchism apart from your desperate hate and horror. You are united by your violence: perhaps you could describe yourselves as "violent anarchists" . As you well know there are many other anarchists, who might or might not punch someone to stop them raping another person (good emotive use of a situation Danny) - one thing for sure, they wouldn't be trolling around this board boasting about it. Non-violence can be pathological, can it, Danny? How exactly? Ghandi? And I have led a sheltered life, have I? Nothing like a completely unfounded personal attack to make your point, is there? How many war zones have you been in, Danny? I have been in three. I have seen the crippled children crying and the pools of blood on the ground, Danny. Have you? These sights tend to stop you fantasising about violence. Even if you do end up using it as a last resort. It does not make you boast about it.
I can understand this need to shout and rage and scream and try and sound big and tough in a world which is increasingly making people feel powerless. What I can't understand is how you can try and argue it as though it is logical. It isn't.
Please stop and get lives and loves. you are not in a war zone. don't try and create a fake one on indymedia.
c
Yeah but no but yeah
22.02.2006 20:38
>(and everyone else on this thread who is advocating murder (???), violence and intimidation)
(and everyone else on this thread who is advocating ignoring massmurder (???), silence and inactivity)
Please do not tar anyone else with the same brush.
>Do not, for one thing, call yourselves simply "anarchists", as though there is no other form of anarchism apart from your desperate hate and horror.
My views only ever represent myself, as does any anarchists. Did you recognise any of the names I listed in my first post on this thread ? Should we retrospectively label them Violent Anarchists to suit your sensibilities ? There should be a law against it...
>You are united by your violence: perhaps you could describe yourselves as "violent anarchists" .
Add Chomsky to the list then.
"I'm of course opposed to terror; any rational human is. But if we are serious about the question of terror; serious about the question of violence, we have to recgnize that it is a tactical issue. As a matter of fact, tactical isssues are basically moral issues; they have to do with human conseqences. And if we are interested in diminishing the amount of violence in the world; it's at least argueable, in fact sometimes true. That a terrorictic act does diminish the amount of violence in the world. Hence, a person who is opposed to violence will not be be opposed to a terrroristc act."
>As you well know there are many other anarchists, who might or might not punch someone to stop them raping another person (good emotive use of a situation Danny) - one thing for sure, they wouldn't be trolling around this board boasting about it.
So an anarchist might punch to stop a rape and still be considered non-violent. Okay, by your definition I'm non-violent. I think that was an apporopriate use of an emotive situation given the fact the metaphor holds up excatly for the carnage wrought in Iraq by your taxes.
>Non-violence can be pathological, can it, Danny?
Often.
>How exactly?
Those who walked into the death camps without reisisting for their spiritual beliefs. Psychologists would call that pathological, ie suicidal. Most were pacified through emotional torture, through hope for their likewise imprisoned relatives. A few did resist, in vain and without hope - but heroes to me rather than lemmings. They slowed the process. The delays they caused in the extermination saved at least a few lives over the course of the war.
>Ghandi?
Gandhi actually. You should learn how to spell his name and perhaps read up on some of his views on violence before you name-drop him. He thought he could beat even Nazism through mass NVDA. Belsen proved the lie of that - industrial killing means only small amounts of guards are traumatised by their part in the slaughter necessary to suppress NVDA so no mass domestic anti-war movement will arise in the genocidal nation in sympathy with the victims as too few even know. Like even the mass of the peacemovement in the UK don't know the real carnage caused in Iraq yet, they'll be told in ten years..
>And I have led a sheltered life, have I?
Or you've been lucky as I said.
>Nothing like a completely unfounded personal attack to make your point, is there?
Its an attack to call you lucky ? Well, be unlucky then.
>How many war zones have you been in, Danny?
None yet. I live in the most violent developed country in the world and I was fighting before I was walking.
>Even if you do end up using it as a last resort. It does not make you boast about it.
It wasn't a boast, just a rationale and a confession of failure. I could've saved hundreds of thousands of people by killing Blair and I failed. You petitioned him and tried to embarrass him morally - you never stood a chance of saving anyone except your own pious self-regard ( at least your hands aren't bloody eh regardless of how many die each day)
>I can understand this need to shout and rage and scream and try and sound big and tough in a world which is increasingly making people feel powerless.
I'm not shouting, raging, screaming or big or tough - nor am I responsible for your self-imposed impotence while others are dying around you - and I don't like being misrepresented as such, you are personalising things to avoid the argument. For obvious reasons.
Your pacifism in the face of Bush and Blair has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, few if any that you personally have witnessed. I don't blame you but I'm not going to follow your failed resigned acceptance of genocide.
>What I can't understand is how you can try and argue it as though it is logical. It isn't.
See, if you'd only added a 'because' then you might have made a point.
>Please stop and get lives and loves. you are not in a war zone.
Chill ? Relax ? Enjoy myself ? I am in a country committing genocide abraod and that's your moral advice ? Wow.
>don't try and create a fake one on indymedia.
I'm not at war with you. Ultra-pacifists are the first line of defence of the state, just in front of the barbed wire fences that are just in front of the police. I will simply walk around your sit-down protests on my way to act against my enemy.
Danny
"I could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives"
22.02.2006 21:51
Danny thinks he could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives by killing Tony Blair.
Danny:
You think the Iraq war was Tony Blair's idea?
You think he was acting alone?
You think his successor would have acted differently?
Well, then you would have been one sad murderer.
Or, if you remained out of prison, you would have had to kill and kill and kill again, until whoops - you're a mass murderer too. And you and Blair would have a surprising new interest in common.
Can't see it, really. Tell me the point of murder and violence again? Or maybe, come up with a better idea?
c
The Alphabet Warrors
22.02.2006 23:45
How about a few more details c if you don't mind? It's just that could really mean anything, I've been in war-zones too and it taught me very different things, so please excuse me if I take what you say with a pinch of salt. I'm afraid I've come across pacifists before who told me all sorts of stories to shore up their arguments only for me to find out later their tales were bullshit (and, sorry, but you do have that 'evalangelical' tone.) Were you perhaps a tourist visiting Palestine, maybe doing worthy stuff, but still essentially a tourist? The world is full of war-zones, unfortunately you don't have to travel far to see the sort of human misery you've dropped into this debate, but what you're doing there, how you behave, that's what relevant. So don't expect to just drop that one in without further qualification. In the war-zones I've been in people couldn't afford the luxury of pacifism. No offence intended.
Thowrawiyeen
"Me ? I never saw nothing Sir, long live the state"
23.02.2006 04:37
No, but he was the main motivator for war and he lied and knew he was lying. I think under the Nuremberg tribunal ruling that means he is a legal as well as a moral target. If he had been killed it may well not have prevented his successor, and even it it hadn't it would've gave his heir reason to reconsider.
>You think he was acting alone?
I know 91% of the British public were against it. I know the military were against it. I know most of parliament was against it. But yes, I do think if the International Criminal Court had credibility every British MP who voted for war would be on trial for their lives. In the abscence of that, assassination is the only sort of justice likely to reach them before they all retire to their large pensions and corporate sponsorship - like Thatcher, Pinochet, Kissenger et al already have.
>You think his successor would have acted differently?
Maybe - Harold Shipmans successor as GP is presumably not a mass murderer. If not, then off with his head. Is that any excuse not to have attempted to kill Hitler ? I take it you condemn Staffenburgs outrageous act of terrorism when he left the bomb under Hitlers table. I take it you condemn everyone who fought to end his slaughter.
>Well, then you would have been one sad murderer.
Thats true. I'd prefer that to sitting on my moral high horse when my taxes are paying for othe peoples slaughter. You are one sad mass murderer except you pay others top do your killing for you.
>Or, if you remained out of prison, you would have had to kill and kill and kill again, until whoops - you're a mass murderer too. And you and Blair would have a surprising new interest in common.
It is unlikely that anyone could have killed as many people as Blair has over the past 4 years. More than unlikely.
>Can't see it, really. Tell me the point of murder and violence again?
To reduce the overall level of violence in the world both by punishing the tyrants and also to act as a deterent to future tyrants, those who you enrich and fail to bring to account. To save the hundreds of thousands of crippled children lying in pools of blood caused by your taxes and your ineffectual inactivity.
>Or maybe, come up with a better idea?
Well, I could follow your lead and 'tut tut' loudly when I'm passing the death camps, passing the rapist and passing the buck. Or maybe instead of fogiving our leaders on other peoples behalfs, you could just look the other way when you see some of us celebrating the deaths of tyrants.
Danny
Okay, I lied. But things are getting less predictable now...
23.02.2006 10:05
I still find it disturbing how you seem to feel that more violence and murder are a natural and just reaction to violence and murder. Whilst agreeing that sadly there are scenarios where force and deadly force may be necessary as self defence measure, I think it's rather dubious to dispense them as summarily as the people you/we oppose.
AFAIK the ICC doesn't have the power to condem anyone to death.
I'll not stoop to the idiocy of Gerry the Proscriptive Grammarian (read authoritarian linguistic pedant- seemingly oblivious the problems of loan words and orthography)- I know you are fine well referring to Claus von Stauffenberg (the High-ranking German Army officer famous for plotting against Hitler- though he managed only to assinate his trousers). Correct me if I am wrong, but I have been under the impression the von Stauffenberg & Co. were primarily objecting to Hitler as a military incompetent rather than any moral/polictical objection?
I fear that you are buying into the cult of personality surrounding people like Hitler. Given that it's largely accepted that Versaille Treaty (and French human rights abuses relating to it) were a key factor in WW2, the interesting, and thoroughly pointless, speculation is whether things would have turned out much differently if Hitler were strangled at birth.
I think like most things in life, when you examine what was happening on the ground you find a lot of convergence of situations that are probably far more important than any personality that gets associated (to a degree scapegaoted) with events.
Thus the argument for strategic killing becomes a problem when you realise that the person is often merely a sympton and not a cause. Which brings us back to Shipman. Would he have become a serial killer if better checks were in place? Doubtful. Then we get the moral quandry, now that Shipman has happened will fewer people now die in the long run?
I feel that assanitaing Blair would have had one very predictable outcome. A show trial of the offenders, even more ridiculous laws, and his successor jumping on the Haliburton bandwagon.
Again, the problem isn't errant personalities but systems. The answer? Buggered if I know, but if sure as shit isn't trying to be equally or more brutal than the last shower of arseholes.
This isn't as some meatheads arrogantly state passivity, but rather a will to get things right and take APPROPRIATE measures, as opposed to just hitting anyone you dislike.
M
Violence
23.02.2006 11:20
I for one definitely wouldn't advocate the use of violence for political ends or otherwise as it tends to have serious 'side-effects' not only on those on the receiving end but on their friends and family. Even if the recipient is a nazi who deserves everything he gets, and more, the 'side-effects' can linger in those who know him and breed trouble for the future. Plus using violence against fascists can play into their hands, because violence is an integral part of Fascist ideology - blood and honour and all that. In the longer term fascism can only be stopped by concerted mass action against the fascists and the State, by which I mean people on the streets, strikes, occupations, and other forms of direct nonviolent social action.
For all that, though, in the short term fascists need to be stopped. If a bunch of nazis are marching through a neighbourhood they need to be physically confronted, and that might mean violence in self-defence. NVDA tactics might work, sometimes, with the State which has authority to maintain, but will be laughed at by Nazis who'll just go ahead and kick your heads in.
In a broader sense, revolutions of necessity will involve violence, the vast majority of it on the part of the State and the ruling classes who will fight tooth and nail to preserve their rule against mass uprisings, and will not hesitate to maim, imprison and kill (we in the UK got a foretaste of that during the miners' strike of '84). NVDA will just not work against a State that's taken off the velvet glove of authority to reveal the iron fist of brute power - once the State has lost the moral authority it has to govern it will cut loose with everything it has as it won't have anything to lose. In such a situation, community self-defence will be a must. (Please don't mention 'velvet revolutions', as these were just coups d'etat where State forces switched sides and much of the ruling classes remained in power.)
I don't like to write this as, personally, I've not hit anyone for 30 years, and whenever there is violence it's me that gets the rough end of the pineapple, so it's something I avoid if I can. I was also very active in the peace movement before it imploded, but even then I just couldn't see how pacifism could work as a 'solution' for revolutionary change, or for community self-defence.
Gerry
Gerry Gerbil
e-mail:
gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
To Danny: imprisonment and confinement
23.02.2006 11:43
"4) States only confine the weak and the weak can never practically confine the powerful except through kidnap or such ephemeral means. "
That's true enough, and represents the 'standard' anarchist line on imprisonment which in general I'd agree with. I've always thought that prison is a diabolical and seriously inhuman way of dealing with antisocial behaviour. Even by the State's own reasoning, the main reason for locking people up is to "keep them off the streets", so why not keep them in humane conditions rather than in tiny cells for 23 hours a day without sight of sky or sun or fresh air i a Lord of the Flies setup? The obvious answer is plain old revenge and retribution, which either destroys or hardens the inmate and offers no benefit to society at all, precisely the opposite. So in a revolutionary situation I'd be all behind breaking open the prisons, even to let out scumbags like Irving or psycho hard cases. In that situation, though, and immediately after a revolution, there's going to be some serious antisocial behaviour on the part of those who want to restore the status quo ante, so what are anarchists going to do about it? Marxists and other statists would just throw 'counter-revolutionaries' in jail, but that's not really an option for anarchists.
I don't have an easy answer to this problem, so I'd be interested to read what other folk think. What anarchists definitely don't want is any kind of post-revolutionary 'terror' as happened in France, Russia and elsewhere, which effectively destroys the revolution as well as killing and terrorising an awful lot of people. OTOH, if you let armed people dedicated to restoring the old order roam and organise freely then you're asking for trouble. So, to paraphrase the Pickled One, what is to be done? Answers on a postcard, please... ;-)
Gerry
Gerry Gerbil
e-mail:
gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
Well said Gerry!
23.02.2006 12:23
Couldn't have put it better myself. Reaching for violence as a means of persuasion is not only thuggery but a complete folly for anyone with democratic aspirations. If people don't support your ideas then you won't gain any ground beating them. If a community want's the BNP holding a peaceful demo, then who is being anti-social by denying them that. Peaceful demos are one thing, but if the BNP are not welcome and there is violence emenating directly from that organisation then violence self-defence is naturally correct.
Ideally the problem should be dealt with by some democratically appointed civil defence unit. Since the police don't fit that bill and seem largely ineffectual at doing anything other than collecting taxes for the council (RTO & DVLA) it's hardly surprising that things get out of hand. But objectively two wrongs don't make a right and often politically (media etc.) make things twice as bad.
The answer? Fuck knows!
Revolution is pretty much a romantic term for civil war and advocates of it would do well to remind themselves of that. In wars truth isn't the greatest casualty it civillians and the weak (in all senses).
BTW, what I meant by the fa[s]cists enemy being dead is that we are no longer in 1930s Europe and the biggest danger is no longer from would-be brownshirts like the BNP etal but rather from a more mainstream trend- which is less of an immediate target.
I get the impression of many of these so-called Anti-fascists is that their anger stems from not being able to accept that not everyone wants to accept their dogma. The question of what came first the violence or the dogma is perhaps the chicken vs the egg.
M
Danny your a dick
24.02.2006 00:12
Well i dont like what you said, it it utterly thick, so have i got the right to beat you up.
You must be either a troll or just fucking dumb. How is this adding to debate?
Saucy