Times Online November 17, 2005
David Irving arrested in Austria
By Simon Freeman and agencies in Vienna
David Irving, the revisionist historian, has been arrested by police in Austria after his car was stopped for a roadside check.
Authorities in Vienna said that the 67-year-old author was being held under a warrant issued in November 1989 for speeches which were considered to break domestic laws preventing active denial of the Holocaust.
The offence carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
Major Rudolf Gollia, the interior ministry spokesman, said Mr Irving had been en route to a students' meeting in Vienna when he was stopped on a motorway in the southern province of Styria on November 11. He was transferred to a prison in Graz.
The charges stemmed from speeches Mr Irving delivered in Vienna and in the southern town of Leoben in 1989.
Christoph Poechinger, a spokesman for the Austrian Justice Ministry, said it was likely that charges would be pressed against Irving and that he would be kept in custody until the case came to court.
"There is a grave danger that he will repeat the offence, therefore it is likely he will be kept in custody until it comes to court. A warrant has been outstanding since 1989 and the case will probably be made a priority, but I doubt it will come to court before Christmas," Herr Poechinger told the Austrian newspaper Der Standard.
In a statement posted on his website, Irving supporters said that he was arrested while on a one-day visit to Vienna, where they said he had been invited "by courageous students to address an ancient university association".
The statement alleged that he had been arrested by police who learned of his visit "by wiretaps or intercepting e-mails". Austrian authorities had no immediate comment on the suggestion.
Mr Irving wrote some 30 books before becoming notorious worldwide in 2002 after launching a libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, the American academic who described him as a Holocaust denier in her 1994 book Denying the Holocaust.
He lost the case and was forced into bankruptcy. The judge ruled that he was "an active Holocaust denier, anti-Semitic and racist".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1876644,00.html
David Irving arrested in Austria
By Simon Freeman and agencies in Vienna
David Irving, the revisionist historian, has been arrested by police in Austria after his car was stopped for a roadside check.
Authorities in Vienna said that the 67-year-old author was being held under a warrant issued in November 1989 for speeches which were considered to break domestic laws preventing active denial of the Holocaust.
The offence carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
Major Rudolf Gollia, the interior ministry spokesman, said Mr Irving had been en route to a students' meeting in Vienna when he was stopped on a motorway in the southern province of Styria on November 11. He was transferred to a prison in Graz.
The charges stemmed from speeches Mr Irving delivered in Vienna and in the southern town of Leoben in 1989.
Christoph Poechinger, a spokesman for the Austrian Justice Ministry, said it was likely that charges would be pressed against Irving and that he would be kept in custody until the case came to court.
"There is a grave danger that he will repeat the offence, therefore it is likely he will be kept in custody until it comes to court. A warrant has been outstanding since 1989 and the case will probably be made a priority, but I doubt it will come to court before Christmas," Herr Poechinger told the Austrian newspaper Der Standard.
In a statement posted on his website, Irving supporters said that he was arrested while on a one-day visit to Vienna, where they said he had been invited "by courageous students to address an ancient university association".
The statement alleged that he had been arrested by police who learned of his visit "by wiretaps or intercepting e-mails". Austrian authorities had no immediate comment on the suggestion.
Mr Irving wrote some 30 books before becoming notorious worldwide in 2002 after launching a libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, the American academic who described him as a Holocaust denier in her 1994 book Denying the Holocaust.
He lost the case and was forced into bankruptcy. The judge ruled that he was "an active Holocaust denier, anti-Semitic and racist".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1876644,00.html
Comments
Hide the following 40 comments
More On Irving
17.11.2005 22:41
By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer 33 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria - Right-wing British historian David Irving, who once famously
said that Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of 6 million
Jews, has been arrested in Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the
Holocaust.
Irving, 67, was detained Nov. 11 in the southern province of Styria on a
warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws making Holocaust denial a crime,
police Maj. Rudolf Gollia, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said
Thursday.
Austrian media said the charges stemmed from speeches Irving delivered that
year in Vienna and in the southern town of Leoben.
In a statement posted on his Web site, Irving's supporters said he was arrested
while on a one-day visit to Vienna, where they said he had been invited "by
courageous students to address an ancient university association."
Despite precautions taken by Irving, he was arrested by police who allegedly
learned of his visit "by wiretaps or intercepting e-mails," the statement
alleged. It said that en route to Austria, Irving had privately visited German
playwright Rolf Hochhuth, a friend he had not seen in 20 years.
Hochhuth has gained notoriety for plays criticizing the Allies' bombing
campaigns during World War II as war crimes and characterizing Winston
Churchill as a war criminal. Earlier this year, Hochhuth was criticized for
defending Irving as "an honorable man" and insisting he was not a Holocaust
denier.
Austrian authorities had no immediate comment on the supporters' statement.
The Britain-based Holocaust Educational Trust congratulated Austrian
authorities on the arrest. Trust chairman Lord Greville Janner, noting that
Britain has no such laws that make denying the Holocaust a crime, praised the
Austrians "for doing what our law should but does not permit."
"I hope this will lead to a successful prosecution," Janner said.
Irving in the past has faced allegations of spreading anti-Semitic and racist
ideas. He is the author of nearly 30 books, including "Hitler's War," which
challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
Besides his assertion that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust, he also has
been quoted as saying there was "not one shred of evidence" that the Nazis
carried out their "Final Solution" on such a scale.
The historian has said he does not deny that Jews were killed by the Nazis, but
he challenges the number and manner of Jewish concentration camp deaths.
He has questioned the use of large-scale gas chambers to exterminate the Jews
and has claimed that the numbers of those who perished are far lower than those
generally accepted. He also contends that most Jews who died at Auschwitz did
so from diseases like typhus, not gas poisoning.
Irving remained in custody Thursday at a prison in Graz, 120 miles south of
Vienna, the Austria Press Agency reported, although that could not be
confirmed.
If formally charged, tried and convicted, he could face up to 20 years in
prison, said Otto Schneider of the public prosecutor's office.
But Schneider said it was unclear whether there were sufficient legal grounds
to continue holding Irving on such a charge so many years after the alleged
offense was committed. A decision was expected by the end of next week on how
to proceed, Schneider said.
In March, more than 200 historians from around the world petitioned C-SPAN to
cancel a project that would have included a speech by Irving as a counterpoint
to a lecture by Deborah Lipstadt, a renowned Holocaust expert at Emory
University.
Irving once sued Lipstadt for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier, but his
lawsuit was dismissed in 2000 by a British court, which ruled that Irving was
anti-Semitic and racist and misrepresented historical information.
His film, "The Search for the Truth in History," triggered protests in
Australia that led organizers of the Melbourne Underground Film Festival to
cancel a screening.
Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years. In 1992, a judge
in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi
gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.
-Tommy M.
Auntie
does misdirection this crude still work?
18.11.2005 01:18
The judge ruled that he was "an active Holocaust denier, anti-Semitic and racist".
UNQOTE
Sorry? Was this the same judge that ruled for the innocence of the Israeli that riddled a little girl with a full clip from an automatic weapon fro the crime of being a Palestinian on her own land? Or perhaps the same judge that recently sent the anti-war protestor to prison for seeking to prevent the New Reich from laying waste to Fallujah?
I have read most of the books that Irving wrote. He sealed his fate with what I think was the first, a history of the program to destroy whole cities in Nazi Germany during WW2. Amazing as it may seem, it is illegal in Germany to educate the current generation on the true nature (deserved or not) of the fate that fell the German populace during and immediately after the war.
When one reads Irving, and does a little research, several things become apparent.
1) he strongly sympathises with the Nazi regime, but not their crimes (not an easy position for anyone to understand, and one that makes little to no sense).
2) he absolutely accepts that the actions of the Nazis led to the murder of vast numbers of jews and others
3) he is an excellent historian (but biased, like ALL historians)
4) he is very right wing
5) he is very full of himself
Irving's very pomposity allowed his zionist enemies in the States to set a trap for him that he walked straight into. Now he can be libelled without consequence- which you should all compare with Child Rapist Roman Polanski, who despite being on the run for drugging and anally raping a young child, was able recently to win a big fat libel settlement in the UK courts (where he could not appear himself, because we have an extradition deal with the US that covers his crimes). In the UK courts, your religion matters!!! Somehow, Irving was dumb enough to forget this.
Now Irving just serves as a useful distraction (see above) by the New Reich to distract from their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. The same thing happened in Hitler's time, when Hitler's people could use the spector of long dead "fascist" movements of the past to distract attention from the rising fascist danger of the Nazis. It's an old trick, and you'll see it played here on Indymedia all the time.
Magicians have a name for it- MISDIRECTION. So the question you have to ask yourself each and every day is this - have Blair's goons managed to successfully misdirect you?
BTW, I would like to remind you all that TODAY, it is a crime to NOT deny the "holocaust" that has occured in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, etc if you work in the Mass Media of the West. We are supposed to learn from history to AVOID the same thing happening in the future. Funny then that those that attack free speech over what happened more than sixty years ago are THE BIGGEST ADVOCATES of carrying out the exact same crimes against the muslims today.
twilight
Interested in History
18.11.2005 08:38
But when you look at german history 1900-1945 there a lot of things that don't fit the picture.
The american connection with I G Farben and the connection to the Bush family and how the I G Farben building was the only one left standing in Frankfurt I would really like to do more research into how the nazis built their formidable armed forces, but it seems that is not allowed.
There is so much hysteria surrounding david Irving I think it's time i read one of his books so perhaps I'll take twilights advice.
serf
He is not the only one
18.11.2005 09:13
www.zundelsite.org
The smoke screen of history is a stange one.
Alex
Hmmmm
18.11.2005 10:28
a thought
thin ice
18.11.2005 11:09
as I'd expect
The Holocaust justifies the state of Israel!
18.11.2005 11:15
Non self hating Jew
Zionism & Fascism
18.11.2005 12:38
The Holocaust has been used to justify murderous Israeli aggression by Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis. They helped to pave the way to the gas-chambers with their twisted racist beliefs.
Palestinians are semites too, and most Jews are not Zionists.
The fascists may currently be opportunistically condemning Israel, but their traditional position has been to support Zionism, and Zionism has traditionally supported fascism.
Tarka
fight!
18.11.2005 13:17
Barney
BUGGER OFF YOU FILTHY RACISTS
18.11.2005 14:32
Anyone who can compare the 3000 Palestinian deaths (most of whom were terrorsists and, sadly a number of civilians) to the muder of 6,000,000 people because of their religion, is plainly devoid of any sense.
Twilight - you are absolutely obsessed with Jews - why? I have asked you this so many times and you have singularly failed to respond.
Jewish & Proud
You Should Be Ashamed If You Support Israel
18.11.2005 15:07
Hector
3000 Palestinian deaths?
18.11.2005 15:13
Chatilla
I never said its right
18.11.2005 15:39
As for Tarka. Just get a dictionary and join the list of all the other dickheads who dont know the true meaning of a fascist.
666
Free Speech
18.11.2005 16:12
I hate holocaust deniers but people should not be arrested for writing books, however horrible they are.
Sim1
The Palestinians started the war in the Middle East!
18.11.2005 16:57
Also in the year 2,000. The Israeli government finally decided to give the Palestinians what they wanted, their own state. In the most generous offer since the troubles began in 1967, Israel offered Palestinians almost all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip aswell as the dismantling of 95 per cent of Israeli settlements in these areas, but this offer was flatly turned down by the Palestinian authority.
non self hating Jew
Rubbish
18.11.2005 17:48
Zionists did try to ensure that the Nazis would agree to allow Jews to leave and to go to their Homeland; the Nazis refused, this action was aimed at saving lives and nothing more.
How about the number of Jews expelled from Arab lands - have you ever protested about that?
Or the numbers of Jews killed by Arabs prior to 1948, or at Gush Etzion in 1948 or since - you never mention them, you deny their memories - just as now idiots like Irving and 'Twilight' seek to deny or justify the holocaust.
You say a Jewish state should not exist, but Iran is okay as a Muslim state - double standards.
You talk of Israeli attrocities and yet how many people posting on this site ever condemned the Iraqi massacre of Kurds, 80,000 killed by Saddam Hussein or the Jordanian murder of 20,000 Palestinians?
Every disaster in the world is blamed on Israel by conspiracy theorists who throw baseless accusations aimed at the Jewish State; these theories being so closely related to the claim that Jews caused the Black Death, or use the blood of children for the passover meal.
You are nothing but twisted racists.
Jewish & Proud
you are on wot(sits)????!!!!!
18.11.2005 18:18
Everythings gonna be just fine
morons and anti-semites
18.11.2005 19:13
The fact that Arabs are semites is irrelevant. The term "semitic" refers to language. What's that got to do with the thousands of years of persecution that the Jews faced, including by Arabs? And the vast, vast majority of Jews are "Zionists", in the sense that they believe that Israel has a right to exist.
"The fascists may currently be opportunistically condemning Israel, but their traditional position has been to support Zionism, and Zionism has traditionally supported fascism."
Fascists were generally anti-Semitic and therefore anti-Zionists, allying themselves with the Palestinian anti-semites led by the pro-Hitler Mufti. Most Zionists were socialists and therefore anti-fascist, and a minority were rightist but still anti-fascist due to the far right's anti-Semitism.
"Palestinians, fellow semites who had no culpability whatsoever in the Holocaust"
Dumbass. Their national leader, the one who started the Palestinian movement and who Arafat paid homage to, allied himself with Hitler, supported the Holocaust, and exhorted Arabs to rise and kill the Jews. After WW2 this leader returned and continued to lead the palestinians into the 1948 war, to finish the job Hitler failed at. He remained an important Islamic leader until his death. Palestnians also committed numerous pogroms against the Jews from the 1920s on, as well as previous ones under the Ottomans.
" was just pointing out that its the people who control history that make the rules. Right now Israel is one of the countries doing this along with the west. Thats why they have made it punishable in some of these countries to deny the holocaust."
Israel controls history and has therefore made Holocaust denial illegal??? Do you not even realise this is outrageous anti-Semitism? Holocaust denial wasmade illegal by teh Germans, Austrians etc themselves in order to prevent any Nazi revival. It is also illegal in Germany t display any Nazi symbols. What has the Holocaust got to do with Israel??? And how does the murder of 6 million Jewish civilians compare with teh death of a few thousand Palestinians during war, both civilian and military?
"Sharon is not responsible for one of the biggest massacres of refugees during the 80's as a general"
You lot finally got somthing right, albeit during sarcasm. The Christian Arabs of Lebanon murdered a bunch of Palestinian Arabs, because the Palestinian terrorists had just assasinated the Christians' leader. Sharon allowed the Christian militias to go into the refugee camps to root out the terrorists. They then unexpectedly committed this massacre. Regardless of whether Sharon should have predicted that there might be retaliatory violence, revenge of some sort, bcos of what had happened, Israelis did not massacre the Palestinians, other Arabs did, and there is not the slightest evidence Sharon ever intended or wanted or ordered a massacre.
By the way I find the response here quite interesting, particularly the initial ones rightly condemning this fascist. Because when Faurrison was NOT arrested or anything for his Holocaust denial and neo-Naziism Chomsky signed a petititon supporting his "findings" about the (QUOTATION MARKS) "Holocaust" and his "historical research", and condemning the evil attempt of Jews and "fearful authorities" to silence him.
I look forward to Chomsky's forthcoming petition, in what is a genuine case of free speech. Is the IndyMedia campaign about to ensue?
jo
Only a few thousands Palestinians?
18.11.2005 20:58
2nd only a few thousand Palestinians??? and what have they done to deserve this apart from being kicked out of their land, separated by a berlin like wall (which western dickheads condemned back in the 80's) buildings demolished and women and children brutaly murdered. The other day an Israeli soldier shot a litle boy for holding a toy gun. Yesterday he was aquitted. This is the Fascist state of Israel. Power, expansion seeking fascists who are only getting away with this shit coz they have the full support of their fellow fascist states (US/UK/France etc)
Unfortunately the Holocaust taught some people nothing about humanity and compassion.
Fight the Fascist State of Israel
who do u think u are u dickhead
Jo Goebbels semitic sematics
18.11.2005 21:46
Since Palestinians are semites then does that make them the same as 'self-hating Jews' , the other irrational smear you use. The term semite refers to the biblical tribes of Shem, which include both the Jews and the Arabs. Its a biblical reference rather than a semantic reference, totally unscientific and racist and it is used inaccurately most often by fascists and zionists. Its sort of ironic how that one word links so many sworn enemies.
"Sharon allowed the Christian militias to go into the refugee camps to root out the terrorists. They then unexpectedly committed this massacre."
Oh brilliant. So the Israelis thought that letting a bunch of armed bloodythirsty killers into a refugee camp of their sworn enemy - and then illuminating the proceedings and ignoring the screams - doesn't amount to a war crime ?
Thats sort of like a German saying 'Yes, we saw all the Jews go into the shower rooms but when we went to get them they had all died of perfectly natural causes - who was to know'
It is especially unbecoming of a Jew to talk like a Nazi propagandist, I pray that you are just a far-right Christian nutter.
Danny
eugh
19.11.2005 01:50
I personally think Irving's statements are abhorrent, and neither do or nor will I ever condone Holocaust denial. However, it is vitally important to assert the right of the individual to express their views. It is interesting that many of the supposedly anti-Nazi statements made here seem to uphold the principle of censorship, one of the basic tenets of a succesful fascist state.
Freedom of expression applies to all, regardless of whether or not you agree with what is being said. Arrest authors for writing and you are dangerously close to book-burning.
Josh
..
19.11.2005 03:52
Even if the context were like you claimed, then the death of several thousand is NOTHING compared to the Holocaust. Thousands have died in 9/11, in Chile, in Argentina, in Egypt, in Morocco, in Vietnam, Cambodia (a hell of a lot more in fact), China, Russia, India, etc. And yet you always insist that condemning the Holocaust be put alongside condemning alleged crimes against Palestinians, even though they are insignificant in comparison even if you hold the most extreme beliefs about teh history. This socalled "berlin like wall" is approx 99% FENCE, not wall. And most Palestinian casualities from the intifada have been combatants, not civilians, unlike Israeli casualities, who are approx half "women and children brutally murdered" as you put it, on their way to market etc.
"The other day an Israeli soldier shot a litle boy for holding a toy gun. Yesterday he was aquitted. This is the Fascist state of Israel."
The solider in question was prosecuted by the state for an alleged crime. He appealed. Subsequent judgement found he was not guilty, as aseveral witnesses admitted inventing their evidence against him. He claims, incidently, that he was only accused because he was a Druze and his Jewish subordinates didn't like that. In case you are unaware, the Druze are an Islamic sect, found in teh area, and Syria and elsewhere. Muslim kills Muslim? Blame the Jews.
"Since Palestinians are semites then does that make them the same as 'self-hating Jews' , the other irrational smear you use."
The term "anti-Semite" has been defined as hatred of Jews, regardless of original root. Why are you being pendantic in an attempt to avoid the truth that Palestinians are anti-Semitic, or, if you so wish, anti-Jewish?
And please re-read your comparison between the Lebanon thing and Aushwitz. Not only is it incredibly anti-Semitic, but it is ridiculosuly false. The Nazis set up the gas chambers for the purpose of killing Jews, then systematically herded the Jews into them. Ariel Sharon allowed a Christian milita to rout palestinian terrorists from a camp, and they unexpectedly massacred Palestinians in the camp in revenge for terrorist assasination of their leader. At worst, Sharon should have predicted that and made steps to avoid it. Not see the difference?
"It is especially unbecoming of a Jew to talk like a Nazi propagandist, I pray that you are just a far-right Christian nutter. "
Once again I am assumed to be a Jew, or, in this case, a "far-right Christian nutter". I am neitehr, I'm an atheist.
jo
crime for crime
19.11.2005 10:07
The perpetrators of the latter were prosecuted ?
Its only a crime to deny or belittle the latter ?
They are both massive inhumane crimes albeit on a different scale.
Your "unexpected massacre" took place over 36 hours with IDF troops witnessing events from the observation towers that they had built along the camps perimeter - they knew exactly what was happening.
And yes, the term 'anti-semite' was used solely to refer to Jews - by a German that the Nazis admired and were influenced by. Its odd that victims of the Nazis find it useful to cling onto their false fascist terminology.
Danny
Is it tribal, ethnic or religious?
20.11.2005 09:45
If it is ethnic (ie genetic) - then i am a jew by reason of birth.
If it is tribal - then i am not a jew, by reason of political outlook (humanist)
If it is religious - then i am not a jew, all religions being parasitic and irrational - no sky ghost genuflextion for this boy!
250 million people died in the second world war, only some of them honoured by the holocaust thing.
Zionists collaborated with the third reich to ensure the birth of their dream nation (fascistic in the same manifest destiny/supremacist cult way as shitlers idiots)
Free speech is free speech, period.
No cavets, no qualifications no exceptions.
Bush's granpappie profited from the vast industrial conglomerate that serviced both allies and axis powers (the factories within german held territories that supplied the goods were largely spared, thanks to forward observation by special teams of 'industrial experts' seconded from the many industrial concerns linked with this trading - [anthony sutton - 'trading with the ememy'])
I fully intend to read some of Irvins work now, seeing as those who ally themselves with the modern incarnation of racist supremacist nazism don't want me too!
The numbers may be wrong, there maybe individuals and groups who profit from such confusion. The fact that they hide behind the crimnal prosecution of a wordsmith and historian (judge for yorself how good he is - it's not a crime to be a bad writer or historian, but it should make it easier to refute the work!) shows how desperate they are to maintain a historical fantasy that benefits the nasty fascistic (fascism being the merger of state and corporate power) racist (believing that one set of genes confers 'specialness') and despotic (wholesle murder, theft and oppression) israel.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
shocked
20.11.2005 13:41
The difference between the Holocaust and the massacres of Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon? I really find it sickening that I have to point this out, but here are a few:
1) The purpose of the Holocaust was to annihilate every Jew ever, to exterminate them as a people, man, woman, and child.
2) The Holocaust was planned and executed in a scientific, bureaucratic manner - it was not simple random savagery, but the co-ordinated scientific mass murder of millions of innocent people.
3) There was no context of conflict, for example perhaps a war with Israel had it existed then, to explain teh Holocaust. The rationale was anti-Semitism, hatred of Jews alone.
4) 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Roma and others were killed in the Holocaust
By contrast, the massacres of refugees were in the hundreds or single digit thousands (can't quite remember, I think the former), they were not planned, but an act of revenge in a brutal conflict that claimed thousands of thousands of lives. Your question is like saying "What's the difference between the Holocaust and the red murder of thousands of rightists in the days after the July rising in Spain?" The only similarity is that people were killed...
As for jackslucid, your views are absolutely sickening. Look up the self-hating Jews of the C19th, you fit their description exactly. You go out of your way to deny being Jewish and insist that Jews are evil etc, for example, you announce that David Irving must be saying something right because the evil Jews are against him, and the Jews probably are manipulating Holocaust numbers. You're sickening.
jo
Ok observer
20.11.2005 14:00
Free speech goes both ways.
free speech
Jo's on a mission
20.11.2005 15:34
The holocaust was an attrocity no1 denies that. As is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the murder of thousnds upon thousands of Palestinians (and others egyptians lebanese etc) by the state of Israel over the past 60 years. This is over 70 violated UN resolutions were talking about. What were saying is that denial of the holocaust shouldnt be a punishable offence. If thats the case then denial of Israels docmented crimes against humanity should be a punishable offence. Why even the UN has 'strongly criticised' Israel for its actions on occupied land, torture, abuse and cvillian murders. Obviously the UN being the joke that it is only enforces what it wants to. So you denying them as attrocities must mean you should go to jail. Doesnt work that way. If you wanna convince some1 that something was wrong and it happened u do it with evidence.
No1 said the left are anti Jewish. Yes we are against the state of Israel and many humanists of jewish background and not are with us in this struggle to stop this crime Israel has been commiting for 60 years. All we are trying to demonstrate is that sending a holocaust denier to jail is an extreme measure and in my opinion only goes to show that a) the west is far more undemocratic than i first thought it was, or b) they are hiding something from the people thats why Irvine and co are being silenced. Obviously its a) but many right wing fuckers and ignorant idiots may be persuaded that its b) and thats when the right wing gains more support.
Like i said u wana prove something then use proof not silencing tactics.
read and write
read what was said
20.11.2005 16:44
"I fully intend to read some of Irvins work now, seeing as those who ally themselves with the modern incarnation of racist supremacist nazism don't want me too!
The numbers may be wrong, there maybe individuals and groups who profit from such confusion. The fact that they hide behind the crimnal prosecution of a wordsmith and historian (judge for yorself how good he is - it's not a crime to be a bad writer or historian, but it should make it easier to refute the work!) shows how desperate they are to maintain a historical fantasy that benefits the nasty fascistic (fascism being the merger of state and corporate power) racist (believing that one set of genes confers 'specialness') and despotic (wholesle murder, theft and oppression) israel."
You are presumably going to condemn this anti-Semitism, or are you going to tell me what he "really said" and what the left "really thinks"?
jo
Well?
20.11.2005 16:54
I do, although I might choose to use it a bit more responsibly than those who use it to castigate others or call for the banning of such and such.
Some might want to use this thread to argue for - and thus bolster - their own views on just what exactly happened during the second world war and the causes therin.
I do not.
I have never read any D. Irvin, so in order to understand why some might want him physically removed from society and prevented from comunnicating with it, I will do so.
On the subject of anti-semitism; too often, like patriotism, it is the last vestige of scoundrals.
According to some I used to be an 'anti-semite', but now have mysteriously become a 'self hater'. I have no idea what this means really. The long and short of it is, as an anarchist I am committed to the right of peoples to determin collectively their affairs - be they israeli or Palestinian, historian or hysteric. I am not oppossed to the rule of law, merely requiring that it be transparent, universal and based on humanist principles.
Nazism, communism, capitalism, judeaism, islam, christianity, hinduism (to select a few) all negate these desires. i reject them.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
.
20.11.2005 18:37
Did you read the collected works of Nick Griffin when he was arrested for incitement to racial hatred?
You completely avoided the issues in your response. You now go on about your great values and beliefs etc. Get back to what was being discussed, which was Holocaust denial. Do you stand by your earlier statement that the number of Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust, 6 million, established by every reputable historian, may have been exaggerated as Irving and other neo-Nazi-linked people claim, and that certain individuals may be exploiting that lie and "historical fantasy" for their own profitable ends?
"Do you believe in free speech or not?"
I do as it happens, and am in the process of exposing far left hypocrisy on this matter. I believe in free speech, and, like most people, believe that there are certain limits, such as incitement to violence or racial hatred, which are illegal in most countries (though I, as it happens, find it unnecessary to make the specific branch of racism known as Holocaust denial illegal, though there are clear arguments in favour in countries such as Austria and Germany). The far left, on the other hand, seems to have a completely contradictory attitude. Some original posts here celebrated that this fascist was getting locked up. On the "Paypal" post, they are urging it be boycotted because BNP uses it, regardless of free speech, and people there directly argued against liberal qualms about free speech regarding fascism. In anarchist-republican Spain, all right-wing papers were illegal, and thousands of rightists killed. Yet that is not condemned as pure evil. When Nick Griffin etc get done for inciting racial hatred, the far left does not join the fascists in demonstrating for free speech, but organises counter-demonstrations against them. So where is the consistency, or the common thread? Its easily detected - fascists, far rightists, etc, are all fair game, but when anti-Semitism becomes involved, the left can't POSSIBLY be on the same side as the evil Jews and Zionists, and if the evil Zionists are against them and trying to silence them they must be saying something right, so lets stick up for them. I.e., the far left here's attitude to free speech (the moderate left etc is different, less clearly anti-Semitic) is dictated by their rabid anti-Semitism.
Jackslucid, I look forward to you chipping in on the "Paypal" news post, and all other posts where free speech might come into it.
jo
I don't believe ...
20.11.2005 21:04
Nowhere has griffin developed a reputation as anything but an idiot.
Irvin has, however, been claimed as a authority on certain subjects regarding ww11 - therefor might, by a reasonably wide criteria, be seen as pertinant to the issues discussed here.
I can make no comment on his work beyond that - never having read any.
Whether I agree with his conclusions or not, should have no bearing on whether he is allowed to say and print it.
I find it dispicable that a law exists to silence revisionism (I thought historical investigation was factored largely on revising the past - otherwise we'd still all be believing that the earth is flat and that kings have a devine right to rule an all that!).
Argue the facts, they alone decide.
Having rejected all patriarchal religions, all imperialistic political organisations and all fascistic military industrial complexes ... I don't see why I should accept their rendition of the processes that destroyed 250 million lives in 6 years.
I don't believe that the good guys necessarily won anything - except for a repreieve in battling the manifestations of evil[sic] ... nor do I beleieve that the bad guys necessarily lost anything other than a few operatives and the full on gaze of the watching world.
I couldn't give a fig for the perceieved ethnicity/tribal alligence/religious upbringing of a person ... but when those ethnicities/tribes/religions start gathering in numbers and assulting the inalienable rights of others to be left alone to their lives, then I object.
I'm tolerant of anything except intolerance, cruelty or greed (I'm sure most wickewdness falls into these catagories - if not take it a s read, Im down on it!).
Now can we stop the incredibly boring name calling and debate the facts.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Since when has David Irving been an 'excellent historian'?
21.11.2005 08:29
The term 'historical revisionism' may give it an air of credibility but any reputable historian, of whatever ideological bias, would tend to draw conclusions after marshalling all the available facts (and be available for challenge on that basis). Anyone, like Irving, who overtly selects certain facts (and distorts and omits rafts of others) in order to support his preconceived conclusions is quite rightly criticised for his approach. Irving may have a significantly better prose style than many academic historians, which may make his books more readable than say a weighty tome from the likes of Ian Kershaw, but that does not necessarily mean his conclusions are 'obvious' or even based on a solid foundation of substantiated fact.
Oh yes, Twilight, how many more times are you going to use that shitty Roman Polanski 'example' in your posts. It proves nothing, other than Polanski is a shit. The fact that he is of Jewish origin is totally irrelevant so why do you keep mentioning it. Bizarrely you even threw it in to counter claims of racist attitudes to Mike Tyson on a couple of threads. How you can claim to be in any way progressive is beyond me. Dress it up however you want to, but this is nothing more than old fashioned anti-semitism, the underlying implication being that because he is Jewish, Polanski has evaded justice due to some high level Jewish conspiracy. No wonder you enjoyed reading David Irving.
Despairing
... jst a quick correction
21.11.2005 09:30
He lost.
None of the historical documents he produced were challanged or rejected historically.
He lost on the narrow remit of whether lipstad had the right to call him a holocaust denier and not be slandering him.
Having spent a few hours reading from his website (find it yourselves if you want - I'm not advertising it here) I can conclude that, although his historical research maybe well covered, I don't care for the conclusions his analysis seem to want to head towards ... namely that the guilty (collective and individual) weren't that bad.
They were.
So what if the german army was efficient.
So what if the concentration camps had medical facilities and didn't actually gas all the dead.
I don't feel uplifted by the notion of small children dieing from preventable desease and starvation instead of being [more] deliberately killed.
There is no rehabilitating the nazies.
There maybe a case for revising our perceptions of what exactly happened - a revision that maybe painful for some - but if we don't we are just left with a fantasy history that is full of idealogical gaps and ill fitting logic propositions that will allow the next generation of sociopathic political movements to operate from within (see zionism!).
The term 'oxygen of publicity' may have a ring to it - but publicity doesn't breath oxygen.
Ideas are powerful when they are percieved to be right.
By arguing for a non-revised historical inacurracy, the only effect is to allow other fallacious arguemnts to ride piggyback on those that have a basis in reality. Those easily confused or lazy in their thinking (idealogically inclined) will not notice the bad points from good.
This is a real danger.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Fuck 'em
21.11.2005 11:14
Fuck Israel
And fuck Irving.
Tony T
Irving's evidence not seriously challenged?
21.11.2005 12:48
Despairing
.. a final word (perhaps!) ..
21.11.2005 13:43
I am interested in Evans book (I do not take the view that he is boring - I have enjoyed his work and been impressed by its broard knowledge). I can make no comparrison to Irving ... yet.
I am familiar with the Leuchter report and would concur in that it - like much of the evidence presented - was seriously challenged in court. That is not the same as saying it was destroyed.
I will have to read up on Irving and catch up on my Evans to be in a position to make a final judgement.
I do not appreciate the legislative arm of government interfering in my right to conduct research.
I do not believe that a version of history can be enshrined in law with no possibility of revision, without there being both a backlash against it (thus negating its aim regardless of intention) and there being a bloody good reason for some group to exploit the vacumn of knowledge created by imposition of state 'thought'.
Peace.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Perhaps one more word
22.11.2005 21:47
Despairing
Free speech
24.11.2005 17:46
simmo
Shed No Tears For Nazis
01.12.2005 17:25
Red N Black
Well Red N Black
06.12.2005 17:26
simmo