From the Article:

"At his trial this year, Irving said he had been 'mistaken' to say the gas chambers did not exist. He had been due to attend a conference hosted by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, questioning the 'truthfulness' of the Holocaust."

Ah, yes... That great History Professor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad... The one who denies the Holocaust and his own involvement with the 1979 Hostage Crisis in Iran... Yup, we can learn a lot of history from this idiot...

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 19, 2006 4:29 PM

It really is amazing how crackpots of a feather flock together. Holocaust deniers and Islamania were perfectly made for each other. It's almost funny to see Islamaniacs on the one hand deny the Holocaust ever happened yet on the other hand Hitler is revered by these idiots for trying to wipe out the Jews. I suppose this confusion on what stance the A-Nut crowd should adopt explains the hysteria about Israel's "genocide" of the palestinians. They insist that Israel is a Nazi state yet they deny that the Jews were the victims of the real Nazis.
Only the twisted mindset of Islamania brings about such dilemmas regarding genocide, both real and imagined.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 19, 2006 4:53 PM

Re: "It really is amazing how crackpots of a feather flock together. Holocaust deniers and Islamania were perfectly made for each other". -ISLAMSFORLOSERS

Bingo. You are so right. The nuts flock together.

The holocaust is not really the issue on this mater. About 40% of the Israeli population are made up of Jewish folks who came from other parts of the Mideast. Yet, the nut in Iran and others make it appear that the issue is Jews who fled Europe to escape from Hitler and Hitler's work. But the truth is that if every Jewish person in Israel were only from the Mideast (those who fled to Israel to be free of dhimmitude in Morocco, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, etc.) the nuts would still want to annihilate Israel. Why? Because there should be no non-Dhimmi Jewish persons in Dar-al-Islam.

Frankly, until I came to this site I did not understand that the issue here is really Islamic dogma re the status of Unbelievers in lands conquered by Islam. Nasralla, the Nut-in-Iran, etc. are birds of a feather. Israel is an insult to the belief-system. That would be true even if every Israeli were a person whose ancestors were only from the Mideast.

Posted by: Frank at November 19, 2006 5:44 PM

It doesnt take much work to find out about the holocaust. Us older people know about it because eventualy you would meet a Jew who went through the Holocaust and survived by some miracle or other. Or our Father or grandfather was in Europe during the war and saw it firsthand.
But its easy to brainwash the young because eyewitnesses to the holocaust are becoming fewer and fewer.
However it doesnt take much effort with the internet to find pictures of the holocaust and documents written be the Nazis confirming that yes it did happen.
However I dont think a person should go to prison
if he doesnt believe it happened. So what if he tells others and writes books denying the holocaust. If everyone was put in prison for telling big lies well most of the governments would collapse.
On second thought maybe that wouldnt be such a bad idea after all.

Posted by: frodnum at November 19, 2006 6:12 PM

Holocaust denial is only a diversion. It's a mental illness. However, the far more dangerous mental illness is the belief-system that requires every non-believer to "feel subdued" in Dar-al-Nuthouse.

Posted by: Frank at November 19, 2006 6:13 PM

the real sad thing about this story is not about the Muslims donating money but, the fact that someone can go to a trial for not believing in something!

Posted by: samUwell at November 19, 2006 6:44 PM

The way the islamic mind "works" is truly magical,lol!

They go out of their way to deny the Holocaust, it didn;t happen so why are they denying it still?
I am surprised they haven't been funding Irving for years.

Frodnum
I agree they shouldn't have put Irving in jail when they did even though the man is a disgrace.
And you are right re yourother comments, especially that eye-witnesses are fading.

Fortunately the Nazi's were so good at keeping records there is plenty of evidence around.

This site is worth checking out,,and filing for future reference.

http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html

Posted by: Gramfan at November 19, 2006 6:48 PM

If y'all really, really believe in freedom of speech, you should realize that the law that David Irving was prosecuted (persecuted?)with is wrong.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 19, 2006 6:50 PM

Pelayo,

1 Peter 2:13-14 -

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

---

So, hey, who am I to argue with Saint Peter...

*grin*

http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 19, 2006 7:00 PM

"Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not"

Sobering article from September- still worth considering here.

David Selbourne is the author of "The Losing Battle with Islam."

http://blessingbank.org/blog.html

Posted by: DemoCast at November 19, 2006 7:02 PM

Pelayo, you're right. David Irving is a liar and should be shunned by all respectable historians and politicians, but he doesn't belong in jail. The man has a right to his opinions, however odious.

However, Bukhari is wrong in making a false distinction (common among Muslim leaders, it seems) between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Zionism is the nationalist movement of the Jewish people. To say that the Jews, nearly alone of all peoples are not entitled to a homeland, is inherently racist and anti-Semitic.

Since the so-called "Palestinians" were only given that moniker so they could be used as a weapon against Israel, support for their "cause" is also inherently racist and anti-Semitic.

Posted by: materialguy at November 19, 2006 7:39 PM

FRANK

Right you are. Islam is so psychotic that it can only tolerate Jews living under them, under Islamic rule. It drives the Arab Muslims nut that Jews have their very own nation in what Muslims consider "their turf"

Of course it's all right for Muslim nations to send their pestilential populations to civilized nations in Europe and North America, Australia too. But heaven forbid that non-Muslim should have a nation in the Middle East. Just look at Lebanon. Once a proud prosperous Christian dominated nation. As such it was civilized. Now it's a dung heap. A tool for Syrians and Shiite Iran

Posted by: dennisw at November 19, 2006 8:08 PM

Want to know something? I think one reason the Islamaniacs deny the Holocaust is so that if they ever are in a position to accomplish one upon the fall of Israel they can proudly say they were the first to accomplish such a marvelous feat on behalf of Illah. I think these idiots are actually jealous that Hitler beat them to it. If some lunatic like A-Nut were to actually say that I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 19, 2006 8:40 PM

I agree with Frank (above):

...holocaust denial ... is a mental illness.

There can't be one of us alive today who hasn't talked, at some point (even as a young child) with an older relative who fought in Europe and was present when we found the death camps in 1945. We are probably the last generation who will be able to say this and we must stand up and bear witness to the words we heard and the evidence we have seen and can evaluate for ourselves.

We must also bear witness to the fact that the barbarian moslem horde sided with the nazis. We must never forget that. We must never let the likes of Ramon and A Khokar (on a different thread on this site), away with their assertions - unfounded on valid fact as Mr. Spencer (and others) have proved in their writings - that islam is a religion of peace (or love, or tolerance, or plurality of belief, or that it has a valid conceptualisation of the Divine).

At the same time, however, and assuming (perhaps in error) that such things are capable of being accomplished against the islamic mindset, we should not call for the slaughter of all moslems - tempting though that might be - but for their reformation, their enlightenment, their realisation that theirs is the only belief group marching out of step and that their beliefs are so wrong, so evil, so not Divinely ordained that they have to re-examine them and move back into the fold of normal human decency. If they can do this through the verses of peace then so much the better. If they can't then, and only then, we will be justified in taking further action.

One may, at this point, validly ask what my timescale might be for moslems to reform themselves in the face of our oppositions, explications, explanations and philosophies. I would reply that given that this site, and others like it on average, is no more than four years old then I would like to give a further ten years for a reform group to emerge in islam. If, after ten years, no reform group is obvious then we will be entitled, in my opinion, to use any means at our disposal to destroy not only islam but all moslems who, collectively or individually, refuse to submit to Western principles when living in Western societies.

It seems to me that ten years more will be quite adequate for all moslems to have read, or become aware, of our concerns. Failure to reform during that time would be, simply, wilful stupidity and arrogance - and, from moslems in particular, those are qualities we, and the rest of non-moslem humanity, can very well do without.

Let us apply the 'ten year test'. Then, if necessary, take action.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 19, 2006 9:51 PM

Oh, and I believe with Pelayo (above):

"If y'all really, really believe in freedom of speech, you should realize that the law that David Irving was prosecuted (persecuted?)with is wrong."

Either we have free speech or we don't. If we are afraid of free speech just what is it that we are supposed to be defending here? So, we silence David Irving (reprehensible idiot that he is) then who?

Robert Spencer?

Hugh Fitzgerald?

Us?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 19, 2006 10:01 PM

But "we" are not silencing David Irving. The US certainly doesn't have a Holocaust denial law; nor do most other Western countries.

The circumstances of Irving's imprisonment are rather immaterial to the article; what matters is that the leader of MPAC tried to rally support and money for this "discredited historian" as part of an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish agenda.

One more thought about the Holocaust denial laws: Those laws, along with similar ones concerning the display of the swastika in Germany, and so on, have existed in past years due to the "clear and present danger" inherent in such expressions -- for fear they could contribute to incitement against Jews, and against the postwar governments of European countries.

And there is again a large population in European countries -- this time, Muslim -- who would like to see the overthrow of their civil governments, and the systematic persecution of Jews and other ideologically problematic individuals. Holocaust denial is a striking common thread.

No, as an American, I can't support putting someone in jail for denying a historical event either, but that denial can tell us a great deal about the kind of person we are dealing with, their agenda, and the groups which they associate themselves with. That is how it is used in this case.

Posted by: MarisolJW at November 19, 2006 10:32 PM

Bukhari says Findley 'has suffered like you in trying to expose certain falsehoods perpetrated by the Jews'.

He doesn't say "falshoods perpetrated by the Zionists." He doesn't say "some Jews." He says "the Jews." Yet he says he is not anti-Semitic. Must be a slip of the tongue. Perhaps a botched joke.

Posted by: Papa Bear at November 19, 2006 10:36 PM

A Tale of Two Brothers

WHEN it comes to choosing a new Racial Equality Council chairman, a white gentleman farmer with an MBE and a brother who is the world's most controversial Nazi historian might not be everyone's first choice. But meet John Irving, brother of Nazi historian David Irving ex-RAF officer, former county councillor . . . and probably Britain's only Muslim pig farmer.

But, while his brother David's controversial writings and lectures on the holocaust and Judaism divide opinions across the globe, John is working hard to bring harmony and friendship to race relations in Wiltshire.

Mr Irving, 73, has been a member of the REC executive for two years and will take up his new post this September.

He is also an honorary member of the Moroccan community group in Trowbridge and attends the town's mosque.

He has been actively working towards a purpose-built centre for the Moroccan community - and all residents -- in Wiltshire's county town, which has the largest Moroccan community in England, outside London.
And yesterday, Mr Irving pledged to work towards the goal of the centre in his new role.

"My agenda is to do anything conducive to racial harmony and equalisation of opportunity, irrespective of race," he said.

"I believe this is the most important issue facing the country today, particularly in the wake of the Iraq war. Wiltshire is an ideal low-profile area, where there's good racial harmony and we want to build on that."

Mr Irving converted to Islam 22 years ago while commanding troops for the Sultan of Oman.

"I had spent a lot of time in the RAF out in the Middle East and had already had a lot of contact with Muslim people.

"I was attracted to it because the Muslims I met had a certain something about the way they conducted their lives.

"They had cleanliness in their lives, in all aspects. There's none of the impediments that Western religions or society have - there's no gambling, no drinking and no uncertainty about sexuality which so consumes our society.

"It is clear cut, the men are straight and the women too."

Mr Irving's religious beliefs won out over his political affiliations four years ago.

A Liberal Democrat county councillor, he quit the party in 1999 after it came out in favour of lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16.

He was also passionately against the Iraq war, describing the Government as "evil" for pursuing military solutions instead of peaceful ones.
"The war was a most terrible, tragic mistake," he said. "It has made me ashamed to be English. At first, I thought the Government was mistaken, then I thought they were evil to choose war when there were other ways. Killing can never be right." Mr Irving successfully completed his Hajj six years ago, the pilgrimage to Mecca which all Muslims are duty bound to make at least once in their lives.

"I'm a fairly active Muslim, I attend mosque but I don't want to discuss my Muslim practices. It's by no means a secret, but Muslims have different practices and it is personal to each individual."

Mr Irving also said his relationship with his brother was something private too. He referred the Western Daily Press to Genesis Chapter 4, verse 9, where Cain tells God he is not his brother's keeper.

But Mr Irving did say: "I value family harmony. He is my brother and that is all there is to say about it. My primary concerns are for racial harmony in Wiltshire."

And colleagues at the Racial Equality Council in Trowbridge dismissed any concern about Mr Irving's controversial sibling.

New director Dr Joe Sang said: "Who his brother is, has never come up in conversation, and I wasn't even aware of that. I don't think it's an issue at all. It makes no difference to his work."

And North and West Wiltshire police's diversity officer, PC Andy Fortune, said: "I've met Mr Irving a few times and he is a very nice chap indeed. I think he will make an excellent chairman of the Racial Equality Council and I look forward to working with him."

Posted by: shiva at November 19, 2006 11:36 PM

If only the Muslim Public Affairs Committee supported Irving for the same reasons the American Civil Liberties Union supports people with disgusting or unpopular beliefs. If only MPAC's concern were really free speech.

But the concern seems to be to help Irving and others hide around six million bodies. Irving and his like are "full of dead men's bones and all uncleanliness."

Posted by: traeh at November 20, 2006 12:03 AM

we need to remmember peaple like muslims and mr Bukhari and mr irving who blow the holicast os jewish bs are mentaly ill or in the case of islam brainwashed since birth by ther cultmy wife birth grand parents on her dads side could tell you about the camps the natzis set up except they went back to germany in 39 for a vist before the war statred by about a week ,they died in the camps for the crime of being jewish so for mme holicast deniers like the muslims and mr irving now make it personaldue to my marrige

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 20, 2006 12:50 AM

Posted by: MarisolJW

No, as an American, I can't support putting someone in jail for denying a historical event either, but that denial can tell us a great deal about the kind of person we are dealing with, their agenda, and the groups which they associate themselves with. That is how it is used in this case.

I strongly disagree with Marisol and any body else who thinks it wrong that Irving was jailed

Freedom of speech does not mean acquiescing to the advocates of intolerance amongst us. This sends a clear message of permissiveness to those who incite racial hatred, inflame prejudices, and exacerbate social tension and conflict under the guise of civil liberties or freedom of speech.

As with Hanza the Hook the jailing of David Irving is not a free speech issue. It's a national security one,not only for Austria but where the monger of hate has spread his evil bile

Conflict and community tension follow David Irving wherever he goes.

In May 1993 David Irving was banned from entering Australia. But even before he was to arrive trouble was brewing. Jewish community members received intimidating and threatening letters from neo-Nazis. Holocaust-denying literature was distributed in Melbourne and Sydney suburbs. The Melbourne suburbs of St Kilda and Caulfield were blanketed with red white and black Nazi stickers from the NSDAP-AO. Posters denouncing "Jewish lies" and lauding Adolf Hitler were stuck on walls by the Australian National Socialist Movement, whose Brisbane leader attacked a synagogue in that city. Two fires were set on the premises of a Melbourne synagogue and the Perth synagogue was extensively daubed with slogans including: "Irving was here," "Six million lies," and "White Power." Two petrol bombs were thrown at a synagogue in Sydney. Irving him self made what appeared to be threatening comments to Australian Holocaust survivors during a Melbourne radio interview - "Now I am coming to hit back ... I am coming back and they're going to hurt."

These were incidents in an Australian environment that is relatively benign and tolerant. In Europe, far more serious incidents have taken place.

In May 1992 the Deutsche Liga (a.k.a. Die Nationalen) planned a rally in Berlin, inviting Irving to be the main speaker. A wave of orchestrated neo-Nazi violence broke out across Germany the same day as the planned address. In Magdeburg,60 neo-Nazis raided a birth day party in a restaurant, destroying the interior and leaving five people with fractured skulls. One victim later died. Refugee centres in Hainichen, Stollberg and Aue were subject to neo-Nazi attacks. In Wendisch Rietz/Beeskow neo-Nazis at tacked a disco and attempted to kill a Ni gerian refugee. A 24 year-old skinhead was later charged with attempted murder. Twenty Nazi skinheads attacked a musical group from Czechoslovakia performing in a local pub. In Halle, skinheads am bushed and stabbed three people leaving a fete. German authorities banned the Irving speech to the rally after fears of big counter-demonstrations and the possibility of \ violence.

On 4 July 1992 Irving organised a London Revisionist Seminar, guarded and at tended by skinheads, neo-Nazis.The invitation to the seminar stated: "We do not want this gathering to be just another 'talking shop' - we want it to be a spur to practical action". Two hundred anti-fascist demonstrators picketed the meeting. Bottles and missiles were thrown between the two groups. A TV cameraman was assaulted by skinheads. Seven people were arrested. More than a hundred police were required to hold back demonstrators. Irving was guarded by members of Com bat 18.

September 19 Irving held another Revisionist Seminar in London, at the Eccleston Hotel. The audience was predominantly skinheads . The guest speaker was Irving's colleague Ernst Zundel from Canada. Zundel described Adolf Hitler as a great man and then lauded a murderous neo-Nazi attack on immigrant hostels in the former east German town of Rostock: "Rostock is a beacon of hope. They are thinking with their blood ... Our war is at home and the colour of our skin is our uniform.After the death of Maastricht a new Europe will emerge, a decentralised Europe on ethnic lines after there has been ethnic cleansing."

In March 1991 Irving was the guest speaker at a rally of the Deutsche Volks Union (DVU) in Passau. The 8000 neo-Nazis listened as Irving claimed that "Germany would be the victorious power of the Twentieth Century" and that in 10 years Germany would regain its territories to the East. After listening to Irving, 300 members of the DVU rioted in the streets, assaulting pedestrians, smashing windows and injuring people. Forty DVU supporters, many skinheads, are arrested for giving Nazi salutes and possessing of knives and knuckledusters. A further 20 were arrested after attacking a youth centre, smashing doors and windows.

Days later, The Independent carried an interview with Irving which described how he was still enthused after Passau. "There was a crowd of 10,000! The audience was chanting my name!" Irving claimed to the paper that Germany would "achieve with the Deutschmark, every thing that Hitler failed to achieve" and boasted "I'm a mob orator. The German language is a lovely language for making mob oratory in."

In 1990 Irving gave similar addresses in Munich, Dresden, Leipzig, Stuttgart, Oberhausen, Gerg, and Weinheim/Bergstrabe. According to German intelligence reports during 1990, Irving attended 12 additional rallies and functions in the former East Germany, including Dresden, Leipzig, and Gera. His motto was "An Englishman fights for the honour of the Germans." ~, The Dresden lecture was organised by the German neo-Nazi leader Ewald Althans, who last year received a three-year prison sentence for inciting racial hatred.

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that Irving appears aware of the consequences his actions have throughout Europe. Interviewed by the London magazine Time Out he claimed " Central Germany as I would call it - you would call it East Germany - is going to be a breeding ground of political extremism and the present tilt is towards the right. I wont exploit it personally, but I do go along and mob orate for other people ... I intend to drive from town to town making speeches from the back of a truck and just see what happens."

It's no wonder Irving is banned from so many countries. Not only don't they want him, they go out of their way to keep him out. For the rest of the world it's not an issue of free speech but rather preventing undesirable individuals with a record for rabble rousing, incitement and extremist associations from entering their borders.

The list of refusals has grown impressively. The first country to move against Irving's activities was Austria. In June 1984 authorities detained Irving in Vienna and expelled him before he could address the first of a series of "Free Rudolf Hess" rallies organised by the "Society for Truthful Contemporary History." The group is an offshoot of the extreme right wing National Democratic Party. The Austrian Interior Minister had been battling an upsurge in neo-Nazi activity and determined that Irving was an "undesirable alien" and banned him from re-entering the country. Norbert Burger, the self pro claimed "Fuhrer" of Austria said that he thought it "a splendid achievement that his party had been able to en list the services of the world famous historian, Irving, the scourge of the cover up historians." On November 8 1989, the Criminal Court of Vienna also issued a warrant for Irving's arrest.

Posted by: shiva at November 20, 2006 1:03 AM

Pelayo and the rest: the reason why Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany and Austria is that it amounts to contempt of court of the most serious kind. The Nuremberg Military Court was a legitimate criminal court set up by the four powers which, according to international law, were then in charge of Germany and Austria, and its deliberations are part of the record of German and Austrian courts. (This is why, incidentally, the four powers refused to allow other countries, such as Denmark or Poland, to share in the deliberations; not to keep the power in their own hands, but so that the court should remain legally a court of the authorities which legally ruled Germany, which Denmark and Poland were not. In Russia's case, this involved a serious loss of influence, since a court made of all the allies who had defeated Germany would have been full of Soviet proxies, while the court as it was set up tended to see the two Soviet judges isolated against majorities of six Western ones.) The Nuremberg Trial, and succeeding trials such as the Doctors' Trial, including some carried out by German courts, saw most of the defendants convicted on what is probably the most massive and damning amount of evidence ever brought to a criminal court of any kind. To deny what the Nuremberg Trial and succeeding trials clearly stated to have happened in Germany and Europe between 1933 and 1945 is to deny the record and the sentences of these courts; to state, in fact, that the evidence presented in court - which was immense - was all fabricated by the prosecution. It is, that is, the gravest possible kind of contempt of court: to state against the evidence that a whole court system was set up as a corrupt imposture intended to mislead the world and to murder a whole political leadership under guise of law. For this reason the anti-denial laws are not only perfectly reasonable, but not even necessary; under any law against contempt of court, Irving could have been prosecuted and jailed.

Posted by: Paolo at November 20, 2006 2:20 AM

Paolo, interesting point, but is it valid? It is perfectly legal, for example, to say just about anything one wants about the U.S. legal system, and no "contempt of court" laws will do a thing to you, unless you happen to be inside a courtroom at that moment and speaking out of turn. So your last point is overstated, is it not?

Shiva's post makes a strong though perhaps in the end unpersuasive argument.

But Shiva, if you are going to quote someone else's article, you need to let people know you are quoting, and who you are quoting. At least part of what appears in your above post can also be found, word-for-word, in "Hitler's Willing Helper," an article by Michael Capel. Are you Michael Capel?

Posted by: traeh at November 20, 2006 3:05 AM

By the way, when I said Shiva's argument was perhaps unpersuasive, I meant Shiva's argument for limits on free speech. I find quite persuasive Capel's article showing Irving to be a neo-Nazi.

Posted by: traeh at November 20, 2006 3:18 AM

Posted by: traeh

But Shiva, if you are going to quote someone else's article, you need to let people know you are quoting, and who you are quoting. At least part of what appears in your above post can also be found, word-for-word, in "Hitler's Willing Helper," an article by Michael Capel.But Shiva, if you are going to quote someone else's article, you need to let people know you are quoting, and who you are quoting. At least part of what appears in your above post can also be found, word-for-word, in "Hitler's Willing Helper," an article by Michael Capel. Are you Michael Capel?

Firstly thanx for the link

Nope I am not Michael Capel

The above have been in my files for quite a while,as I was going to use then on another forum,in a debate about Ernst Zundel,but I did not have the full article

Posted by: shiva at November 20, 2006 4:23 AM

From above post:There can't be one of us alive today who hasn't talked, at some point (even as a young child) with an older relative who fought in Europe and was present when we found the death camps in 1945.

Years ago I worked with a man who had been one of the first American liberators, (one of the first through the gate), of one of the famous death camps (I have forgotten which one).
Because of what he saw first hand, if you denied the holocaust, you would have to fight him on the spot.
In his view, he saw evil, and those who denied it were just as evil. Because he was there, and his passion about it, I believe him...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 20, 2006 8:08 AM

Novy Mir...at first I wondered 'What in the world is this guy talking about? Then I looked at the link you supplied. Of course the authors there got it right and everyone else is wrong...The man I mentioned above would probably like to meet you and shake your hand...vigorously...
I dont think that holocaust believers and survivors are the only ones being 'herded', you are part of a herd yourself...Novy: "You people are so pathetic. So wise and all-knowing. Such egotism, arrogance, pride and self-delusion".
Your description is a mirror image of yourself Novy.
Thanks for sharing that with us...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 20, 2006 8:37 AM

A free country is one with as fewer laws as possible. And having a law to punish a perception of history just demonstrates that common sense has been rejected a long time ago, and that the Authorities cannot trust the people to act self-responsibly.

But then why am I not surprised, Europe never did anything that was Common Sensical.

Novy Mir, obviously you are trying to say that we have been tricked into thinking that the Holocaust happened. But normal American and British people saw the camps, and the emaciated victims imprisoned therein. Normal Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French can testify to train loads of people disappearing to never be seen again. Serving Germans testify to mass killings. Weeping German civilians were presented with the hard evidence. It was revealed to us from the ground up - by the herd. Why should the herd want to decieve itself?

But serious about this as you are, you present as evidence some internet page about an alternative history by a Mr Arthur Butz. Reminds me of Hitlers other name, Arthur Testicle-sack.

I thought that becoming disconnected from the Matrix was a pseudonym for liberating oneself, but obviously it means to become dangerously unhinged. I'll have to watch out for it and make sure it doesn't happen to me.

Posted by: FREE LEE at November 20, 2006 8:42 AM

shiva-

Very interesting comments.

Posted by: Frank at November 20, 2006 8:53 AM

People who value freedom of speech shouldn't feel too sorry for Irving. He himself tried to suppress the freedom of speech and press of Deborah Lipstadt, one of his critics. She wrote in a book that irving was a Holocaust denier, which he was. Irving sued her under the same English law --as far as I understand-- that was used to prosecute Rachel Ehrenfeld more recently. Hence, he is the enemy of freedom of speech. Prof Lipstadt won her case by proving with extensive documentation that he was what she said he was. But she paid a high cost in time and money and effort and general aggravation. Irving wanted to shut her up.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 20, 2006 9:11 AM

Eliyahu

Feeling sorry is not a basis for a principle. That is how the Leftist Liberal Elite run their business. It's not how English Law came about.

Freedom means everyone has the same entitlement to free speech, and the same recourse to the law.

Posted by: FREE LEE at November 20, 2006 9:51 AM

Hilarious! Bukhari, the great founder of the British Muslim Public Affairs Committee and Griffin, the leader of the British National Party – otherwise known as ‘the hammer of Muslims in Britain’ - sharing a platform as Zion haters.
Not so amazing though if you look back further. Remember the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem pleading with Himmler not to be so unprincipled as to let a handful of Jews escape the gas chambers for the sake of a measly offer of military trucks in exchange for their freedom?

Posted by: ColinUK at November 20, 2006 2:14 PM

‘The Observer’ in London calls the Muslmim Public Affairs Committea ‘civil rights’ body: it’s catching! A while ago, I wrote to the BBC ‘Today’ programme to complain about them styling MPAC as a ‘civil liberties’ body. They replied to say that they accepted how MPAC chose to style themselves! I might choose to style myself ‘King of the fairies’, but I’m damned if I believe John Humphreys,the programmes presenter, would accept that without question. I asked them to quote on air a single civil right that I have which is not enjoyed in full measure by all Muslims in Britain. No comment!

Isn’t it an insult to activists who have often risked their lives to win civil rights to include MPAC among them and isn’t this a case of ‘The Observer’ and the BBB assisting in the murder of the meaning of words?

Posted by: ColinUK at November 20, 2006 2:21 PM

Duh Swami: you don't have to go get your old serviceman friend to get someone who would be willing to shake Novy Mir... and shake him... and shake him. Just ask me. It is not only that a member of my own family was murdered in Dachau, but that the effects of that crime, and of the hideous atmosphere caused by the Nazi occupation of parts of Italy between 1943 and 1945, have caused problems (I cannot be more specific) that lasted to this day. There are people who have never stopped hurting from what was done to them, to their families, to their countries, long ago. And so, Novy Mir, if you want a little explanation, do come along. I promise you will not be bored.

Posted by: Paolo at November 20, 2006 5:43 PM

Oh, duhswami, I certainly expected someone to attempt to claim that it is I that am the arrogant, egotist, a prisoner of my pride(like I'm toooo smart to be fooled). Sorry buddy, been there done that(but I am fully aware I need to keep my self grounded in REALITY-- it is HUMAN-NATURE to want to take the easy, comfortable option). There's a little emotional sensation that has been programmed into us, when we see or hear certain things that little sensation(aversion programming)communicates: "oh, no, I'm not supposed to think such things, that's not allowed, people might think bad things about me, like I'm nuts or mean, or a Nazi or something", I've learned that that little sensation means I'm probably on the right track(if I want to know what truth and reality is). There's a thing called LOGIC, and it is a WONDERFUL thing, and to see how it works, read the book(there are many others too).

FREELEE, what they saw was the result of war, and what a typhus epidemic looks like. The MAIN POINT IS THAT THERE WAS NO "EXTERMINATION POLICY", THERE WAS NO "EXTERMINATION INFRASTRUCTURE". PERIOD.
THEREFORE THE GERMANS WERE NOT GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER. THE GERMANS/NAZIS WERE NOT THE ULTIMATE DEMONS THEY HAVE BEEN MADE OUT TO BE. IT WAS THE "ALLIES" WHO PREMEDITATEDLY AND DELIBERATELY MURDERED MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS.
WHY? Hitler did NOT have aspirations of ruling the world. BUT THE SOVIETS DID. FOOLS.
WHO WERE THE "WINNERS" OF THAT WAR????????????
ANSWER:ZIONISTS AND COMMUNISTS.
WHO WRITES THE HISTORY OF A WAR??????
ANSWER:THE WINNERS.

FOOLS. WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE "COLD-WAR"?????
ANSWER:SYNTHESIS.

WHO OCCUPIED UPWARDS OF 80% OF SOVIET LEADERSHIP POSITIONS??????
WHO DID THE SOVIETS PERSECUTE???
WHERE DID THE MAJORITY OF IMMIGRANTS TO "ISRAEL" COME FROM??? WHY DID THE SOVIETS ALLOW THEM TO LEAVE, they had no ulterior motive????? NO?????
WAS THE SOVIET STATE "ANTI-SEMITIC"?????(don't bother telling me about the "Doctor's Plot").

What many of you think and wish to do about Muslims today, is the same thing the Germans were saying and doing to the Jews(kicking them OUT).
You're both right.
We're screwed. It's a fait-accompli. Islam is the last obstacle to be eliminated. My geuss is that when the war starts with Iran, multiple WMDs will detonate in the USA and Britain(we have been conditioned for it). The Iranians won't be the ones responsible- but they will of course be blamed. Then it's all over. Then the "Messiah" appears and world dictatorship becomes official, and permanent.
It's either "British Israel" or "Zionists" who are controlling things and the very top.
--------------------------

Did you ever hear of the "7 Noahide Laws"??
Didn't think so. Talmudic Law. The Talmud(read it!stupid goyim).
Guess what? They were the principles upon which America was founded on. In fact, all of Western civilization! According to George the 1st and Congress. There's much more to these laws than what is on the surface.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:

Posted by: Novy Mir at November 20, 2006 8:02 PM

To Novy Mir:
Do you consider yourself a Nazi or neo-Nazi? Or are your posts a spoof?

Posted by: traeh at November 20, 2006 9:15 PM

Novy Mir:
You've got to be joking. Is that the best you can do? Warmed over neo-Nazi propaganda (first link) and a birthday card to Lubavitcher Rebbe (second link)? What's next...let me guess...Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion???

By the way, the seven Noahide laws have been discussed on this site in the past. You just need to go back a year or two. In fact, that would be a good exercise for you; you might even learn something. Come back when you're done.

Posted by: materialguy at November 20, 2006 9:36 PM

Novi Mir...Thank you so much for enlightening me as to who the egoistic parasite really is. The more you write, the more enlightened I get...thanx much...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 21, 2006 12:25 AM