Tuesday, 18 November 2014

British establishment more invested in the idea of punishing David Irving than Zionist Jews

The British are even more invested into the idea of punishing Holocaust Denial than the Jews, because they have even more to cover up than Zionist Jews who just wanted Israel as a homeland for diaspora Jews, who of course wanted to justify their land grab against the Palestinian Arabs. This is explained at The British have to pretend to themselves that they had to enter WW1 or the Germans would have invaded, and they would all be speaking German by now if they had not declared war against Hitler for invading Poland. To make it all seem worth their while losing their empire over, they had to big up Hitler as being evil incarnate when it seems that  he was actually a nicer person than Churchill. Whatever you think of, Hitler at least was not a drunk and a depressive, nor did he ban smoking even when he was dictator. Imagine - Hitler actually being more liberal and respectful of the liberty of Germans to smoke than PC Libtards everywhere!

Hitler's greatest mistake was in expecting the British to be reasonable about Poland when they were being so manifestly unreasonable about going to war ostensibly over Belgium in 1914 over "a scrap of paper", as the German Ambassador in London called the 1839 Treaty of London.

The British under Asquith entered World War 1 because Asquith, the Liberal Prime Minister thought a short and successful war would give the Liberal Party an electoral advantage in the 1915 General Election. They clearly thought that any war would be a short one and that the boys would be home by Christmas. In the end, they lost Britain her world empire ...

The British political establishment would have a much bigger axe to grind as regards WW2 than Zionist Jews ever would.

At his talk on Saturday I tried interesting David Irving in my little idea. Indeed, I remember someone else in his previous talks trying to interest him in WW1, but he repeated his answer to me "I know nothing about WW1, absolutely nothing, and stick to the subjects I know."

The "Second Thirty Years' War" is a disputed periodization sometimes used by historians to encompass the wars in Europe from 1914–1945.

It occurs to me that if there were justice in Britain David Irving would be knighted by now for his services to historical research and the quest for historical truth in the face of a malicious and mendacious establishment wishing to avoid the proclaiming and the hearing of it.
LikeLike ·  ·  · 16
It is proposed that this prize be awarded to any historian in the world who defy their political establishment in the cause of investigating and proclaiming a Historical Truth that their political establishment does not want to hear or an Unanswered Historical Question that the political establishment cannot answer satisfactorily or convincingly.
LikeLike ·  ·  · 6
Would David Irving say that the British establishment is even more invested in the idea of prosecuting Holocaust Denial than the Jews and Zionists these days, simply because what Britain lost as a result of their insane foreign policy of participating in two ruinous World Wars that led to the loss of the British Empire and the dubious privilege of becoming the 51st state of America?
THE FACTS OF LIFE EXPLAINED AND UGLY TRUTHS TOLD The Scream by Edvard Munch graphically expresses what liberals feel when they hear The Voice of Reason - and that is...
LikeLike ·  ·  · 111
What number is Holocaust Denial?
LikeLike ·  ·  · 3
Would David Irving like to define Holocaust Denial in a sentence?
A majority of EU countries have long considered that the right to freedom of expression precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. The full implementation of the 2008 EU Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (hereinafter: the EU FD on racism) will, however, considerably harmonizes the law of Holocaust denial in Europe. While several provisions of the EU FD on racism offer a series of legal options enabling any EU country to limit the scope of national provisions criminalizing “genocide denial,” it remains that all EU Member States are now under the legal obligation to criminalize genocide denial when it is carried out either in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred or in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting. Before offering a critical review of the EU FD on racism and arguing that the political necessity of laws punishing genocide denial and the legal need for an EU-wide prohibition may be seriously questioned, this paper will contend that the legal reasoning developed by national courts in “militant democracies” is far from convincing and that the European Court of Human Rights should have refrained from labeling the Holocaust a clearly established historical fact whose denial constitutes ipso facto an “abuse of right”.
LikeLike ·  ·  · 

Poor old David Irving being bullied and brow-beaten by Tim Sebastian. If he doesn't want to hear the answer he shouldn't have asked the question. (Notice how Tim Sebastian's voice was made louder than David Irving's to make him sound more authoritative and David Irving's voice turned down slightly to make him seem weaker and less authoritative.) David Irving also remorsefully apologises for saying "nigger" when he angrily shouted at a black man for running into him and hurting him. Understandable, I would have thought. Every person can think of a derogatory word to describe anyone they want to insult, so I don't see why black people should be protected from this. If Pakistanis can be called Pakis and the Chinese can be called Chinks why not black people niggers? It is actually racially discriminatory to say only black people are protected from being racially insulted while all the other races have to take it on the chin.


DC said...

Truth does not fear investigation!

ZS said...

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise." - Voltaire

AS said...

If it is illegal to question there is something to hide thus it must be false in whole altogether or in part, The truth doesn't need laws to hide behind only a lie.

SA said...

Pressure from the Israeli lobby and other pressure groups is more likely the reason behind this than any suggestion that the Holocaust never took place which it most certainly did. Of course, as always, there are debates over figures and details but the overall truth of it is not in doubt. After all, we have the Nazis own word for it. Nevertheless, Holocaust denial should not be a criminal matter just bad history which can easily be disproved.

OM said...

Not just the numbers, but also the manner in which it was carried out.

I hit into a debate with a friend a few years ago with a friend about the use of gas chambers. He claimed they were not used. I laughed at him, called him a liar, a denier, a bigot and all kinds of shit. I thought it would be simple to disprove his bollocks and set about building a case. Aside from anecdotal evidence it was almost impossible! He came back with scientific arguments, Red Cross statistics and a whole bunch of other shit. I mentioned this to other friends who reacted exactly the same way I did. I told them I had no horse in the race and that they should go away, do their own research and prove me wrong. So far nobody has been able to. I still don't have a position on it, but I am certainly open to more possibilities now. Just looking at the german army protocols for using the gas that was supposed to have been used in the chambers as a delousing agent really does make a mockery of the testimony given at Nuremberg as to how the chambers were operated. In fact after spending a few days trying to make my buddy look stupid I came to realise that almost all of our understanding of how the cops operated is based on Nuremberg testimony and also that those trials were an absolute sham. Well worth a few hours of your time to investigate for yourself. I came away with an undeniable feeling that they were little better than the show trials of Stalinist Russia.

AS said...

I say it's a lie, National Socialists were made to confess under torture by the judaic anglo bastards, Typhus ran through the camps as well as lice look up the leuchter report there's no way any of the bodies could have been cremated during that time frame, The zyklon B was used as a delousing agent to treat lice, The lies are falling and with it the zionist-anglo empire with it. Everything the Jews claim Germans did they are doing to Palestinians.

Winners write history not losers of wars. What about the millions that were brutally killed by those Jews in Russia, Poland, Ukraine and the rest of the East bloc?

OM said...

I'm almost tempted to agree. Hunger caused by a successful, allied bombing campaign against supply lines and disease are efficient enough depopulation agents. I don't consider myself an expert but like I said, I really did look for any evidence of mass gassings, to shit my friend up and honestly couldn't find anything other than eye witness testimony.

AS said...

If you think about it, It would be the allies fault for the destroying of supply lines to civilian populaces thus starving millions, Not to mention the Eisenhower death camps.

OM said...

To be fair, we did have a war to win though.

AS said...

We fought for the wrong side, European wars aren't our concern, Neither are Middle Eastern, Asian or any other.

We get thrown into wars for the sake of bureaucrats and bankers and other assorted parasites, The common man does not want war but it is forced on us regardless if we want it or not.

OM said...

Generally speaking, yes. However that requires the assumption that once Europe was conquered, that Hitler would have left the UK alone to get on with things. I highly doubt that.