Western Man and his conspiracy of silence

You suffer from degeneracy if most parents in your society are unmarried. If most parents in your society are unmarried, it means your religion is kaput, because the least any religion ought to be doing is to ensure that most people marry before having babies.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

When most men who complain about the government cannot discuss solutions because they fear each other too much to do so, you know the political system is broken. If your religion is broken then your politicians will be corrupt and cowardly voted into office by even more corrupt and cowardly voters who are in denial about the state of their nation.

Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic. White Nationalists won't discuss restoring the patriarchy with marriage using slut-shaming Secular Koranism. Yet when I ask them what they think religion is for or what solution they propose other than kicking out and killing people, they fall mysteriously silent. What could be the matter with them?

Centuries of Christianity has rotted their minds away.

Christians either really believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God, or only pretend to do so.

If they really believe this absurdity, they are stupid and weak.

If they only pretend to believe it, they are corrupt and weak.

That is why Western Man is morally rotten.

It is a toxic mixture of arrogance and ignorance and their innate chauvinism, of course. Because they think they have nukes and have nuked Japan twice, they think they are superior. But military superiority is not permanent. They don't seem to understand that either, or do not wish to discuss it, because they are cowardly and dishonest. The ones who think they are superior because they used to rule the world are only living on borrowed time, borrowed money and are a dead man walking.
And there are some who use the fact that God has not appeared before them like a genie in a lamp as an excuse to deny the necessity of theocracy.

Faith is very simple really: we just choose to believe.

If you see the wisdom of God's laws, you would feel morally obliged to obey them. If you obey them, you incline towards belief and want the rest of society to obey them and therefore the solution of theocracy is both moral and logical.

If you wish to flout His laws, you would deny God's existence because it makes no sense at all to believe in God while flouting His laws and fearing His punishment.

There are those who affect to be intelligent and sceptical, who studied philosophy as undergraduates, but who cannot answer me when I ask them what they think religion is for. I suppose they intend to go to their graves refusing to answer the question. When your religion no longer works, grown men who have studied philosophy as undergraduates refuse to answer philosophical questions because they refuse to acknowledge that their idolatrous and blasphemous religion and their apparently inerrant political system is at fault. Apparently, it is not their job as thinking political activists to consider such questions.

If black people do have lower IQ than white people, it is because more of them are the product of unmarried parenthood.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-black

White men in denial that they are living in a degenerate matriarchy cannot bear to discuss restoring the patriarchy. If they disagree that restoring the patriarchy is not the answer to the oppression of living in a matriarchy, what better idea do they have other than killing and kicking people out which most of them, want deep down, but dare not say it?

The fact that the West is a matriarchy means Christianity is kaput. So the next question arises: should Christianity be replaced if it is kaput?

Presumably they don't want to admit that Christianity is kaput because they don't want to consider whether it should be replaced.

They don't want to discuss whether it should be replaced because they have already heard of my solution, which they cannot bring themselves to discuss because they already know Christianity is kaput.

These men are often political activists with degrees, not ignorant folk who never consider such things. Some of them have even studied philosophy as undergraduates. It would appear that not only is Christianity kaput, Western philosophy is also a heap of hooey because it offers no solutions.
Are they taking the position that white people don't need a religion effective at maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality because their magic white skin is going to save them from degeneracy and the matriarchy? It would appear so.

Do such men who have retreated into infantilism deserve to live in an advanced civilisation? I would say not.

If people deserve their government, what does a nation of men afraid to offend unmarried mothers deserve, especially if they are hypocrites who once pretend that they cared about their own racial hygiene?

A matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of unmarried mothers indifferent to the parenting of their casually conceived illegitimate offspring. Britain is undeniably matriarchy. In a matriarchy, all men are lower in status than the unmarried mother. Andrew Sabisky is now gone because he offended unmarried mothers and their representatives.

What self-respecting man lives in a matriarchy without protest? 

But if he protests he would be immediately crushed and ostracised by his slut-fucking associates. So even if a man agreed with me, he would be too cowardly to be seen to agree with me. 

Only under a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest and the men I speak to cannot bear for the obvious to be pointed out. This means they cannot accept the truth, much less logic or morality.   

One of the reasons why fewer and fewer men are married now is because marriage is no longer a good bargain for men. Men, being primarily motivated by sex, will do anything for sex, including marry and pay for the children of their wife. Since they no longer need to marry in order to have sex with women, they ask themselves "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" The only way to make marriage a good bargain for men again is to abolish no fault divorce and shame sluts with quran.com/24/2 but lily-livered men who have no investment in the next generation or concern for posterity prefer to keep quiet to avoid upsetting their political associates who will invariably be other slut-fucking men who will have sired bastards.

Not only is Christianity kaput and Britain no longer a God-fearing country, it is now a matriarchy and its men overwhelmingly slut-fearing. 

Have you noticed how not even men who complain about feminism even want to restore the patriarchy by reintroducing slut-shaming?  It is because even discussing the subject honestly and rationally is more trouble than its worth to these men. They will not engage with me on the subject other than to say that their collective tactic of refusing to engage with me on the subject means it will never be discussed, let alone addressed.   

These men refuse to risk anything to address the most urgent issue of the day, presumably because they think they stand a reasonable chance of going to their graves without having to admit the error and disaster of feminism. Do such men deserve to live in advanced civilisation? 

The reason why they are so indifferent to the interests of the next generation is because most of them are not married fathers. There are even those of them who are married fathers who won't discuss that either, presumably because they do not feel they owe their legitimate children even the trouble of discussing the importance of the institution of marriage in oiling the wheels of your civilisation to keep your civilisation going.

This has happened before, for it was Livy the Roman historian who said "We can neither bear our vices nor their cure."

The Romans had the excuse of not having Islam to adopt because Islam came after Rome. We do not. We even have Secular Koranism, which is "Islam Lite".
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/05/secular-koranism.html

My review of #Denialmovie

Even if I was initially very sceptical of its ability to tell anything approaching the truth, already disgusted by the deliberate miscasting: ex-supermodel Rachel Weisz - the wife of James Bond, no less - playing the spinster who lives alone with a dog while Britain's ugliest actor Timothy Spall was chosen to play David Irving - an undeniably attractive man when younger with the looks of a matinee idol, I was very glad I saw it.  I did enjoy David Hare's adaptation of The Master Builder at the Old Vic last year and had a vague memory of thinking Wetherby terribly profound in my youth.

The other annoying thing is that Rachel Weisz did not even have a proper dialogue coach so she could learn to speak with a proper Queens accent which is Deborah Lipstadt's and only had a very anodyne mid-Atlantic accent. The Queens accent is also the accent of Donald Trump, the Great Emperor of the West. Yes, I know it is  a bit much expecting Rachel Weisz to talk like Trump, but like to think Miriam Margolyes would have done it better. Margolyes is obviously more suited for all sorts of reasons to playing the part of a spinster living alone with her dog.

Miriam Margolyes - the Jewish British actress who should have played Deborah Lipstadt in my view doing many Jewish accents on Johnny Carson. Isn't she just great? Rachel Weisz is not a patch on her. But perhaps it is not too late. A remake of Denial could be made, but this time told from David Irving's perspective, with a properly handsome actor playing David Irving setting women's hearts a-flutter ...

One cannot help wondering if David Irving managed to drag himself to the cinema to see it and whether he spotted his fatal error when he agreed to a judge-only trial.

In the film Anthony Julius and Irving are in front of the judge. (Julius had earlier told Lipstadt that getting a judge-only trial would be key to winning. Lipstadt asked how he would manage to get Irving to agree and Julius said he would appeal to Irving's vanity.)

Scene in the Judge's Chambers where Julius asks the judge for a judge-only trial:

Irving raises his eyebrows.

Julius points out that many of the facts the jury must understand in order to arrive at their verdict are technical and complex, requiring a lifetime's study. They cannot be expected to understand easily and quickly what it took Irving a lifetime to understand.

Irving immediately agrees. 

I feel almost certain that a gentile English jury would have given David Irving the benefit of the doubt while a single judge would have succumbed to all kinds of dark forces trying to influence him to find against David Irving.  Twelve jury members would be just a bit harder to nobble than a single judge, in my view.

Poor old Sally Bercow too lost her case because a single judge decided that she had libelled the late Lord McAlpine in a tweet. It is simply unimaginable that twelve tweeting jury members would have found an emoticon of a surprised face libellous, as Justice Tugendhat found. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/24/sally-bercow-tweet-libelled-lord-mcalpine

I am no Holocaust bore and find the technicalities of whether there were gas chambers at Auschwitz or anywhere else frankly quite unintelligible, unconvincing on both sides.

The judgment was presented on 11 April 2000, although the lawyers had received the decision 24 hours earlier.

In the film, journalists outside the Royal Courts of Justice were complaining that, although they had read the judgment, they were quite unable to tell from its reasoning whom the judge would favour in his decision.

It is therefore still not clear to me how David Irving falsified the evidence beyond interpreting it in a way that departed from the official version and being guilty of infuriating the powers that be.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3I3DMEPP0149W/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&asin=1859844170&cdForum=FxLYS0ZWSKDPUR&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx5NZ2OZI5SPHP&store=books#wasThisHelpful
is an example of an exchange I had with someone who claimed to have read a book on the David Irving trial I have confessed not to have read, but who was quite unable to explain in any intelligible way how Irving falsified the evidence.

It was almost as if Justice Gray was given 1 + 1, but inexplicably said the sum was 3. Even more inexplicably, nobody has pointed out this error and everyone just went along with it.

In practice therefore, even though Holocaust Denial is not officially a crime in the UK, it is in fact treated as if it were one, so beware.

https://www.rt.com/uk/370429-blogger-anti-semitism-court/

Alison Chabloz is mocking the "fake survivors" of the Holocaust in her song "Survivors", but it is actually legal to deny the Holocaust in the UK. However, will the Jews get her anyway on 24 March 2017?

If they do manage to nail her for Holocaust Denial when there is in fact no law against Holocaust Denial in this country, would that not be a blatant display of Jewish power?

And if this Jewish power is displayed, why are Jews - who are supposed to be a clever people - surprised that the gentiles subject to this Jewish power in their own land in which the majority of people are gentile would resent it?

Is their resentment not increased exponentially when they are told they cannot complain or criticise those whom they feel have the whip hand over them?

If I were a Jewess exercising such power over the majority of gentiles, I like to think I would have the good grace to allow them to complain about me. If you allow people to complain about you, you would have a greater understanding of their grievance than if you arrogantly dismissed all complaints as motivated from people who not deserve to have their concerns and grievances aired. Most unwise. However much you despise the goyim hoi polloi, they are still the majority and understandably wish to enjoy the right to free speech in their own land, which is supposedly part of the Free West in which free speech is enjoyed.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/denialmovie.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/jane-garvey-interviews-deborah-lipstadt.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/bbc-today-programme-interview-on-denial.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/trial/judgment/Lipstadt_judgment.pdf

Will Jews be accusing @realDonaldTrump of Holocaust Denial now? I really wouldn't push my luck if I were them.  https://t.co/DQi5QTUFoX

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 30, 2017

What Jesus said about Jews in his sermon on the Mount

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Adding insult to injury, Trump flirts with classic Holocaust denial https://t.co/qSbxZV1tch https://t.co/CsI7b3fRze

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 1, 2017

I predicted Trump would be accused of Holocaust Denial. https://t.co/qSbxZV1tch https://t.co/GKtTHkYUsE

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 1, 2017

Why do so many Jews hate any sensible move or gentile leader if he says or does anything to protect his national interest?

I seem to remember Hitler often conflating with Jews with Liberals in Mein Kampf. Perhaps there is an argument that only observant Jews are Jews. Unobservant Jews should not even be alive, according to http://biblehub.com/exodus/31-14.htm This means that the halakha, which states that a person is Jewish if his mother is is a damnable innovation, because the Torah should trump all other competing and subsequent views on who is a Jew.

A Liberal Jew is an assimilated Jew.

An assimilated Jew is a Jew that has assimilated into degenerate goyim liberalism.

Will I now be accused of anti-Semitism?

These days, you are accused of being an anti-Semite if a Jew hates you!

If liberals hate truth and logic, then it follows that an assimilated liberal Jew would also hate truth and logic. Sensible observant and Orthodox Jews tend to agree with me, I find.

 Irving mentions Lipstadt from the 17th minute

From the 29th minute, I ask him questions about his libel action and Denial, which he hadn't seen, to my annoyance.

From the 36th minute the Kol Nidre is mentioned by David Irving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre

The vows annulled at Kol Nidre do not include vows made to people and this includes gentiles, only to God. In other words, the purpose of Kol Nidre is not a licence to not keep promises to people, but is intended to make the promisor think which vows to God he will renew after Kol Nidre and which he will allow to expire, if they are found to be foolish or redundant. This is an excellent idea giving us a chance to perform an annual review of promises made to God and decide on their necessity, folly or redundancy, which can only increase our wisdom and self-knowledge.

Below is a talk by Rabbi Sacks on the nature and purpose of Kol Nidre. It does not mention my suggested reason, but my theory hangs together better, in my ever so humble opinion. 

 

Jane Garvey interviews Deborah Lipstadt on BBC Woman's Hour and advertises Denial as "a great film, well worth seeking out"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0890k96

Jane Garvey:

Let's talk to Deborah Lipstadt, the American academic who was living a successful but to be honest quite obscure life in Georgia when she wrote a book called Denying the Holocaust in 1993. She came to international prominence when a British historian a man called David Irving sued her. She made reference to him in that book describing him as somebody who said the Holocaust never happened. The case reached the High Court in the first few weeks of the year 2000 and is now the subject of a new film called Denial. Now here's a quick extract after a bad day in court when Irving is getting headlines for his views and creating soundbites. Deborah, who is played in the film by Rachel Weisz is understandably angry.

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

Irving got what he came for. He wanted headlines, he got them: "No holes, no Holocaust." He wanted a catchy phrase, he got it. It's gonna spread like a virus.

Female voice:

More tea?

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

No, I don't want more tea! 

Female voice [aggrieved]:

I was just asking. 

Rachel Weisz as Lipstadt:

Don't you see what he's doing? He is making it respectable to say that there are two points of view. People are going to see the news now and think "OK, some people think there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and, oh, this is interesting, and some people don't!"

Jane Garvey:

That was Deborah Lipstadt as played by Rachel Weisz. The real Deborah Lipstadt joins us now from the BBC Studios in Salford. Deborah, good morning to you.

Deborah Lipstadt:

Good morning. Thank you for having me.

Jane Garvey:

It's really interesting to talk to you for a multitude of reasons and what a time for this particular film to come out!

Deborah Lipstadt:

Unbelievable! Unbelievable!

Jane Garvey:

What do you make of that?

Deborah Lipstadt:

None of us thought - not the producers, not Mick Jackson the director, or anybody who acted in it, not the actors or David Hare - none of us assumed when we first began planning and working on this that it would have the contemporary relevance that it does but given the first part of the show where we spoke about the marches, we live in a world where people have alternative facts where truthiness - Stephen Colbert calls it truthiness where if I really believe something it has has as much value as facts. 

Jane Garvey:

Just remind us, who used the phrase "alternative facts" in the last couple of hours?

Deborah Lipstadt:

Well, in the last 24 hours, Kelly Conway, the Trump Campaign Manager, now a pivotal person in the White House, when the President's Press Spokesman went out in front of the press and completely lied and said this was the biggest inauguration ever and called the press liars for saying it wasn't when the pictures show great gaps in the number of people and stands at the parade were empty - not all of them but a lot of them, he just went on this rant when the NBC interviewer called her on this and said this is not true and, she said "We have alternative facts." Well, there's no such thing as alternative facts and another word for alternative fact is shorter and quicker and stronger is lies. And this is the third day of the Administration!

Jane Garvey:

Yes, well, OK, it's going to be - I don't know how best to describe it - interesting is an adjective that catches everyone. Let's stick to that.

Deborah Lipstadt:

It's a Chinese curse!

Jane Garvey:

Let's go back in time then to you writing this book - and I said your life was obscure but I don't mean to be offensive - it was a very satisfying one, I'm sure. You cannot have expected ....

Deborah Lipstadt:

I wasn't on Woman's Hour!

Jane Garvey:

You weren't at the time, no. What did you expect when you wrote Denying the Holocaust?

Deborah Lipstadt:

Denying the Holocaust was a book that was suggested to me by two leading historians of the Holocaust who said "You should look into this phenomenon" and I said, "Are you kidding? It's like studying flat-earthers," but they really felt it was important and I have a lot of respect for them so I figured I would write the book and I didn't have a title for the next book at that moment. I said I'll spend two years writing this book and that's it, I'd be finished with the topic and I'm gonna move on. Little did I think it would shake my life and it was because David Irving came after me and sued me for libel.

Jane Garvey:

That's the important fact, isn't it? He sued you. I think some people thought it was the other way round.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I don't believe history belongs in the courtroom. I am against laws outlawing Holocaust Denial. I don't think politicians should be deciding what we can and cannot say, what is permissible and what is not permissible. I am a firm believer in our First Amendment. It's hanging on by its fingernails but it's still hanging on. Freedom of speech is important. The best antidote to bad speech is more good speech.

Jane Garvey:

In the film, you are portrayed as coming to London where incidentally in the film it rains the whole time. I would like to say it isn't actually true, Deborah.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I know, I was here!

Jane Garvey:

... And you're mystified and you do get a lot of tea at times when you are particularly stressed.  You are an American at sea in the English legal system and you appeared to be baffled by it. Was that the case?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I was, I was, because British libel law is the mirror image of American libel law. Here, the burden of proof is on me to prove the truth and that's why people suggested that I settle, and there were a lot of people here and in the States who thought it wasn't worth my time. If I had settled, I would have to apologise for [sic] him and David Irving offered to settle before the trial and I refused because it meant my apologising for calling him a Holocaust Denier, my accepting that his version of the Holocaust was true and agreeing to pulp all my books. He was trying to curtail my freedom of speech.

Jane Garvey:

In the film you visit some members of the Jewish community in London and they also urged you to pack it in to leave it. Did that happen?

Deborah Lipstadt:

That's right. It happened quite precisely how I described it in my book. They were frightened. They thought David Irving would get publicity and even if he had lost he would win. Anthony Julius felt quite differently.

Jane Garvey:

He was your lawyer.

Deborah Lipstadt:

He was your solicitor, he was terrific, he really structured the defence together with his partner James Lipson and Richard Rampton, my barrister. He said "We're gonna fight a good fight, we're gonna decimate this man, we're gonna show he's a liar, he's a falsifier of history and we're going to expose him, and they did.

Jane Garvey:

But they did it without your actually contributing in court. Now I've only known you for a couple of minutes but I'm guessing you might have found that quite difficult keeping quiet.

Deborah Lipstadt:

I have friends saying that either the biggest miracle of this case was that I kept my mouth shut for the ten weeks that the case was and even for the year before it went to trial. Other people have described my keeping quiet as an unnatural act. It was very hard, but I came to understand the wisdom of their decision. I had written my book. I was being sued for what I wrote in my book. Our strategy was to keep the focus on David Irving. We followed his footnotes back to his sources and showed a consistent - not once or twice, not a mistake here or there - but I think 25 or 26 different instances - major instances - of lies and distortions in which he manipulates history.

Jane Garvey:

You also managed to win without the direct involvement of Holocaust survivors, so no Holocaust survivors gave evidence in court and again the film suggests you were very angry about that. Was that true?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I was upset about that. I think I understood sooner than Rachel Weisz does in the film the way it was written why they were doing that. Again, Holocaust survivors would have been witnesses of fact. We didn't wanna raise questions about the factual nature of the Holocaust, we wanted the spotlight to be on David Irving and his lies, and bringing them in would have changed that. Some were upset, some were concerned, but the overwhelming victory, the overwhelming judgment we got from the court when the judge said he lies, he falsifies, he distorts and he does it deliberately I think satisfied them that it was the right strategy.

Jane Garvey:

The plain fact though is that David Irving did get his days in court. He did get attention, he did get publicity. What do you think of that?

Deborah Lipstadt:

I think he got publicity, but it was the wrong kind of publicity. Before when he made his claims people would say "Oh, that's interesting," but nobody knew it was true or not true. Anybody who was in that courtroom, anybody who has read my book, anybody who has seen this film will see that what he claims is not what's there. He takes a fact and he distorts it, so, yes, he got publicity, but I think it was an exposure of his lies. No one takes what he has to say seriously unless they are already anti-Semites and already racist, because racism was very much a part of it as well. 

[There appears to be a liberal presumption that anyone who is perceived to be racist and/or anti-Semitic must by definition be a liar whose legal rights must therefore be counted at nought from then on. The definition of racism and anti-Semitism is vague and wide and can include saying anything that a person of another race might take an offence at. To be called an anti-Semite these days, all that has to happen is that a Jew hates you enough to accuse you of it. Justice Gray appears to have accepted this presumption without much difficulty. Independent judiciary, my eye.]

Jane Garvey:

The plain fact is, Deborah, is that we all pick our version of the truth, don't we? Everyone knows the Holocaust took place and it was hideous beyond anything that I can think of. However, when I look at my Twitter feed, for example, I largely get the views of people who might be tempted to agree with me or think along the same lines as me. Where do we go from this, particular in this age of social media? Where do we find every bit of truth we can grab hold of?

[Jane Garvey has blocked me on Twitter and so has the brunette woman on @BBCr4today. Libtards like living in their own echo chamber only occasionally wondering out loud if they should take account of other views more, but they basically broadcast for each other. Some of the Radio 4 programmes sound so cosy, just like friends talking to each other, don't they? That's because BBC journalists find their friends and lovers from the BBC itself eg Victoria Derbyshire stole Fi Glover's husband. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706920/BBC-boss-left-radio-star-wife-presenter-Victoria-Derbyshire-sacked-claims-sexually-harassed-staff-member-probe-expenses.html These fucktard libtards don't care about us and are now even more afraid of venturing out of their own echo chamber. If any of them started expressing non-libtard normal views in the BBC canteen they would soon find themselves ostracised by their narrow-minded bigoted BBC village.]

Deborah Lipstadt:

You know when David Hare the playwright took on writing I was so thrilled by that because I have so much respect for him and he has now become a friend. He sent me a long document sort of laying out exactly what happened to me. For anyone who's going to write a biography of David Hare, it's going to be a very interesting document because it shows how he is going to shape the story and shape the screenplay, but at the very end he included a quote from Bertold Brecht's Life of Galileo, and it goes back to Galileo: the sun does not move around the earth, and you can insist that it does and you can put someone who claims that it does to death and whatever it is, but the facts stand and I think we don't all have our own versions of the facts. We may have our own explanations of why this fact happened as it did. Could World War Two have been prevented? Could the Holocaust have been prevented? Could the war in Iraq have been prevented? There are many things why but that they happened, that's the truth. Could we stop the snow caps melting? They're melting. The climate is changing. Slavery happened. It was not a good thing. There are facts and I think this movie, while it's ostensibly about Holocaust Deniers, it has a much bigger message and I never dreamt, as I said at the beginning that it would have the contemporary relevance that it does, and sadly, it does. 

Jane Garvey:

So, very briefly, Deborah, to our younger listeners, your advice in life would be listen and ask questions?

Deborah Lipstadt:

And check. A friend of mine right at the beginning of the election said to me "I hear Hillary Clinton is sick." I said to this person - she was tending towards Trump - "Really, where did you read this?" "On the internet." "Who said it?" "I don't know." "Where did he say it?" "I don't know." "What was the proof?" "I don't know."

The internet is a great gift but with every gift comes responsibility and we who care about facts - doesn't matter what your political outlook is - Conservative, right-wing, left-wing, it doesn't matter - check the facts. Check the truth. There are truths and we have to make sure we know them. 

Jane Garvey:

Good to talk to you, Deborah. Thank you very much.

Deborah Lipstadt:

Thank you very much for having me. 

Jane Garvey:

A great pleasure. Deborah Lipstadt. The film is Denial. Starring Rachel Weisz, Timothy Spall and Tom Wilkinson. It's a great film, well worth seeking out.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/trial/judgment/Lipstadt_judgment.pdf

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/denialmovie.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/my-review-of-denial.html

Will Jews be accusing @realDonaldTrump of Holocaust Denial now? I really wouldn't push my luck if I were them.  https://t.co/DQi5QTUFoX

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 30, 2017

What Jesus said about Jews in his sermon on the Mount

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

BBC Today Programme interview on Denial with David Irving, Timothy Spall and Richard Rampton QC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(2016_film)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08bbg1g

Nick Robinson:

Today a new film opens in the cinemas. It has a one-word title, a simple title: Denial. The denial it refers to is the denial of the Holocaust on this Holocaust Memorial Day. The movie tells a true story of a landmark legal case which established that David Irving who spent his life challenging survivors' accounts of the gas chambers was not as he said a historian, but was in fact a falsifier of history, motivated by anti-Semitism.

At a time when phrases like alternative facts and fake news are being bandied around, it shows how difficult establishing the truth can be. Sanchia Berg now reports.  

Sanchia Berg:

Excerpt of Denial with Timothy Spall as David Irving:

My lord, if we were to seek a title for this libel action, I would venture to suggest pictures of an execution: my execution. 

Timothy Spall as David Irving in the new film Denial. It tells the story of his libel trial seventeen years ago when he brought a case against the historian, Professor Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, publishers of Denying the Holocaust.

[Timothy Spall's voice as David Irving continues:]

The word denier is particularly evil. For the chosen victim, it is like being called a wife-beater or a paedophile ... 

David Irving casts doubt on the scale of the Holocaust and what happened at Auschwitz. To win the case, Professor Lipstadt and her team had to prove he deliberately falsified history - something particularly resonant now. John Wilkinson plays the lead barrister in the case, Richard Rampton QC:

Mr Irving calls himself a historian. The truth is however that he is not a historian at all. He is a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar. 

David Irving claimed he was a sceptical historian; he was simply looking for the evidence. He questioned the gas chambers at Auschwitz, for instance, because there were no holes in the ruined roof.

[Timothy Spall's voice as David Irving:]

My lord, there are no holes in that roof. There never were any holes. Therefore they cannot have poured cyanide capsules through that roof.

That was challenged by experts for the defence. Lawyers and historians scoured David Irving's diaries, his writings, his speeches to demonstrate his racist views and to show they had influenced his interpretation of events. The trial took ten weeks. In the pause waiting for the verdict, I met David Irving in his Mayfair flat. He was still confident. 

David Irving:

If I carry the day on Auschwitz and I said this to the judge "If I am right on Crematorium No 2 on Auschwitz and as far as I am concerned I am right on my position on the Holocaust: that it has been grossly inflated and there has been a hell of a lot lying by the eye-witnesses, and I don't have to prove I am right on the other counts as well."

Sanchia Berg:

David Irving had never been to Auschwitz while I had spent three years in Poland as Warsaw Correspondent.

Sanchia Berg interviewing David Irving:

I have been to Auschwitz myself many times.  

David Irving:

What did they show you when you went to Auschwitz?

Sanchia Berg:

They showed me what they show everybody.

David Irving:

Did they show you the gas chamber?

Sanchia Berg:

You know the Germans blew them up as they left.  

David Irving:

Somebody blew them up. I don't think it was necessarily the Germans. It was either the Russians or the Germans. We don't know which. This is the kind of extraordinary grey area which has not been properly researched. 

Sanchia Berg [triumphantly]:

That was not the judge's view. His verdict was damning. He said David Irving had for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence. David Irving's reputation, already on the wane, was destroyed, but on the internet, Holocaust Denial lives on, unchecked, along with many other dubious claims.

Timothy Spall:

People are very good at making noises that make things seem like they are irrefutable but how can one call out that fact when it is being shaped in another way. It is not something you can just call immediately. You have to be an expert.

Sanchia Berg:

That's what happens in the film, doesn't it? Because you need a tremendous amount of work and researchers going through all these pages of his diaries. You might think it was all pretty straightforward to say "You're just wrong", but it isn't. 

Timothy Spall:

No, no, it is difficult. It's very difficult to get to the truth and ironically, in the Information Age, which we would have thought meant channels to the truth is in fact obfuscating the truth.

Nick Robinson:

Timothy Spall there talking about Denial. One of the other stars is the real life QC - the man who did expose David Irving as a liar - Richard Rampton QC who joins us on the line. Good morning to you, Mr Rampton. Why did it matter then to give so much of your life? Why does it matter now to establish one man's books didn't tell the truth about the Holocaust?

Richard Rampton:

It was about three years, I suppose. Because I was asked to do it and people at the Bar do. You don't have a choice. You stand in a cab rank, someone hails you, you have to let them in. That's what happened to me. It turned out to have been the most fascinating case. In one sense I didn't know anything about the history of it. I do now. 

Nick Robinson:

Do you think it was a good use of your three years? If so, why?

Richard Rampton:

Yes, I do. Because - I think, I still think, perhaps I'm a bit old fashioned - that truth matters. I think truth matters particularly when it concerns an event of such horrendous quality. It was the worst, probably the worst massacre, if you'd like to call it that, in the world's history - considering the scale of it and the fact that it was done deliberately during wartime.  

Nick Robinson:

People may think you could have lined up a series of survivors - people who saw the gas chambers, but the point of the very way you ran that trial - the point of the film indeed - is that that wouldn't do. You had to do something else, did you not, in order to win this case?

Richard Rampton [waffling nonsensically]:

Yes, we had to uproot the source of the poison. Putting deniers in the witness box would have gone some way. [sic] There some of the evidence of the existence of the Holocaust at Auschwitz in particular but by no means the whole of it. [sic] What we had to do was prove that one of the leading Holocaust Deniers. [sic]  

Holocaust denial is not only a falsification of history, it is an expression of anti-Semitism. 

If we can uproot, as I say, the source of the poison then perhaps the house would fall down.

Nick Robinson:

Do you worry that you couldn't in a sense repeat this now whereas it was possible in a court about a single book to prove it was true or not, the internet has no certification of truth - anything goes, people can say what they like?

Richard Rampton:

I quite agree with you. I think it is horrifying in one sense. I think the answer is probably education. I have three children and seven grandchildren and not a single one of them has any single bother distinguishing between what I might call post truth or relative truth or mad opinion from what I call real truth. They, unlike me, spend a lot of time on social media and so on and they are all familiar with Twitter and Instagram, Facebook and all that and they have no problem about distinguishing between matters from what is froth and poison and that kind of thing, but it does matter if it gets hold of people then people can start doing nasty things and then it is dangerous.

[Do you suspect, dear reader, that Richard Rampton's children and grandchildren are not quite as clever and wise as he makes them out to be and that Nick Robinson gave him a very easy ride with his bluff nonsense and never challenged him sufficiently or at all in this interview? Isn't it also very annoying the way Richard Rampton runs his sentences together so it is hard to interrupt him when he comes out with his rubbish? He was shown in the film as doing nothing more than being very rude about David Irving in court. The tactic of not calling Deborah Lipstadt or any Holocaust survivor to avoid them being cross-examined by David Irving was Antony Julius's idea, according to the film, not that old windbag's. They must have known how disastrous it would have been if David Irving had had a chance to expose her for the philosophically inconsistent position she held. On the one hand, she assumed that anyone who doubted the Holocaust must be an anti-Semite and to be libelled without the law's punishment, and on the other hand she did not want Holocaust Denial to be a crime. On the one hand, she believed in free speech, but on the other hand, she believes that there is only one view one is legally allowed to hold on the Holocaust without losing one's right to be defamed at will by the likes of her and suffering serious financial and reputational damage as a result of being libelled.]

http://www.fpp.co.uk/trial/judgment/Lipstadt_judgment.pdf

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/denialmovie.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/my-review-of-denial.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/jane-garvey-interviews-deborah-lipstadt.html

Will Jews be accusing @realDonaldTrump of Holocaust Denial now? I really wouldn't push my luck if I were them.  https://t.co/DQi5QTUFoX

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 30, 2017

What Jesus said about Jews in his sermon on the Mount

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

The purpose of compassion in a nation state

It has been said that the state is the most organised form of criminal enterprise.

As citizens of a state, we can only as members suggest ways of running this criminal enterprise more efficiently.

If we want it to be run more humanely, this too can be accomplished, provided humanity is not inconsistent with efficiency and tends to increase group solidarity, or in the case of nation states, social cohesion within that state.

While men tend to see mercy as a means to an end and would use it rationally, women on the other hand tend to see the expression of compassion as an end in itself, for compassion is a feminine virtue and as women they would wish to express themselves in this way, even at the expense of men or the long term national interest.  

That is why women must not be given too much power.  

When you are strong, be good and you will become great.

When you are great but cease to be good you will become weak again.  

Being good has everything to do with accepting the Truth and not denying it.  

Denial, as we know, is a feminine vice.  

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_when_America_ceases_to_be_good_she_ceases_to_be_great