Scrapbookpages Blog

August 6, 2017

Should books by a famous Holocaust denier be displayed in public?

Filed under: David Irving, Holocaust — furtherglory @ 3:50 pm

Sorry, no freedom of speech is allowed for Holocaust deniers. That’s the law according to the Jews. Get lost, all you deniers!

The following quote is from a news article which you can read in full at

Begin quote

Manchester University has come under fire for refusing to move works by David Irving from open display on library shelves or to label them as “Holocaust denial” literature.

In recent months, growing numbers of British universities, including Cambridge and University College London (UCL), have reclassified works by the controversial writer. They either moved them to “closed access” areas, or inserted disclaimers inside the books, following a campaign led by Dr Irene Lancaster, formerly a teaching fellow in Jewish history at Manchester University, and the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, now master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.

End quote

There are two  sides to everything —  except the Holocaust. Only one side of the Holocaust is allowed — the side according to the Jews.  There is a lot of money involved here. The Jews have made fortunes from books and movies about the Holocaust.

I have met David Irving in person. He is a handsome man with the world’s most beautiful male voice. I have read several of his books which are very detailed and very interesting.  I hope that he wins this case.



  1. If you always want to win over the Jew regarding the Holohoax, “antisemitsm”, “hate speeach” or Palestine, use this pattern that I am describing here.

    It was not invented by me.

    It solves any problem related to the Jews, you always win, if you don’t divert from this two step algorithm.
    I believe David Irving would have crushed that Lipstadth, following this recipe.
    (Disclaimer: If the Jury are extorted pedophiles, paid off or if they are aware of the Jew but have chosen side to become Shabboz goys, then nothing can save you in court, you’re going in.)

    1. Before discussing whatever that is what you want to convince your audience in court,university etc. about,
    you always start by thoroughly discrediting and demonizing the opponent – Organized Jewry, (who is not a race which he desperately wants to be), by exposing the criminal religion of Judaism.
    The Jew is an ordinary human like you and me, but he is born into a criminal religion, which is very damaging to someones soul( Purim and Pesach). There is no Jewish race, because there are Jews in all ethnic groups.

    The Jews have trained Non-Jews (Konrad Lorentz style)to automatically think racism when they here accusations against the Jews, so therefore you need a path which negates this reflex.

    You accomplish demonization of the Jew by citing Jewish humanists whistle blowers of professors degree and other high profile people, such as rabbis, and former rabbis,etc.
    You also constantly have to remind them (to preempt their Lorentz-training) that this and only this, is from “the Jewish humanist x y z”
    Here you have also added an “divide and conquer” element, and you give the Jew who might later read your testimony an escape path, they can choose between being a “humanist Jews whistle blower” or just simply a Jew.
    Your Gentile audience is happy about you informing them that there are good Jews, which adds to your credibility.

    Cite at least all the Jewish humanists at
    The testimonies are about the command in Judaism about not saving the Non-Jew from death, testimonies like this (from Jewish humanist former Chabad Rabbi Shmarya Rosenberg)
    “According to Halacha (Jewish law), we are not allowed to save a goy (non-Jew) from death. For example, if one sees a goy drowning in a river and he cries to the Jew that he should rescue him by throwing the safety ring, if no other goy will ever know that this cry was ignored and no danger will emerge from it to Jews, the Jew is not allowed to throw the safety ring according to the Halacha”.
    You can also cite rabbis like David Bar Chaim who think the Moshiach is so near that he doesn’t care that he is spilling the beans to the Goyim.
    My point is that incriminating evidence regarding the criminality of Judaism must come from Jews themselves.

    You explain to your audience that not saving a person from death is a criminal offense, and therefore are pious mitzvoth observing orthodox Jews are potential criminals, are bound by their religion to commit criminal acts.
    If you know that a person is about to commit a criminal offense which endangers other people lives, you have a moral obligation to inform people, otherwise you are (at least in peoples view) committing a criminal offense.
    Organized Jewry who claim they practice a humanist religion (reform, modern, what ever) have not warned us about the millions of orthodox Jews who are forbidden to save
    (Millions according to Richard Silverstein:
    our children from death, if they can get away with it.
    This is definitely putting the Non-Jew in danger. Not warning innocent people regarding other people who are bound to leaving you to die is also a criminal offense.
    They have also not informed us that the climax of Judaism -the arrival of the Moshiach, will result in us Christians and Polytheist being killed and other people who accept inferiority will be enslaved. They didn’t tell us that and also why this is this the climax of Judaism.

    Hence you have now proved that Organized Jewry is criminal.
    Every Jew who has not whistle blown Judaism, is a criminal, because he/she has not done their share in informing the Non-Jews about the threat Judaism consist onto them, because most of the Non-Jews of this planet are unaware of the fact that Judaism is conspiring against him.
    But on the other hand if they all would whistle blow Judaism now,then nobody would believe their holocaust, so they wouldn’t be able to steal Palestine and especially Jerusalem for the fulfillment of their prophecies, this is why they don’t tell.
    You go further, and discuss how they have treated their whistle blowers, not by admitting the criminality of Judaism, but very aggressively persecuting them. See for instance Professor Shahak.

    How long time should step 1 be? It should be 95% of the time used totally.

    2. After having completely destroyed the credibility of Organized Jewry, after also having put the Goyim in shock after they finding out that the Jews succeeded to keep this secret from so many people for such a long time, then they are ready to believe anything you tell them, if you only did a thorough work on 1.
    This is really the essence of the “chock therapy” the Jewish elite did to us when they pulled off the Holohoax and 911- first a chock and then their story.
    The only difference is that you use chock therapy for negating their lies, waking people up.

    If your message is not received, go back to 1.
    You continue to add “divide an conquer”-elements by referring to “Jewish humanists survivors”, “Israeli humanists” etc. it is very very important.
    Here you have “Jewish humanists survivors” who are debunking the Holocaust.

    You can even say. “These Jewish humanists was the reason that I looked into the Holocaust again”, but then again who would blame you for not believing people who kept the the secret about not saving Non-Jews from death?
    If your talk is about the suffering of the Palestinian Non-Jews, you mention B’tselem the Israeli human rights org.

    If you planned to talk 1 hour in court about the Holocaust, you would then need 20 hours about the criminality of Judaism, interviewing Jewish whistle blowers, let a Gentile expert crossexamine several rabbis to fill the required time.

    Comment by Lasse Karagiannis (@Amalek_) — August 7, 2017 @ 4:12 pm

    • Lasse Karagiannis wrote: “The Jews have trained Non-Jews (Konrad Lorentz style)to automatically think racism when they here accusations against the Jews. […] You also constantly have to remind them (to preempt their Lorentz-training) that this and only this, is from “the Jewish humanist x y z””

      “Ivan Pavlov style” or “B.F. Skinner style” would be a more appropriate term than “Konrad Lorenz style.” Lorenz examined and studied responses to stimuli. Pavlov and Skinner shaped and induced responses to stimuli. The mechanism you describe is that of conditioning. Classical conditioning and operant conditioning were the specialty of Pavlov and Skinner.

      Comment by hermie — August 8, 2017 @ 8:10 am

  2. The only time you ban books is when you have something to hide.
    I’m talking hiding the truth….As we all know the HoloHoax topic is the ONLY topic that is banned in over 20 countries.
    If the HoloHuxsters were so sure of their HolyHoax why ban books that show another side of the issue. You will notice that they don’t go to bat to an open and fair discussion of the topic. That to me is the real reason why revisionist are on the right track. The efforts to stop us is incredible, and there seems to be no let up to it.


    Comment by Jim Rizoli — August 7, 2017 @ 8:13 am

    • The only time you ban books is when you have something to hide.

      But there’s nothing to hide because Irving did not write about the ‘Holocaust’ in his books — here it’s more about Jews continuing their vendetta against Irving for his activities in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when he eg testified as a friendly witness at the Zündel trial, and made speeches that could be interpreted as ‘Holocaust denial’ — you can find these speeches on youtube — but today Irving is hardly a ‘denier’ — in the recent past he conducted tours every year to the ‘Aktion Reinhardt’ camps — so even though he lost the libel case against Lipstadt, that’s not enough for the Jews — it’s still all about Jews hating Irving and seeking to harm him professionally and financially — they really are scum.

      Comment by eah — August 7, 2017 @ 9:19 am

      • You wrote: “it’s still all about Jews hating Irving and seeking to harm him professionally and financially — they really are scum.”

        The Jews are helping David Irving because they are keeping him in the news. The Jews are introducing David Irving to a new generation of readers.

        Comment by furtherglory — August 7, 2017 @ 12:12 pm

      • The Jews basically ruined Irving’s career — before their vendetta, his books were published by the biggest publishing houses on both sides of the Atlantic; they competed with each other to get his next book — he was highly regarded as one of the few English-speaking Third Reich historians who also spoke German and did original research in the various archives of WWII documents/records — now he’s banned some of these archives (eg Auschwitz), as well as banned from entering several countries; was imprisoned in Austria; is reviled around the world as a discredited historian and ‘Holocaust denier’; and is forced to self-publish his books — so I think the harm done to him is far greater than any benefit.

        Comment by eah — August 7, 2017 @ 1:20 pm

        • You wrote: “The Jews basically ruined Irving’s career”

          I have met Irving twice, and heard him speak. I admire him greatly. He has recovered from some of his bad treatment and is still active, so he is doing O.K.

          Comment by furtherglory — August 7, 2017 @ 3:37 pm

        • doing O.K.

          He’d be doing a lot more than OK without the Jewish vendetta, right? — do a search on his name and look at the results.

          Comment by eah — August 7, 2017 @ 6:49 pm

      • Irving naively believed that Leuchter had vanquished the Holocult. He probably believed that the guardians of the Holocult would respond to Leuchter’s findings in the field of science and that they would fail in proving him wrong. He didn’t know that they wouldn’t do that. He hadn’t anticipated that they would just shoot the messenger and stay in their dear field of testimonial mythology.

        Comment by hermie — August 8, 2017 @ 8:25 am

        • The Jews will not debate Revisionists because of what happened in the 1985 Zundel trial…..When put on the stand under oath they had to tell the truth….of course the truth didn’t line up with the garbage they were spreading.

          Here is what happened and now you will see why even the best of the HoloHuxsters are stupid as sticks, yet they write all these books and tell their Horror Disneyland Stories for all the stupid listeners who don’t particularly care about learning the truth.


          R is Germar
          L-is us listeners….

          To date, the only trial in which any such (revealing) cross-examination ever took place was the so-called “Zündel trial” in 1985, at which two Jewish witnesses, Arnold Friedman and Rudolf Vrba, were cross-examined by defense attorney Douglas Christie, advised by Prof. Dr. Robert Faurisson.

          L: Who were these two witnesses? R: Arnold Friedman was arrested during a raid in Slovakia and deported to Auschwitz in the spring of 1944. To my knowledge, he testified to his experiences at Auschwitz at great length for the first time during the first Zündel Trial. And here a few excerpts from what he had to say about the crematories at Auschwitz: “There was smoke belching from the crematoria, and it gave us a constant smell – the crematoria being close enough and low enough for the smoke to be dispersed through the camp rather than go straight up. […] Well, there was – the building that I described as a crematorium is a cottage-type low building with a short chimney protruding from it. At nighttime you saw the flames shooting above the chimney about a meter or two meters, depending on the particular time. There was smoke coming out, […] Well, it was the odour of burning flesh, and the flames were changing colours from yellow to a deep red on various occasions. […] We were discussing various things and this was part of the discussion of the guesswork we kids had in guessing that these were Hungarian transports because they have these type of flames, and these are Polish transports, they’re very skinny, […]” L: Sounds like a fireworks display. R: Yes, and it is technically impossible nonsense, of course. During his cross- examination, Friedman finally admitted that he didn’t really know any of that from personal experience, but that he had simply repeated what others have told him – as if he wouldn’t have been able to see smoke and flames for him- self!

          Rudolf Vrba is considered one of the most important witnesses in support of the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Vrba was interned in Auschwitz, but succeeded in escaping – like hundreds of other inmates. What is so special about Vrba, though, is that he was the only Auschwitz escapee who ever wrote a report about the gas chambers. L: The only one, out of hundreds? R: That’s right. Vrba’s report on the alleged mass exterminations in Auschwitz was published in November 1944 by the War Refugee Board, a U.S. propaganda institution founded by the Jewish U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau. This was the first report on Auschwitz officially sanctioned by the U.S. government. Vrba’s testimony was therefore perhaps one of the most influential in this respect. 20 years later, Vrba published a book describing the same things, but he made the mistake of bragging about the exactitude and reliability of his recollections. In 1985, however, during his cross-examination, it turned out that his description of the alleged gas chambers had little to do with reality. Increasingly on the defensive, Vrba finally admitted that he had not seen them himself, but rather only described them on the basis of hearsay, using “poetic license” in writing his report. L: But there is nothing wrong with using poetic license. R: That is true only as along as one doesn’t claim to be telling the truth. A novel, after all, isn’t a tissue of lies. It only becomes one when the author claims to be telling the truth, and that is exactly what Vrba loudly proclaimed since 1944.

          The prosecutor responsible for calling Vrba to the stand to testify about the gas chambers was so disgusted at Vrba’s dishonesty that he interrupted Vrba’s examination personally on the grounds of Vrba’s obvious unreliability. L: Well, Vrba’s memory may not have been very reliable, but that doesn’t make his testimony a lie. R: The story isn’t over yet. In his book Pietà, Swedish Professor Georg Klein told of a conversation he had with Rudolf Vrba in 1987. Klein was a Hungarian Jew who had experienced the persecution of the Jews during the war, but he had no knowledge of mass extermination. In 1987, Klein talked to Vrba about the nine-hour film Shoa, produced by Claude Lanzmann a few years before. The topic of Vrba’s experiences at Auschwitz naturally came up, since Klein was a Holocaust survivor, too. Klein asked Vrba whether his colleagues knew about his experience during the war. At first, Vrba didn’t answer the question. But later, with a sarcastic smirk, he mentioned that one of his colleagues had gotten really excited upon unexpectedly seeing Vrba in Lanzmann’s film. The colleague, of course, wanted to know whether Vrba’s statements in the film were really true. Vrba’s answer was to the effect that: “I do not know. I was just an actor and I recited my text.” R: To which his colleague commented as follows: “Most extraordinary! I did not know that you were an actor. Seeing that, why was it said that the film was made without actors?”

          : At this revelation, Klein was speechless and refrained from asking any further questions. In his book, he says he will never forget Vrba’s mocking smirk. L: In other words, Vrba isn’t just a witness using “poetic license,” he’s just a bald-faced liar. L: Well, Georg Klein only repeats what Vrba told him. But if Vrba was a liar, how do we know whether what he told Klein was true or not? R: Once a liar, always a liar… L: So if Claude Lanzmann gave Vrba a “script” to repeat, what does this tell us about the credibility of the other witnesses in Lanzmann’s film? R: Alright, now therefore to our next example of deliberate lying which I would like to mention, and that is, in particular, the greatest liar of them all – Claude Lanzmann. Perhaps you recall his strange statement that he would destroy any material or documentary proof of the existence of the gas chambers, if any such proof were ever found (see p. 179). Let us have a look at this case of apparent irrationality. As already mentioned, Claude Lanzmann created a monumental work with his 9½ hour film Shoah, in which he attempted to refute the revisionists. The film consists exclusively of interviews with witnesses.

          Some of these witnesses were former SS men. According to Lanzmann, several of these SS men only agreed to be interviewed on the condition that the interview was not to be re- corded. He is then said to have recorded these interviews using a hidden cam- era. One of the SS men allegedly taken in by this trick was Franz Suchomel, said to have been active as an SS Unterscharführer in Treblinka. An analysis of Suchomel’s testimony shows that what he states cannot be true, but let’s leave that aside here. I would prefer to examine Lanzmann’s claim to have filmed this interview with a camera hidden in a bag. When you look at this interview, you note the following: – Suchomel often looks directly into the camera throughout long passages; – the camera is always correctly aimed and focused; – when both of them look at a diagram of the camp, the diagram is held up to the camera; the camera then enlarges the pointer and follows it exactly as it moves across the diagram. L: But that is impossible, if the camera was hidden in a bag! R: Well, not unless both people knew that the camera was there. L: So Lanzmann is just taking the movie-goer for a ride.

          R: Just so. But even worse: as early as 1985, in an interview, Lanzmann admitted to paying all his German witnesses the sum of 3,000 deutschmarks, after which the witnesses had to sign a pledge to keep quiet about the payments for 30 years. But money alone was not enough. To get witnesses to come forward at all, he invented a “Research Center for Contemporary History,” with fake letterheads from an “Académie de Paris” and fake identity documents in the name of “Claude-Marie Sorel,” “Doctor of Historical Scholarship.”932 In 2004, he even bragged about this before school children: “And then I paid them. No small sums, either. I paid them all, the Ger- mans.” R: Let’s sum up: the “novelist” Vrba, who must have “known what was expected of him,” was given a “script” by Lanzmann, telling what to say! Question: what did the other “witnesses” receive during the making of the film Shoah? And what did the former SS men receive (perhaps in addition to a “script”)? Answer: large bribes to make them testify the way Lanzmann wanted them to.

          And what was the alleged purpose of the “documentary film” Shoah? L: To tell the truth! R: Correct. But the “truth” doesn’t need a “script,” and you don’t buy the “truth” like a whore. L: Maybe not, but what they tell in that movie could still be true. R: Hypothetically yes, but what is the probability of it? The actors’ credibility is so profoundly destroyed that I wouldn’t take anything for granted what they want me to believe about the Holocaust without independent corroboration. And now to my last example of lies. Sometimes it is quite simple to expose a liar. The case of Rudolf Kauer proves this. A former inmate of Auschwitz, he admitted that he lied when he accused former Auschwitz personnel of beating a Polish girl on her breasts with a bullwhip, ripping one breast of. “I lied,” he said, “That was just a yarn going about the camp. I never saw it.” Which proves that not all of those who spread rumors and clichés as their own experience are unaware that they are untruthful.

          As the whole HoloHoax narrative is….just a bunch of lies!


          Comment by Jim Rizoli — August 8, 2017 @ 8:55 am

          • Jim Rizoli wrote: “The Jews will not debate Revisionists because of what happened in the 1985 Zundel trial…”

            That’s true. No way they could let their fiasco at the 1st Zündel trial happen again…

            The best way not to be at a loss a second time:

            In short, the ‘Holocaust’ is an undeniable fact only in its own echo chamber, where the light of debate never shines… 😉

            Comment by hermie — August 8, 2017 @ 4:59 pm

        • I think you are largely correct — if you listen to his speeches (available on youtube) around the time of the Zündel trials, he clearly says he was impressed by Leuchter’s results — he also says that he has advised his Jewish friends to ‘give up’ the ‘Holocaust’ fiction — saying the stories about soap and lampshades have already been disproven, and it’s only a matter of time before the same thing happens to the ‘Holocaust’ itself — listening to those remarks today is a bit eerie — because you know things did not exactly work out that way.

          Comment by eah — August 8, 2017 @ 1:01 pm

          • Eah wrote: “he also says that he has advised his Jewish friends to ‘give up’ the ‘Holocaust’ fiction — saying the stories about soap and lampshades have already been disproven, and it’s only a matter of time before the same thing happens to the ‘Holocaust’ itself — listening to those remarks today is a bit eerie — because you know things did not exactly work out that way.”

            Eerie? Why?

            The Yad Vashem finally conceded in 1990 that the Nazis never made human soap. And even the victors’ kangaroo courts conceded that they could not prove lampshades or any other items were actually made from human skin, and General Lucius D. Clay even added that Ilse Koch’s famous human-skin lampshades were in fact ordinary leather lampshades made out of goat skin.

            I fail to see how a negative could be better proved than in the way the Nazi human-fat soap and human-skin lampshades were disproved. Shows very well why the burden of proof absolutely needs to lie on the accusers. Also shows that testimonies alone – no matter how many – prove nothing.

            Ilse Koch (wikipedia):

            [begin quote] On 8 June 1948 after she had served two years of her sentence, Gen. Lucius D. Clay, the interim military governor of the American Zone in Germany, reduced the judgment to four years’ imprisonment on the grounds “there was no convincing evidence that she had selected inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins, or that she possessed any articles made of human skin”.

            News of the reduced sentence did not become public until 16 September 1948. Despite the ensuing uproar, Clay stood firm. Jean Edward Smith in his biography, Lucius D. Clay: An American Life, reported that the general maintained the leather lamp shades were really made out of goat skin. The book quotes a statement made by Clay years later:

            “There was absolutely no evidence in the trial transcript, other than she was a rather loathsome creature, that would support the death sentence. I suppose I received more abuse for that than for anything else I did in Germany. Some reporter had called her the “Bitch of Buchenwald”, had written that she had lamp shades made of human skin in her house. And that was introduced in court, where it was absolutely proven that the lampshades were made out of goatskin.”

            Second trial

            Under the pressure of public opinion Koch was re-arrested in 1949 and tried before a West German court. The hearing opened on 27 November 1950 before the District Court at Augsburg and lasted seven weeks, during which 250 witnesses were heard, including 50 for the defense. Koch collapsed and had to be carried from the court in late December 1950, and again on 11 January 1951. At least four separate witnesses for the prosecution testified that they had seen Koch choose tattooed prisoners, who were then killed, or had seen or been involved in the process of making human-skin lampshades from tattooed skin. However, this charge was dropped by the prosecution when they could not prove lampshades or any other items were actually made from human skin. [end quote]


            Comment by hermie — August 8, 2017 @ 5:57 pm

          • Eah wrote: “I think you are largely correct — if you listen to his speeches (available on youtube) around the time of the Zündel trials, he clearly says he was impressed by Leuchter’s results”

            Also what Justice Charles Gray said in the Judgement of the Irving-Lipstadt trial in 2000.

            “Irving testified that on arrival in Toronto he was presented with a copy of a report compiled by Mr. Fred Leuchter. It was what Irving read in Leuchter’s report which convinced him that there is no truth in the claim that Jews met their death in gas chambers at Auschwitz.” – Irving-Lipstadt trial, Judgement, p. 76

            Comment by hermie — August 21, 2017 @ 7:58 am

  3. works by David Irving … label them as “Holocaust denial” literature

    As Irving himself has said many times, he is not an expert on the ‘Holocaust’, and has never written about it — certainly not an entire book — his books are about history, which no educated person should call “literature” — in college you can take a class in history, or a class in literature — they are not seen as the same.

    These people are insane.

    Comment by eah — August 6, 2017 @ 9:52 pm

    • They’re not insane, eah. They add the word “literature” to the pejorative term “Holocaust denial” in order to emphasize the alleged fictional and counterfactual side of the Holocaust revisionist writings. Basic conditioning. The term “Holocaust denial literature” is supposed to impress a feeling of crazy delusional ramblings on the readers and the listeners who read or hear it. Certainly deceitful and dishonest. But not insane at all.

      Comment by hermie — August 8, 2017 @ 9:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: