David Irving, Nothing like receiving input from the man himself Options

[Eppur si muove]

The BLP of Britain's most notorious Holocaust denier attracts all sorts of crackpots, but one of them has been seeking input from the man himself. Tholzel (T-C-L-K-R-D) was so proud of a comment he made about the article being controlled by "a cabal of religious zealots" that he thought he would contact Irving who has duly put up a web page in which the snivelling little racist is commended by the smug big one.

This post has been edited by SelfHater:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I have not looked at that page for a long time but when I last did it had about 16 references for the word "discredited", each one becoming more and more insignificant and derivative. It was pathetic. A queue of nerdy anti-anti-semites coming along to kick the effigy of a 'bad man' on the Wikipedia, that they could not say boo to in real life, each having to throw their sandal at him. Did doing so work to make him EVEN MORE discredited? Only in the eyes of the Wikipuddlians ...

Unfortunately, whether one likes or dislikes, knows or does not know (and I have not read one paragraph of his of his books) articles such as these are utterly incapable of being dealt with by the Piss-pedia community. Articles such as these prove the Wikipedia's failures. And, frankly, court judgments - whilst being "reliable sources" - are certainly not the final arbiters in history (or science, or half another other disciplines).

Of what I heard of Irving, he was a good WWII historian and popular writer before he over-cooked, who did the hard work where others just recycled tosh and lived an interesting life. In truth, I don't think his opinions are much different to the rest of his age, class and background. So, what is one meant to do? Throw out Wagner's back catalogue too?

Interestingly, after seeing a topic on this website and realising I knew nothing about Wagner, I read a paper talking about how Wagner's position actually strengthen the Jewish music tradition. Apparently Lazare Saminsky and Abraham Tzvi Idelsohn embraced aspects of Wagner's ire and used it to call for a Jewishness empowered by the arts, essentially underlining the role of so-called anti-semitism in the formation of modern Jewish cultural nationalism. I did so because I want to make up my own mind not go along with a load of name callers.

So life, in its great out of control Hegelian steps forward, is far more complex or extensive than Jimbo's binary thinkers and POV axe wielders would have us believe. If it is true we get the rulers we deserve, perhaps it is true that we get the enemies we deserve too? And the tabloid encyclopedias too.

Max Blumenthal in a recent interview-cum-attempted stitch up of David Irving. It is a shame Max did not show more of the actual interview and less of himself but that's the holocaust for you ... a great place to build a career upon. Both of them ... all of them ... but not me.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

He seems to have inspired some tasty punch ups ... here's Christopher Hitchins versus ex-junkie and neo-con extraordinaire Eric Breindel. Colorful company indeed ...

[Somey]

Of what I heard of Irving, he was a good WWII historian and popular writer before he over-cooked, who did the hard work where others just recycled tosh and lived an interesting life. In truth, I don't think his opinions are much different to the rest of his age, class and background. So, what is one meant to do? Throw out Wagner's back catalogue too?

His opinions are quite different to "the rest of his age, class and background." One is meant to disagree with him, at least about the Holocaust, and especially Hitler's personal role in making it happen (this is the part he generally denies, or says there's no "proof" of, which is false).

For whatever reason, Irving has chosen to publish a lot of speculative pseudo-scientific hoo-hah about how certain aspects of the Holocaust are "unlikely" or "impossible" or "couldn't have happened," when in fact his conclusions are faulty to the point of being stupid, and indeed those things did happen. A good example was his assertion that there "wasn't enough coke" to fire the gas ovens that killed about a million of the six million who were murdered, because someone told him it takes about 80 pounds of coke to cremate someone - so he simply multiplied this by one million and declared that since they couldn't have assembled 80 million pounds of coke, the incinerations must not have happened - as if they weren't putting dozens or even hundreds of people in the same ovens at once, as if the ovens were allowed to cool off to room temperature between each individual "cremation," as if the bodies themselves didn't act as additional fuel... anyway, the guy is a fascist nutcase. He's worse than Fred Leuchter (T-H-L-K-D) - Leuchter was probably just ignorant; Irving actually believes (believed?) that Hitler was a fairly decent guy.

Nevertheless, some of the quote from this "Justice Gray" character probably could have been left in without it causing the world to end. It does seem as though the WP folks are quite keen on ensuring the Irving article has practically nothing positive in it at all, and while there may be very little positive info about him out there (none?), it's a pretty lengthy article - if they put it far enough down, it's likely that only one or two people would ever see it.

[CharlotteWebb]

For whatever reason, Irving has chosen to publish a lot of speculative pseudo-scientific hoo-hah about how certain aspects of the Holocaust are "unlikely" or "impossible" or "couldn't have happened," when in fact his conclusions are faulty to the point of being stupid, and indeed those things did happen. A good example was his assertion that there "wasn't enough coke" to fire the gas ovens that killed about a million of the six million who were murdered, because someone told him it takes about 80 pounds of coke to cremate someone - so he simply multiplied this by one million and declared that since they couldn't have assembled 80 million pounds of coke…

Judging by his conclusions, he probably snorted half of it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

That said I agree with Hitchens about affording him the opportunity to publish and ensure that his douchebaggery is plainly evident (and not the mere subject of rumor). I dislike the notion that certain viewpoints are illegal in certain countries because it sets a poor precedent and because governments in the general case do not truth in high regard when something, anything is at stake.

[pietkuip]

Of what I heard of Irving, he was a good WWII historian and popular writer before he over-cooked, who did the hard work where others just recycled tosh and lived an interesting life. In truth, I don't think his opinions are much different to the rest of his age, class and background.

He sold many books of popular WWII military history. He was rather anti-Churchill, he exaggerated the number of casualties in the bombing of Dresden, etcetera. He has never been a good historian.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Like I say, I think there are a lot of people with his background in England who share his general world view. That is to say, they don't particularly like Jews, would not want their daughters to date or marry Rastafarian, and they have a school boy grown fascination with WWII history. I'd even go as far as to say they have a sneaking admiration for Hitler. For that matter, they probably don't particularly like the French, Scotch or Irish.

Some kind of 'pile on' dynamic seems to happen when "the other side" finds a visual one and it all goes entirely out of proportion, even sucking in "$500,000 expert witnesses", $3,000,000 lawyers and High Court judges. It becomes a very bad Vaudeville act with an Irving playing the evil baddie.

I wonder how much of that $500,000 or $3m went to Auschwitz survivors ... so who is really the most obscene?

What Hitchens said was that Irving was a "necessary" historian not good or bad nor right or wrong. I think historians, like scientists, have a right to and need to push things far enough to get it wrong and then back off. They need to be able to and allowed to think the unthinkable. A point the pea brains will never understand. From the videos, it seems Irving has backed off and so someone, anyone, should not be defined by one point in their career.

A lot of academia (and even moreso politics), at the lower levels, is based on ability to conform, which is not the greatest of virtues. At the end of the day, it takes an outsider to stir the pot up. How much of that "pile on dynamic" is about a feudal village mentality and outcasting? Again, not the greatest of states of mind.

Debacles tend to benefit their intended targets and their views not diminish them and so therefore are actually counter productive.

That said I agree with Hitchens about affording him the opportunity to publish ... I dislike the notion that certain viewpoints are illegal in certain countries because ...

anyway, the guy is a fascist nutcase ...

The point being one does not know until one knows and part of that requires allowing an individual to say or write what they thinks and work it through to a conclusion.

What I found fascinating in the videos was the body language of the various proponents. Watching the above, who would you rather have make up your opinions ... or even have to dinner?

A twitchy rabid Eric Breindel, a pained looking David Irving, student media Max Blumenthal or the wiki-warriors horde on the talk pages? From the above, the correct answer is probably Christopher Hitchins, see also: Mick Jagger, Squids and Anti-Semitism. Forget the WP, who here has genuinely read enough of what to make an opinion of their own? How many people who have an opinion about WWII actually read German?


Personally, I will be a lot happier when all of his generation on all sides die off and WWII becomes insignificant to everyday life as, say, Ghengis Khan or the Roman Conquest. I'd just wish they'd stop replaying parts of it all over the world today.

Sadly, I think the internet, and God forbid the Wikipedia continues to exist, will end up keeping alive such disputes which in other ages would have died down sooner. As a spin off this topic, Kevin B. MacDonald seems to have got himself caught in the radar.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Brutus]

Poor David, in the early 1970's he was highly regarded as a researcher by respected historians such as A. J. P. Taylor. Unfortunately he has allowed himself to be manipulated by elements of the extreme right (something I think he regrets) and got the certain groups offside by his comments regarding Hitler and the Holocaust.

I remember seeing him on a TV debate with a Holocaust survivor about 25 years ago and while he agreed that what the Nazis did to the Jews was outrageous he argued that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust. On that point he's thinking like a true (pure) historian and is right saying there is no primary documentary evidence (the "smoking gun" - signed orders or verifiable 1st hand sources) that Hitler ordered it.

That sort of dangerous talk will earn you prison time in some countries.

There is however, overwhelming anecdotal evidence from 2nd hand sources and as being in command Hitler bears ultimate responsibility.

[pietkuip]

he argued that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust. On that point he's thinking like a true (pure) historian and is right saying there is no primary documentary evidence (the "smoking gun" - signed orders or verifiable 1st hand sources) that Hitler ordered it.

That is such rubbish. There are Hitler's own words that the Jews would be exterminated. See for example Hitler's January 30 1939 Reichstag speech. After he had gassed the handicapped.

[taiwopanfob]

There are Hitler's own words that the Jews would be exterminated. See for example Hitler's January 30 1939 Reichstag speech. After he had gassed the handicapped.

If only reality were so simple and clear-cut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism..._intentionalism

Moderate intentionalists such as Richard Breitman believe that Hitler had decided upon the Holocaust sometime in the late 1930s and certainly no later than 1939 or 1941. This school makes much of Hitler's "Prophecy Speech" of January 30, 1939 before the Reichstag where Hitler stated if "Jewish financiers" started another world war, then "…the result would be the annihilation of the entire Jewish race in Europe." The major problem with this thesis, as Yehuda Bauer points out, is that though this statement clearly commits Hitler to genocide, he made no effort after delivering this speech to have it carried out. Furthermore, Ian Kershaw has pointed out that there are several diary entries by Joseph Goebbels in late 1941, in which Goebbels writes that "the Führer's prophecy is coming true in a most terrible way." The general impression one gets is that Goebbels is quite surprised that Hitler was serious about carrying out the threat in the "Prophecy Speech."

I have seen enough in the "business world" to understand that the truth is probably far more towards the functionalist position than the intentionalist. Of course, business people aren't throwing Jews into furnaces, but the baroque, twisted, Rube Goldberg-esque bureaucratic structures that large companies create do not arise from some Sinister Plan that dribbles down from the top. Instead, these things do in fact percolate up from below -- they appear to be a natural response to the environment in which these organizations operate.

It's like evolution. DNA just wants -- "intends", if you will -- to reproduce. Yet why does it go through all the trouble and bother of creating a giraffe to get the job done?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I dislike the notion that certain viewpoints are illegal in certain countries because it sets a poor precedent and because governments in the general case do not truth in high regard when something, anything is at stake.

Life imitates Wikipedia.

[Somey]

I have seen enough in the "business world" to understand that the truth is probably far more towards the functionalist position than the intentionalist. Of course, business people aren't throwing Jews into furnaces, but the baroque, twisted, Rube Goldberg-esque bureaucratic structures that large companies create do not arise from some Sinister Plan that dribbles down from the top. Instead, these things do in fact percolate up from below -- they appear to be a natural response to the environment in which these organizations operate.

That may be so, if you see the Holocaust as essentially a bureaucratic operation as opposed to an actual policy of the Nazi State. Obviously it's both, but if we're going to be in a chicken-vs.-egg argument, I suspect the result will always be that the "environment" was created by the Nazis to force the bureaucracy to follow its lead, and that genocide was the inevitable (if not intended) result all along.

Btw, you should all read IBM and the Holocaust by Robert Black. It makes a compelling argument that the Holocaust couldn't have happened, at least not to anywhere near the extent that it did, had it not been for the sudden (by bureaucratic standards) introduction of extraordinary new technology-based efficiencies into the existing German governmental structures. Once it was clear what was possible with punch-card machines, there was almost a competition among German governmental offices to see how far they could go with the technology, and in every case it was towards more control and less freedom. Perhaps more importantly, most of the victims had no idea of those possibilities, and might have thought they would ultimately be safe because it didn't occur to them that such a level of control was even possible.

Hitler definitely liked punch cards. There seems to be no question of that.

[Eppur si muove]

Poor David, in the early 1970's he was highly regarded as a researcher by respected historians such as A. J. P. Taylor. Unfortunately he has allowed himself to be manipulated by elements of the extreme right (something I think he regrets) and got the certain groups offside by his comments regarding Hitler and the Holocaust.

Allowed himself to be manipulated? You don't turn up to speak at meetings of neo-Nazi groups by accident. What he might regret is his loss of income and respectability but he brought that on himself. In any case he was always on the right as demonstrated by his student activities.

[Eppur si muove]

Of what I heard of Irving, he was a good WWII historian and popular writer before he over-cooked, who did the hard work where others just recycled tosh and lived an interesting life. In truth, I don't think his opinions are much different to the rest of his age, class and background. So, what is one meant to do? Throw out Wagner's back catalogue too?

His opinions are quite different to "the rest of his age, class and background." One is meant to disagree with him, at least about the Holocaust, and especially Hitler's personal role in making it happen (this is the part he generally denies, or says there's no "proof" of, which is false).

I'm not quite sure what is being referred to as Irving's class and background. I don't think he is as posh as is sometimes thought. In any case anti-Semitism was pervasive in England encompassing the comment of Alan Clarke - a real posh boy - that there were too many old Estonians and not enough old Etonians in the Thatcher government with him, the middle class golf club committees which used to have a quota on the number of Jews they would admit, the nurses who when my mother was a house officer would refer to awkward gentile patients as Jews, and the grunts who marched with Mosley until the 43 Group helped calrify that they were not specimens of a superior physical master race after all. The aftermath of the Holocaust did mean that anti-Semitism in the UK declined and became less pervasive in the half-century following the end of WW2. However, it has had a more recent upturn due to misguided reactions to the antics of a certain Middle Eastern state and to the Jewish community's attempts to silence the supposed self-haters who speak up about it.

[ulsterman]

the comment of Alan Clarke - a real posh boy - that there were too many old Estonians and not enough old Etonians in the Thatcher government with him

In fact, it was Harold Macmillan who said that, according to Dominic Lawson (himself a Jewish Old Etonian).

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...-it-481212.html

Macmillan was himself an Old Etonian and went to Balliol, so was also "a real posh boy" despite being a book publisher. He even married the daughter of a duke.

[Eppur si muove]

the comment of Alan Clarke - a real posh boy - that there were too many old Estonians and not enough old Etonians in the Thatcher government with him

In fact, it was Harold Macmillan who said that, according to Dominic Lawson (himself a Jewish Old Etonian).

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...-it-481212.html

Macmillan was himself an Old Etonian and went to Balliol, so was also "a real posh boy" despite being a book publisher. He even married the daughter of a duke.

Ah my mistake. Thing is, not being a true Englishman, I find that all these chinless wonders look the same to me.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I'm not quite sure what is being referred to as Irving's class and background. I don't think he is as posh as is sometimes thought

Thank you. Yes, that is basically what I meant. No, Irving is not upper class.

If there are anythings from this story that I can take out of it from a brief overview, it is "almighty pride comes before an almighty fall" and "the company we keep colours us". It seems Irving had the external trappings of class and power, the flat in Mayfair, the Rolls Royce, and all the pretensions, but none of the backup that would have helped him avoided his final downfall.

Like I say, I do not think his views are that unique amongst the English, working through middle to upper class. In fact, I would suggest they are part of his image of the "English Gentleman" (never mind the Old German persona) he was buying into.

He seems to be often misquoted, e.g. “more people died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz” rather than the “more people died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in that gas chamber at Auschwitz” ... meaning the one that was faked up after the war.

Make take on life is not that the binary 'left' versus 'right', semite versus anti-semite etc ... it is more along the lines of 'more' versus 'less' (bigger characters and little characters). Can a little character really understand the bigger characters in life, the complexity of their lives and the bigger picture?

Little characters will try and impress upon the world their binary points of view because it is about as many as they can understand ... and then start name calling of another side.

[Eppur si muove]

I'm not quite sure what is being referred to as Irving's class and background. I don't think he is as posh as is sometimes thought

Thank you. Yes, that is basically what I meant. No, Irving is not upper class.

If there are anythings from this story that I can take out of it from a brief overview, it is "almighty pride comes before an almighty fall" and "the company we keep colours us". It seems Irving had the external trappings of class and power, the flat in Mayfair, the Rolls Royce, and all the pretensions, but none of the backup that would have helped him avoided his final downfall.

Like I say, I do not think his views are that unique amongst the English, working through middle to upper class. In fact, I would suggest they are part of his image of the "English Gentleman" (never mind the Old German persona) he was buying into.

I suspect that upper class hostility to Jews is because of the association with new money and, even in the older cases, finance. If landowners have to go to the Rothschilds for loans, then they will look for reasons to feel superior.

He seems to be often misquoted, e.g. “more people died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz” rather than the “more people died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in that gas chamber at Auschwitz” ... meaning the one that was faked up after the war.

Make take on life is not that the binary 'left' versus 'right', semite versus anti-semite etc ... it is more along the lines of 'more' versus 'less' (bigger characters and little characters). Can a little character really understand the bigger characters in life, the complexity of their lives and the bigger picture?

Little characters will try and impress upon the world their binary points of view because it is about as many as they can understand ... and then start name calling of another side.

What made Irving particularly dangerous is that he's a lot more intelligent than your typical bonehead.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Your first comment is very fair and intelligent. Often the "apparent" or "presenting" symptom, e.g. so-called "anti-semitism", is from an entirely different disease.

The second comment is more interesting ... "dangerous" to whom and what.

Let's keep it simple and say, "the status quo".

Then again what you write is also true ... dangerous to both sides to have someone intelligent, persistent, commit and skilled (at least linguistically) meddling around in an established order ... whether or not that established order, and its history, is true or not ... unearthing issues they would far rather ordinary Joes and Joe-ess did not think about or question.

I will never ceased to be amazed at how many resources, time and money, various sides are willing to throw at this particular debacle, even though it finished 65 years ago. Of course, the Wikipedia version is just child's play in comparison to the real world.

It is interesting. You take a look at one of the copied articles on his website dated 1992 teaching people how to think about him and what words to use (The Daily Mail is a right wing tabloid and, fascinatingly, the guy seems to like his own bad press) and it specifically picks up on the taboo about the Auschwitz reconstructed gas chamber business ... and, yet, today even the Wikipedia states that as a fact.

I wonder if I really know what the WWII was about ... but I do agree that bombing civilians - in any war - is a war crime and that Churchill comes out of it all far less clean than we were taught at school.

All in all, a far more complex situation that a binary thinker's kneejerk.

Had he been married to one of the British Royal family, where his view would have gone down as par for the course, he probably would have avoided all that later befell him.

[Eppur si muove]

Your first comment is very fair and intelligent. Often the "apparent" or "presenting" symptom, e.g. so-called "anti-semitism", is from an entirely different disease.

The second comment is more interesting ... "dangerous" to whom and what.

To me as a Jew wanting to live peacefully in Britain for a few more years yet. It's the intelligent, articulate, perceptive anti-Semites who are more likely to convince people. Nick Griffin's appearance on BBC's Question Time demonstrated him to be none of those three and so he lost support.

Let's keep it simple and say, "the status quo".

Then again what you write is also true ... dangerous to both sides to have someone intelligent, persistent, commit and skilled (at least linguistically) meddling around in an established order ... whether or not that established order, and its history, is true or not ... unearthing issues they would far rather ordinary Joes and Joe-ess did not think about or question.

I will never ceased to be amazed at how many resources, time and money, various sides are willing to throw at this particular debacle, even though it finished 65 years ago. Of course, the Wikipedia version is just child's play in comparison to the real world.

It is interesting. You take a look at one of the copied articles on his website dated 1992 teaching people how to think about him and what words to use (The Daily Mail is a right wing tabloid and, fascinatingly, the guy seems to like his own bad press) and it specifically picks up on the taboo about the Auschwitz reconstructed gas chamber business ... and, yet, today even the Wikipedia states that as a fact.

I wonder if I really know what the WWII was about ... but I do agree that bombing civilians - in any war - is a war crime and that Churchill comes out of it all far less clean than we were taught at school.

All in all, a far more complex situation that a binary thinker's kneejerk.

Had he been married to one of the British Royal family, where his view would have gone down as par for the course, he probably would have avoided all that later befell him.

It's curious that the Daily Mail is such a big enemy of Irving. Ken Livingstone lost my second preference vote in the London Mayorial election because he started calling a Jewish reporter from the Evening Standard a kapo for working for what was then part of the Mail group. (The Mail had admired Hitler and Mosley pre-war.) There are plenty of ways to insult shit-stirring jounalists without referencing their ethnicity.

I believe much of what Irving says. For example I take what he says about his meeting with Winifred Wagner entirely on face value. However, the motivations for why Irving picks out certain facts rather than others are highly suspect. (And yes this suspicion is motivated by my being from his most hated ethnic background.)

As for Churchill, his activities concerning the General Strike, the sending of many men to their deaths in Galipoli etc. all show that he was never the nicest of people.

[Gruntled]

What made Irving particularly dangerous is that he's a lot more intelligent than your typical bonehead.

Irving is certainly very intelligent and has done some excellent historical research. Probably his conclusions about Hitler are wrong, but then nobody's perfect. I believe that they are genuine mistakes and not motivated by antisemitism. The problem arises because others, Nazi sympathisers, have exploited his mistakes for their own ends. Where he is at fault is in not repudiating these others. Thats my view anyway.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It's curious that the Daily Mail is such a big enemy of Irving. Ken Livingstone lost my second preference vote in the London Mayorial election because he started calling a Jewish reporter from the Evening Standard a kapo for working for what was then part of the Mail group. (The Mail had admired Hitler and Mosley pre-war.)

... why Irving picks out certain facts rather than others are highly suspect. (And yes this suspicion is motivated by my being from his most hated ethnic background.)

I am sure I am only scraping the surface here, but I think he is a bit of a wind up merchant. It is all far more complex than the simplistic thinking of the level of the Wikipedia to which we seemingly have to add the whole thing about ... David Irving happily confirming that his mum was Jewish ... which explains all his immediate social connections, publishers, friends etc.

It would also paint the David Irving v Deborah Lipstadt debacle in the light of extreme secular Judaism versus establishmentary Judaism (it would be wrong to lay it at the feet of Orthodox Judaism ... 'Holocaust Industry' of which academia is a bit part might be a better answer).

Needless to say, this is all new to me. I am not sure of all the facts nor the most recent developments but, as in the case of the endlessly war apologetic Japan, opinions seem to come pre-set in concrete and not everyone seems to hear the latest news.


BTW, how would one measure "most hated" ... hated by numbers or hate by intensity? What is the unit of measurement for hate?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Livingstone's comments were not addressed at the reporter's allegedly religion/ethnicity ... they were aimed at his "doing for the money".

On being harassed by a right wing tabloid journalist on leaving a party, he said.

What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?

Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?

Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?

Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?

Livingstone: It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.

Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.

Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism.

Come on ... you have got to laugh at that. Again, complex world we live in.

[Eppur si muove]

Livingstone's comments were not addressed at the reporter's allegedly religion/ethnicity ... they were aimed at his "doing for the money".

On being harassed by a right wing tabloid journalist on leaving a party, he said.

What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?

Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?

Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be [Jewish], but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?

Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?

Livingstone: It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.

Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.

Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism.

Come on ... you have got to laugh at that. Again, complex world we live in.

It doesn't require much to work out that someone called Finegold is likely to be Jewish. Livingstone knew what he was doing and wouldn't have chosen that insult with a black reporter. (Note I am not defending Finegold or the Mail group for their behaviour.)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Do we know if they were properly introduced? The transcript obviously came afterwards.

If you don't want to be called a kapo, don't act like one. Say he had used the c-word or told him to f-off, would he have come off better or worse?

For non-British readers, "Red" Ken Livingstone was the left wing mayor of London and the London Evening Standard a right wing tabloid newspapers which had been out to get him for years. In this case, door stepping him as he left a party late at night.

In a way, there is a correlation between Jews and Kapos and Black people and their social problem cases. All groups want privileges, benefits and make a claim to rights; most or all groups seek to dismiss their own specific pathologies, recidivists and responsibilities ... owning their shadow in other words. Is it really that bad or even wrong to shine a light at the shadow?

In anger or self defense it all comes out ... black bastard, Jewish bastard, fat bastard, rich bastard, you-red-haired-bastard-Moulton ... in such a case, it really anti-semitism or racism or just some hook to hang a general insult or emotion on?

People are too superficial these days and too skilled in "being offended" to their benefit.

[Peter Damian]

I'm not quite sure what is being referred to as Irving's class and background. I don't think he is as posh as is sometimes thought

Well his father was a commander in the RN, his grandfather a headmaster, his mother an illustrator and maternal grandfather a Captain in the Indian Army. This places him so firmly in the middle of the English middle classes of Middle England that there is practically no escape. Not the mandarin classes of Eton and Harrow. Just the very middle of the very middle. He also looks like Jack Hawkins.

My late father in law was a bit like this, as were most of the people in his village in the Home Counties (the natural habitat of this species). A very decent person, and always generous with the whiskies, but with some rather eccentric views on eugenics, especially after the third whisky. Had a minor role in the Italian campaign at the end of WWII, and was one of that English generation whose very existence was defined by the war effort. Very nice people, but with completely outmoded views.

Virginia and Leonard Woolf made a silly effort to politicise the British troops at the beginning of WWII, but found their views indistinguishable from those of the Fascists that they were going to fight.

In truth, I don't think his opinions are much different to the rest of his age, class and background.

Probably not.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[HotDog2020]

It's ironic you'd bring David Irving up, considering some of your recent activities seem to indicate that you are interested in helping David Irving accomplish one of his goals:

David Irving Asks His Readers for Help, Encourages Violence Against a Jew
(see bottom of the article...)

[Somey]

(see bottom of the article...)

It doesn't look like he's encouraging violence against Appletree in that particular instance...? Not that he wouldn't necessarily do that in a private conversation, but on that page he appears to be accusing Appletree's "ilk" of being the ones who would do that.

[HotDog2020]

(see bottom of the article...)

It doesn't look like he's encouraging violence against Appletree in that particular instance...? Not that he wouldn't necessarily do that in a private conversation, but on that page he appears to be accusing Appletree's "ilk" of being the ones who would do that.

Good point. Perhaps Appletree and his ilk are the violent one's. Not David Irving's readers and fans. Was Irving not suggesting to his readers that they emulate Appletree's ilk?

[Somey]

Good point. Perhaps Appletree and his ilk are the violent one's. Not David Irving's readers and fans. Was Irving not suggesting to his readers that they emulate Appletree's ilk?

Well, I think the point here (whether or not you agree with it) is that both sides are probably capable of "violence" in some form or other, though it may not be physical violence, and it may not even be violence against people (IOW, it may be violence against the historical record, or an organization's reputation, or the rules governing use of the apostrophe, or a cheese sandwich). Whether the violence is justified is largely a matter of opinion, based on which side you happen to be on in the ongoing dispute.

I might also note here that the dispute isn't between "Holocaust deniers" and "militant Zionists," obviously. There are two disputes, one between Holocaust deniers and legitimate historians, and another between militant Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians. When a militant Zionist claims that the opposition are Holocaust deniers, that's a self-serving and distractionary claim, just as it is when a Holocaust denier claims that his opponents are militant Zionists. We, as thinking people, should never buy into this. I shouldn't even have to explain it (and hopefully I don't have to, and this whole paragraph is completely unnecessary).

Anyhoo... Basically, as I see it, the problem is that people look at the tactics people use and infer an ideology from them, because the tactics are the only thing that actually concern them. As a result, ideologies that are completely different and opposed to each other are perceived as essentially the same, merely because both sides advocate some form of violence, or as in this case, use the internet as a propaganda tool. I suppose this is just another way of saying "people are stupid and just don't care," but if prominent people on both sides of a dispute are stupid and don't care either, the results are fairly predictable I'd have to say.

Finally, there are those who think violence is a "necessary evil," but I'm just going to try and ignore them for the time being.

[HotDog2020]

Good point. Perhaps Appletree and his ilk are the violent one's. Not David Irving's readers and fans. Was Irving not suggesting to his readers that they emulate Appletree's ilk?

Well, I think the point here (whether or not you agree with it) is that both sides are probably capable of "violence" in some form or other, though it may not be physical violence, and it may not even be violence against people (IOW, it may be violence against the historical record, or an organization's reputation, or the rules governing use of the apostrophe, or a cheese sandwich). Whether the violence is justified is largely a matter of opinion, based on which side you happen to be on in the ongoing dispute.

I might also note here that the dispute isn't between "Holocaust deniers" and "militant Zionists," obviously. There are two disputes, one between Holocaust deniers and legitimate historians, and another between militant Zionists and supporters of the Palestinians. When a militant Zionist claims that the opposition are Holocaust deniers, that's a self-serving and distractionary claim, just as it is when a Holocaust denier claims that his opponents are militant Zionists. We, as thinking people, should never buy into this. I shouldn't even have to explain it (and hopefully I don't have to, and this whole paragraph is completely unnecessary).

Anyhoo... Basically, as I see it, the problem is that people look at the tactics people use and infer an ideology from them, because the tactics are the only thing that actually concern them. As a result, ideologies that are completely different and opposed to each other are perceived as essentially the same, merely because both sides advocate some form of violence, or as in this case, use the internet as a propaganda tool. I suppose this is just another way of saying "people are stupid and just don't care," but if prominent people on both sides of a dispute are stupid and don't care either, the results are fairly predictable I'd have to say.

Finally, there are those who think violence is a "necessary evil," but I'm just going to try and ignore them for the time being.

Interesting that you put the word "militant" before Zionists, and "supporters of Palestinians" are just "supporters of Palestinians." I didn't know that the general idea that Jews should have a home in Israel was a "militant" one.

I do, however, know that the Palestinians elected a government that brainwashes children to blow themselves up, and both Hamas and Fatah officially call for the complete destruction of Israel. Meanwhile, those "militant Zionists" still treat Palestinians (and even hostile enemies to the Jewish State) in those "militant Zionist" hospitals. And the "militant Zionists" give free dentistry and college education to its prisoners. I wonder if Gilad Shalit gets to even brush his teeth.

But I digress.

[Somey]

Interesting that you put the word "militant" before Zionists, and "supporters of Palestinians" are just "supporters of Palestinians." I didn't know that the general idea that Jews should have a home in Israel was a "militant" one.

I can sympathize with what you're saying, but I mainly put the word "militant" in front of "Zionists" in respect of the fact that the "Zionists" currently have the upper hand, at least in terms of the actual physical conflict. There are militant Zionists and non-militant Zionists, in varying degrees of militancy. It might be unfair to the more more peaceful Zionists to say that all of them are "militant," so in effect I was trying not to include the former group as active participants in this particular dispute. To a Palestinian, it probably doesn't matter - from their perspective, anyone who supports Zionism, however peacefully, is part of the problem. But of course, I'm not a Palestinian.

Does that make sense?

[HotDog2020]

Interesting that you put the word "militant" before Zionists, and "supporters of Palestinians" are just "supporters of Palestinians." I didn't know that the general idea that Jews should have a home in Israel was a "militant" one.

I can sympathize with what you're saying, but I mainly put the word "militant" in front of "Zionists" in respect of the fact that the "Zionists" currently have the upper hand, at least in terms of the actual physical conflict. There are militant Zionists and non-militant Zionists, in varying degrees of militancy. It might be unfair to the more more peaceful Zionists to say that all of them are "militant," so in effect I was trying not to include the former group as active participants in this particular dispute. To a Palestinian, it probably doesn't matter - from their perspective, anyone who supports Zionism, however peacefully, is part of the problem. But of course, I'm not a Palestinian.

Does that make sense?

I fail to see how: a) "militant" could mean "having the upper hand" and b) you think Israel has the upper hand, considering Jews are outnumbered by about 70 to 1, and Israel is surrounded by hostile enemies who wish to see it wiped off the map, and its main enemies are supported and funded by Islamic petrodollars despots, who use the Palestinians as political pawns against Israel. The only decent friend Israel has is the USA, and considering the USA is dependent upon oil, it's not the strongest relationship in the world.

And FYI, most Zionists (people who support the basic idea of Jews having a home in Israel) are NOT "militant" whatsoever.

[Somey]

I fail to see how: a) "militant" could mean "having the upper hand"...

It doesn't. I said "in respect of the fact that they have the upper hand," which isn't the same thing. If they didn't have the upper hand, there would be less need to distinguish between militants and non-militants. Sympathy goes to the victims; to the victor go the... well, you know.

...and b) you think Israel has the upper hand, considering Jews are outnumbered by about 70 to 1, and Israel is surrounded by hostile enemies who wish to see it wiped off the map, and its main enemies are supported and funded by Islamic petrodollars despots, who use the Palestinians as political pawns against Israel.

My my! I'm talking about the more localized conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians in what are usually referred to as the "Occupied Territories," not the mostly hypothetical worldwide conflict between Jews and Muslims, or Jews and everybody else. And many people would say that the money Israel has received over the years from the US et al is far greater than the amounts Israel's enemies have received from their backers.

...and considering the USA is dependent upon oil, it's not the strongest relationship in the world.

True, but where are the Israeli electric cars? The advanced Israeli solar- and wind-power technology? The affordable Israeli LED lamps and photovoltaic systems? The first step towards helping us become less reliant on Arab oil is to realize that we can't help ourselves! Our system is hopelessly corrupt and dominated by short-sighted corporate interests!

And FYI, most Zionists (people who support the basic idea of Jews having a home in Israel) are NOT "militant" whatsoever.

Exactly!

[ulsterman]

In a way, there is a correlation between Jews and Kapos and Black people

True. Olivier Kapo is indeed black.
http://img.skysports.com/08/04/218x298/Oli...Kapo_780176.jpg

Interesting that you put the word "militant" before Zionists, and "supporters of Palestinians" are just "supporters of Palestinians." I didn't know that the general idea that Jews should have a home in Israel was a "militant" one.

I've seen very similar ideas in another context; Ulster Unionists were portrayed as domineering and aggressive while the poor Nationalists were just poor Nationalists. The general idea that the Unionists were entitled to their corner was definitely "militant" and extremist.

[Cedric]

In a way, there is a correlation between Jews and Kapos and Black people

True. Olivier Kapo is indeed black.
http://img.skysports.com/08/04/218x298/Oli...Kapo_780176.jpg

Yes, but does he live in England in a very similar way?

[Emperor]

True, but where are the Israeli electric cars? The advanced Israeli solar- and wind-power technology? The affordable Israeli LED lamps and photovoltaic systems? The first step towards helping us become less reliant on Arab oil is to realize that we can't help ourselves! Our system is hopelessly corrupt and dominated by short-sighted corporate interests!

Israel developed some drip irrigation technology that might come in handy, given that fresh water might become more important than oil pretty soon.

[Brutus]

he argued that Hitler never ordered the Holocaust. On that point he's thinking like a true (pure) historian and is right saying there is no primary documentary evidence (the "smoking gun" - signed orders or verifiable 1st hand sources) that Hitler ordered it.

That is such rubbish. There are Hitler's own words that the Jews would be exterminated. See for example Hitler's January 30 1939 Reichstag speech. After he had gassed the handicapped.

Not rubbish.

What you have to understand is how historians think. They require VERIFIABLE evidence.

Saying something and doing something is different. Just because everyone including his henchmen said Hitler ordered it doesn't mean its true. Now before people call start calling me a Nazi revisionist, on the balance of all probability, I say Hitler DID know of the Holocaust. If in the remote possibility (highly unlikely) that he didn't know of it, then he is guilty being in overall command.

It's a pity the British did not keep Himmler alive when they captured him, if Himmler had been brought to trial, this revisionist argument wouldn't be happening.

About 20 years ago, Irving was offering 200,000 Pounds for anyone who could produce Hitlers signed orders authorizing the "Final Solution".

This post has been edited by Brutus:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I fail to see how: a) "militant" could mean "having the upper hand" ... most Zionists (people who support the basic idea of Jews having a home in Israel) are NOT "militant" whatsoever.

We'd all love a home in the South of France. Should we drive some tanks over the French and push them out to get it?

Somey was very specifically clear in his use of language and what he said was correct. There have been, and still are, everything from Zionist "bootboys" to Zionist terrorists to some fairly psychopathic and murderous IDF and settler groups ... but "violence", violation of other human's rights, take place at all levels and in all spheres. Not just a punch up. It was not a political slur.

Sure, not everyone has a taste for violence but that does not necessarily mean they are noble ... it could just means they are self-serving, crap at fighting, prefer others to do it for them but still want to take the benefits afterwards.

I was surprised to see how "successful" the Zionist land grab has been ... where is it going to end?

[Brutus]

I was surprised to see how "successful" the Zionist land grab has been ... where is it going to end?

Actually these lands belong to Christendom. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)