Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

The State Religion

This is David Irving. A man famous for writing a hagiography of Adolf Hitler. And by heaping untold amounts of scorn to Winston Churchill. A man with all the balls in the world, the probably most prominent denier of the narrative that underpins the international power structure, the world order of our day.
A man who has suffered dearly for his ideas, a man who was thrown in jail for being too jealous in his labor as a historian.

That man, the man who was thrown in jail and lost much of his fortune because he denied the Holocaust. That man asked God for forgiveness because he said a mean word to a feral black in Florida.

35 responses to “The State Religion

  1. Pingback: The State Religion | @the_arv

  2. Pingback: The State Religion | Reaction Times

  3. uarbes June 6, 2018 at 17:20

    What incident are you referring to? I didn´t hear anything about it. Could you give a link to a news site to bring me up to date?

  4. Contaminated NEET June 6, 2018 at 17:22

    Damn. Taboo is a hell of a drug.

    • maieuticinitiate June 9, 2018 at 21:07

      The worst thing about it is that at first, when you start out as an historian… you don’t really see the censorship, or at least you don’t see the extent of the consequences of merely nibbling at the narrative of the Progressive Original Sin. And by the time you do, bam, it’s too late.

      • i8 June 10, 2018 at 06:59

        Well, when you start as a member of society, as a high school/college student, as a member of an organization later… you most likely don’t “see the censorship either”.

        It takes… lot of ache and failed tries to ascend the Clueless -> Loser -> Sociopath Gervais Principle’s hierarchy. (While psychopaths can be regarded as “naturals”).

        For there is a “narrative” [shared social phantasy, it is termed in a 1955 paper] underpinning the power structure of every human “community” (as they call them) or nexus, beginning from every tight-knit family. And it can never be made of truths — guess why lol.

        Did you guess? It’s the main market law: offer reflects demand…

        For example, the myth of one country’s goodness (which serves for grounds to the country’s subjecting other ones) requires myths about the badness of the to-subject ones.
        Then you need the false flags — because aggression needs a myth refactoring it in the form of righteous defense.
        Everybody feels better that way.

        You see it in every cranny, included culture wars and how their winners progressively dictate language usage shifts adding perceived goodness to their myths and perceived badness to the opposition’s ideas.
        That’s why when observers try to give a name to the sum of this it should a word including “bio”, like bioleninism.

  5. jamienyc June 6, 2018 at 19:04

    Not sure how honest Mr. Irving was in that interview- he was under sever attack from the interviews, if you watch the whole thing.

    I also disagree about the “hagiography” part. He went to the primary sources, claimed that Hitler was not in full control of everything that was going on, and didn’t know the details about Auschwitz because he didn’t want to know – left the dirty work to Himler.

    • BlizzardOfOz June 11, 2018 at 17:12

      Yes, Hagiography is not the right word – it’s a chronological narration of the war from primary sources. However if you compare Hitler’s War with Churchill’s War, his sympathy with Hitler shines through – I would guess he is angry about the mountain of lies that has become conventional wisdom.

  6. Steve Johnson June 6, 2018 at 19:21

    The 21st century – https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=4jdh7EQRgps

    The left has been conducting free lessons for its enemies.

    • Severian June 7, 2018 at 10:52

      David Cole on Takimag notified me of this incident where a rapper invites a fat white female fan to to sing a song which also contains the forbidden word. While the object of ridicule is someone who deserves to be shamed, for much different reasons than saying a mean word, it’s quite obvious that the rapper wanted this outcome.

      http://takimag.com/article/in_grudging_praise_of_white_racists

      Thanks to smartphones there’s videos of everything.

  7. Maksymilian Czoło June 6, 2018 at 23:55

    Is there any legitness in his historical works? The way He got attacked in this this video was just hideous, as if they really feared him and so wanted to destroy him. Alwas thought of holocaust denialalism as thing for the guys wearing tinfoil hats, even though I know about the biodiversity side of JQ and I’m not worried of being against political correctness, this just seemed unplausible. Also what about the Lechter report, it also seems to be unlegit, but I haven’t gone deeper into it so who knows. I would be grateful if anyone had some interesting info on that. Works worth reading would be appreciated.

    • Toddy Cat June 7, 2018 at 03:16

      For what it’s worth, Irving is most certainly not a Holocaust Denier. He denies that Hitler ordered it, and he has at least some evidence to back this up. Irving’s work has been praised by historians such as John Keegan and Hugh Trevor-Roper. Agree with him or not, he’s certainly no nut.

      • Dividualist June 7, 2018 at 08:44

        His early works e.g. Dresden are absolutely legit. Hitler’s War has tons and tons of legit stuff, breathtaking amounts of original research about a lot of things. In this work he does not deny the Holocaust, only denies that Hitler ordered it. I haven’t read Churchill’s War.

        He went into full Holocaust denial later, but AFAIK mostly verbally.

        • Murray June 7, 2018 at 16:08

          Irving’s position is more nuanced than “full Holocaust denial”. On one hand, he’s convinced that the standard cinematic narrative of industrial-scale gassings is false–you know, images of long lines of Jews trudging toward smoke-belching chimneys against an ominous sky. And indeed, there are manifold problems with this account, from the characteristics of Zyklon-B, to the practicalities of cremating thousands of people a day in single-person ovens, to the gas chamber designs used, to the fact that the Soviets built many of these structures after the war.

          On the other hand, Irving maintains–based on his extensive primary-source research–that millions of Jews were killed by the Germans, especially on the Eastern Front, by the simple (and decidedly uncinematic) expedient of shooting them into pits, as part of Operation Reinhardt. You can see him making this argument to audiences of crestfallen Holocaust deniers in several YouTube videos.

          • Toddy Cat June 9, 2018 at 18:22

            It’s interesting that what gets you called a “Holocaust Denier” has changed over the last forty years. Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s a Holocaust Denier was somebody who, well, denied the Holocaust. Today, anyone who denies any part of the officially sanction Holocaust narrative is called a denier, even if they accept the basic premise. So if, like Irving, you doubt that Hitler officially ordered the Holocaust, you’re a denier. If, like the aforementioned David Cole (a Jew, by the way) you think that fewer than six million Jews were killed, you are a denier. If you even believe that a large portion of the deaths of Jews in WWII were attributable to causes other than gassing, such as shooting, disease, or starvation, you are called a denier. Even pointing out that other mass murders comparable to the Holocaust were carried out can put you in dangerous territory. Norm Finkelstein was right when he contended that the Holocaust was becoming its own religion, and the treatment meted out to guys like Irving and Cole prove it.

          • R. June 19, 2018 at 21:10

            @Murray…

            Single person ovens, lol no.

            What they had were ovens that were I believe somewhat bigger than usual. What they did was they kept them full. The ovens were never cool, and they were kept burning continuously with corpses added whenever appropriate.

            You probably know that fat people with their voluminous energy reserves burn pretty good if you can set them on fire.

            If you google a bit you can find news article about how some oven somewhere burned down because they were incinerating a person who was too fat in it.

            I don’t know about Auschwitz, but I recall that some of these crematorium ovens were pretty roomy, that is, like a dozen meters long. I recall seeing a diagram like that somewhere.

            Too bad mythbusters can’t do this, but I guess getting ahold of hundreds of corpses for that purpose would be rather difficult. Perhaps lean & fatty pigs could be substituted?

      • R. June 19, 2018 at 21:15

        He’s a tool though, in his way.

        Absence of evidence is proof of nothing.

        It’s kinda obvious Hitler wasn’t truly confident, but rather had the false self confidence of a narcissist. So even though he wrote some pretty interesting things in his book, he wasn’t confident enough to order the genocide and leave evidence behind in writing.

        Also, the idea that he ‘wasn’t aware of what was going’ on is fucking laughable. German generals were annoyed with him meddling and micro-managing actual fighting, so the idea he’d not care what exactly Himmler was up to with Jews, who loomed very, very large in Hitler’s worldview is kinda nuts.

        Irving may be a great historian, but he is blind to himself.

    • BlizzardOfOz June 11, 2018 at 17:18

      My impression from having read a few of his books is that he’s a prolific researcher/writer with a commitment to uncovering the truth from primary sources. That’s enough, as you should know — that is anathema to the Holocaust industry.

  8. Gabriel M June 8, 2018 at 10:02

    A man who has suffered dearly for his ideas, a man who was thrown in jail for being too jealous in his labor as a historian.

    That’s no really true. Actually, by his own admission it’s the opposite of true. He was put in jail for getting ahead of himself and making claims without reviewing all the evidence.

    On 11 November 2005, the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria, acting under the 1989 warrant, arrested Irving. Irving pleaded guilty to the charge of “trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust”. Irving stated in his plea that he changed his opinions on the Holocaust, “I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn’t saying that anymore and I wouldn’t say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.” Irving had obtained the papers from Hugo Byttebier, a Belgian who had served in the SS during the war and had escaped to Argentina.[115]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

    Why did he go to Austria at all, anyway? Couldn’t he have waited a few years for YouTube to be invented?

    Anyway, like others, I can’t watch the video. What does he say.

    • spandrell June 8, 2018 at 10:41

      I’ll reupload it to some other place, hang on.

    • uarbes June 8, 2018 at 16:47

      I am probably the only person in the room who was actually there, at Irving´s trial. A few observations:

      1. Irving had violated the letter of the law. So much was agreed upon by everybody.
      2. He had been set up by a left-wing journalist who provoked him into talking trash. This was not considered a mitigating circumstance.
      3. Even if -hypothetically!- there had been any evidence in favour of Irving´s views, it could not have been presented. Austrian law considers the Holocaust a quasi-axiomatic fact that is not to be debated.
      4. Irving should have known there was still a warrant out against him. Why he came to Austria at all is a mystery.
      5. The judge was Jewish; one might be excused for getting a bad gut feeling about fair play and stuff.
      6. According to Austrian law, there were a few perfectly good mitigating circumstances in Irving´s favour. They were being disregarded by the judge with very questionable arguments. Otherwise, he would have possibly got probation.
      7. The court of appeal reduced his sentence considerably. To less than time served, so we was in jail for longer than required by the final sentence.

  9. maieuticinitiate June 9, 2018 at 21:02

    >That man, the man who was thrown in jail and lost much of his fortune because he denied the Holocaust. That man asked God for forgiveness because he said a mean word to a feral black in Florida.

    That doesn’t seem very consistent.
    If the Synagogue has already painted a target on your back, cucking won’t save you!
    Then again, I’m sure he had been through a lot already and was just trying to avoid further consequences.

    • steelpalmblog June 19, 2018 at 01:31

      You’re getting it backwards. Irving is a leftist through and through, who believes in all their orthodoxies.

      He was just a LITTLE ahead of the curve in turning on the Jews than his fellow European globalists were comfortable with. (His work of the 80’s is actually milder than the UK Labor philosophy today, in the 2010’s)

      For that, he was punished by his fellow leftists, who are great at enforcing iron discipline within their ranks.

  10. Bunthorne June 11, 2018 at 01:45

    There is some relevant stuff over at The Unz Review:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    http://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/

    Unz’s article reminds me very disturbingly of a German movie, “Das schreckliche Mädchen”, about a girl who can’t understand why the librarian is being so uncooperative.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nasty_Girl

  11. John Q Public June 13, 2018 at 17:20

    You come at me, I will call you every name in the book without remorse.

  12. steelpalmblog June 19, 2018 at 01:32

    I’m surprised at spandrell’s post.

    Irving is a leftist through and through, who believes in all their orthodoxies.

    He was just a LITTLE ahead of the curve in turning on the Jews than his fellow European globalists were comfortable with. (His work of the 80’s is actually milder than the UK Labor philosophy today, in the 2010’s)

    For that, he was punished by his fellow leftists, who are great at enforcing iron discipline within their ranks.

    Thus, there is nothing remotely surprising about his piety when it comes to blacks.

    • spandrell June 19, 2018 at 05:44

      I must admit I’m not very familiar with Irving’s thought besides his opinion on World War 2. At any rate his stated positions concerning the British empire and the war makes him a very very bad leftist.

      • steelpalmblog June 20, 2018 at 05:29

        I went into more detail in a reply below, but I don’t see why this would make him such a bad leftist. Other than smashing the vestiges of white Western civilization and Christianity, leftism is very permissive when it comes to historical interpretations. There is absolutely a place for Holocaust deniers, whether in the UK or US (Farrakhan and his followers), and Irving’s views on the British Empire are mainstream leftist thought today.

        Irving was a little ahead of the curve, and made the mistake of specifically attacking Jews rather than the leftist-sanctioned “Zionists”, for which he was denounced. However, this is no different than a Black Panther in the 60’s, or an eco terrorist from the 1970’s who is denounced by the leftist media, serves a jail term (which, notably, Irving never actually did)….and then becomes a university professor in the 90’s or 2000’s.

    • Gabriel M June 19, 2018 at 09:06

      I don’t think that’s true. I think he is essentially a man who was driven mad by the knowledge that Britain’s entry into WW2 was a catastrophic mistake and that therefore the mainstream British civic nationalist message was hooey.

      Irving is not above using leftist tropes when discussing zionism or Allied conduct during WW2, but he’s hardly alone in that. People have deep, deep need to find to justify themselves in terms of the established religion even when they are career heretics, which I take to be the point of the post.

      • steelpalmblog June 20, 2018 at 05:08

        Why would Irving’s opposition to Britain’s entry into WW2 be a big deal?

        The vast majority of British leftists/Marxists of the era were against fighting Germany, whether because they liked Hitler (Edward VIII, much of the BBC, the Astors, etc.), had no problem with him (Chamberlain), or didn’t want to indirectly hurt the Soviet Union when Hitler and Stalin were still close allies.

        They’re not as open about this now, for obvious reasons, but Irving being against it is perfectly in line with leftist orthodoxy. It was primarily the Tories and right-wingers of that era who wanted Britain to go to war.

        I see this phenomenon all the time, where a group of leftists punish another leftist for stepping a little out of line, and the persecuted leftist is recast as a brave truth teller.

        By this logic, McCain and the Bushes were heroes because they were relentlessly attacked by the Left, right? No, they’re still globalist scumbags, just like Irving is.

Please comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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