David Irving's Works

In seeking to placate his jewish enemies and to salvage his career so as to be able to pay for his ill daughter's upkeep and his own, out of necessity he almost had to give the Jews one "evil man" to scapegoat. He was also the first to find Goeebel's diaries and read all 64,000 pages (that's not a typo, sometimes Goebbels used to dictate 150 to his secretary in a day). I can't speak for Mr. Irving but I'd have to say he knows more than anyone here (probably anyone living) about the man's life.

did anyone actually watch the video where he speaks of what they did to him on the day of his daughter's funeral? I saw that particular tape for the first time this morning, and I must say it gave me a new level of loathing for the Jews I never thought possible.

For those who don't completely get it, the card was written in German and "A Merciful Death" was sort of the slogan for that program. Also, the man responsible of the program killed himself in 1945. The florist from which the very expensive arrangement was sent was also only 100 yards for the office of the Jewess Lipschidt's Jewish lawyer. They admitted after they were doing all they could to "rattle him" before the case began. They are truly the lowest form of vermin on earth, to mock a man's mentally ill daughter who died by suicide less than month before the trial was starting.

I don't consider myself a "shill" for anyone, fbut forIrving I will shill. If for no other reason, his books on WW 2 (and on other things, like the Hungarian uprising) are without a doubt, the best on the subject(s) simply because he writes straight from the archives and refuses to bow to Jewish pressure and make up things to satisfy the jewish agenda.

If you have the means, highly suggest acquiring all of the works of Irving you can. I just spent another $200 this morning trying to complete my collection. A lot of money for books? Yes, but these will someday be the only genuine histories of WW 2, and you may bet that after his death, organized jewry will try to buy up any remaining copies to destroy them. no, I'm not being overly dramatic. They forced his publisher to destroy all copies of his Goebbels bio before it was even released, costing the published hundreds of thousands of pound sterling. Irving subsequently printed and released it himself.

...

user, watch a few of the videos to see what the Jews did to him as far as ruining his income, threatening his family, having him imprisoned, confiscating his home and all his possessions, and you might begin to understand. This was a respectable, fairly wealthy, mainstream historian who testified at the Ernst Zundel Holocaust trial in Canada because he thought it was the moral thing to do.

Literally overnight, he became enemy # 1 or organized Jewry. He was constantly being imprisoned, arrested, threatened, assaulted, expelled from countries, etc… for what? He had dared to say that the "gas chambers" shown to tourists at Auschwitz are fake (which later, the Poles themselves admitted and also lowered the "number of dead." This was all due to Irving and Zundel.

I watched it, vile behaviour.

Do you have a link please?

My archive of his talks is substantial, and I know all about his life and circumstances (esp. the Lipstadt saga) which he himself denounces as a huge mistake. It doesn't change the fact that he writes with a negative bias against people that I don't think deserve it. Without being intenionally derogatory to you I feel as though I should spell it out that I am fully aware we are speaking on a subjective basis. I don't like how he writes in some cases; you, on the other hand, are ok with it. If the post you made is an attempt at making me change my opinion about him, you value a short post rather more highly than it serves in actu.

See gif

Bump for David Irving. As a teen in the seventies my brother and I were voracious readers. We had all sorts of books on the military and history. Books by David Irving were right at home among others by people like Paul Brickhill, Martin Caidin, Keegan, Liddel Hart, Saburo Sakai, you name it. At that time Irving was free of the smear that he's since acquired. The Dresden book was a bit of an anomaly in the way that it took to task the orthodox ww11 narrative, but all the more interesting for that. His other books, like 'Convoy PQ17' and the 'Desert Fox' were staples. He was well regarded. This is the only way we knew him for many years. Seeing how he was brought low for his opinions has been an education in itself. The constant wikipedia edits, the sound bite talking points suddenly being repeated in every medium, ".. David Irving, discredited historian", ".. holocaust denier David Irving". Hearing these tidbits from people who know nothing of his work, but merely parrot them on to be repeated by others. It's sobering and instructive.

As an aside, I've never forgotten the sly way that he derided the Italian forces in in North Africa. Across the decades I can still remember him mentioning things like the personalized leather toiletry sets abandoned pell mell in their retreat now that they weren't just fighting african natives.

I especially enjoyed Irving's video on Churchill and coventry. The detail that this man knows is astounding.

That's exactly the same for me when I read parts of Hitler's war. His subtle Italophobia is somehow extremely memorable.

And funny.

Every time that he comes to mind I wonder what has become of his Himmler book. Mention of that project seems to have fallen off the radar. Perhaps I've missed something.

I think he just says that stuff in an attempt to keep them off his back a little. He's usually very good about not projecting moralism on history, but the kikes are on him nonstop and ruined his life.

David Irving vs Lipstadt, classic BTFO

Last time I seen a video of him I got the impression the infirmities of age and the struggle with controversy had worn Irving down. I think he feels some kind of personal affinity to Hitler which skews his scholarship sometimes (ofc you can say the same thing about mainstream historians, but in reverse) but to me his research and writing were both fantastic.

I know it's difficult being attacked by jews from all sides for your entire life, but he says the holocaust is real so I just can't support him anymore.

I get the same sense. It's taken a toll on him. And yes, he's certainly not without his flaws.

I think that you're splitting hairs. What does the term "the holocaust" even mean, strictly speaking? Can't reply as I'm heading out fwiw.

To understand what this means, you have to see his talk where he essentially says "I wish I had done everything completely differently". What would it take for you to say the holohoax was real?

The same idea goes for anybody who recounts their exposure of the holohoax. They deserve our sympathy and support, regardless of what they say publicly. They have all been given an offer they can't refuse. The best way to thwart Jewish plots against people like Irving is to support such people and loudly frame the things they are forced to say as "things they are forced to say".

The absolute last thing Irving deserves is for people like us turn on him too.

In one of his London Forum speech he said, that he "crossed the line" now and that he is an "anti-semite" and a "racist".

You are not wrong sir.

I just reread the Goebbels Mastermind book, and I understand complete why Gudrun Himmler told Irving to get lost for the "hatchet job" he's trying to do on her father. How could she not have those feelings after the language he used about Goebbels in his mastermind book, which he's even recently revised on his site, yet not removed such language as "evil" and "loser"?

Sorry, but Irving deserves her antipathy, and mine. You can take him for what he's worth, for translations of diaries and notes in attempt to have a career, but he's no unsullied Saint of the Occident.

On the other hand, it's fair to say he's not completely Kosher, which is why Lipstadt and the Jews went after him.

You take a stand and a side. You realize these people are your enemies, which means you don't shit on your friends who fought for you!

David Irving has my unqualified support for three reasons:
First, he sets the standard for honest, diligent historians. He uses only primary sources and doesn't just regurgitate what others say. I think his lack of formal education is responsible for that. He's an example of what a smart mind and brave heart can do without kike indoctrination.
Second, he fought the Jew. No matter how hard it was for him, and how poor his results, can you say you've stood up to a barrage of lies and punitive actions from all over the world for decades? In one incident, South African Jews (!) faxed a provincial government in Canada in an effort to get him arrested for hate speech. I don't give a fuck who you are, if you're going through that shit I'm on your side until the harassment stops.
Third, he seems like a good man. His affection for his daughters is obvious, and little anecdotes he's told over the years give a snapshot of what it's like to be him. I know he has his faults, but he needs at least some of our energy to not wither and die in the misery the yids have planned for him.

It is real, and they had just cause. Europe was being invaded by these Jews who took over all the positions and were waging a cultural war with an ends of biological extermination.

Do you not see where we are today?!

Fuck you deniers. You'd deny ever genocide in history if you were guilt tripped enough. America wouldn't exist if we guilt tripped them enough about wiping out natives.

Go listen to Himmlers Posen speech. That'll explain it well enough.

Irving never "denied holocaust", actually, he denied gas chambers and he still does it up to this day.

Did his daughter really have paranoid schizophrenia or was she harrassed, gang stalked and gasslighted by organized jewry for her father telling the true history of the "gas chambers"?

Irving is a crypto-Jew who was playing the long game. His Jewishness was inadvertently leaked by a close friend who was making an impassioned defense of his works and Irving himself has publicly admitted that he "suspects he may be Jewish."
(((Irving))) has recently flipped his story and now considers that the homicidal gas chambers really existed.

A deeply self-loathing Jew if his daily Action Report is anything to go by.

I see some jews in this thread trying to convince me to ignore the preservation of Irving's books, so I went ahead and downloaded them all.

Fuck you kikes.

You are acting like a kike and strawmanning revisionist. Everything is about muh gas chambers, not that deaths happened.

His mother is jewish and thus he is jewish. He is extremely shady.

mileswmathis.com/irving.pdf

Ok Holla Forums, I have begun to doubt the holocaust revisionism that is mentioned here.
I'm playing devils advocate here, it would be really comfy for me to go back to knowing it didn't happen, but I can't let a bias come against me and the truth.
So I've heard the Himmler speech, and realized that just because some jews say crazy stuff that happened (holocauster, masturbation machines…) it doesnt mean that the killing hadn't been going on.
Also I saw an infograph that show'd that some fake pictures were actually fake fakes, designed to make it look like jews were trying to promote the holocaust.
The other thing was, I saw this guy's youtube.com/user/Griesmayer comments on pretty much all holocaust debunking videos and he brings up dome good points.
Please Holla Forums show me the truth like you did the first time I came here.

Of course jews were being killed. The only question is if they were being gassed en masse.

I still don't believe in gassing, but allot of Holla Forums rhetoric centers around how there were no mass killings, and if there were jews killed, it was only a soldier or commander doing it, not a systematical plan.

Its the active intent to genocide the Jews i.e. remove them as a race, and the method alleged of sekret plans -> gas chambers -> ovens that is challenged.

There were mass killings on both sides. It was common back then in that part of the world.

The real question is if you believe millions of jews were gassed, buried, left to rot, dug/scooped back up, and then burned so totally that not a trace was left.

you're either leftist scum or an edgy teen trying way too hard to fit in. Irving was "playing long game?" He's 78, penniless, had his apartment confiscated in 2002 (which would now be worth ~£10 million), lost his daughter, his his career, his mainstream respectable status, possibly a knighthood, the list goes on.

If you really are serious and not marxist scum, what else would you expect the man to do in order to prove his bona fides? He's been beaten with baseball bats in chicago, years in prison in Austria…if he were a kike, you think he wouldn't have played the crd very long ago to save himself and his family? You and a few others here are either Jews trying to D & C or retards.

The Posen speech is a fake.

Again, I don't know if you're stupid or literally a JIDF shill. After the first year in solitary confinement in Austria, you think that wouldn't be enough to get him to play him his " get out of jail" card? No one else living, probably no one since the Reformation has given up so much just for a belief.
I don't even think his writing style is that great, his speeches (when he was younger) were much better. The Jews will accuse anyone and everyone of crtypo-jewry to muddy waters. Jewggle it. According to the ((press)), Braun was a Jewess, Hitler's mother was a Jew, Goering was a Jew, Hess, Goebbels, you name the person, they've been called a jew. You honestly take that one fucking shitty, no-name source against a man who essentially willingly let himself be burned at the stake rather than recant? Gave up a life of comfort, wealth, ease, and leisure for prison, poverty, beatings, death threats, family threats, etc…?

I don't know if this is stupidity or just infiltration by marxists.

Here you go. Jews, Jews, Jews. Entire Third Reich was Jews. Actually of the Nazi part was Jews. Fine. If that's the case, maybe Germany and the Us can stop paying the fucking vampires. It's in the press, I have a link, it has to be true:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597411/Was-Adolf-Hitlers-lover-Eva-Braun-Jewish-family.html

archive.is/izEcZ

the daily mail always led the charge in smearing Irving and anyone else having to do with the Third Reich in the Brit press. Why? The current publisher's grandfather was a supporter of the third reich, so in order for him not to be ruined by Jews, this is what he has to do:

"Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s.[38][39] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[40] In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.[41]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[42] Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine",[43] and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."[44]"

Lord Rothermore's mistress? Well, that was OK since she was actually a "Jewish Princess" (literally). I don't know if it's stupidity here or outright communist, jewish, homosexual, degenerate gas lighting. There is an entire "game" going on behind the scenes with big billionaire publishers who have to bow to the Jew or risk facing the same sort of thing Irving faced. He's meant to serve as an example to other goy who might dare to get too uppity.

the man has been ruined, lost everything he owned, lost family members in his fight with international Jewry. And what's the response here? "He was a Jew himself!" You don't need to be in agreement with every word he says. He has actually always praised Himmler's daughter, btw, for her loyalty to her father.

What do you want the man to do? By the year 2001 after he lost his case and the fucking spiteful, scum judge entered an almost $4 million dollar judgment against him, the man has to be able to feed himself and still had young daughters. He's now 80 years old, and has lost everything. the reason anyone here has ever even heard of "Dresden" is due to his first book, which was groundbreaking-breaking.

Perfectly fine to object to some of his writing, that's your prerogative. but he gives his book "Hitler's War" away on his website in PDF. FOR FREE. What more could the man do? They've taken everything from him, smear him every possible way they can even still in December of 2016 they were doing it. Does anyone here honestly think they can take what this man has been through at the hands of Jewry? going from a wealthy. respected historian to penniless and in fear of of your life for pointing out the fucking truth?

This. Of course there were, mainly on the Eastern Front where the local populace had scores to settle for years of Jewish NKVD torture. The Jews comprised of 80% of the NKVD according to Solzhenitsyn. This is a group who made up less than one-hals of one percent of the USSR 80% (!!!) of NKVD. Would you have expected the people NOT to fight back against partisans or Jews who were destroying them and sabotaging the war effort? You cannot understand the war without understanding the Weimar and what was going on in places like Ukraine and the Holodomor, all perpetrated by Jews. The local people aren't stupid and the Jews were not shy in begging about their work their work. Read who the early leaders of the Commitern were: in consisted of only 12 Russians and over 200 Jews. This is all from Us intelligence documents of the time during the Bolshevik Revolution.

Same thing with Hungary and the 1956 uprising. some of the files might even be available on their website now. The '56 uprising started out not as "anti-Communist," but as an anti-Jewish pogrom since they were the ones running the secret police and running the government at every level.

THIS is why they hate Irving so much. He went into the archives and dug all this out, his knowledge of the period and the archives is impeccable and he's fluent in many languages. The Jews know they can't challenge him on facts, so they just smear him. It has been shown now, the JTA tried to link him to the Oklahoma Bombing. No evidence at all, not even..just a completely random attempt by the Jews to discredit him. This is the sort of people they are. you challenge their racket and their control, they will either ruin you or kill you to make an example of you for any other goyim.

I know I've written a lot here, but so be it if I get banned for it or whatever else. You disagree wth him, you aren't fond of some his books, your prerogative, that's fine. But to start trying to suggest he's a fucking Jew? Insanity. How can you possibly NOT admire a man who has sacrificed as much as this man has for the simple principle of being able to tell the truth?

Isn't that the retard who claims based Charlie is an actor and that the Tate Murders didn't even happen?

...

(I didn't mean to green text that entire thing, I haven't slept in 30 hours. self-sage)

Starting watching this video from the 7 minute mark if you don't want to watch the entire thing. Tell me there is any man who has paid a higher price fighting intl jewry. And, keep in mind, after that trial the Jews literally confiscated everything he owned, from all his files and books right down to his home:

youtube.com/watch?v=MRyCGX2Ie74&t=422s

Dubs confirm we must not hate Irving for cracking.

In fact, I think the LACK of support is one of the very things that causes people to break. Many a man would take on an army with good men at his side, but when The Beast lumbers towards you, and no one utters a word in your defense, it probably feels like it just isn't worth it.

What about Mark Weber who did it for the shekels?

This makes me hate Hannity more than really changing my feelings about him, although not sure why he would agree to be ambushed like that on national TV. I don't have same level of respect for Weber as I do for Irving. Having said that, Weber is a guy with a wife and kids trying to survive against an organized, international Jewish conspiracy that tries to destroy him at every turn.

While in Europe, can't get into details but I ended up in trouble with the law over "hate speech" and when my flat was searched, they found a few books that were considered "politically incorrect." At the time, I was young and my father helped me arrange a lawyer. He doesn't know a thing about this stuff, so he enlisted a Jew as my attorney.

the first time I entered his office after bail, laying right on his desk facing me was a letter from the SPLC (all the way from the US) congratulating him for his work for Jews. Not framed, not anything, just left there on the desk (facing me) to let me know that he despised me and was going to try to sabotage me. I tried to explain this to my father, who told me I was being "paranoid" and since he was lending me money for the lawyer at time, I couldn't really argue with him.

He did all he could to sabotage me throughout, and I ended up doing time in jail. My point here is that until you've faced and dealt with these people, you have no idea the reality of what they do. And my incident was low profile, and I had a kike trying to intimidate me in every way despite taking the money from my father (I did eventually pay my father back). I can't imagine a high-profile case like Irving with all the forces of intl Jewry aligned against him.

If you've never dealt with it first hand and had to sit across from one of these demons trying to ruin you and who will use any trick to try to get you imprisoned and ruin you, you really cannot comment.

Assuming you're sincere, please read and consider my words.

The holocuck debate is, and has always been, a semantic one in nature. "Something" happened, that much is certain, but whether or not that "something" constitutes a Holycost is the real heart of the matter. The way this debate works is simple, but normies still can't pick up on it.

The Holocaust: Evil Hitler and evil nazis gassed and ovened at least 6 million Jews (up to 20 million, according to some "historians"), with the intent to eradicate every Jew in the world. Also, many were turned into soap and lampshades and killed with masturbating machines and roller-coasters of death.

That is basically what "the Holocaust" is. There are many more elements to this story (you could go on for a lifetime), but for the sake of brevity, that's the gist.

The Truth: "evil" Hitler and "evil" nazis wanted jews out of Europe, and, after trying numerous policies pursuant to that aim (sending some to Palestine, and others to Manchuria), interned them in labor/prison camps for the duration of the war, to prevent them from causing trouble, and possibly getting some labor out of them for the war effort. As the war turned, supply lines were bombed and cut off, and weather, hunger, and disease took their toll, probably 400,000 at the most. Some were killed outright, but that really did seem to be lower level stuff (I've yet to see mainstream explanations for "death" camp personnel being fired, imprisoned, executed, or losing their license to practice medicine whenever they went overboard), and all other Jews who died were partisans, enemy combatants killed by either einsatzgruppen or SS. The only difference between the Holycost and Japanese internment was that America had fewer people to maintain, nicer climate, and wasn't being starved and bombed out in a death struggle with 3 superpowers.

I'd like to add at this point that virtually all "holocaust-deniers" have been painting more or less the same picture I just did since the fucking 40s, and all real evidence (despite constantly being confiscated and destroyed) has vindicated them, whereas the mainstreamers have been been disproven time and time again, and despite all this time, with all the support in the world, STILL can't get a consistent story together.

The debate is unfair, because mainstreamers can spew bullshit, and when they are corrected, they say: "U R denying the Holycuck, but guess what, at least 1 Jew died, therefore, the Holocaust happened." They literally get to claim The Holocaust happened, and it consisted of X, and then still claim that "the Holocaust happened," even if literally none of X is true. Surely you can see that such a setup is disingenuous.

tl;dr: Not a single part of the holohoax happened as advertised, so therefore, the holohoax didn't happen. To claim that it happened is to tacitly change its definition so as to make it artificially impervious to falsification, without ever actually admitting that you did such a thing.

No, the holohoax is not real. Sorry kike.

Awww, I guess I have to get a hard copy of Hitler's War now since I'm such a romantic.

Nope, taking over the Institute for Historical review and destroying it the way he did was part of a jewish conspiracy.

"Ausrottung" doesn't necessarily mean literal extermination

Alfred Rosenberg at Nuremberg

I agree with Jonathan Bowden in that it doesn't matter. Rather, we need to focus on helping our people overcome their self-denying and be proud of who they are, and eventually get to the point where they'd have no problem killing to defend themselves. Now, maybe for some debunking the holocaust would help, but for others, it could simply be instigating enough survival instincts that they don't even give a damn if it happened or not.

Obviously, it's not like the jews are getting revisionist literature pulled from online retailers or anything like that, they're more concerned Jonathan Bowden and Grindr Greggy's books.

I don't know enough about Weber or the IHR in recent years to comment. What I HAVE noticed is that places like the ADL, SPLC, and others have taken notice of this place and–unlike before election– their are now Jew shills here who know their business and act in coordination.

IHR is still a good resource for books and info that are very hard to find anywhere else. I don't know if Weber has been "turned" or if you are full of shit. But I do know what I've faced in my own life in Europe and dealing with the Jewish lobby on these issues. Even in a small case.

Yeah, very heartwarming moment. Especially when he found out that the secretary was a whore and porn model for Jewish Czech.

Other than David Cole's book (whcih says it kind of happened) they don't carry a single book about the Holohoax. They did have a massive selective after Weber took over though, but they ended up being sold to jewish Hollywood studious for movie props, many of whuch presumably wound up destroyed.

There's a reason literally every notable revisionist – other than Cole and Irving – has turned on Weber…

Look, telling the truth doesn't make you a cuck. When bad things happen to jews, I don't bat an eye. I have more sympathy for niggers, spics, and mudslimes than I do for kikes. I'm not cucked on the JQ; they deserve to die. That does not, however, mean that lampshades and the 6 gorrillion are true.

No, I'm arguing that instead of disproving something the enemy is saying happened, give instead to whites their force back, their soul back. And if they get that back, they won't even care about the hollyhoax, just that they want to survive.

the very fact that there are so many in this thread who seem to know at lest something about Irving and his work and are still trying to demean him says a lot. No, he's not perfect, his work isn't perfect nor is his personal life. But Jesus Christ, look at what the Jewish lobby did to the guy.

It could just be there is a lot of infighting right now and petty jealousies as some have gotten a lot of press and some shekels with the "alt.right" in a national spotlight. of rah record, Spencer did not come up with that term. It was the name of an old usenet group. There was "right" and then "alt.right" just like thousands of other "alt" group and it meant nothing more than "expect to wind odd shit here outside the mainstream of the topic in question."

If all of this is not ADL/SPLc Jew trolls hired to try to put out the flames after there was so much Jew Naming going on during the past year, than the infighting and bitterness is fucking pathetic. I recall coming here in Dec. after a month long break, and in every thread I was called a shill for "TRS," which I hadn't a clue of what it even was.

Whether it's the Jews or the movement eating itself, either way, the kikes must be rubbing hands with glee.

Fascinating.

And he chose to resign rather than divorce her.

Consider that, for a government conspiracy for the industrial scale genocide of 6 million Jews using gas chambers, we are relying on as evidence the interpretation of a single word in a single speech. That is how poor the evidence for the holocaust is.
Did Hitler also believe that the Germans were about to be holocausted?
Or has this word been twisted out of context from its original meaning in translation?
Also
1. Why would Mr. Himmler decide to have his speech in a top-secret SS meeting recorded?

2. Why is it that this speech was "discovered" about half a century after it was (allegedly) made…?

3. My most important point here: voice-print technology:

Perhaps you saw Tom Hanks shake hands with Nixon in "Forrest Gump"? Well, this is one thing that can be done in a Hollywood studio today.

Another thing that I believe can be done, using modern technology, is replicating the voice of any historical person. Voice-prints. I believe it works like this:

1. Every single person has a unique voice print. With just a few speech samples it's possible to establish the "voice signature" (or voice pattern) of anybody. This signature shows up on a computer screen as a certain repeating pattern; a kind of wave.

2. In this case it's Himmler's voice we're interested in. Surely a whole lot of recordings of Himmler's voice are available. When all those recordings, or a sufficient variety of samples (vocabulary, various modes of speaking / various emotional shades in the speech) are fed into a computer with a voice print software program, it would then logically be possible to engineer a brand new speech based on the established voice print. The voice print incl. patterns of pausing between words, intonations, flow etc.

3. Conclusion: (my theory about this speech): it was made very recently in a modern studio. Himmler never gave that speech.

My point is that the correct response is not "fuck this guy", the correct response is to publicly frame it as "they got to him". The ideal would be to establish the meme that recanting = they got to him.

This is part of the intent, to create a chilling effect. Irving has said he would not expose the hoax if he had his time again.

I think that your approach is sound.

You can do both. I encourage whites to regain their will to live, because I want my race to survive, but I also dispute the Holycost, because I want the truth to survive.

I do both as well, but for mass appeal, there needs to be something more guttural in getting them to care.

Why does the mod delete book/knowledge threads? That fucker just deleted one about the role of isolation in the formation of Holla Forumsacks.
sage for off topic but fuck does it make me mad when I'm typing out a reply and the thread disappears from page 2

Irving is Exhibit A when it comes to the utter contempt Jews have for bad goyim when all pretense is stripped away. Here's a guy who held no influence in academia or politics; he was just a layman with a passion for history who wrote books that were well-received by the public. And Jews hated him so much that merely discrediting his books wasn't enough for them. They had to ruin him financially, imprison him, and do everything possible to ensure he died destitute and homeless. Learning about his case opened my eyes to the vindictive nature of Jews like nothing else.

We're nearing the point where the entire Holocaust debate, and the particulars of what did or did not happen, will no longer be relevant. It's still a useful political tool because it's within living memory, but the game is about to change. Once Generation Z hits their 30s, the entirety of World War II will be an ancient legend to them, like the Civil War is to us, and they're not going to care what happened to 6 gorillion Jews in the distant past. Their focus will be on the actions of Jews in the present, and the Jewish tactic of using muh holocaust as a shield from any criticism will seem more and more absurd to them.

They were force emigrated, cry me a fucking river about muh 6 gorillion dead holocaust survivors. It's been a false narrative use to push globalist kike agendas for decades now.

Nice effort, OP but this belongs more on >>>/pdfs/ than Holla Forums

There is a perfectly good >>>/pdfs/ board that could use the traffic.

Not even linking, just talking about books seems to get threads deleted.
I didn't know /pdfs/ was /polpdfs/ though, I thought it was closer to /lit/. Cool.

Fuck off, kike. Talking about David Irving belongs on Holla Forums almost more than any of the normalfag threads we've been having lately.

He's the guy that thinks pi is equal to four.

No sweat. This Irving guy seems interesting. If you post it on /pdfs/, it'll probably stay up for months and months so you can cross-link it when it comes up as a topic of conversation.

You mods will hang

No one ever goes on PDFs. The idea was that newfags/underage fags could get a free pdf of "Hitler's War" and just keep it for when they are older and the Jews have wiped away most of the internet.

I don't understand anchoring this. It's not some random shit book, it's debatably the most important non-primary source ever written on the 3rd Reich and a place where it can be accessed and and saved for free.

The mod is a hand rubbing tribesman, that's why. Anything that isn't current events thread #549 or meme thread #907, anything that actually discusses our ideology or how to pass it onto others is subject to the anchor and prune. Now go and take your pick, you can either argue over some irrelevant coalburner in one thread, or make more funny pictures in another.

I wonder (((who))) was behind this.

I'm thinking this too. I am very suspicious of everything that was found "recently", i.e. last 2 decades or so.

They bumplocked the Rosenberg thread also. It was one of the best threads in a long time, reconstructing the true meaning of NS through mentioning forgotten authors like Gobineau, Chamberlain, Wagner, etc.

I remember in one thread some shitposter started going
MUH BOOKS
right before it was deleted. What kinda fucking dumb box of rocks tries to fit in with Holla Forums by bashing reading?

Bumping.

Checked
I actually enjoy reading some things from Miles W. Mathis, and like to keep an open mind on things.
Frankly, though, I don't believe that David Irving is Jewish.
His 'evidence' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Irving's mother, according to Geni.com, was
Beryl Irene Newington (not a Jewish name).
His maternal grandmother was
Francis Dolman (this might sound suspicious).
However, not every name ending in -man is Jewish. This suffix comes from many different languages, and so the other part of the name needs to be examined.
According to Ancestry.com,
"English: variant of Dole or of Doll. Dutch: nickname for a stupid person. Americanized spelling of German Dollmann (see Dollman). Hungarian Dolmán: variant of Dolmány, metonymic occupational name or nickname from dolmány ‘embroidered coat’, named after a Szekler village in Transylvania called Dolmán. In some cases this may be an Americanized spelling of Dolmáni, habitational name for someone from the village itself."
Notice that it is NOT mentioned that this name is Jewish–and Ancestry.com DEFINITELY lists names if they are Jewish (it even lists a lot of names which are almost NEVER Jewish as possibly Jewish!)
So, we can be pretty sure that going back as many generations as I can find, David Irving does NOT have Jewish ancestry.
Furthermore, Miles W. Mathis' own credibility is suspect. Focussing only on this article and ignoring some of the other rubbish that he's pushed at times, his self-identification as a Leftist in the vein of Noam Chomsky, using Wikipedia as a source, and mocking of Irving's prison experience don't impress me at all.

The Holocaust, even more than 9/11, is the 'Foundational Myth' for the current order.
Without it, there would be NO reason for Israel to even exist, or for Jews to have the special privileges that they do.
Whether or not it affects you directly, it affects society as a whole both directly and indirectly, and it needs to be purged from the public consciousness, or at least replaced or supplemented (with things like the Holodomor, etc.)
I still remember the best teacher I ever had in Academy assigning 'Slaughterhouse V' by Vonnegut for our English class, and then having it banned by administration after a couple of students with Jewish ancestry complained that it took the focus off of the Shoah.
On the other hand, when forced to watch 'Schindler's List' for my English class in the previous year, I was skeptical not impressed, and this led to me being held after class for questioning.

I own 5 books written by David Irving and I highly recommend anything he has written.

Like the OP I saw that YT video in question, and was moved to support this man financially, in my own small way.