A ChemtrailsGeelong.com Article
The Denial of Common Sense: Hollywood Jewry in Damage Control
In what appears to be international Jewry's panic stations attempt to halt the increasing number of people waking up to the Holocaust fraud, Hollywood has come up with its latest insult to the collective intelligence: a film called "Denial", allegedly about the Irving/Lipstadt Holocaust libel trial of early 2000, but unlikely to have even a passing resemblance to the reality of that unfortunate event, in which exceptional WW2 historian David Irving, entirely on his own and with his own funds, took on a huge legal team costing millions of dollars and funded by Jewish tycoons and organizations, among them Steven Spielberg and the American Jewish Committee......
Pictured above right: Hardly the Hollywood portrayal. The real David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt during the 2000 libel trial. Lipstadt was backed by a huge legal team funded by Jewish tycoons to the tune of 13 million USD. Irving faced them alone.
In fact the chief 'expert' for the official narrative regarding Auschwitz, Professor Robert Jan Van Pelt, received US$200,000 for his appearance alone. How enormously lucrative it can be to tow the official line! And think of the enormous pressure that placed upon Irving who at all times was conscious of the fact that he may well have to bear the costs of the trial. Never mind that most of the evidence presented by the Lipstadt team ought to have been ruled inadmissible as a matter of law(1). And never mind that only nine years later van Pelt went on record in an interview with the Toronto Star(2) declaring:
"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [regarding the 'Holocaust'] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove.....it has become part of our inherited knowledge."
Note the usual doublespeak of these career liars. How can we 'know' what we cannot prove? It is not that the documentary evidence and eyewitness accounts are any better than the physical evidence. This is not even controversial – the Lipstadt Defence team conceded as much at trial. The presiding judge, Mr. Justice Charles Gray, in his judgment of April 11, 2000, summarised these concessions as follows:
"The Defendants [Lipstadt and Penguin publishers] recognise that not all of the evidence......is altogether reliable. This applies with particular force to the evidence of the eye-witnesses. It is also accepted by the Defendants that in certain respects the documentary evidence, including the photographic evidence, is capable of more than one interpretation."
This is a remarkable acknowledgement by Gray especially in light of the fact that the rest of his judgment is essentially a thoroughly unconvincing attempt to find same evidence not only reliable but 'overwhelming' in its persuasiveness; despite literally hard concrete evidence to the contrary. (We will discuss the evidence in some detail below.) In fact the evidence for the official Holocaust narrative as presented at the Irving-Lipstadt trial was, in truth, so inadequate that Lipstadt's counsel were compelled to argue a so-called 'convergence of evidence' in which we are expected to believe that if you add nothing together a sufficient number of times you get something a little like something at the end of it. A theory that will be no doubt easy to accept for those who subscribe to the hitherto unknown mathematical law that 6 million minus 3 million equals 6 million when applied to Holocaust and Auschwitz death estimates.(3)
In stark contrast to the Lipstadt army of experts and counsel, Irving represented himself, putting everything he had on the line and ultimately losing it. He has also been seriously physically assaulted, largely vilified in the same mainstream media that were once only too happy to justly laud him, and has spent time in prison, all for having the courage to openly express politically incorrect, yet evidentially sound views about the second world war. So much for freedom of speech. (More on this here.)
The 'Denial' film trailer, by the way, depicts so-called 'neo-Nazi' hooligans shouting slogans on the street outside the courtroom - one wonders if the paid Jewish thugs that pelted Irving with eggs on the day of his closing speech and were aggressively present at other times throughout the trial will also be depicted. In fact the so-called 'neo-Nazis' (if they existed at all in unscripted reality) were probably on the same pay-roll as the Jewish thugs truth be told - the world is fast waking up to the false flag tactics of these deceivers. Meanwhile Lipstadt has known only kickback upon kickback (however concealed and indirect they may have been) culminating in the tidy sum she will no doubt get for this latest film based ostensibly on her book. Keeping all this in mind then, who is the real hero here, I ask you? I mean, honestly.
There are many in the Holocaust revisionist movement (i.e. those who find themselves unable, in the face of the evidence, to accept the official narrative) who both at the time and afterwards, questioned Irving's wisdom in bringing a libel action in an English court concerning his unorthodox views about World War 2 and the Holocaust. As Irving's father used to tell him, 'British justice is the best money can buy'. Given then his detractors it has been suggested that Irving simply could not afford it. Indeed to those unfamiliar with the adversarial court system it can be difficult to conceive of all the ways that a pronounced disparity in the pecuniary capacity of the litigating parties can be turned to legal advantage, but rest assured that lawyers do not share the common ignorance on this point. Of course the idea that Irving ultimately lost his case merely as a result of his inability to match his opponents' monetary muscle assumes that it would have been afforded him at any price in the circumstances, which frankly I doubt.
|Doug Christie and Robert Faurisson: Holocaust lie-witness demolition team at the 1985 Zundel trial.|
Leading lights of the revisionist movement felt also that Irving ought to have called them as witnesses as had been done to such great effect by legendary barrister Doug Christie and his client Ernst Zundel in the 1985 and 1988 Zundel trials. Civil rights activist and martyr to free speech, Zundel, had published a revisionist booklet and was prosecuted under an archaic Canadian law for spreading 'false news'. (Sound familiar? - the same old censorship tactics from the same old enemies of truth.) He was eventually acquitted (in 1992) and the law by which he was prosecuted repealed, but you won't see Hollywood making a film about that disaster for the Holocaust liars any time soon! In fact at the Zundel trials, brilliant cross-examinations by Christie, with the help of equally legendary researcher Robert Faurisson, made so clear the implausibility, if not utter absurdity, of orthodox Holocaust 'eye-witness' accounts that not one dared show up for the appeal. One such witness, Rudolf Vrba, who featured in the deeply flawed van Pelt report at the Irving-Lipstadt trial, was forced to concede under oath at the Zundel trial that he had used 'poetic license' when describing alleged events in his Holocaust book. In other words, he made them up. Another witness, Arnold Friedman, finally admitted under cross examination that he had in fact seen nothing at all, but had simply relied on the hearsay of others.
And it wasn't only the eye-witnesses who came under the hitherto unapplied light of genuinely objective scrutiny. Raul Hilberg, author of the much lauded and voluminous 'The destruction of the European Jews', and still considered one of the chief scholars for the official Holocaust narrative, was compelled to admit under oath that the statements in his book about Hitler ordering the extermination of the Jews were completely unsupported by any documentary evidence(4); which explains of course why in an otherwise rigorously footnoted work these statements were suspiciously not footnoted. Hilberg further admitted that same statements were in fact simply a matter of his own opinion about which he was entitled to change his mind at any time, though in his book he had clearly implied that they were a matter of established fact. Naturally the suggestion that he had deliberately set out to deceive his readers in this way did not occur to him as a suitable explanation for such an obvious ruse. In fact, elsewhere Hilberg has publicly acknowledged that there never was any central agency blueprint or budget for the alleged extermination of the Jews. According to his well-known and thoroughly ridiculous 'incredible meeting of minds' theory, all orders regarding the extermination of the Jews were given by some kind of tacit telepathy; 'a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy', to be precise. Such are the lengths these frauds will go to, to maintain the untenable.
|Germar Rudolf: his "Rudolf Report" both replicated and superseded the ground-breaking work of Fred Leuchter. Rudolf has served prison time in his native Germany for the thought crime of questioning the official Holocaust narrative on sound scientific grounds.|
Certainly a strong case could be made that Irving ought to have called chemist Germar Rudolf as a witness. In fact Gray J went as far as stating in his judgment that:
“I have not overlooked the fact that Irving claimed that Leuchter's findings have been replicated, notably in a report by Germar Rudolf. But that report was not produced at the trial so it is impossible for me to assess its evidential value.”
No doubt Gray was secretly relieved. Fred Leuchter, by the way, had written a ground-breaking report in the eighties for the Zundel trials. This report included results of chemical tests made on mortar samples taken from the walls of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, showing no significant traces of the cyanide gas with which hundreds of thousands of Jews were allegedly killed. If these homicidal claims were true, the walls ought to have been full of it, let's face it. Given then, van Pelt's paltry, unqualified and fraudulent attempts to discredit the Leuchter report, which were, as a matter of course, nonetheless accepted as credible testimony by Gray J, the evidence of an actual chemist such as Rudolf would have introduced some much needed real expertise and objectivity to the argument. The deeply impressive and utterly unmatched breadth of knowledge of Italian researcher, Carlo Mattogno, regarding technical aspects of the Auschwitz cremation process, incineration capacity and fuel supply, might also have been heard to good effect. Even if the additional testimonies of Rudolf and Mattogno did not make any difference to the verdict regarding the libel action, they would have served to put a more correct view of the evidence for and against the official Holocaust narrative on the public record. In any case, we shall ourselves call these witnesses below so that the reader might make his own judgement.
Nonetheless one can't help admire Irving for trying his lone hand in court. The reader is invited to read the trial transcripts, especially Irving's cross examinations (giving and receiving); Irving's performance is remarkably good - certainly Irving could teach his counterpart Rampton QC a thing or two about common courtesy. Irving's performance is all the more remarkable when one considers his complete lack of legal experience and the fact that he is surrounded by old-hand legal sharks like Rampton and Anthony Julius (Princess Diana's solicitor, I hear), and Lipstadt's team of experts-for-hire; all of whom were essentially antagonistic to his views - Gray J too, truth be told. Not to mention all the other solicitors working on the case both during the trial and in the 4 years or so pre-trial leading up to the case. From what I gather, every trick in the book was thrown at Irving, all perfectly legal of course, but in some cases utterly reprehensible and despicable nonetheless(5). And it wasn't just the legal team. Journalists too played their part in making sure that the trial received only that attention that was acceptable to their Jewish masters. US historian and author, Michael Hoffman, summed up the highly selective media coverage of the trial as follows:
|Irving: not the Hollywood caricature|
By the way, in referring to Irving, I am referring, of course to the actual man, not the unconscionable caricature they apparently have portraying him in the above mentioned Hollywood film. Please understand there is a world of difference. And while half-wit actress Rachael Weiss (with one eye fixed firmly on the advancement of her meaningless career) will no doubt read her scripted lines just as she is expertly directed to, thus giving film-goers Hollywood's cringe-worthy mis-impression of that repellent affront to real scholarship and fundamental standards of evidence, Deborah Lipstadt, the real Lipstadt remains in fact little more than a mediocre stooge for the Holocaust propaganda machine, and by all accounts an insufferable bore into the bargain. The film was released in the US at the end of September last year, in the UK in January, and will arrive, I am told, in Australian cinemas on April 13th. I have not, and do not intend to see the film (frankly, I do not have the stomach for Hollywood), but what I have seen of the trailer is enough to convince me that it is yet another entirely meretricious, formulaic and emotionally manipulative propaganda piece designed for that ever-diminishing number of simpletons still inclined to buy such rubbish. If however the reader prefers hard facts he is invited to read the article that follows below: “Did the Lipstadt Trial Prove the Official Holocaust Narrative?”
|Lipstadt: would not face up to Irving in court|
In a recent interview on YouTube, Michael Hoffman describes with characteristic eloquence the true nature of the Lipstadt trial and the film based upon it. Here is a particularly pertinent excerpt:
"I think that it's interesting to note that history is so often tried by Hollywood. They can't actually have Germar Rudolf or Carlo Mattogno or one of the other experts from codoh.com [Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust] on their news programs or debating on CBS or CNN, and instead they create these puppet figures, these simulacrums, these strawmen of David Irving in the movie, and then attack that and present that as the reality. And I think that it's an indicator of their insecurity and weakness that they have to do this second hand through Tinsel Town rather than directly through a debate with bona-fide revisionist historians."
Exactly. To date neither Lipstadt nor any of the other exterminationists have shown themselves ready and able to face up to any of the top revisionist experts in open debate despite repeated invitations to do so. In fact Lipstadt betrayed her intellectual cowardice and scholastic ineptitude when she opted out of direct cross examination by David Irving in the libel trial. Surely that was her opportunity to put him straight about all the alleged lies and falsifications she was more than ready to accuse him of before the trial, from the relative safety of the pages of a book. But when the opportunity came to do it one-on-one, face-to-face, she chose rather to ensconce herself safely behind the skirts of her inflated legal team. In contrast, as noted above, Irving fared well both under cross examination himself, and also cross examining the whole chorus of Lipstadt's so-called experts and witnesses, showing himself more than a match for any of them, despite their inflated pay cheques. Irving had after all, the distinct advantage of being essentially in the right.
In fact if one had to criticise Irving for anything it would be perhaps to suggest that what appeared in him throughout the trial to be a genuine, implicit and even boyishly naive faith in English 'Justice' was, regrettably, somewhat misplaced in the circumstances. On the other hand he may not have been all that naive by the end of the trial: when asked by a colleague what he thought his chances of winning were, he quipped, “it depends on whether the judge is prepared to commit professional suicide”. The verdict against him was, of course, a foregone conclusion. As many of the more perceptive and disinterested observers noted at the time the judge might as well have written it before the trial began. Unfair? Consider the following revealing exchange that took place between Gray J and Irving very early on in the trial(7) almost three months before the delivery of the judgement:
|Justice Charles Gray: a convenient judgement|
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let me ask you this question, and do not answer if you do not want to, but if I were to come to the conclusion that there is a whole range of formidable evidence of one kind and another.
MR IRVING: Yes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Camp officials, eyewitnesses, scientific evidence, evidence of construction at the gas chambers and the like; all of which was there, but you paid no attention to it, is that something you would accept?
In fact the above excerpt forms part of a longer exchange in which Rampton QC is doing his best to pressure Irving into disavowing the 'Leuchter Report' (we will discuss this report below), but a better two sentence summary of the deeply flawed judgement Gray would deliver almost three months and 25 trial days later could not possibly be formulated. Perhaps Gray ought to have ended the matter right there and then and saved Irving the financially crippling additional costs. Instead, Gray permitted himself to preside over a further 25 days of a farce in which the substantial body of work of an exceptional historian, representing decades of painstaking research, was subjected to the pettiest of nit-picking by an unholy gang of hired stooges for politically correct conformity.
"I think his [Irving's] is a view which, even if one disagrees with it, has to be taken seriously. He is, after all, the only man of standing, on the basis of his other research, who puts the case for Hitler forward and it seems to me that it is mistaken to dismiss it. It requires the most careful examination, though, I must say, I hope that I am never subjected to the kind of examination that Mr Irving’s books have been suggested to by the Defence witnesses. I have a very strong feeling that there are other senior historical figures, including some to whom I owed a great deal of my own career, whose work would not stand up, or not all of whose work would stand up, to this kind of examination."
Indeed. But that a true son of the British isles of the intelligence and integrity of Irving should have been so treated by one of his own Justice systems is a disgrace that Britain would do well to rectify, and make amends for, sooner rather than later. For its own sake.
“I heard the expert witnesses who were paraded before us use phrases like the “consensus of expert opinion” as their source so often – in fact the word consensus occurs so far no fewer than forty times in the daily transcripts of this trial – that I began to wonder what archives were for. I suggest that these experts were more expert in reporting each other’s opinions, and those of people who agree with them, than in what the archives actually do – and do not – contain.”
- David Irving, the Ides of March, 2000
In which the real David Irving confronts the real Deborah Lipstadt, click here. (Poor video quality unfortunately, but Irving's commentary is well worth the listen.)
In which Germar Rudolf thoroughly debunks Lipstadt's exercise in junk research and scholastic irrelevance, "Denying the Holocaust", click here.
Did the Irving-Lipstadt Trial Prove the Official Holocaust Narrative?
The tag-line for the new Hollywood film, 'Denial', implies that the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial somehow proved the official Holocaust narrative. Did it really? Or are we simply being fed another preposterous propaganda lie by the masters of the art? Clearly the answer to this question is not to be found in Hollywood's version of history, but in knowing the true state of the Holocaust debate beyond the carefully controlled main stream media information channels. That means knowing both sides of the story, not just one. If you are new to the 'other' side of the debate you may be in for something of a shock as to where the proofs actually lie.......
The Case for Revisionism at the Irving-Lipstadt trial
Fact is, the truth about Auschwitz-Birkenau is an open and shut case. One need only bother to look into it seriously to confirm this. Consider the evidence:
Other Recommended Reading
"None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."    - Goethe
1. Are we the unwitting slaves of a hidden hand?
Click here for the article 'The Money Trap: Do I Need to be a Slave to Money? (Applying the Scientific Method to the question of Liberty.)'
2. Are your desires being used to control and enslave you?
Click here for the article 'The Sex Deception (A Young Man's Guide.)'
It's 1972. Eight men and women and a psychology professor walk into various psychiatric hospitals in the US pretending to be hearing voices. Immediately institutionalized by all the hospitals bar none they then return to their normal behaviour. Will any of the psychiatrists or nurses on the hospital staff spot the deception? What happens next will shatter any illusions you may have about psychiatry forever..........
"Any diagnostic process that lends itself too readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one."
- D.L.Rosenhan, psychologist
Psychiatrists: health professionals or thought policemen? You decide.......Click here for more.
(Click the Note numbers to return to its position in the article.)
(1) See Irving's appeal document (click here), items 17-21.
(2) Click here.
(3) In September 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev released the Auschwitz death registers from the Moscow archives. Death estimates at Auschwitz were soon thereafter officially reduced by up to a staggering 3 million. And the official figure, originally 4 million, continues to fall - it now ranges from 500,000 to one million. Despite this there has never been any corresponding adjustment to the 'six million' mythology.
(4) Institute of Historical Review: “The 'False News' Trial of Ernst Zundel”. Click here.
(5) In an article for The Sunday Times (UK, February 26, 2006) legal journalist Dominic Carman wrote: "Four months before the trial, in September 1999, Josephine, the eldest of [Irving's] four daughters by his first wife Pilar, committed suicide at the age of 36. [Irving's daughter had been diagnosed with a terminal brain disease.] After her funeral Irving alleges that someone in a London law firm sent him a sadistic message with a wreath: “It was very large and very expensive. The card said, ‘Truly a merciful death’ signed ‘Philip Bouhler and friends’. ‘Merciful death’ is the Nazi phrase for euthanasia. Bouhler was Hitler’s chief of euthanasia programme. I went to the florists in Great Queen Street who delivered it. They told me a Middle Eastern-looking man ordered it. He paid cash. Jewish of course. Lipstadt later said, ‘We did everything we could to destabilise him before the trial’.”
(6) Click here. (Scroll down to the article: 'The Media Blackout'.)
(7) Trial transcripts day 7. Click here (p91-92).