David Irving

Response to Bernie Farber's “Denial” editorial in the National Post

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2016-09-22 18:45

By Carolyn Yeager

BERNIE FARBER IS THE FORMER LONG-TIME DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS, therefore a long-time fighter for Jewish interests. After retiring, he is now CEO of another Jewish organization, the Mosaic (as in Moses) Institute. His father was a Polish Jew who says he lost his first family in the “Holocaust,” while he alone survived and came to Canada.

Farber praises the new Deborah Lipstadt film “Denial” in his Sept. 20 editorial in the Canadian National Post, a newspaper of which he is a semi-regular contributor. He confidently sets out to demolish David Irving and holocaust revisionists, knowing he will receive no blow-back for telling lies. And lies he does tell, while utilizing the familiar method of accusing those he is lying about of being liars. Yes, it is pure Jewish argument.

Hadding Scott notices a crucial misrepresentation in "Denial" trailer

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2016-08-25 09:31

Actress Rachel Weisz plays Deborah Lipstadt in the upcoming film Denial about David Irving's libel trial against her.


by Hadding Scott

THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF THE FILM DENIAL, about David Irving's failed libel-suit against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt in 2000, is not to pound David Irving even farther into the dust -- although it may do that -- but to discredit Holocaust Revisionism: hence the film's title is not Irving, but Denial.

To attack Holocaust Revisionism through the person of David Irving, however, requires portraying him as the quintessential Holocaust Revisionist or "Denier," which he never was. The purpose of the film thus requires misrepresentation. Please continue reading at Codoh.com

Tags 

David Irving

Hadding Scott talks frankly about David Irving's flaws as a revisionist

Published by carolyn on Wed, 2016-05-25 15:42

David Irving tours the Majdanek Museum grounds in Poland. Fred Leuchter's findings about Majdanek are inconvenient for Irving's current version of the Holocaust.


In a substantial, well-researched and courageous article, Hadding Scott reveals the superficiality of the British historian's holocaust theories, and proposes his own theory as to why Irving made such a turnaround about the “gassing” claims. This is a must-read for everyone who wants to keep up with the latest currents in revisionism. I give it an A+.

Comments are welcome here since Codoh doesn't have the option of comments except in their forum.

"Talking Frankly" about David Irving
A Critical Analysis of David Irving's Statement on the Holocaust

Part 2 of "Mark Weber: Squishy Semi-Revisionist Shirker" now at CODOH

Published by carolyn on Tue, 2016-03-08 17:31

Weber: "My view about the gas-chambers or gassings is the same essentially as David Irving. And I believe that Jews were gassed. Yes."

An aid to comprehension for viewers of Jim Rizoli's interview of Mark Weber (10 February 2016)

By Hadding Scott

In the first part, I showed that Mark Weber, in his interview with Jim Rizoli (10 February 2016), consistently tried to avoid acknowledging any findings of Holocaust Revisionism, and also tried to conceal his past acknowledgment of such findings. In this part, the focus is on Weber's attempts to justify his retreat from Holocaust Revisionism.

Mark Weber gives several arguments to justify his current refusal to support the revisionist findings that he once supported in regard to the Holocaust. I was able to discern the following, somewhat contradictory arguments, listed here in ascending order of absurdity:

1. The question of whether the Holocaust-story is true or false is no longer relevant.

2. Although the truth about the Holocaust is relevant (contradicting the previous point) it should not be relevant!

3. There is no point in disputing the Holocaust because Jews really were gassed. 

Please continue reading at CODOH

"Hitler's Table Talk" Study Hour: Introduction - Episode 1

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2014-03-06 16:53
 
00:00

March 6, 2014

Carolyn Yeager and Ray Goodwin  use their first program to introduce listeners  to some background information on this collection of what are basically after-lunch-or-supper monologues by Adolf Hitler in the company of his intimate circle.




  • How trustworthy is this text, since Martin Bormann assigned two of his aides to take the notes during meals, then turn them over to him for “checking” and safekeeping;
  • Why it is valuable to study this book;
  • Questions about the translation and translators – for example, did Francois Genoud tamper with the parts about Christianity;
  • Of those offended by this book, Christians are #1 on the list, complaining that it does not agree with Hitler’s “public record” of positive remarks about Christianity in earlier years;
  • David Irving and Albert Speer both confirmed that these recorded talks are authentically Hitler; Richard Carrier disagrees;
  • Next week we’ll begin reading the text.

The edition being used was translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, published by Enigma Books, New York, and can be found as a pdf here.