Monday, June 4, 2018

Notes on Introduction to HITLER'S WAR by David Irving

I also think your use of sneer quotes in describing Holocaust denial — which Irving no longer engages in but certainly did at the same he very stupidly sued Deborah Lipstadt — is troubling... I can also demonstrate that Irving is, at the very least, a full-blown anti-Semite, although I suspect you know that.

I don't like the term 'Holocaust Denial' because it sounds like a religious concept. We are expected to worship Holocaust as some kind of faith. But when it comes to actual history, we either know or don't know, believe or disbelieve what we are told. It's not a matter of Denying.
If someone knows little or nothing about the Ukraine Famine, he can't be a called a Famine Denier. He just doesn't know. Also, if his understanding of the Event runs counter to the account of the Ukrainian government, he is less a denier than a disbeliever of the Official Narrative. The current Ukrainian Narrative says 8 million died in the 'Holodomor'. But there are studies that show the numbers were more likely 3.5 million. So, if one chooses the latter number, is he a 'denier'?

There are two kinds of people who muck up the Holocaust debate:

Those who insist on Faith and Worship. So, we are to never question the 6 million figure. Never ask why there was such hostility toward Jews. Just believe that pure-as-snow 6 million Jews were killed for totally irrational reasons. This is a cult or neo-religion, not history.

Then, you got those who have a hardon for Hitler Cult and Nazis OR hate Jewish Power so much that they are willing to believe that the Holocaust was just a big hoax. Hitler was just a misunderstood Nice Guy and if some Jews died, it was all an accident or due to typhus... or Hitler's henchmen did it behind his back. These people are not interested in history. They just want to desecrate what has become holy to Jews. It's all a quasi-religious battle between Holocaust iconographers and Holocaust iconoclasts.

But then, same is true of some on the Left. Godfree Robert's apologies for Mao are incredible, and they were actually commonplace prior to revelations of Mao's true record under Deng. This sort of thing is more a psychological phenomenon, the need to worship something in our godless age. Maybe if Godfree became Godfull, he wouldn't need false idols to worship. If Godfree Roberts believed as he did before the revelations of Mao's monstrosities, it'd be somewhat understandable. But the fact that he continues to apologize for Mao even after so much of the truth has come out shows that some people have a certain psychological condition that must BELIEVE in something. I don't think Godfree Roberts is evil. He is just 'possessed'.

David Irving was a sly kind of Holocaust Desecrator. He didn't outright reject historical accounts or facts. He just played dumb or feigned ignorance on certain matters. Or, his standards for historical veracity on the subject became impossibly high. So, even though he was more than willing to accept the standard statistics on Stalin's mass-killing, he demanded absolute proof on Nazi mass-killings. His double-standard readily accepted stats on leftist violence but insisted on absolute veracity when it came to Nazi mayhem. Irving could believe Stalin ordered all those mass-killings but played 'where's the beef?' on Nazi mass-killings, i.e. unless some document connecting Hitler to the Holocaust could be unearthed, we were to remain skeptical of the Fuhrer's responsibility. But this kind of moral logic is ridiculous. Hitler was the top dog and set the tone for Nazi Germany. Even if he didn't give a directive for the mass killing, he was still responsible in the way that Mao was responsible for the mass deaths of Great Leap and Cultural Revolution. He set in the motion the terrible events and created a climate of total fanaticism.

As for Lipstadt, she is a monster. When the Irving trial was unfolding, I sympathized with her because MSM gave the impression that Irving was against free speech, i.e. she opined about Irving and was sued for defamation. I figured no one should be sued for an opinion. But more recently, I learned that it was Lipstadt and her ilk who used muscle to prevent Irving's work from being published. So, Irving was acting to defend his career as an important historian.

Lipstadt is one of those monsters who toss the term 'denier' as a smear campaign against any counter-narrative thought-criminal. She even used the term against Ernest Nolte even though he never discounted the Holocaust Narrative. Nolte said the Nazis, though evil and destructive, were reacting to comparably evil and destructive forces of communism. But that made him a 'denier' according to Lipstadt. And given all the ludicrous antipathy toward Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria, and Iran from Jewish globalist power, I think more people are waking up the fact that MSM is full of crap.

The recent Hollywood movie about Churchill has him being friendly with a Negro on a London subway. In fact, Churchill had very low opinion of dark folks and was a total imperialist who believed in British mastery over non-white subjects. Also, it's funny that a historian can write awful things AS LONG AS they suck up to Jewish Power. Take Andrew Roberts who is favored by MSM. This guy wrote about how it was justified for the British Imperialists to mow down people in India to maintain order. But he gets a pass because he's always sucking up to Zionists and so weepy-poo about the Holocaust. And consider all the academic hacks who are favored because they favor 'new cold war' with Russia and destruction of Syria and Libya.

As for Irving's 'antisemitism', I don't find that to be a problem. Where does it say that anyone must like a certain people? Many American scare-monger about Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Muslims, Mexicans, and etc. And many Jews express hostility toward Russians, White Evangelicals, Muslims, Palestinians, Iranians, Mormons, and etc. Who says anyone has to like anyone or any people? Plenty of people dislike Gypsies. Plenty of people are put off by Hindus. And plenty of Hindus are put off by Muslims. Mexicans love to bash gringos. So, why is it some kind of sin to not like Jews? Jews don't have to like all peoples, and no people should be expected to like Jews as a cosmic law. But in the West, three peoples -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- MUST be liked. Why? It sounds supremacist to me. If blacks can dislike any people, any people should be free to dislike blacks.

So, if Irving doesn't like Jews, that's okay... just like it's okay if Jews don't like Iranians or Russians. (Just read what Ann Applebaum has written on Russian people and culture.) With Irving, the problem is he let his personal feelings get in the way of assessing history, and that's been a big minus. Eric Hobsbawm had a similar blindspot with Stalin even though he finally admitted that Stalin killed a lot of people.

I think Irving's worldview is, at the root, similar to that of Paul Johnson. Both are romantics of British Imperialism. They see it as mostly glorious than wicked. They believe the world benefited greatly as the White Man's Burden. Brits were the rightful lords of the world. So, Johnson even makes light of the British opium trade in China and blamed the Chinese for becoming addicted to the stuff. Both mourn the passing of the Empire. Despite similar sentiments about the Empire, where they diverge is in the Why(the empire fell) and How(the Brits should cope in the New Order).
Johnson blames Moral Relativism unleashed by WWI and overt German aggression. Instead of being more civil and well-mannered in international affairs, the Germans got too eager and boorish and messed things up for everyone.
In contrast, Irving's position is a harder version of Buchanan's that the British should have sided with their racial brethren the Germans instead of fighting a Anglo vs German brothers' war in both WWI and WWII. Irving sees Jews as mucking up the racial-brotherly relations between Anglos and Germans.

I suspect Johnson privately has a lot of trepidation about Jews as well, but his hopes are like those of Jared Taylor. He believes the West has no choice but to be philosemitic because the Holocaust was too horrible and Jews have gotten too rich and powerful. So, unless the Right can win over Jews, it is at a serious disadvantage in moral and monetary terms.
Therefore, Johnson's shtick is that Antisemitism was really the result of Moral Relativism, Radical Modernity, and Teutonic irrationalism that were heroically countered by rational, moderate, and Christian civilization of the enlightened British Empire. So, Jews should NOT see Anglos and Germans as equal 'racists' but forge an alliance with Anglos as fellow enlightened imperialists who should rule over the world. The template for what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist World Order.

No comments:

Post a Comment