FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?
Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!
Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?

BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!
SPREAD WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY!

"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Denying Denial : The Holocaust Exposed

Denying Denial : The Holocaust Exposed
 Jonas E. Alexis 

Jonas Alexis and three revisionists put Deborah Lipstadt on trial for her book on Holocaust denial. They find Lipstadt and the Hollywood movie makers of ‘Denial’, based on the David Irving court case, guilty of lying. 


David Merlin: The movie Denial is the Holocaust Establishment’s latest insult to the intelligence of the public.  Denial is loosely based on the defamation trial between British historian David Irving and Holocaust studies professor Deborah Lipstadt and is loudly promoted as an “incredible, unbelievable story of two people pitted against each other in a battle over truth, history and integrity.”
In fact, the movie’s screenwriter David Hare seems to have stood truth on its head with distortions of fact, misstatements of events and omissions of inconvenient evidence.
Hare and Lipstadt’s partisans have gone as far as claiming a messianic role for Lipstadt (always a good way to deceive the people,) announcing her as “a latter-day Jewish heroine of truly biblical proportions,” and claiming mystical premonitions, “mother always said there was going to be an event. I was picked out, she said. I was chosen.”
But claims of being a biblical heroine or “chosen” aside, Lipstadt did not win the litigation for reasons of divine intervention but because of millions of dollars poured into the case; estimates are of $12,000,000 spent on the defense.  One member of Lipstadt’s vast legal team boasted that,
“I helped raise the funds, and worked with the lawyers, graduate students and experts, sometimes from London, and sometimes from my home in Brooklyn (where [during the Trial] the courtroom stenographer’s real-time transcript appeared on my computer, and I could communicate with a paralegal with a vibrating cell phone in the courtroom, if need be).”[3] 
Jonas E. AlexisDenial was never about telling the whole truth. If it were, then producers of the movie would have brought certain facts on the big screen which would have almost certainly stunned moviegoers everywhere. For example, the movie should have brought the fact there were at least 150,000 people of Jewish descent in Nazi Germany—and Hitler knew about this![4]
If there were a deliberate and clear order to exterminate all the Jews in Germany, then the Jews in Nazi Germany would have to be executed as well, an unpersuasive and unarticulated argument which can only make sense to those who have already subscribed to the Holocaust narrative.
As it turns out, the Holocaust narrative continues to thrive in society because, as Norman Finkelstein puts it, it is an industry which exploits real Jewish suffering.[5] Flaming Neocon Charles Krauthammer himself has said that the Holocaust narrative has become “the dominant feature of Jewishness in America.”[6] Last year alone, Georgetown University got $10 million “for Holocaust research.”[7]
Did the movie ever point out how the Holocaust establishment exploits what really happened in Nazi Germany? Did they tell viewers that Hollywood produces at least one or two Holocaust movies every single year but has yet to release a single movie on the Bolshevik Revolution or on Stalin’s genocide or on Mao’s Great Leap Forward or on any other Jewish revolutionary movement? Is that really fair and honest?
Moreover, if historian Norman M. Naimark is right in saying that “genocide has been a part of human history from its very beginnings,”[8] why are we memorializing one genocide to the exclusion of all the others? Can the Holocaust establishment explain this phenomenon for us?
David Merlin: The most brazen lie of the film is that the Trial “proved the Holocaust.”  The Trial judge (Charles Gray) specifically stated:
“It is no part of my function to attempt to make findings as to what actually happened during the Nazi regime.”   Judgment 13.3.
Irving opened the case telling the court, “I have never held myself out to be a Holocaust expert, nor have I written books about what is now called the Holocaust.”   Trial Transcript Day 1, page 13.
The case is better described as a wide-ranging questioning of Irving’s competence as a historian; an ex-post-facto effort to substantiate Lipstadt’s claim that Irving had falsified the historical record.
Judge Gray broke the alleged falsification of historical facts into 4 elements:
“(a) 19 specific individual criticisms of Irving’s historiography [which covered esoteric points like Hitler’s 1924 trial or a mistranslation of a telephone log entry for Deceber 1, 1941]; (b) his portrayal of Hitler… (c) his claims in relation to Auschwitz (d) the bombing of Dresden.”
Item (c) (Irving’s claims in relation to Auschwitz) received the most media attention. It was also the area in which Irving had little knowledge or experience. Irving ended up having to defend his “tasteless” comments made off-the-cuff before some right-wing groups.
The technical questions of whether certain buildings could have been homicidal gas chambers only related to Auschwitz and not to Treblinka, Sobibor or any other alleged “Extermination Camps.”
In fact, Irving really only challenged the operation of one gas chamber at Auschwitz, Krema II. Neither was the operation of the Einsatzgruppen addressed at the Trial. Ironically, the claim that the Trial “proved the Holocaust” is a falsification of history similar to Lipstadt’s accusations against Irving.
Jonas E. Alexis: Needless to say, neither Hare nor the promoters of Denial wanted to hear Irving’s side of the story. Irving said that the producers of the movie never contacted him to get his point of view. He said:
“Ridley Scott was directing the original version, but the newspapers say he quit when HBO asked him to include fictional elements. I have not seen anything of ‘Denial’ but bits of trailers: the opening scene, of my first confrontation with Lipstadt in Atlanta in November 1994, is fictional; it happened, but my actual challenge, waving $1,000 in notes in the air, was: ‘If you will now show this audience the actual blueprint you just told this audience that you have, I will give you these notes.’ See our video of the scene, posted on YouTube. They have changed that wording materially.”
Irving, in my humble opinion, made a cardinal mistake when he challenged Deborah Lipstadt in court. Instead of challenging an entire empire in court, Irving should have meticulously read Lipstadt’s diatribes and carefully responded to them point by point in a book. That would have killed the Holocaust establishment—and Lipstadt in particular—with a bang.
Let us just say in passing that Lipstadt will not listen to the voice of reason at all. She is a thought-police, therefore any criticism of Israel—such as Zionism is racism or Israel is an apartheid state—is anti-Semitism.[9]
If Lipstadt can call the so-called alternative right “white supremacists” who are “just like Holocaust deniers”[10] without an scintilla of serious arguments, then one can say that this lady is struggling mightily to string two coherent thoughts together. In fact, she came to teach at Emory not because of her serious scholarship, but because of the Jewish influence.[11]
One can say that Lipstadt’s “scholarly” endeavor began when she started to assign the book Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood 1939-1948 to her students. The Holocaust memoir of Benjamin Wilkomirski, Fragments came out in 1995 and enjoyed immediate success across Europe and the English-speaking world.[12]
As it turns out, the whole story was a complete hoax, a fabrication by a non-Jew who was not even in any of the camps. Despite the revelation of Fragments as a hoax, Deborah Lipstadt stated the book was still “powerful as a novel.”
This brings to light the driving ideology behind those who use the Holocaust as a weapon to subvert history. Lipstadt in particular has been using the so-called Holocaust to beat the Goyim over the head.[13] As Norman Finkelstein points out, the “Holocaust industry” exploits real Jewish suffering.[14]
But if the Holocaust industry wants to produce and reproduce lies and fabrications and deceptions, as in the case of Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust and Michael Shermer’s Denying History, then a meticulous historian like Irving should have refuted those lies in a historical and scholarly study, not in a courtroom where the odds, not the truth, are obviously against you. Would Irving do it again? He said:
“I would do it again—she is ignorant beyond words. Her ongoing astonishment at finding that in England libel law requires that you can prove what you claim says it all. The fact is that the judge despite all found her guilty of the other easy libels she uttered. She stayed out of the witness box, on no doubt good advice. She wrote that I spoke to extremists like Hezbollah in Sweden: I had never been in that country and that is still true, and have never dealt with Hezbollah.
“She wrote that I stole the Goebbels diaries from the Moscow archives in 1992, a very wounding allegation, which a simple query to me or Moscow would have shown to be untrue: she wrote that I had a large painting of Hitler in my study, untrue. Ditto. And so on. What should I do? If I leave the small lies uncontested, the big liars win. The judgment agreed that these were libels, but…
“I sued after her lies were published, not before. That is the difference. My lawsuit asked for token damages from her and her UK publisher, the amount being only five hundred pounds, to be paid to a charity for limbless amputees in memory of my oldest daughter. The publishers showed themselves willing to settle on that basis—and were threatened then with legal action by their joint tortfeasor, Lipstadt. These are all unknown facts.”
To do the trial again would not be wise, in my opinion. Irving already has the historical background to refute promiscuous claims about Nazi Germany and World War II, and if he wants people to learn more about the truth of what truly happened, he should certainly be thinking about a scholarly and historical study of how the “traditional enemy of the truth,” as he calls the establishment, has perverted, inverted, and subverted his words for ideological purposes. Deborah Lipstadt, as Jim W. Dean rightly put it, is
“a holocaust terrorist and it is time to get that phrase into the lexicon as she plays a roll similar to the Jihadi head choppers, to sew fear in the ranks of all non-believers…
“Her handlers fed her hoaxed research, like Irving having a huge painting of Hitler in his office behind his desk, and that his father served Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and much more. None of this was true but Lipstadt had no problem with putting it in.”
Be that as it may, the movie does contain some information which may lead the careful viewer to start doing serious investigation. During an interview after the movie was released, Lipstadt declared that she told the producers to “tell the truth” in the narrative.
The whole truth? Not really.
In the movie, Lipstadt’s team declared that they sent the questions to Irving long before the trial, so that he wouldn’t be surprised about the “plot.” I asked Irving whether that was true. He responded: “Completely untrue.”
More importantly, how can the movie be completely accurate when Irving was not even invited to provide his take on it? The producers may not like his comments, but at least they should have given him the opportunity to say something—good or bad. So for Lipstadt to say that the movie is completely accurate is categorically false. Michael Hoffman comments:
In the movie, Lipstadt is outraged that her lawyers will not call on ‘survivors’ to testify. The head of her defense team, Anthony Julius, has a response. We first meet Julius while he is holding a copy of the book he authored which, we see from the cover, traduces the reputation of the esteemed Christian poet T.S. Eliot. Julius informs Prof. Lipstadt that he will not call the ‘survivors’ because he wants to spare them the disrespect which Irving (who acted as his own attorney), would demonstrate toward them in cross-examination.
“It’s a weak alibi. The honchos of Holocaustianity are painfully aware that putative ‘homicidal Auschwitz gas-chamber eyewitnesses’ were eviscerated under cross-examination by lawyer Doug Christie during the 1985 trial in Canada of Ernst Zündel, for spreading ‘false news.’ This was the actual reason there was no appearance by them at Lipstadt’s trial. At this point in the film, as I sat in the theater I jotted in my review notes, ‘Movie omits to mention Zündel trial’s discrediting cross-examinations of Judaic witnesses.’
“Later in the movie however, Lipstadt demands once again that “Holocaust survivors” testify, and this time a more-candid Julius, albeit in rapid-fire dialogue, tells her that he can’t call on them because, ‘The survivors were torn apart at the Zündel trial.’
“Exactly correct! When so-called ‘eyewitness Holocaust survivors’ were cross-examined in the Zündel case, as detailed in this writer’s The Great Holocaust Trial, not one departed the witness stand with his credibility intact—and it is Hollywood’s Denial movie that reminds the world of this shocking and embarrassing fact, which shatters the main pillar upon which Auschwitz execution-gas-chamber mythology depends: the ‘undeniable’ testimony of ‘eyewitnesses.’”
rachel1
David Merlin: This is confirmed by a report from behind the scenes, “One of the main themes is the lawyers’ clarity…that no survivors would be called to testify. Lipstadt was on board with those decisions more easily than the film portrays.”[15]
Hare left many inconvenient facts out of the movie.  Stern notes a few without seeing the reason for the omissions, “The ‘behind the scenes’ work on the case was not portrayed in the movie, and many of the in-court events of note weren’t either, including testimony from world-class historians such as Peter Longerich and Christopher Browning.”
The immense effort going on behind the scenes was “forgotten” by Hare because, in fact, Lipstadt did little during the trial except to dodging testifying and spending the days sitting in court looking confused.  Showing the huge expensive defense team would tarnish what little bit of “Erin Brockovic shine” the director and screenwriter managed to paint Lipstadt with.  It would also underscore the economic disparity of the parties and the highlight the injustice of a system where money buys the result.
Christopher Browning needed to be left out for a very important reason: He agreed with Irving that there was never a Hitler Order for the mass killings of European Jews. Irving’s revelation has thrown Holocaust believers into confusion over the German decision-making process regarding the alleged program of organized mass killings.  No one seems to have made a decision!   Brown testified in the Trial,
“What had not been studied before you published was a particular focus on decision-making process and Hitler’s role. That is one part and, insofar as we can confine ourselves to that, indeed, your publication of Hitler’s War was the impetus for the research in that area.”
Peter Longerich was the defense witness who claimed that, (since there was on Hitler Order or sign of Hitler’s involvement) the Germans communicated with “a secret code.  But Judge Gray dismissed the theory, writing,
“Much of the argument revolved around questions of translation. I did not derive much assistance from the debate as to how words such as ausrotten, vernichten, abschaffen, umsiedeln and abtransportieren are to be translated.”
Jonas E. Alexis: There are some truths in the movie. It claims that Fred Leuchter took some samples without permission from the authorities and wrapped them in his “dirty underwear.” I asked Leuchter about the claim, and here’s his response:
Fred Leuchter:  Yes, I took Forensic Samples from the alleged execution facilities in Poland without permission from the Authorities in Poland. I was acting as an Expert Forensic Engineer seeking the Truth for a Court as I had done a number of times in the past.  I am not aware that investigating a lie is illegal in Poland or anywhere else.
I did not damage anything and no one could tell where I had been without my scientific record as presented to the Court!  Those who would perpetuate the lie would have prevented my getting the Forensic Samples to a proper laboratory for analysis.
So yes, I mixed the samples (which were properly sealed in sample bags) with dirty underwear hoping that the customs agents would not search the same. They did not and the Truth was forthcoming from the Laboratory Analysis for the Court.
I do not know what other erroneous pronouncements were made about my work in the Movie but, if you advise me, I would be happy to comment on them and set the record straight.
Jonas E. Alexis: One of the characters in the movie makes a good point: ‘Be that as it may, we can criticize his (yours) methods but it is his conclusions we have to discredit.’ That’s a very good question. What makes your conclusions true? Did you fabricate things as you go along? Were you being honest with the material?
Fred Leuchter: My methods were in conformance with my instructions from a Forensic Chemist from Dupont (who was familiar with HCN).  All my samples were religiously preserved for their scientific integrity.  My conclusions were true and correct to which any unbiased expert chemist will attest.  HCN acts a certain way in the environment and the testing was done in accordance with the nature of the chemical.  I fabricated nothing.  I was honest and forthcoming here as I had been in the past with my other forensic work in court.
I have a reputation which was well earned.  I would do nothing to tarnish it.  I did not expect all the problems that I faced.  I believed that an expert witness is an adjunct to the Court System and was inviolate as are judges, lawyers and legislators in the performance of their duties to the court and the law.
I did not expect the lies that would come forth about me.  If an expert Witness cannot function with personal impunity within the court system then our system fails in its attempt to seek and find Truth and without Truth there can be no Justice.  This whole affair has been a sad commentary on our legal system.
For more than a quarter of a Century I have maintained this position and I will retain this backbone ’till I die.  I have been threatened, I have been firebombed, I have been chased by the Mossad and have been offered bribes.  My business was destroyed, my life disrupted and I still adhere to the Truth.
If anyone can question my honesty they must be crazy.  I began my work as an Expert on Execution Technology to prevent torture with the return of the Death Penalty in the United States.  In this I have failed because the Jewish Groups that came after me also came after the Wardens and a State Officials who dealt with me.
By frightening them they managed to remove me from the equation and the torture not only continued but increased.  In the past quarter century all of the Executees who have been tortured are the responsibility of these Jewish Groups that have attempted to discredit me. These people should be ashamed of themselves.”
Jonas E. Alexis: Have independent scholars and researchers looked at your samples, methods and conclusions and declared that they are right in line with forensic research? How have been able to hold up through the years, despite of what they have written about you?
Fred Leuchter: Yes they have. I have held up well except they destroyed my business and livelihood!
Jonas E. Alexis: Menuhin, what’s your take on the whole issue here?
Gerard Menuhin: I also watched a long David Irving interview which was one of the videos attached. Of course he’s a real and respected historian, whereas I’m not even an amateur historian, just an observer. But I was disappointed at his assumption that — as I gathered — about 2 million were gassed, after all. This is based on his research, interpretation of German documents, visits to sites, etc.
My conclusion is the same as Faurisson’s and others, and expressed in my book. Being only a primitive commentator, I had to bolster my instinct with my personal experiences of Germans and Germany, earned primarily during my schooldays there. Apart from the evidence provided by numerous scientific as well as historical sources, it’s not in the German character to murder defenceless men, let alone women and children, on racial or any other grounds.
However, it was in their enemy’s character to starve to death millions of the invented-for-the-purposes-category of ‘Disarmed Enemy Forces’ (actually POWs) in the Rheinwiesenlagers. It’s demonstrably true that attributing your own crimes to your enemy is their regular strategy (gas vans, cattlecars of the ‘Russian’ Revolution).
Irving should not have sued Lipstadt, or, having decided to sue her, he should at least have engaged a lawyer to advise him about the legal, as opposed to the historical, aspects of the case. Britain has been infiltrated by the enemy since 1066, and controlled and largely guided by them since at least 1694 (Bank of England).
So any attempt to win in court is fraught with inherent hindrances. Once one has accepted that they lie as a matter of policy, there is little point in suing them for anything they say.
“He invents new lies daily, against which his opponent must from then on defend himself, and the result is that he, through self-justification, never gets to what the Jew really fears: to attacking him. Now the accused has become the accuser, and, with much clamour, he presses the accuser into the dock. One cannot discuss the Jewish question with Jews.” (Dr. J. Goebbels, 1929)
I disagree with Hoffmann’s optimistic conclusion that one should thank ‘Hollywood’ for the film, on account of its unwilling revelations. ‘Denial’ will be debated as serious history by movie-going audiences who swallowed ‘Schindler’s List’ and other pap, as if it were mandatory research for a doctoral thesis.
When a ‘post-truth’ era is being broadcast by parties promoting their interest in such a fact-free environment, the subtleties Hoffman (an informed viewer) mentions will pass them by.  An effective antidote to this visual vacuity might have been a gritty documentary, in which the hideous Lipstadt would have been trapped into revealing her ignorance of history and her shameless prejudice.
David Merlin: Instead, alas, the vast monetary resources and media influence which crushed Irving and allowed the defendants to succeed at Trial have continued their work with the production of a movie that is little more than a brazen web of deceit.

THE HOLOCAUST EXPOSED
(12-minute video)


[1] See Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002).
[2] Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (New York: Plume, 1994), 177.
[3] Kenneth S. Stern, “My behind-the-scenes ‘Denial’ story,” Jewish Journal, September 15, 2016.
[4] See Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002); Lives of Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: Untold Tales of Men of Jewish Descent Who Fought for the Third Reich (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009); for similar studies, see also Bryan Mark Rigg, Rescued from the Reich: How One of Hitler’s Soldiers Saved the Lubavitcher Rebbe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004).
[5] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
[6] Charles Krauthammer, “The Holocaust and Jewish identity,” Washington Post, March 10, 2016.
[7]  Nick Anderson and Michelle Boorstein, “Georgetown gets $10 million for Holocaust research as Jewish studies grow at Catholic school,” Washington Post, February 24, 2016.
[8] Norman M. Naimark, Genocide: A World History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 1.
[9] See E. Michael Jones, “Holocaust Denial and Thought Control: Deborah Lipstadt at Notre Dame,” Culture Wars, May 2009.
[10] “The Risks Of Normalizing The So-Called Alt-Right,” National Public Radio, November 27, 2016.
[11] D. D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (New York: W. W. Norton, 2001), 67-68.
[12] Melissa Katsoulis, Literary Hoaxes: An Eye-Opening History of Famous Frauds (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2009), 237.
[13] For those who would like to pursue this issue further, I would recommend Germar Rudolf’s book, Fail: “Denying the Holocaust”: How Deborah Lipstadt Botched Her Attempt to Demonstrate the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory(Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2016).
[14] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
[15] Kenneth S. Stern, “My behind-the-scenes ‘Denial’ story,” Jewish Journal, September 15, 2016.

David Merlin has a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and economics from the University of California, Berkeley. He also has a Juris Doctor. He is currently writing a book on the “Irving vs. Lipstadt” trial. He is a frequent contributor to the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, CODOH.com.
Gerard Menuhin is a British-Swiss journalist, writer, novelist, and film producer. He is the son of Jewish parents, the American violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, who is considered “one of the greatest violinists of the 20th century.” Menuhim’s mother was a ballet dancer and died in 2003 at the age of 90. He graduated from Stanford University and is the author of the new book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil.
Fred A. Leuchter has a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Boston University in 1964. He holds patents for a geodetic instrument and an electronic sextant. The New York Times admitted back in 1990 that Leuchter “was the nation’s leading adviser to states on capital punishment and who supplied lethal injection systems to four states.” Leuchter also wrote A Technical Report On The Execution Of The Gas At Mississippi State Penitentiary Parchman, Mississippi back in 1972.
But Leuchter’s prosperous career that came to an abrupt end after he began to question the validity of the gas chamber stories in Nazi Germany in 1988. The Holocaust establishment quickly condemned him as a forger and hoaxer.[1] Deborah Lipstadt declares that Leuchter used “his pseudoscientific work to assault the truth.”[2]