Skip to content

Holocaust: Lies, Deceits, and the Future of Mankind

January 28, 2009
One night I was watching a video about the holocaust on YouTube. First time in my life I met David Irving
We are gagged!

We are gagged!

on this site. I didn’t know who David Irving was until I watched several of his YouTube videos talking about his version of historical truth. But that was before I caught one video on CNN about a bishop who was excommunicated by the Pope for simply denying the holocaust. I’m not a Catholic and I never intend to be one, but I think that excommunication could be the worst penalty one would ever receive for talking against the holocaust. To think that this is not even an issue of Christian faith or for putting the image of Jesus Christ in bad light.

I’ve learned that David Irving is a historian who had been punished many times for questioning the truth about or existence of the holocaust. He was intimidated, arrested, harassed, demoralized, criticized— name all negative words one could ever receive from an evil collective— David Irving has been constantly prosecuted all his life simply because he cannot allow historical truth to be mangled, distorted, and altered.

Most media people in his country Britain criticized him and called him unprintable names for simply denying the existence of a historical event called holocaust. He said that the word holocaust was first used and popularized more than thirty years after World War II. It was Mr. Irving against the academics, against the paid media men, against established organizations whose only goal is to perpetuate ignorance and human stupidity, against political and civic organizations, against governments, against evil men in high places.

As I watched one of his videos wherein he was debating a representative of one historical organization, David Irving was defending his view on the holocaust. Issues of free speech and freedom of expression were raised. But what is disappointing is that many intellectuals attempt to popularize an absurd doctrine or principle that it was all right to stop a human being from speaking his mind as long as the majority is against him. But the question is: who is the majority? Who or what constitutes the public which they seek to protect against unbridled or unrestrained speeches?

From this particular issue, I drew my own understanding about truth, history and objective reality. I believe that history is the key to a truthful future. When a particular historical stage or event is perverted or deliberately altered, man cannot be certain of the conspiracies being concocted to enslave him. There are bands of people who seek to distort history, because in time of deceit truth is only their main enemy. Evil men attempt to prevent objective history to serve their purpose.

What I cannot believe is that one has to go through unspeakable degree of torture, persecution and bullying just because he speaks not necessarily the truth, but what he thinks is the objective truth. David Irving put up his own publishing house because he knew that the British publishers would only reject his works— because he was aware that there were powerful men in high places who would carryout unthinkable means just to stop him.

George Orwell once said that “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. What is really unfortunately and evil is that there are wise men who really knew the truth and yet they help defeat it. But what is more evil is when men accept an idea or historical account on faith.

What is more contemptible and utterly unbelievable is that there are laws that ensure the prosecution of people who attempt to question the holocaust. The French government passed a law that aimed at prosecuting and punishing anyone who attempts to question the historic Nuremberg trial. This is not surprising in France considering the left-leaning tendencies of the French.

Why is it that speaking against the holocaust is now considered a crime? What is there to hide? Are some people afraid that their evil purpose would be discovered and revealed? The continued persecution of David Irving and the sustained stupidity of the people aim to seek the following purpose:

  1. That any attempt to question the holocaust is a sin
  2. That there is something more about the holocaust than about the supposed number of murdered Jews
  3. That the discovery of the truth would lead to the discovery of the evil design of evil men
  4. That a few evil men of evil purpose will do any means necessary to defeat the truth and maintain the status quo
  5. That understanding the historical truth would lead to understanding the present and anticipation of the future.

Knowing the holocaust is the key to discovering the state of the world today— why the endless war between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East, why is the US and the whole of Europe are supporting Israel and help perpetuate the holocaust lies, and who are the men of power and money behind this catastrophic event. If people continue to buy the lies perpetuated by men of money and power, there is no chance in heaven or hell to achieve historical truth. When actions and motives are based on a lie, man can never understand their dire consequences. Instead he will not dare understand these consequences, nor do attempt to discover the lies from which they originate— worse, he would even help perpetuate the evil status quo.

For example, he was arrested in Austria for a felony allegedly committed more than a decade ago. He was barred to speak from various academic forums, he was threatened, and he experienced all kinds of bullying one could ever receive from a patently evil human being (if that person is still a human being). There were also incidents wherein his researches and papers were stolen or vandalized by paid burglars, and that his house was once put on fire just to stop and intimidate him.

14 Comments leave one →
  1. January 28, 2009 3:38

    So, what is the Holocaust? 🙂

  2. January 28, 2009 3:38

    It is a simple word with absurd meaning yet forceful purpose. What usually comes to mind when you hear this word? The purging of millions of Jews by racist Hitler? The death of more than half of Jew population? It has a strong purpose, which is to make mankind guilty of what supposed to have happened to the Jews in the hands of the Nazis. Holocaust is a very effective Orwellian newspeak to signify the supposed tribulition of the Jews and the guilt that must be attributed to mankind. In other words, it is a very effective PR term to sell the lies of some evil men who claimed to be Jews. But they are not Jews. They are ashkenazi Jews.

  3. hpx83 permalink
    February 1, 2009 3:38

    Are you arguing that the holocaust didn’t happen? Wait, let me rephrase : Are you arguing that it is not true that 6 million jews were killed during WWII? Or are you arguing that it is wrong to not let people state their opinion, even if it is contrary to what people want to hear?

  4. February 2, 2009 3:38

    I am arguing that it is moral and right to investigate what happened during that part of history! That we should look into what really happened before, during, and after world war II. That there should be no coverups of some historical accounts, that there should be no harm, injury, and intimidation done to those who question the existence or validity of the holocaust. That there should be no perpetuation of human stupidity only by few scheming men!

  5. hpx83 permalink
    February 2, 2009 3:38

    Of course anyone should be free to investigate what happened during a period of history. He is also free to publish whatever he may find. As is the rest of the world free to explain to him that they find his theories faulty and corrupted. All of this goes without saying.

    The fact that I am interested in is rather whether or not you believe that the holocaust didn’t occur, which seems to be implied but not admitted in a few of your remarks.

  6. February 2, 2009 3:38

    The word holocaust itself is an orwellian newspeak. It is made for a purpose. There were millions of so-called jews who perished during that part of history, as there were also millions of indians who were murdered during the american ethnic cleansing period. It’s purpose is to perpetuate guilt of mankind because of what happened to the so-called jews. Killings happened before, during and after the world war II but I won’t call that holocaust. What is the meaning of holocaust anyway? I want to know its official meaning.

    But you are wrong and it seems that you never read my blog. It is now a crime to question the holocaust. In some countries like France, it is now made a crime to question the nuremberg trial and holocaust itself. David Irving was slapped with numerous cases due to his being an intrasigent historian. People like you would criticize me for denying it. Yes, I deny holocaust… that it happened, but I’m aware there were people who perished before, during and after the second world war.

  7. hpx83 permalink
    February 2, 2009 3:38

    I am not critizing anything, I am inquiring. I do not believe that questioning anything should ever be considered a crime. My only advice is that you may want to be clear that it is the term “holocaust” and the fact that it singles out one genocide among many that you deny existence, not the people who died.

    Otherwise you may find yourself in the company of a lot of retarded piles of muscle, ripe with testosterone, who thinks that a nice saturday evening consists of putting metal clad boots through the face of anyone not fitting their description of the supreme, arian race. Those are the people that deny holocaust where I come from.

    I know nothing of David Irving, but if he has been persecuted because he has tried to investigate historical events I will agree that this is wrong. If however he is attempting to disprove the death of millions of jews, I would say he is up against overwhelming evidence, and one would be ignorant not to question his motives.

  8. February 2, 2009 3:38

    His history books never attempted to disprove the death of the jews. In fact he even confirmed it. David Irving should be read by many. Many people do not understand him and just believe his “accusers” and critics simply because they do not read his books. Yes, I confirm it here that it is now a crime to question the holocaust. David Irving and some french journalists were slapped with a criminal case by the French government for talking and questioning the nuremberg trial and the holocaust itself. He was arrested and tried in Austria for the same offense. Many times his scheduled talks and lectures in some universities around the world due to intimidation and threats of some people in high places. I’m not surprised that you never heard of David Irving… but he is a best-selling historian. That’s how the system works today. Most good men in history are being concealed by the system.

    It is really wrong to prosecute or persecute someone for questioning a particular historical event. There’s something wrong with the system of today. What is there to hide? Why not allow for free inquiry and open investigation. I don’t believe in racism and I strongly do noty believe that questioning the holocaust is equivalent to anti-semitism. What is anti-semitism anyway? Why is it that the jews has the sole right to these terms– holocaust and anti-semitism? What about the injustices done to people of other races?

    I should share with you the comment I received from a YouTuber. Brumbar 162 game me some words to chew about. He said: “Haven’t you got it the wrong way around? Free speech is to expose these hoax (ie holocaust) – “…… you cann’t fool people all of the time”. It is your reaction to suppress the truth that is typical of the Western media & Western politics.” (Source:

    Another youtuber commented on my comment on one video. Lustitiapax told me the following: “Because IT IS A FACT FROM THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL LAWS OF ISRAEL, GERMANY ETC. THAT Holocaust Denial and questioning the existence of gas chambers and Zyklon B use, equals to Racial Hatred against Jews. It is not allowed to question the Holocaust. Why? Because the Holocaust is the Law. The Law says what we must believe, so we must believe the Holocaust happened. The Law is the Law. If you do not conform your beliefs and accept the Holocaust, you will be imprisoned!” (Source:

    You just have to understand how people think. It is now the reverse– how they think. You see? The very people we try to protect from RACISM or are being protected by laws against RACISM are the ones committing racism against other people.

  9. hpx83 permalink
    February 3, 2009 3:38

    I understand your argument, and I agree – to demand that people believe what the government tells them is indeed horrible. The problem with the “holocaust” is that the deaths of 6 million jews is still weighing heavily on the conscience of people in many European countries. Personally, I do not believe that anyone that wasn’t there should ever feel guilty about it, since we didn’t have anything to do with it.

    But there is a reason that people have a “knee-jerk” reaction to anyone saying they “deny the holocaust”, because in terms of systematic, machine-like slaughter of people, it is yet unmatched in the history of mankind (I’ll agree that Russia under Stalin suffered an even larger number of deaths – but people somehow find it easier to come to terms with a few people being executed now and then as opposed to the “factory line” version perpetrated during the second world war)

    As to the comment by Listitiapax my opinion is simply that it shouldn’t be illegal to question anything, but it is still quite horribly stupid to try and deny the existence of gas chambers. And I believe that any intelligent person, especially an objectivist, should always be thorough when it comes to scrutinizing the motives of people that question anything that is backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Their motif may be simply to find a hidden truth they think exists somewhere, but usually it is something much more sinister. The biggest favour one can do oneself is to question ones own standpoint in an issue.

  10. February 6, 2009 3:38

    I am just for objective history. My message is it is moral and logical to allow anyone to speak his mind and let the people use their own judgment. There are people who devote their lives to their work or profession despite threats to their lives, property and liberty. What can David Irving gain from simply speaking his mind? He spent much of his wealth fighting lawsuits, confronting official intimidations, and facing convicts in jail. Some people even put his house on fire, stole his papers, cancelled his speaking engagements, among lots of others, but he refused to give in. The problem is– there are lots of stupid people on earth who usually join the “hate” bandwagon against people who follow their mind.

  11. Rondavel permalink
    February 25, 2009 3:38

    I thought this guy Irving was a nutter when I heard he ‘denied’ THE holocaust.

    However, with most of the crap going on, and the more cynical I become, I started to scratch a bit…

    I was lied to about the Easter bunny
    I was lied to about the tooth fairy
    I was….

    7/7, 9/11 etc imaginary friend (god)

    Now this…. upon reviewing the evidence, yes, it weighs heavily in favour of Irving.

    Iam willing to move my position, but, gas chambers? Notraces of cyanide, only in the disinfecting houses…. captured Russian u-boat engines to produce carbon monoxide…. and the lies go on. 20 whole minutes of testimony about Sobibor, Treblinka etc at the Nuremburg scam …. and an entire nation laced with the shackels of guilt. And the rest of the so-called free world too sh/tscared to utter a question mark against it all.

    6 million – a figure publishe BEFORE the end of the war…
    down to 4 million, then revised down to 1.5 and so on.

    Come on folks, how much more of a lie does it need to be? The damage has already been done…. the world has been sown for a few silver pieces

  12. March 9, 2009 3:38

    nazi cunts

  13. Aaron permalink
    March 22, 2009 3:38

    “I want to tell you something clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it”

    Ariel Sharon

  14. November 25, 2012 3:38

    I understand where you are coming from, Froi, but I have a problem with your approach to the problem. You do not have to defend the indefensible in order to promote freedom. What I mean is this: there are people whose views I just can’t accept, but I can and I will defend their right to express it. It is clear that David Irving is wrong in many respects, but what we should be defending is his right to express his views, not the wrong-headed view itself.

    Now I am not saying that you agree with David Irving’s views, but the focus of this blog has been him and not the laws that I believe you are against. In this article it is therefore not clear what you are for, and what you are against.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: