My sweet cockroach! I just knew you hadn’t gone away! I will admit (in a perverse sense) I am beginning to warm to your cuddly cockroach ways as everyman (and woman) should have a pet -hate. I am becoming somewhat attached to your cockroach jism, if only to give myself a moral direction to head away from.
Negentropic aka cockroach, a real bad man, he’s very shy about his real name though as obviously the Mossad would put him away cos he’s such a bad boy rebel!
Ridiculous to suggest I am a Jew – I have blonder hair and bluer eyes than any of you so called ‘Aryans’.
This fact nearly got me lynched by a mob of Polish (who did remember the experience of Nazis and Nazism) in Lublin street market in 1999 when I visited my brothers ex-wives family and was mistaken for a German. Luckily my hosts were on hand to explain I was English, not German, thereby saving my ass! As all you Nazis love first hand eye-witness testimony so much I am sure you can find somewhere to file that.
One little question cockroach? Do you keep your pictures of dead Palestinian children (god bless their souls) in the same computer folder as your NAZI PORN you DIRTY SICK BASTARD?
I could post pictures of George Bush and Family, Obama and Family, Clinton with his wife (sister) but would this mean they were nice people? Would it mean they were not raving satanic homosexuals as we all know they are? Think about the logic you are employing cockroach! And then read ‘The Pink Swastika’ regarding the gaggle of raging butch queers that was the Nazi movement.
And why are we back to that vile Freemasons WITCH (and actual security blanket salesperson) Deanna (Dinah) Spin-gola? (shepherd of spin). Keep that insufferable hate mongering harlots name off my thread.
Why don’t you ask them what THEY get up to on a Saturday and Sunday (and the odd Thursday night) when no one’s looking? Ask THEM what little phrases they’re chanting away behind closed doors! Ask THEM if THEY can really wash that filth off in the shower?
Cockroach my dear boy, if she changed her name to P.EYD PIPER would it make it any easier for you?
“The Rape of Dinah (or Deana)
17th century depiction of the rape of Dinah.
“Dinah, the daughter of Leah and Jacob, went out to visit the women of Shechem, where her people had made camp and where her father Jacob had purchased the land where he had pitched his tent. Shalem, the son of Hamor, the prince of the land, "seized her and lay with her and humbled her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah ... he loved the maiden and spoke tenderly to her," and Shalem asked his father to obtain Dinah for him, to be his wife.
Hamor came to Jacob and asked for Dinah for his son: "Make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves. You shall dwell with us; and the land shall be open to you," and Shalem offered Jacob and his sons any bride-price they named. But "the sons of Jacob answered Shalem and his father Hamor deceitfully, because he had defiled their sister Dinah," saying they would accept the offer if the men of the city agreed to be circumcised.
So the men of Shechem were deceived, and were circumcised; and "on the third day, when they were sore, two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords and came upon the city unawares, and killed all the males. They slew Hamor and his son, Shalem with the sword, and took Dinah out of Shalem's house, and went away." And the sons of Jacob plundered whatever was in the city and in the field, "all their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses."
"Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, 'You have brought trouble on me by making me odious to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites; my numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.' But they said, 'Should he treat our sister as a harlot?'"
See also: documentary hypothesis and biblical criticism
The 19th century scholar Julius Wellhausen divided the Dinah story between two original texts, the Elohist, which tells of Jacob's purchase of land at Shechem and his erection of an altar, and the Jahwist, telling the rape-and-vengeance story which takes up the bulk of the narrative. Wellhausen believed that the Jahwist's story was designed to cast a bad light on the northern Kingdom of Israel,
which had Shechem as its first capital, the Jahwist text itself originating in the southern Judah. The brief Elohist account of the purchase of land by Jacob in Genesis 33 represents the northern kingdom's more peaceable account of the origins of Shechem.
Later scholars have questioned Wellhausen's analysis, often drastically, but the general view is that Genesis does combine originally separate strands and does not pre-date the 1st millennium BC. Post-Wellhausian scholars have suggested two layers of narrative within Genesis 34 itself, an older account ascribing the slaughter of Shechem and to Simeon and Levi alone, and a later addition (verses 27 to 29) involving all the sons of Jacob. One contemporary biblical scholar, Alexander Rofé, has suggested that the verb describing Dinah as "defiled" was added at this time also, as elsewhere in the Bible only married or betrothed women are "defiled" by rape; the fact that Genesis 34 is the sole exception suggests that it reflects a "late, postexilic notion that the idolatrous gentiles are impure [and supports] the prohibition of intermarriage and intercourse with them." The anachronistic preoccupation with racial purity indicates a date in the 5th or 4th centuries BC, when the restored Jewish community in Jerusalem was similarly preoccupied with anti-Samaritan polemics. It is not clear that Dinah was actually raped at all in the original story: the narrative is vague about what happened between Shechem and Dinah (the verb translated as "humbled" or "violated" can also mean "to subdue"), and the older version of Genesis 34 may therefore reflect a custom of abduction marriage.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DinahThe moral of the story (amongst all the religious mumbo-jumbo) - stay away from Deanna or Dinah and her outrageously Spun (enlarged) Gola (word meaning the vagina in a rather exhausted form).
And Irving, the grotesque intellectual prostitute and ‘devils-advocate for hire’. The compulsive lie-a-holic who has a different line on the holocaust, the numbers murdered, varying degrees of hatred towards blacks, and varying volumes of cockroach ejaculation
over Hitler, depending on whether the audience is composed of intellectual pricks, skinhead nazi thugs, newspaper reporters or (more notably) when Lawyers and Judges look down upon him. And in those latter instances overwhelmingly the only cockroach communications emanating from his jabbering cockroach jaws are:
“GUILTY (of being a lying twat) YOUR HONOR”.
Irving is a cockroach pushed for years as semi-respectable but never so in my eyes. As Irving has been convicted of systematically supressing, misrepresenting, omitting, misquoting and twisting so many facts regarding Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and Hitler so many times, I can’t take anything the upper mid-level cockroach says seriously.
“Document provided by Professor Deborah Lipstadt for her defence against the libel action brought by David Irving
HISTORY REWRITTEN: THE WORLD OF DAVID IRVING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION. 1
II. ACADEMIC ANALYSIS 2
JÄCKEL'S ESSAYS 4
IRVING'S TRICKS OF THE TRADE
a. Non Sequitor Reasonings and Omissions 6
b. Misuse of Informants 6
c. Avoiding Ugly Facts and Inventing Nicer Ones 6
d. Linguistic Cover-ups 7
e. Use of Ambiguity 7
III. A HISTORY OF DAVID IRVING 8
IV. DAVID IRVING: IN HIS OWN WORDS 12
V. THE LEGAL QUESTIONS 18
IRVING'S LEGAL HISTORY: THE HIGHLIGHTS 18
1. Germany 18
2. England 19
3. Canada 19
4. Australia 21
LIMITS ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH 22
VI. CONCLUSION 25
IV. David Irving: In his own words ...
“Any criticisms of David Irving, whether attacking his historical techniques or his personal biases, are based on the hatred he himself exudes. Thus, the most fruitful manner of assessing Irving. the individual, is to briefly listen to what it is he says. A brief encounter provides sufficient evidence as to why his type of speech should not be
On his brand of history:
I have been in the archives, where the truth is ...
... in response to Holocaust survivor Kitia Altman, during Australian interview, "A Current Affair" (16 February 1993)
I'm afraid I have to say I wouldn't consider what a survivor of Treblinka could tell me in 1988 to be credible evidence. ... I would prefer the evidence of somebody who goes to the site with expert knowledge now, and carries out concrete examinations to the very human and fallible human memories after a tragic wartime experience forty years after the event.
Testimony at trial of Ernst Zündel, April 1988 (transcript p. 9558)
... the long-lost Joseph Goebbels diaries which I personally retrieved from the Moscow secret state archives where they have been hidden for nearly fifty years. I appreciate that I have aroused much envy ...
Irving Australian press release (3 December 1992). In Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich. Irving finally admitted that German historian Dr. Elke Fröhlich was the first to discover the microfiches containing the diaries.57
On Adolf Hitler:
... that without Hitler's active campaign on the Jewish front, the State of Israel would probably not now exist and have attracted its overwhelming worldwide sympathy ...
Testimony at trial of Ernst Zündel, April 1988 (transcript p. 9777)
On the gas chambers, the Holocaust, and its survivors:
I don't say the Holocaust is a hoax. What I say is the Auschwitz gas chambers are a hoax, which narrows it down very dramatically. I'm talking about magnitude and methods, but I'm not denying the Holocaust happened. I'm not even going to say Jews did not die in gas chambers. I think it may have happened in a small and experimental way.
Sydney Morning Herald (22 June I 996)
The holocaust of the Jews in Auschwitz is without basis ...
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (February 1990)
What I am saying is that I am not denying that the Holocaust happened in some degree. I am saying that there were a large series of unrelated atrocities. But the idea of the Holocaust mythology, Adolf Hitler ordered the killing of six million Jews in Auschwitz in simple terms, that, I think, is now very suspect.
Testimony at trial of Ernst Zündel, 1988 (transcript pp. 9563-64)
Yes, hundreds of thousands were killed, but there were no factories of death. All that is a blood libel against the German people.
Speech in Gresham, Oregon (October 1994)
... it came out that the so-called gas chambers were constructed many years after the war for the tourists.
Interview with Mario Scialoja, L 'Espresso (26 July 1992)
The gas chambers were invented in November 1942 by the secret service of Churchill's War Ministry for reasons of propaganda against the Germans. It was a masterpiece. The testimonies that you [interviewer Mario Scialoja] are quoting are of Jews, and do not count, because the Jews are parties to the cause.
Interview with Mario Scialoja, L 'Espresso (26 July 1992)
... if a year from now the gas chamber legend collapses, what will that mean for Israel? Israel is drawing millions of dollars each year from the German taxpayer, provided by the German government as reparation for the gas chambers. It is also drawing millions a year from American taxpayers, who put up with it because of the way Israelis or the Jews suffered. No one's going to like it when they find out that for 50 years they have been believing a legend based on baloney.
Interview: "History's cache and carry" The Guardian (7 July, 1992)
Mortal pride demands that an Auschwitz survivor must have seen gas chambers. Letter to the Editor, Daily Telegraph (19 March 1990)
Auschwitz was a very brutal slave labour camp, where probably 100,000 Jews died ... Australian Interview: "A Current Affair" (16 February 1993)
There is no doubt in my mind that very large numbers of Jews and others were massacred by the Nazis on the eastern front during World War II. They were machine gunned into pits ...
Speech in Gresham. Oregon (October 1994)
After VE-Day, countless more ... were culled from the Displaced Persons camps in liberated Europe by the Haganah and whisked into new homes, lives and identities in the Middle East, leaving their old, discarded identities behind as "missing persons".
Disputing the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust, in Letter to the Editor, Daily Telegraph (19 March 1990)
Robert Maxwell was of course the greatest propagator of the Holocaust myth in Britain. He held the great Holocaust seminar because he and his ilk survived and dined out on the Holocaust myth. ... ...
We're all Holocaust survivors, every one of us who was born in 1939 or from then until 1945. We're all Holocaust survivors. We don't go around dining out on that particular menu. The ones who suffered in the Holocaust are the ones who died, not the ones who survived. But the Holocaust survivors are the ones who are earning of course.
Address at meeting of Clarendon Club (London. 19 September 1992)
... I'll say you didn't [suffer]. You survived. You are a survivor. By definition you didn't suffer. Not half as much as those who died. Those who did die in the so called gas chamber, gas ovens, or cremated, or died in the plague, or epidemics, or whatever in Auschwitz. They suffered. You didn't. You're the one making the money. Explain to me this. Why are you people have made all the money, but Australian soldiers who suffered for five years in Japanese prison camps haven't got a bent nickel out of it. ... They know I am going to be tasteless about the whole matter.
Proposed response to debate with Holocaust survivor on planned trip to Australia, made during speech in Gresham, Oregon (October 1994)
... he [Günther Deckert) had done what he did in Germany's interests and because he like many other Germans was being thoroughly fed up with what was being done to Germany by Israel in the sense of continually pestering them for financial compensation. From the actual culprits and perpetrators of the Holocaust. From their sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters. And the judges said in their verdict, obviously they had a certain degree of sympathy for Deckert, having done it for these reasons. They understood why he had done it.
On the conviction of Deckert in connection with a speech given by Fred Leuchter in Mannheim. Germany, in a speech in Gresham, Oregon (October 1994)58
On minorities, women, etc...:
... a mob of one, or two or three thousand demonstrators. All the scum. The homosexuals, the gypsies, the lesbians, the Jews, the blacks, the immigrants. All coming together in a paid mob. To harass, to frighten, to intimidate. Rather like the scum here today. .
... opinion on demonstrators at speech in Gresham, Oregon (October 1994)
But now we have women reading our news, to us; they must have their own news which they can read to us, I suppose. If we were interested ... I'm prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, followed by a lady reading all the less important news ...
Address at meeting of Clarendon Club (London. 19 September 1992)
... Plebiscite like a woman . . she says no, but means yes.
... view on Canadian referendum during speech in Toronto (1 November 1992)
They [women] haven't produced any great creative talent.
Interview: "In the Psychiatrist's Chair" (14 August 1982)
... [they are] less intelligent and less developed than the Third World.
... why women constitute the "Fourth World", interview in Vancouver Sun (22 October 1986)
Nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport or at a station or at a seaport and I see [a] black family there. ... I think that is the way God planned it. and that's the way it should be. When I see these families arriving at London airport, I'm happy, but I'm happier when I see them leaving London airport.
Address at meeting of Clarendon Club (London. 19 September 1992)
On his critics:
The same lies printed in your pages may just possibly be believed. You have a reputation for getting things right more often than not.
Response to reviewer Kai Bird, in "Reviewed vs. Reviewer", The New Statesman (8 May 1981)
There is enormous envy and rivalry and jealousy in the world of historians. The knives are out. They don't like me getting stuff that they don't get.
On the discovery of the Goebbels diaries, in "History's cache and carry" The Guardian ('7 July 1992)
... . ... a bearded prophet called Mr. Chaim Bermant, to whom I gave an interview back in January. I didn't realize that he was Jewish, and I could kick myself . ... . because he said he was a journalist, and so I assumed, quite falsely of course, that he was upright, honest and decent and true. And so he writes vicious, vicious lies ... . ...
... it is now up to them to explain to me as an intelligent and critical student of modern history why there is no significant trace of any cyanide compound in the building which they have always identified as former gas chambers.
Foreword to The Leuchter Report (May 1989)
I've always wanted to influence people and destinies, and for the last 20 years as a writer I've been influencing people's opinion and I want to start influencing their destinies ...
Interview: "In the Psychiatrist's Chair" (14 August 1982)”http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Discovery/DL/0500.html
In fact if memory serves me correct some 16 or 17 years ago, I was one of the organisers of a demonstration in the UK to highlight one of Irving’s public appearances. As a Trotskyite at the time I was a heavy advocate of the ‘No platform for Fascists’ line, and while I am not particularly so today, some of cockroaches jism seriously pushes those feelings back to the left, as if you the so called ‘patriot’ are arguing for freedom of organisation of Nazi-ism as a constitutional right, you are essentially arguing for the right of a cockroach to cosh you over the head with his iron claw if you don’t seig-heil in the right direction!
A very angry commie (and they have as much right to complain about the use of the term ‘commie’ as you do ‘Nazi’) on another forum wrote regarding the liberal ‘Free speech to Nazis’ line:
“1. You have zero understanding of the nature of fascism and how to defeat it. If it was as simple as trusting 'history will stand up' then the Nazis would never have come to power and Golden Dawn would not be rampaging through the streets of Athens for the past month smashing up immigrant shops, beating up men, women and children and attacking meetings of political opponents.
2. By 'smashing his claims' in debate you are doing nothing other than giving him a platform to make contact with his real targets - the most right-wing reactionary elements in society - in order to create a base for fascist action. He doesn't care about you 'smashing his claims' - he is not interested - and doesn't need - the people who will be convinced by your arguments.
3. Your work is convincing only in demonstrating your naivety - a naivety that existed in the 1920s and 1930s and a naivety that would result in you ending up in a concentration camp just like the liberal academics in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy or Spain. They too thought they could defeat fascism by beating it in a debate - they paid for their mistake with their lives. The only way to deal with a fascist is to acquaint his head with the pavement
”http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthre ... 2056676638
Or let him acquaint yours with one on the grounds of ‘Free Speech’.
Cockroaches are not interested in genuine civilised debate, and the vile tone of your first post on my thread demonstrates you are merely propagandising for Nazism and the wanton grotesque denial of Nazi atrocities.
And anyone with the sllghtest actual knowledge of Marxism/Leninism/Nazism and the general hierarchy of cockroaches understands Leninism and Naziism are virtually indistinguishable.
Commie Nazis? Nothing to see here! Just a Nazi Hammer and Sickle from 1934.
Taken from “The Soviet Story – Why Killing is Essential to Communism”
“One year after Lenin’s death in 1924 the New York Times published a small article which at the time went almost unnoticed. It was about some newly established party in Germany, the NATIONAL SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY of which Adolf Hitler is patron and father persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared. Who’s speaking? A certain Dr Goebels. On the speakers assertion that Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler and the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith was very slight, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses – amazing – the Nazi propaganda minister Goebels was openly declaring that the difference between Lenin’s Communism and the Hitler faith was very slight. As we read, it didn’t go down well with potential voters so the Nazi’s changed their tactics. Their early campaign posters quietly disappeard, they never again publically stressed their resemblance to communists. In the inner circle however the Nazis and Hitler were more outspoken. “
“Hitler often said that he had learnt a great deal from Marxism, from reading Marx I mean, the whole of National Socialism is based upon it he said, doctrinally based”. (Another commentator) “People keep forgetting that the Nazi regime in Germany was also socialist. It was officially called the National Socialist Workers Party. There was a branch of socialism, international socialism, those in Germany were National Socialism – IT IS THE SAME THING IN REALITY, slightly different interpretation.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3uFUxMwA1w
Hitler, like Lenin, was aware of the importance of utilising certain tactics during periods of legality and others during periods of illegality. The Nazis came to power under a false flag, the Russian commies through other means but the overall strategies employed were remarkably similar, i.e. court electoral politics and a mass movement of ‘revolutionary’ Jack booted thugs simultaneously.
If the reader is in any doubt regarding the Nazi’s regard for ‘Free speech’ read how the black-shirts dealt with hecklers in public meetings, they simply beat the crap out of them and hauled them out of the door. Should the cockroaches ever get to the stage where they can organise as openly again they will simply follow the exact same pattern, understanding as THEY do the importance of ‘illegal’ and ‘legal’ forms of ‘struggle’.