2,569 words
World War II historian David Irving maintains an exceptionally valuable website. Its home page is http://www.fpp.co.uk/ A major sub-URL with current news and personal updates is the Action Report Online http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html
There, among other things, Irving posts inconspicuous links to the most recent updates of his online A Radical’s Diary. A Radical’s Diary is a constantly-maintained and updated version of Irving’s actual personal diary. More precisely, it represents a portion of his full diary, which is more detailed and explicit. Nevertheless, it is his genuine diary, a valuable component of the website.
The latest diary installment (August 30-September 11, 2013) can be found here. Published at irregular intervals, each new series of entries picks up where the previous one left off. Formerly they would “disappear” (remain online, but be hard to find). At some point, Irving added an index to the 2005 to next-to-last installment, whatever it happens to be. See here.
Though not apparent at first glance, fpp.co is a massive website containing tens of thousands of files. Among other things, you can purchase Irving’s books and download free PDFs of some of them. I find particularly useful his observations about German and WWII historiography and reliability of sources, often made in response to readers’ questions.
Invaluable as well is an exceptionally well-documented record of Jewish and governmental crimes and dirty tricks committed against the historian over the decades, extending back to Jewish Communist and professional anti-white activist Gerry Gable’s 1963 burglary of Irving’s apartment disguised as a telephone repairman to steal his personal files. Gable was the longtime editor of the racist-communist Searchlight magazine, a pillar of the UK Establishment, akin to SPLC and ADL publications here, or Stieg Larsson’s Expo in Sweden. Even half a century ago a smirking English court released the criminal with a mere slap on the wrist, imposing only a nominal fine. Such are the concrete realities behind the destruction of the white race. It is vital never to lose sight of them. Get real.
Readers should ask themselves the following question about Gable’s behavior and the material on Irving’s website describing the burglary: Is this “conspiracy theory,” or does it describe real-life conspiratorial behavior? The white race is being ethnically cleansed from the face of the earth by evil people, laws against genocide notwithstanding, and its survival depends upon whites being able to cope with the simple facts of social life in a serious, mature manner.
David Irving has been blessed with tremendous energy, vitality, and strength that one can only envy. Nevertheless, he is getting old (he is 75), and his website will one day vanish suddenly from the Internet like countless others before it, leaving the knowledge base of Western society further impoverished as the culture continues its phobic rejection of reason and empiricism in favor of mandatory dogma and rigid PC ideology. The site’s disappearance will constitute another blow in a long line of losses for our people, another victory for the wealthy and powerful committers of genocide.
Among the items on Irving’s website is a copy of a brief secret memo addressed to the Ontario Region Joint Community Relations Committee (a Jewish group) by Bernie Farber, a professional anti-white activist in Canada, describing his penetration of a meeting of Canadian Paul Fromm’s Committee for Free Expression (CAFE) in 1986. Read it here: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Canada/CJC/Farber040486.html
It is noteworthy that hundreds of people, thousands if academics, “activists,” and government agents are included, make comfortable livings persecuting whites, depriving them of their civil rights, and systematically destroying freedom of thought and speech in the West.
Fromm, of German, Irish, and French-Canadian descent, is a longtime activist who in 1997 was fired from his job as a school teacher because of his race and political views. The Jews have long despised him.
Farber, who at the time was “Director of Research” (a euphemism for political spy/commissar) for the Ontario Region Joint Community Relations Committee and an employee of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), eventually became national CEO of the Congress and an official of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (now known as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs [CIJA], into which the CJC has been merged)—note the official melding of Israeli and diaspora Jewry. CIJA is a coordinating body in Canada for the state-within-a-state that Jews establish wherever they exist in sufficient numbers.
The controlled media—including television and every mainstream Canadian newspaper (and, in the US, the New York Times and Washington Post)—government-run schools, and government agencies (e.g., Ontario’s “Hate Crimes Community Working Group” and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, of which Farber is an associate member) have served as superhighways promoting without question or dissent Farber’s anti-white racism and totalitarianism. According to Irving, in a 1998 Internet post Farber defended torture conducted by Jews against Gentiles. It was in the Israeli context, but the larger implications are obvious.
Photos and video footage of Farber reveal that, phenotypically, he could pass for white. (Psychologically, he is far more different from whites than any Negro or Muslim.) His memo does not reveal whether he identified himself as Jewish, much less an official community representative, at the CAFE gathering (many white meetings require you to at least sign in), or whether he lied or remained silent about his identity. One assumes he was not forthright.
Characteristically, Farber was not shy about brazenly showing up in person, despite despising the attendees and working to violate their rights. He had no fear for his personal safety in the midst of a gathering of the—allegedly—extreme “anti-Semitic” right. (Yes, that was the best Canada could muster in the way of “right-wing extremists” even then.)
Jews feel compelled to gather what spies call HUMINT (human intelligence, face-to-face contact with victims) in addition to SIGINT (signals intelligence—electronic bugging), monitoring of mail, obsessive chronicling, analyzing, and judging of what people watch and read, etc. It has been a conspicuous element of their modus operandi for more than a century, although they do not hesitate to employ Gentile stand-ins as well. There is always a large and willing supply of non-Jews eager to serve.
Many of the people present, including Ernst Zündel, Paul Fromm, and David Irving, have been jailed, assaulted, fired, impoverished, or otherwise seriously harmed over the years by organized Jewry, the Canadian government, and Left-wing domestic terrorists in flagrant violation of their fundamental rights. Zündel has been the target of several assassination attempts, one of which, according to a mainstream journalist, was apparently abetted by the Canadian intelligence service.
About the Canadian post office’s and intelligence agency’s (CSIS) systematic rifling of Zündel’s mail, meticulous compiling of the names of everyone who contacted him from anywhere in the world, and possible complicity in allowing a Left-wing parcel bomb to be delivered to him in the hope that he might be killed, read the relevant excerpts from Andrew Mitrovica’s Covert Entry: Spies, Lies and Crimes Inside Canada’s Secret Service
The government surveillance program aimed at Zündel and everyone who communicated with him was invisible to the victims. It occurred in the dark, the activities completely concealed. The targeted citizens could not “feel” the massive spying or recordkeeping that was going on behind the scenes. Psychologically, it was effectively invisible, nonexistent. The surveillance operated in conjunction with a decades-long Canadian legal witch hunt instigated by Jews but conducted by authorities at taxpayer expense that eventually jailed Zündel for years as a prisoner of conscience in Canada, the US, and Germany, and permanently took away his freedom of speech. In addition, it permanently diminished the civil rights of all Canadians on a massive scale.
Is it “paranoid”—or prudent—for whites to take into account what Jews and governments may be up to at any moment in time? Should they factor in probabilities? No one is going to tell them the truth while it is happening, yet both groups have long and consistent track records in this area. The authorities in Zündel’s case did not care about violence perpetrated against Canadians whose views they hated. Their only concern, as Mitrovica indicates, was that they might inadvertently get their own hands—or heads—blown off by their terrorist allies’ explosives while surreptitiously opening their prey’s mail!
All of this is far, far beyond the pale of acceptability, and people like Bernie Farber epitomize this cancerous evil.
About Mitrovica’s account of this activity: Is it a “conspiracy theory,” or a description of real-world treachery and cooperative Jewish/government machinations?
The fact is, Jews have long engaged in spying, harassment, illegal activity—up to and including violence and murder—and massive, long-term recordkeeping (a violation of privacy) with the intent of using information collected to harm innocent citizens, virtually all of whom are law-abiding and possess no political or social power. Indeed, Jews do this even to philo-Semites if the latter are deemed supportive of “politically incorrect” views (anti-Communists, anti-abortionists, pro-whites, Christians, conservatives, opponents of Israeli criminality, and opponents of replacement migration among others). We have reached the point where no “Western” society can honestly be called free or democratic anymore. It is a cynical abuse of language to do so.
Farber’s internal memo to his fellow Jews—conspicuously labeled CONFIDENTIAL—is in both form and substance typical of professional intelligence reports. Anyone who has read FBI memos released under the Freedom of Information Act about white racialists stalked by that agency will recognize the similarity.
The same is true of internal ADL files obtained during the discovery process in a lawsuit by Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby after the Jewish organization successfully drove its radio program This Is Liberty Lobby from the airwaves—again by conducting a secret campaign concealed from Liberty Lobby and the public. Read the ADL’s internal communications reproduced by Liberty Lobby in its book Conspiracy Against Freedom: A Documentation of One Campaign of the Anti-Defamation League Against Freedom of Speech and Thought in America (1986). Is that “conspiracy theory,” or an objective account of common conspiratorial behavior?
At the CAFE meeting, Farber appears to have attempted entrapment. Despite noting that the late Ron Gostick, founder and head of the Canadian League of Rights, was selling books about which “it must be noted that very little of the material on sale had anything to do with Jewish issues,” Farber continued: “In conversation with Mr. Gostick I inquired about obtaining books that were currently on the banned list [the long list of books and publications censored by the Canadian government at the behest of organized Jewry]. Mr. Gostick suggested to me that he would be unable to mail me copies of books i [sic] requested, however, if I were to leave him my name and address he would see to it that they could be delivered.”
What makes Farber’s ferret-like behavior even more contemptible is that the “crime” he attempted to incite has traditionally been regarded—rightly—as a fundamental human liberty in the West. Indeed, it remains so, no matter what governments have cynically done to trash it. The Soviet Union and other Communist regimes did the same thing. Governments are not exonerated from their crimes simply because they are governments.
Racism peeks through: “A significant number of the people present were German and Hungarian (this was noted through the fact that German and Hungarian was spoken often and freely within the meeting room at the Carleton Inn Hotel.)” (Incorrect punctuation in the original.) Despite Farber’s German surname, he obviously does not consider himself German (i.e., “white”), even though whites continue to insist that he is one of us.
Nor do Jews “deceive” themselves that our race poses a threat to them: “The number of people present [Farber estimated 60] was somewhat larger than previous meetings [note: other meetings had obviously been monitored, presumably on an ongoing basis: the money, time, and manpower existed to do so, even though Jews were probably replicating tasks the Canadian government was simultaneously performing at taxpayer expense], however, when assessing the fact that members of both C-Far, CAFE, Canadian League of Rights, as well as German [sic] and Hungarians made up the majority of’ people present, it does not seem that significant.”
Jews count and assess strength, no matter how few whites there are. Everything occurs within a context. This obsessive monitoring of a tiny gathering occurred while Jewish hate was daily being inculcated into hundreds of millions, even billions, of minds worldwide via the controlled media, universities, schools, government, courts, and other venues.
David Irving was apparently the featured speaker, and the bulk of Farber’s report focuses on the Jew’s opinion of the historian’s beliefs, which Farber feels entitled to dictate. He noted that Irving spoke at the University of Toronto the night before, and it is evident from his remarks that that speech, too, had been carefully monitored. This transformation of the genuine give-and-take of freedom and democracy into a tightly monitored and controlled Left-wing prison has had enormous consequences for the direction of social change in the West.
The gist of Farber’s assessment was that Irving was “anti-Semitic”—a charge made in typically crude and mindless fashion. From the Jewish perspective, every white person, even fawning and submissive philo-Semites, are, deep down, anti-Semitic. This outlook suits their nature, stokes their hatred, “justifies” their prejudice, and propels them to dominance over others.
But, from a sane or objective point of view, Irving can hardly be called anti-Semitic despite his lack of obsequiousness—admittedly unheard of among whites. Most of Irving’s critics (and many of his supporters) have obviously never read his books. He is quite harsh toward Nazis. He describes himself (correctly, I think) as a “fascist.” But fascism is not inherently anti-Semitic or even racialist.
It seems unlikely at this stage that Irving will knuckle under to the hatred directed at him with such intensity and start kowtowing to Jews like everybody else, or that Jews will cut him any slack if he does.
My own assessment is that Irving’s cantankerous references to the best of all people are motivated purely by their atrocious treatment of him. By those standards, his “anti-Semitism” is almost repulsively moderate. If Jews had ceased being the strawberry seed in his wisdom tooth and let him live his life he would have dropped the subject long ago.
In closing, I realize few readers will click through and read the pages I’ve linked to. This is natural, due to time pressures and other factors. But before nattering about “conspiracy theories,” people must learn about the real world and how it actually functions. It is no accident that freedom and democracy, won slowly at such high cost over so many centuries, are now at death’s door, that whites are teetering on the brink of extinction, or that Jews rule the roost.
Lazily aping idiotic and malevolent Left-wing and ruling class Newspeak “conspiracy theory” accusations, especially in a National Security Agency (NSA) world, is immoral, and makes the speaker look stupid. Anyway, such misleading talk does nothing to change the grim facts. Of course, many people who indulge in such behavior are perfectly aware of this.
Serious men must face evil head-on, not aid, abet, or promote it. This is an intensely unpleasant task in the present environment, yet a necessary one. It is incumbent upon those who grasp the easy-to-comprehend truths touched upon here to shoulder the obligation that others irresponsibly shirk: to think realistically, without illusions of any kind.
17 Comments
This is a fascinating article written by Irving on the international conspiracy to silence him. He was touring the world; Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc. and Jewish organizations working together put pressure on the highest levels of government in each government to get him banned from speaking in these countries that had been part of the British Empire Irving was born into. Irving got big crowds attending his speeches and pressure was put on people as high as the Prime Minister, and they buckled under. To this day he’s banned from Australia as well as many other countries. He is a scholar, has never advocated violence or been violent himself. Indeed, one of the biggest complaints against him appears to be how he demonstrated that Germany wanted peace with Great Britain and was no threat to them, while Churchill was pouring gas on the flames, saying that Hitler wanted to destroy the British Empire and “take over the world.”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Global/Vendetta.html
Andrew Hamilton said:
Most of Irving’s critics (and many of his supporters) have obviously never read his books. He is quite harsh toward Nazis. He describes himself (correctly, I think) as a “fascist.” But fascism is not inherently anti-Semitic or even racialist.
There are accusations that Irving self-described himself as a “moderate fascist” or a “mild fascist”, though he denies this as a “perennial smear”.
Well, thank you for bringing the matter up and posting the link. He is very combative, and I was unaware that he had said this.
Since he has taken that public position, however, I will just say that my original statement stands, and I have solid grounds for making it.
To be clear, I am anti-fascist myself. It is not a viewpoint I endorse.
I think that is basically a fair characterization, yes.
Two important caveats.
I am not ideological in the sense of representing a particular set of ideas which most people would immediately recognize. For example, I am not a libertarian or a conservative. Indeed, I don’t subscribe to any school of thought. Like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, I have something of a phobia against ideology. That’s why the normative positions in my articles are typically embedded within a dense empirical or historical framework. My essays almost never take the form of free-floating ideological, philosophical, or opinion pieces. (Sometimes they do, but usually not.) For me, everything occurs with a context.
My outlook also would not be accurately conveyed if I were to say, for example, “I am a classical liberal,” because in many ways I’m not, and different people doubtless have radically different ideas of what that even means.
Finally, moral principles are more important to me than ideological or philosophical doctrines. Thus, I would never conclude: “Freedom” means that whites (and whites only) are compelled to engage in replacement migration and integrate and miscegenate with non-whites; that policies of racial discrimination and genocide are OK (though illegal) as long as they’re directed against whites; or that “freedom of speech” means totalitarian censorship and suppression of politically incorrect facts, science, opinion, and knowledge in favor of pornography (a form of mass prostitution, mostly of white girls by Jews) and the neo-Communist dogmas of Jews, Leftists, and other elites.
All libertarians, classical liberals, and conservatives tacitly accept the above propositions. Though immoral, they can be fitted to the respective ideologies.
On the other hand, I’m not talking about false, turn-the-other-cheek Boy Scout/Sunday School morality either, but the bare-knuckled real world kind. Sometimes you have to fight. You might even be compelled to eliminate an evil foe as they would eliminate you.
Secondly, there is a flexible dynamic present that a fixed ideological label like “classical liberal” does not capture. Our race is under attack, in dire straits, so it is necessary to assess what went wrong, and correct our future course accordingly. We must learn from our mistakes rather than steering further and further off course due to mindless adherence to some ideological dogma.
Progress is possible—we can continuously get better and better. But improvement is not preordained. Disaster could intervene, and everything be lost.
Success is just one long street fight.
Mr. Hamilton describes himself as anti-fascist. After reading the following article (it’s not a big article),
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-fascism.html
would he continue to describe himself as anti-fascist??
This is one of the problems you run into with ideologies. What is “fascism?” Is this writer’s definition correct?
I think of fascism as a non-racialist, corporatist regime. Italy under Mussolini was the paradigmatic fascist polity. I regard the New Deal as essentially fascist, and the US today as well. Ours is a neo-Communist brand of fascism. Admittedly, America 1933-present is geared to serving its dominant Jewish elite, and more recently to biologically eliminating white people in America and everywhere else, and so would appear to depart from non-racialism. Still, since fascism is philo-Semitic, that’s not really a contradiction.
I do not classify NS Germany as fascist.
I have to say I’m not really a fan of fascism even as described by Miller, and at any rate I probably wouldn’t endorse his definition.
If I were to delve into the subject, which I don’t have time to do, I’d probably begin with the works of Italian American academic A. James Gregor and German historian Ernst Nolte.
Andrew Hamilton,
While I’m more than a little sympathetic to fascism, your position is one that I understand and respect, as I have a similar distrust of ideological systems, dogmas, and labels.
I’ve recently been re-reading Les temps modernes by Maurice Bardèche, who famously proclaimed himself to be a fascist writer. Interestingly, it devotes a chapter to the function of ideology within this system, in which Bardèche takes issue not simply with the ideology of the system, but with ideology per se. Bardèche was quite critical of ideological thinking.
I might summarize or translate some passages from Les temps modernes later. Although this book was first published in 1956, it hasn’t dated in any material respect. Its five chapters focus on liberal democracy, ideology, economism, domestication, and decadence, and it is quite instructive on how subversion and decadence are fundamental characteristics of the system.
Regarding morality, Julius Evola’s dictum might be appropriate: “Do to others what they would like to do to you: but do it to them first.” This might be regarded as a synthesis of the golden rule, the lex talionis, and pre-emptive action.
For some light entertainment go to the globe and mail website and read Farber’s latest editorial called “it is a Jewish duty to speak out against the shift to injustice”, where he lays out the usual scheme of gilt trips and racial self flattery. Almost all of the 95 comments called him out as a hypocrite for conveniently not mentioning the occupation of Palestine.
On a similar point, I remember browsing through a book by a certain Elazar Barkan titled The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices (New York: Norton, 2000). As might be expected, there was no absolutely mention of the injustices done to the Palestinians by Israel; perhaps the author was using “nations” in the sense of “goyim.” The book description notes: “Beyond its moral implications, restitution reflects a critical shift in political and economic bargaining. While preserving individual rights, restitution also enables victimized groups to receive growing recognition as groups.” Needless to say, Jews have played an important role in this “critical shift in political and economic bargaining” and the promotion of anti-White identity politics.
I think it’s in the link I posted that a German asks Mr. Irving why he defends (or supports) Germany so much. Irving answered he doesn’t; he’s just interested in historical truth. I believe everyone has certain biases or prejudices that he has to overcome to write the truth in history. I find it hard to accuse Irving of being biased, considering his family background. Being the son of a Royal Navy Commander and a patriotic Englishman himself gives great credence to statements that “defend” or “support” Germany. Not to mention the fact that his method of research, going into archives, discovering the most important diaries and documents and making them available to the rest of the world further demonstrate his integrity.
Gary Null in details about conspiracy
http://prn.fm/2013/11/gary-null-show-112713/
Mr. Hamilton wrote:
the culture continues its phobic rejection of reason and empiricism in favor of mandatory dogma and rigid PC ideology.
How do we counter that? Hopefully it will be good base for a future article.
On a somewhat unrelated topic: I thought everyone on the Alt. Right was supposed to pivot away from incessant babbling about past regimes? Let’s face it, the oeuvre of figures like Irving and Zundel is all about the revisionism of a single regime and by extension, an era. While I find these works of continued importance just on the basis of understanding history, it seems like the Alt Right has been directing people beyond these histories and this subject. I really don’t understand you guys anymore, as surely very few people have digested even a single work of Irving’s. His work on The Nuremburg Trials is absolutely enlightening and means a lot for history. I don’t understand you guys anymore.
Irving’s site may vanish, as may other sites, but it’s not particularly hard to make local mirrors of such sites, and I encourage you to do so. Other candidates for mirroring include IHR and VHO. Often there already are (incomplete) mirrors on Archive.org.
“The site’s disappearance will constitute another blow in a long line of losses for our people, another victory for the wealthy and powerful committers of genocide”
We can use this kind of free software (http://www.httrack.com/page/1/en/index.html) to copy and save any website. It’s easy to use and fast.
I should think it depends partly on how many websites there are that should be saved, and how big they are.
Irving’s site is quite large. I saw one reference on it to there being over 60,000 files, but that was undated. It may have grown since then.
Also, it is great when individuals mirror sites, but nothing is being done (or, really, can be done) in an organized, centralized, systematic fashion.
A few days ago I checked the official Instauration Online website—a very important resource of this type since it preserved PDF copies of the entire set of Wilmot Robertson’s historic magazine Instauration—but the site, which hasn’t been in existence very long, was gone. I don’t know whether it will be back or not.
Finally, tasks like this also require a great deal of time, computer savvy, and at least some money, things the movement is woefully short of.
White Republican,
I was dissatisfied with my definition of fascism after I posted it. I do regard it as a non-racialist, philo-Semitic, corporatist ideology, since Mussolini’s Italy epitomizes it.
But the US and the rest of the former First World, while economically fascist (they are not free enterprise), are full-blown racist states due to the centrality of philo-Semitism and anti-white racism to their civic creed. Indeed, it is virtually the state religion. Other non-whites enjoy privileged status as well, but it is purely derivative, and can be revoked at any time.
It was fascinating to learn that Bardèche was critical of ideological thinking. I hope that you will be able to translate some passages, as you indicate, or perhaps contribute some original pieces to CC (on any subject), Greg willing.
With regard to Julius Evola’s dictum, “Do to others what they would like to do to you: but do it to them first,” I have actually reflected upon this myself. Unfortunately, the moral imperative seems to forbid it, which places the actor at a tremendous disadvantage, since he doesn’t behave forcefully until everyone else who is inclined to do so has administered the first kick. That does not seem right, but I can’t see any way around it.
The exception is if you can anticipate harm with reasonable certainty. Also, it has nothing to do with Jews, the Left, and so on, where the evil intentions are obvious and the crimes have been ongoing.