…by Jonas E. Alexis

The Holocaust establishment is already panicking because Norman Finkelstein has recently said something that they were not expecting at all. Finkelstein declared:

David Irving was a very good historian – I don’t care what Richard Evans (the historian who was a key player in the Lipstadt libel trial) says. He produced works that are substantive…If you don’t like it, don’t read it. In the case of Irving, he knew a thing or two – or three.”

Obviously Finkelstein has broken one of the prevailing and sacrosanct dogmas of the Holocaust. He has certainly crossed the line because David Irving, according to the vision of anointed people of this world, is not only a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite, but he has never produced anything that is worth reading at all. As Richard J. Evans himself puts it, Irving’s writing is:

“completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about…if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.”[1] The ADL calls Irving “one of the most best known Holocaust deniers in the world.”[2]

David Irving

Finkelstein, like other serious scholars who have praised Irving in the past (despite the fact that they disagree with his conclusions), would beg to differ. But we also have a scholarly problem here. Is a person even allowed to use archival evidence to present his point? Isn’t that what serious historians supposed to do? Are we really doing history a service by labeling anyone who disagrees with us racists or anti-Semites?

This has gotten so bad that Slavoj Zizek, of all people, had to say something about it. Zizek writes:

“Some British Jews feel affronted by alleged anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party. But how many of the complainants empathize with complaints from West Bank Palestinians?

“Throughout history, thinking at variance with the mainstream was always unpopular and risky. However, at various times, it has been tolerated to different degrees. Today, it’s less and less acceptable than in the recent past. We can see this clearly, right now, as the unwritten rule which determines the limits of what is acceptable is breaking apart, and different visions compete to impose themselves as hegemonic.

“Years ago, Noam Chomsky caused a scandal when he followed Voltaire’s maxim to its extreme: he defended the holocaust denier Robert Faurisson’s right to publish his book, and his argumentation even appeared in Faurisson’s book as an afterword. Today such a gesture would be immediately identified as anti-Semitic. Holocaust denial is today not only criminalized, the terms of its criminalization are sometimes even numerically circumscribed.”[3]

That is so true. By continuing to attack freedom of speech and archival documents, the Holocaust establishment essentially digging its own grave. They are not trying to silent people. No, they are trying to silent people who want to ask deep questions about the past.

The fact is no one can ultimately silent the pursuit of truth. No one can silent truth and win. It’s impossible. That is one reason why the Holocaust establishment will one day fall.

  • [1] Richard J. Evans, “David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition,” HolocaustDenialOnTrial.org.
  • [2] http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irving.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_
  • America&xpicked=2&item=irving227. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial, 1.
  • [3] Slavoj Zizek, “Anti-Semitism & Me Too complaints challenge freedom of debate,” Russia Today, July 11, 2019.


We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.


  1. I bought Lipstadt’s book “Denying the Holocaust” and I was disappointed. I was anticipating substantive arguments against the evidence uncovered by revisionists but what I found was Lipstadt artfully employing the disingenuous tactics which she claims to find in her adversaries. Lipstadt’s trademark is assertion after assertion presented without supporting evidence, “conventional wisdom”, which the reader is expected to accept without question at face value. She dismissed Irving as a crude misogynist, so his research merited no further comment. She snidely noticed that he is not a historian by profession – even though leading holocaust proponents such as Goldhagen likewise have their degrees in other fields than history. Raoul Hilberg, the most respected holocaust historian, was repeatedly cited, but his estimate of the total deaths at 5.1 million, not six million, is never mentioned, nor are the vicious attacks against him for refusing to politicize the sufferings of Jews in WWII.

    Lipstadt seems to not know that the twentieth century was the most propagandized era of human history, and that it was and remains necessary to market the wars as life-and-death struggles of perfect good versus total evil. Today’s national security state is founded on those myths; getting back our freedom will require uncovering the truth what happened.

  2. Jonas, have you written a review of “Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust & the David Irving Trial” by Richard J. Evans? Irving had his day in court and left the trial – a case for libel/slander against Debra Lipstadt and her publishers Penguin in 2000, with his tail well and truly tucked between his legs. I include a review of Evan’s book by David Pryce-Jones in The New Criterion of May, 2001 https://newcriterion.com/issues/2001/5/great-is-this-truth

    Irving was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the London High Court to have played so loose and free with the historical facts at his disposal, he can be well said to have hoisted himself with his own petard. Today, my regard for Irving has been seriously undermined. A reading of the Evan’s book will undermine my opinion of him even further. I am conscience bound to follow through over the coming months and come to my own conclusions. Yeah, today was an eye opener. Even the Amazon reviews of “Lying About Hitler” by Evans demands further investigation.

    • US-First,

      I had a long interaction with Evans way back in 2012 about his activities. The interaction is in my file. If you contact me personally, I will send it to you. You can find my response to Evan’s book and his ridiculous approach to history in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. II. I have very little regard for Evans. At the same time, Irving should never have taken Lipstadt to court. I have talked about this in the past.

  3. I’m not an expert about all things David Irving. However, I do buy his books, and have listened to him lecture a few times. I can say that David Irving does his research, and his books have fabulous bibliographies. When following a footnote not once did it lead me to another authors work, so he’s not just regurgitating what’s all ready been said. On the contrary, his sources are from: state archives, diaries, and personal interviews, and years of hard work. I’ve read Churchill’s War, and Hitler’s War, and in neither book was there any hint of from David that could be construed as
    anti-Semitism. David’s crime was he testified as an expert Historian for the defense at Ernst Zundel’s trial, in Canada. Since then he’s been shit on by the ADL, JDL, etc., etc. Before the Zundel trial Irving was a #1 best seller, and known as a preeminent Historian.
    I must mention; that in the 7,000 pages of Churchill’s history of WW2, and the 3,000 pages of Gen. Eisenhower’s book, or those written by DeGaulle, not one mention of gas chambers can be found. Nor will any be found in any state archives of the period.

  4. I will be reading this Irving work because the history police threaten the truth. Very interesting to see Finkelstein supports his work. If certan people decide that shooting unarmed CHILDREN to death is acceptable behavior, they and ALL their APOLOGISTS forfeit their credibility. They would be laughing stock, we’re the issues not so serious. They deserve our disdain even our sober ridicle.

  5. David Irvings work is nothing short of revelatory.
    Personal and professional hatred of David Irving coloured every word EVANS uttered in that dreadful trial.
    Evans is a stenographer to power and orthodoxy and History is judging him ill for it.

Comments are closed.