Ward Churchill and David Irving: Full of Hubris and Hoisted on their own Petard

There is an interesting article by Walter Plywaski in The Daily Camera comparing the modus operandi of David Irving and Ward Churchill,

Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating and plagiarizing in his published writings, sued the university, claiming he was "unfairly targeted for controversial remarks he made post-9/11. CU found him to be a plagiarist with poor academic integrity." (Daily Camera, March 3).

The author argues that

both Churchill and Irving exhibit the same kind of hubris: both felt, and feel, that nothing they could state, no matter how outrageous, could hurt them. Both of these two self-defined geniuses forgot the basic principle of being a successful prevaricator and that is: do not bring attention to yourself when you know perfectly well you have things that you wish to hide or at least not have generally discussed. Both of these two men used either bogus "historical research" works or, when unable to find data for their ideology, created the data out of whole cloth.

Regarding Churchill's court case, the author observes that

Churchill and his attorneys don't even bother to defend their case by solid evidence against the accusations of plagiarism, subterfuge and scholastic inappropriateness made by CU. Instead, their thrust seems to be to try to disregard such charges and claim that Churchill is being persecuted because of his merely unpopular (but very shrill!) article in which he claimed that the victims of the Twin Tower attack of 9/11 were nothing other but "little Eichmanns."

Both Irving and Churchill could have gone along spreading their nefarious lies and fabrications and, in Churchill's case, plagiarism [not one of Irving's "sins" as far as I know] had they not both been blinded by their hubris,

Had Irving not sued me, we would never have exposed the extent of his lies and distortions. Had Churchill not reveled in saying the outrageous there would not have been the in depth investigation of his plagiarism and his lies about his academic record.

[once again thanks to Sara Salzman for bringing this to my attention]

For Sale Hitler's Hair and Bones: No Comment Necessary

This article from yesterday's Daily Telegraph speaks for itself:

Holocaust Denier David Irving Sets Up Nazi Memorabilia Website

The right-wing author, who was jailed in Austria for denying the Holocaust, says that the online store is the only way he can make money after being declared bankrupt in 2002.

Items up for sale on the site include Hitler's walking stick, available for £7,000, and a goblet and spoon given as a christening present by Heinrich Himmler to Hermann Goering's daughter, which can be bought for £4,000.

Irving authenticates the goods, which are offered by other sellers, and takes a 15 per cent cut commission.

The 70-year-old says he is currently trying to confirm the authenticity of bones said to be from Hitler and his girlfriend Eva Braun. Strands of the Fuhrer's hair are also expected to go on sale for £130,000.

[....]

Irving was unapologetic about his activities and said there was demand for "authenticated" Nazi memorabilia.

"I have a living to make and this is how I make my money...."

Letter in NY Times on Irving "the historian"

I have a letter in today's New York Times. I was not surprised when I learned that so-called Bishop Williamson's first stop in the UK was to consult with David Irving. Birds of a feather flock together...

I was surprised that the Times chose to describe Irving as an historian.

To the Editor:

“Vatican Calls the Apology of a Bishop Insufficient” (news article, Feb. 28) reports that the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson has consulted with David Irving. Mr. Irving is a fitting partner for him.

Strangely, Mr. Irving is described in the article as a “historian.” When he sued me for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier, the court ruled that his “falsification of the historical record was deliberate” and motivated by “ideological beliefs,” including anti-Semitism and racism.

The judge called Mr. Irving’s writings on the Holocaust “misleading,” “unjustified,” a “travesty” and “unreal.” He “perverts” and “distorts.” This is not the description of a historian. It is the description of a denier.

Deborah E. Lipstadt
Washington, Feb. 28, 2009

The writer is a professor of modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University.

Lady Renouf Profiled in Times [London]: Williamson is Her Prize

A profile of a woman who found her niche as a friend of members of the rogues gallery of Holocaust deniers and antisemites.

Film on Free Speech: Irving Gets a Starring Role

The filmmaker who included David Irving in his film An Independent Mind [see previous post] defended his decision to do so. In an article in the UK online magazine Totally Jewish the filmmaker presents himself -- rather proudly -- as having bucked criticism and done the brave thing.

The problem is that the guy gave Irving a chance to spout, not just odious views, but misstatements of fact and he apparently did not even know how to challenge them. [That was what my trial was all about.]

It's one thing to argue that people with disgusting views have a right to freedom of speech. They do [unless they engage in incitement].

But since when does a person who just spouts lies and distortions and inventions have to be celebrated?

Obviously such a liar has a right to speak but what person in their sane mind would believe that they have to give them a platform?

Obviously Rex Bloomstein, the filmmaker did.

The film, celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in particular Article 19 which states 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.'

Rex Bloomstein has made The Longest Hatred: The History of Anti-Semitism and KZ which tells the story of Mauthausen concentration camp.

Bloomstein told the publication that he "thought long and hard" about including Irving in the film, but said: "In the end, I thought it was right to include him and I would have to accept that the decision would be met with some controversy."

He also said: "Irving is someone who reflects the limits of freedom of expression. He epitomises repellent views which make us aware of the limits of freedom of expression. It would be derelict not to include someone who challenges how we look at that freedom."

This guy does not get it. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of judgment.

Why give someone who is simply twisting the truth and lying a platform?

Did Bloomstein, possibly unconsciously so, want to show how brave he is? How willing he was to buck criticism? I think dense is a far more accurate term.

Sometimes, just because lots of people criticize you, does not mean you're are right. [With apologies to the originator of the line: Just because I am paranoid does not mean everyone isn't out to get me.]

[For my views on outlawing Holocaust denial see here.]

Irving to Appear on UK's Channel 4: Have They Completely Lost Their Minds?

From today's Guardian

by Oliver Marre

[....]

On Tuesday night, C4's offshoot channel, More4, is showing a 90-minute documentary, An Independent Mind, in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[....]

According to the puff: 'This unique film gives a voice to eight characters from around the world who have fought to exercise their right to free speech.'

What C4 doesn't say is that the film's eighth and final hero is Irving. The timing is fortunate for Irving, if not for the rest of us, since he's currently trying to flog his self-published misery memoir.

[....]

As Irving objects to being called a Holocaust denier and is in the habit of writing to newspapers that do so, I've gone in search of a better description. His personal website offers Hitler's walking stick for sale, refers repeatedly to Jews as 'nice folks' (including during a magnificent attempt to ally himself to John Cleese, because the comedian is divorcing his wife, who is Jewish) and carries links to his flattering biographies of Hitler and Goebbels. Any suggestions?

David Irving Invited to be on Celebrity Big Brother: Has someone lost their mind?

The London based reality show, Celebrity Big Brother, apparently seriously considered having David Irving on the show.

This is beyond belief.

Irving at Bletchley Park Lecture

David Irving showed up at a lecture on the Bletchley Park intercepts, the British successful effort to break the German codes and its uncovering of a telegram sent to Eichmann regarding the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were being "processed" at Treblinka, Sobibor, Lublin, and Belzec.

Irving says this material proves that Jews were being murdered at these camps.

When a reporter asked Irving about his views on the Holocaust, the following occurred:

After the meeting, the reporter asked Mr Irving about his views on the document and the holocaust. Mr Irving said he has to be careful what he says as free speech is under threat and he was nearly jailed for 20 years in Austria.

Irving's claim that he had "to be careful" is ridiculous and an attempt to cast himself as a martyr. No one can prosecute him for what he says in England.

David Irving Gets it Wrong: Again ... What a Hoot

A Google alert just popped up on my computer. It brought me to "Fiery Cross" website which is clearly associated with the KKK. [The picture at left appears on the website.]

The site carries a post from David Irving's website entitled:

Lipstadt: Am I my brother's keeper?

Irving begins with a discussion [quite exaggerated of course] of the Bruges affair. He then goes on to identify Marc Kalmann as my brother. Here's what Irving has to say:

Kalmann is the brother of Atlanta Professor Deborah Lipstadt, and she has gone straight into brother-denial. (Don’t ask us how they come to use different family names: I remember once interviewing Julius Streicher’s son, also a Streicher, for Hard Copy (US television), and him retorting, “We are not the sort of people who change our names.")

Changing names is the kind of things that the Lipstadt’s of this world do more often than others.

He "proves" his point by quoting the post sent to me by Kalmann's brother.

What a joke. Irving can't figure out that I was quoting the brother NOT identifying Marc Kalmann as my brother.

Attempting to paint me as frightened that this news of "my brother", i.e. Marc Kalmann might emerge and

come to my ears, Deborah Lipstadt has rushed to her damage-control panel, groped in the darkness of her own delirium for the button marked “DENIAL!” but pushed the one marked “PANIC” by mistake. The Internet is awash with fun at her expense.

He closes his post by thanking his many friends who brought this to his attention.

Someone must have pointed out to David Irving his colossal mistake because when you go to his website the post is gone. www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Lipstadt/brother_Marc_Kalmann.html

My thanks to the KKK site for capturing it.

What a hoot. Irving [and his friends] can't even read documents he is not trying to lie about.

David Irving talk in Liverpool: One newspaper gets it right.... and one wrong

A talk Irving was scheduled to give in Liverpool, England was recently cancelled when the hotel discovered that Irving was one of the speakers. It was scheduled to coincide with the European Holocaust Memorial Day which is on January 27th.

What interest me is not the cancellation but how two different Liverpool newspapers covered the news. The Liverpool Echo article read:

Talk by jailed historian David Irving axed

In contrast, the Liverpool Daily Post's headline read:
Holocaust denier Irving ‘targeted’ Liverpool

[Thanks to Sara Salzman for catching this contrast in headlines.]

"Holocaust denial on the increase in 2007": David Wyman Institute

According to the David Wyman Institute, Holoaust denial increased markedly in 2007. In its report it links this directly to the release of David Irving from jail. I have not yet read the actual report only an article in the Jerusalem Post so I can't comment in any depth.

David Irving goes to Spain and to the BBC...

This week's Jewish Chronicle reports that Irving went to Spain and gave a denial speech.

There is nothing noteworthy about this article except that he was supposed to appear on a BBC World programme. What are the people at the BBC thinking or NOT thinking??? [See the section highlighted below.]

Spanish police study Irving speech
21/12/2007
*By Bernard Josephs and Dana Gloger*

Spanish police were this week examining a recording of a speech by revisionist historian David Irving, condemned by a British High Court judge as a Holocaust denier, after the Jewish community failed to have him banned from speaking in Barcelona.

Under Spanish law, justifying genocide or inciting racism and xenophobia can carry a sentence of up to three years. Police were authorised by a judge to examine Irving’s words to see if he had broken the law in his speech at a bookshop last Saturday.

According to agency reports, he told his audience of about 20 that there was no proof that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust. But, he said, there was no doubt that the Nazis killed “two or three million” Jews.

During his speech, about 100 people protested outside the bookshop which was guarded by police.

Dahliah Levinsohn, secretary of the Federation of Jewish communities in Spain, said: “The Federation asked the High Court to cancel Irving’s talk, as we thought there could be acts of incitement to racism and antisemitism.

“Although it [the court] did not cancel the conference, Catalan police were present and the court issued them with an official order to enter and record the talk.

“He [Irving] was very careful not to negate the Holocaust, precisely because the Catalan police were there. Now the police will analyse the talk and see if something comes up.” In 2006 Irving was sentenced by an Austrian court to three years in prison for Holocaust denial but was released after serving one-third of his sentence.

He was due this week is to take part in a BBC World Service programme.
He was to be among “eight gagged individuals — people banned from speaking because of their beliefs or work”, said a BBC spokesperson.

Irving has threatened to sue the /JC/ if it calls him an “active Holocaust denier”.

Irving v. Lipstadt: The Saga Continues

This week's Jewish Chronicle contains a story about David Irving's claims that he is planning to serve me with legal papers when I was in London last week.

On his website he has suggested in the past that I sneak into London to avoid him. Given that my speeches have been well publicized -- enough for 900 people to attend -- this is clearly an imaginary claim. No surprise here.

David Irving v Deborah Lipstadt, Part 2
By By Dana Gloger

HOLOCAUST-denier David Irving claims he is preparing to serve court papers on the American historian he unsuccessfully sued for libel in London’s High Court eight years ago.

This week, the JC learned that the discredited historian, who last year served part of a three-year sentence in an Austrian jail for breaching the country’s Holocaust-denial laws, emailed Deborah Lipstadt informing her he intended to institute unspecified court proceedings against her.

He told the JC that this could only be done while she was within the jurisdiction of the High Court.

When Irving found out that Prof Lipstadt would be in the UK for a series of talks, he got in touch with her.

In an email dated November 30, which the JC has seen, Irving, 69, wrote: “Please inform me whether you will be available for service of court proceedings, and make a suitable appointment for this purpose; please also confirm that you will take no steps to prevent court officers from approaching you, and cause no steps to be taken to prevent court officers from approaching you on this occasion.”

In his 2000 libel case, Irving was branded an antisemite by a judge after bringing the suit against Prof Lipstadt for calling him a Holocaust denier.

He would not divulge why he was planning to bring his latest threatened action, but confirmed that they were not related to libel.

“There is something in the air, but I can’t tell you any more. For now it goes back on the shelf, until she is back in the jurisdiction of the British High Court and I can locate her.”

There were rumours on Tuesday night that Irving would try to gatecrash Prof Lipstadt’s talk at Finchley Synagogue. But he said he had not tried to go, as he knew he would not be allowed in.

He added: “[Ms Lipstadt] is no friend of mine. I have many Jewish friends but she is not one of them.”

Although Irving said that Prof Lipstadt had not responded to his email, when the JC spoke to her, she said her solicitors, Mishcon de Reya, had replied on her behalf.

It is understood that an email was sent confirming that anything served would be accepted. Ms Lipstadt said: “His email came as a little bit of a surprise, but he pulls these kinds of things.”

In October, Irving threatened to sue the JC for calling him an active Holocaust denier. He has not carried out this threat.

Oxford Union: Muddled reasoning

The statement issued by Luke Tyrl, the president of the Oxford Union, is a clear example of really muddled thinking. He begins by arguing that Griffin and Irving are:

not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech.

If they are not being given a chance to expound on their views then why does Tyrl go on to say:

What is more, they will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner.

Obviously he expects them to use the opportunity to expound on their views. He then contends that "that pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing." Mr. Tyrl seems not to understand that there is a vast difference between pushing views "underground" and simply not giving them a platform at the Oxford Union. Would he say that anyone with a controversial view who has not been privileged to speak at the Union has been driven "underground"? Clearly not.

Moreover he argues that the best way to deal with these people is "to crush these people in debate ." How does he propose "debating" someone such as David Irving who is a proven liar and falsifier of history?

He contends that "it's patronising to suggest that Oxford students aren't intelligent enough to debate with these people."

Challenging someone such as David Irving has little to do with intelligence, it has to do with knowing how he is lying and distorting the facts. And as smart as Oxford students may think they are, just because they are at Oxford does not mean they have the knowledge -- Mr. Tyrl does not seem to recognize the difference between intelligence and knowledge -- to catch a liar who distorts and falsifies.

It is simply hubris to assume that just because you are an Oxford student you automatically have the expertise to pinpoint his lies.

More distressing than the invitation itself is the confused reasoning -- if one can call it that -- of the president of the Union.

Oxford Union: Irving and Griffin to appear

Well it looks like it is official. The members of the Oxford Union, one of the most prestigious debating societies in the world, have voted to invite these two men to appear at the Union on Monday night.

The vote was 2-1 in favor.

The Union's president keeps justifying the invitation in that they were not invited to share their views but to speak about free speech. The president of the Union told the BBC that

"They will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner."

The fallacy is that on issues of free speech I doubt whether there will be any difference of opinion.

In some perverse fashion I would rather they had been invited to express their views and then, rather than to debate them, to have them properly demolished by the students.

Truth be told, neither of these men deserve this platform. Maybe the students who invited them will go study with the professors at Columbia who thought a coveted platform at that university should be extended to Holocaust and homosexuality denier Ahmadinejad....

Oxford Union: A perceptive observation by The Half-Blood Welshman

See The Half Blood Welshman's comments on the absurd invitation to David Irving, whom a BBC official has stupidly called a "controversial historian."

Someone should remind this BBC dolt that three different judicial entities in England called him or affirmed his being called a liar and a falsifier of history who misrepresents, misconstrues, omits, and perverts the available evidence. According to the judgment, he "treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian."

The Judge had many other less than complimentary things to say about him all of which would essentially disqualify him from being considered an historian.

Oxford Union: Vote today on whether David Irving should appear

The Oxford Union members will be voting on whether David Irving should be allowed to speak.

The outcry against his appearing has been pretty widespread including 2000 people who apparently signed a petition. In addition, Defence Secretary Des Browne and Television presenter June Sarpong withdrew from participating at other events at the Union to express their opposition to the invitation to Irving and Griffin.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams condemned the invites in an exclusive Jewish News interview. The President of the Union, Luke Tyrl, told the online paper, the Jewish News:

“I decided to invite Griffin and Irving to take part in a free speech forum to show that we are not afraid of taking on their views. I find both individuals to be odious, their ideas awful and abhorrent."

Regarding the students who support Irving and Griffin coming he said: These are not people who are sympathetic to the far-right but students who believe in tackling extremism head on."

This is an example of really muddled thinking. No one at the Union seems to support either Irving's or Griffin's views.

By inviting them to a forum on free speech the students tied their own hands. They were presenting them as victims who have been silenced. More importantly, the students at the Union essentially support Irving and Griffin's right to express their opinions. Therefore the end result of the meeting would be a vote for them.

In the end probably neither will appear but they will have gotten more column inches in the press than many more newsworthy topics.

Oxford Union: David Irving's invitation hanging by a thread

Today's Independent suggests that it is quite doubtful whether, when all the protests are said and done, Irving will still be welcome at the Oxford Union.

Oxford Union: David Irving invited to speak

Well, in a classic example of having minds so open your brains fall out, the Oxford Union, one of the most prestigious debating sites in the world, has invited David Irving to speak there.

Coupled with with Irving is the far-right British National Party Leader Nick Griffin had been invited to a forum on free speech. In response Britain's defense secretary and at least three lawmakers have cancelled appearances at the debating group.

Irving has the right to speak there. The question is why would the students invite someone who has tried to silence anyone who criticizes him, who has been shown to be a liar and falsifier of history, and who consistently plays with the facts, bending them until they fit his needs.

Given that the topic is free speech, I hope someone asks Irving about his attempt to curtail my free speech with his lawsuit against me. Remember, he offered to settle if I agreed that all copies of my book should be pulped.

While over a 1,000 people have signed a petition calling for Prime Minister Gordon Brown to condemn the invitations to Irving and Griffin, I hope Gordon Brown does not do this. David Irving is simply not important enough -- or at all -- to warrant a statement by the Prime Minister of England.

In fact, a statement by the PM will make Irving's day.

Oxford Union: David Irving says he's not going to accept the invitation

David Irving has told the Jewish Chronicle in London that he will NOT accept the Oxford Union invitation to appear in a debate alongside of the leader of the far right British National Party, Nick Griffin.

Even Irving, who seems to me to be someone who thrives on the maxim, "I don't care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right," apparently understands that keeping company with a man like Griffin was not a good career move.

Actually given that he has said things such as seeing Black cricket players "makes me queasy" and many other things which led Judge Gray to say "Irving is a racist", it seems to me that he might actually have been in good company with Griffin.

[For Judge Gray's comments regarding Irving's racism see the final section of his judgment. ]