Saturday, May 19, 2007

David Irving speech called off in Warsaw

The ever crazier British historian – who has a new book out – will not be allowed to publicize it at the Warsaw International Book Fair, currently on in the capital.

The ban was initiated by the Director of Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum Piotr Cywiński, who apparently complained to the cops (see Irving's web site for more details). Irving has been in Warsaw, apparently 'doing deals' with 'eastern European publishers'.

I can’t say that I support denying a Holocaust denier his right to spout his rubbish anywhere he wants. He is a very offensive person, but letting him speak is the best way to show what a fool he is.

If you want to hear the type of thing he would have told the Warsaw Book Fair then see this Youtube clip of a speech he made last October.

Irving in Poland makes documentary - the beatroot, march 25


Damo said...

Yes, and if you are David Irving's PR clan then the best thing that could have happened is have the speech banned, splashed on page 2 of Gazeta Wyb. and every other paper in the country, talked about internationally, etc. If he gave his speech, on the other hand, any journo's who had intended on reporting from the event would have either
a) fallen asleep
b) gone to the bar after 5 minutes

Well, I suppose the MW (All Polish Youth quasi-fascists)boys didn't have to rush off from the their Equality Parade bashings and hate slogans to lick David's hole.

Anonymous said...

Judging from a couple of comments the video gathered, the viewers hardly distinguish him fool rather than historian.

And he is pretty convincing too; he says just the things you want to hear if you want to be convinced.

beatroot said...

Excerpts from High Court Judge Charles Gray's ruling in the failed David Irving libel suit:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.,,181049,00.html

BEING HAD said...

Noam Chomsky says let the Nazi's speak because dubious or no, it is at the bottom line a matter of freedom of expression. Barak Obama says however that we should remove those (radio shock jocks) who speak offensively from the public eye/ear. On the one hand we have a leader who advocates that free speech ultimately allows for the best choices, on the other we have the argument that being a leader means having the right to censor if it is in the best interests of the public. Such is the argument. However, as Poland is both anti-Semitic and homophobic, I would think the man would be a popular draw so maybe this issue is more free market and restraint of trade than free speech?

beatroot said...

the right to censor if it is in the best interests of the public.

How is censoring things we don't like in the 'interest of the public'?

beakerkin said...


A corection Chomsky has praised the research of Holocaust denier Faurison. This is entirely a different animal than a free speech argument. Chomsky also says zero about governments like Cuba that restrict speech.

Branding the Polish people anti-semitic is absurd. Yes there were anti-semites in Poland. There are plenty more found in University faculties.

Irving is a Charlatan, just ike Norm Finkelstein. He should be allowed to speak, but then again as an American I believe in free speech.

Not bad Beatroot. However, do remind Ren sometime about Katayn and the slaughters in Western Poland that were over shadowed by the Holocaust. It seems that he has forgotten the repeated denial of the communist crime against the Polish people and pinning it on Nazis for forty years.

beatroot said...

Oh pleeeease...whyb are you people from renegade's blog - including renegade - trying to drag your arguments here? I'm not interested.

beakerkin said...


Your rules your blog

Do note that Chomsky's argument had zero to do with free speech and it was not framed as such

geez said...

BH wrote as Poland is both anti-Semitic and homophobic, I would think the man would be a popular draw

And there were spozed to be pogroms after Poles watched Mel's gospel. Nonsense. There's anti-semitism and homophobia everywhere. The current government is a temporary aberation.

And the comparison of Finkelstein and Irving is nonsense.

beatroot said...

What has Chomsky got to do with anything? He's an interesting linguist, unoriginal, uninteresting political theorist.

michael farris said...


I'm a linguist and think he's an occasionally interesting linguist (whose cay to day influence is vastly overrated by non-linguists) and an interesting (if too straight-jacketed) political theorist.
What's interesting is the two parts never directly meet (if anything his linguistics, often full of hierarchical chains of command and military and s&m metaphors) seems to contradict his professed politics.
And he's as useless as dirt when it comes to linguistic politics.

beatroot said...

He might be an 'interesting' political theorist in the US, but to Europeans it's all a bit...under theorized...and obvious.

beatroot said...

Actually, thinking about it, I got through 6 years studying social sciences without much mention of Chomsky at all. I remember a lecture on Chomsky in a psychology class – acquisition of language as part of ‘development theories’. And somewhere in media sociology there was something about Manufacturing Consent.

But fact is, he will leave no theoretical political legacy in Europe at all. He is very much an American thing. A bit like Wright-Mills was.

Damien Moran said...

Maybe Chomsky was right when he said 'academics are paid to be silent.' His libertarian socialism doesn't rub well with devisers of curricula methinks. But anyhow this thread is not about Chimpsky (oh sorry, that was the promising linguistically advanced chimp he had named after him) but about Davey boy. Irving reportedly intended on going to Oswiecim before he departed - surely they will prevent him this time round?
Or maybe they should sit aoround the table with him and rationally debilitate his arguments? Seems liek it would be more fruitful than just telling him to fuck off, whereupon he blabbers on about free speech et al.

beakerkin said...


I was correcting the disinformation
of Being Had.

There are genuine people who view free speech as an American birthright even for odious types like Irving. Chomsky has never been a free speech advocate.

beatroot said...

There is a good film to be made about Irving. And getting him infront of cameras with real historians would be a good watch, I think.

geez said...

Starting to sound like you were one of those kids who threw a bunch of bugs in a jar sure to jointly attack and eat up another bug, BR.

What serious historian would be caught dead in front of cameras with Irving?

Maybe some assholes purporting to be historians on the History Channel but that's about it.

geez said...

If beakerkin is a free speech advocate then he should stop supporting Rudolf Guilliani who is trying to get Ron Paul (currently ranked 2nd in polls behind Romney) thrown out of the Republican debates.

beatroot said...

The best way to show up this guy is to confront him with History. Then watch the bugs eat him up...good idea!

geez said...

Anybody who doesn't realize Irving is a vile worthless charleton isn't much different and thus pretty much beyond help. Better to ignore him and let him foist on his own petard.

Had to look up petard to figure if it was "in" or "on". Then, had to look up "foist," too. The phrase doesn't translate as feast on his own shit, which is, however, prolly the better, more applicable phrase.

geez said...

Bah, I'll never figure out English.

Foisted on, hoisted by.

And petard's da bomb.

The word remains in modern usage in the phrase to be hoisted by one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall in one's own trap". Shakespeare coined the now proverbial phrase in Hamlet.

Anonymous said...

Beatroot wrote:
"Actually, thinking about it, I got through 6 years studying social sciences without much mention of Chomsky at all"

Is that a comment on Chomsky or on the quality of your education? (No offence meant - Chomsky didn't feature at all in mine).

beatroot said...

Isn't 'foist on his own petard' a bit like making him sit on the spikey end of his umberella?

On Chomsky.

Anonymous said...

No doubt the All-Polish Youth members (or should I say new members of the League of Polish Families (LPR) will miss David's chat. Perhaps the organizers could ask Tinky Winky to step in and tell some psychology jokes?