Harvester Of Souls

Paul Gadd is now officially a convicted child molester. Gadd Does Porridge!

Rick Allen's left arm?

According the trial in Austria, Irving admitted denying that the murder of the jews took place (during his lecture in '89). I would class that denial. However I wasn't there so I can't spin the exact phrasing he used. I interpret the holocaust as a persecution and systematic attempt, by the Nazis, to eradicate European jewry. As all of the various professors and historians listed disagree with me I class that as holocaust denial. Several of these authors have wrote books saying it didn't happen others dispute the number and the methodology. Some say that the final solution wasn't an extermination program and the a couple seem to believe that because Hitler didn't know about it it couldn't be a systematic attempt to eradicate the jews. Like I said it all depends on your personal interpretation of the holocaust. I suppose if you reckon the murders weren't based on ethnic cleansing, and were based purely on defeating the insurgents and enemies, within the Fatherland, then there was no holocaust. It was just a really unfortunate time to be jewish in Europe.

Selective pruning.

Any particular reason for locking some of these threads? Granted some of the shite posted on this forum recently isn't worth the little asterix but some of the locked threads have been star rated by the moderators. What's happening or is it purely for the secret circle?

In court, Irving admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. Whether he or any of the above have used the phrase "I deny the Holocaust" I honestly can't tell you but the IHR have stated that the listed experts have rejected the orthodox view of the Holocaust. I suppose that paragraph is dependant on how you perceive it.

Heather McCartney for her leg?

Huzzah Sir! Bravo!

The Night Stalker is notorious throughout the world. If he doesn't pass the DL famousness requirements then they're seriously flawed.

Jailed British historian David Irving has again said he does not believe Hitler presided over a systematic attempt to exterminate Jews in Europe.

Level 6 here.

Irving has denied the holocaust and is quoted as calling it baloney and legend. He wrote a book called "Hitler's War". A book which took him 13 years to write after compiling a huge series of unexploited Nazi documents. He commented that Hitler knew nothing, of the extermination camps and murders, until 1943 and that he never ordered the genocide. He even offered a financial bounty to anyone that could produce evidence to contradict his work. Years later he reviewed his work and stated that the gas chambers didn't exist and that six million jews didn't die. What he said that contravened the Austrian law, I don't know. I think it's silly but it does demonstrate a double standard in western 'free speech' ideology. As for the IHR they don't offically deny the holocaust. Taken from their site, they state "The Institute does not “deny the Holocaust.” Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II." However they do go as far as saying "These individuals (listed next - HoS) did not decide to publicly reject the orthodox Holocaust story — thereby risking public censure, and worse — because they are fools, or because their motives are evil, but rather on the basis of a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence." These "revisionist" (a term the IHR themselves refer to as skeptical) individuals DO deny the holocaust. Some outright. Some question the methods and others the death toll. Fred Leucter is dubbed the American gas chamber specialist. His investigation (dubbed "The Leucter Report") concluded that the gas chambers and resulting executions didn't exist. Robert Faurisson is a university professor. In his article for the IHR (entitled End Of A Myth) he follows Leucters work and has been "absolutely sure" that no gas chambers were used to kill jews since 1974. Arthur Butz is also a university professor. He is the author of "The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century: The Case Against The Presumed Extermination of European Jewry", in which he thoroughly debunks the holocaust. Roger Garaudy is a historian. In his book entitled "The Founding Myths Of Modern Israel" he states that the final solution wasn't mass extermination but a resettlement program and the the holocaust was a myth. Paul Rassinier, a former concentration camp inmate wrote a book entitled "Debunking the Genocide Myth" in which he refers to the 30th January 1946 as being "that day that, in the world press, the gas chambers mythology began its dance to every tune and diabolical rhythm; that unrestrained saraband full of missteps has not stopped since." So while the organisation doesn't officially deny the holocaust, does it endorse those that do? It certainly offers their work in it's pages and reviews them throughout. It even invites them to speak at their seminars and quotes a few post-humously. In doing so how am I supposed to feel about the content of their website? I read the British National Party website too. They're not racist just patriotic championing the cause of the downtrodden Briton. I'm sure the readers can make up their own opinion. Are they hateful jew bashers or is it part of a massive jewish conspiracy to discredit them? Death toll? Nazi records place the figure at 5.7 million but various figures are used depending on which slant the articles are written from. Who knows? As time heals the wounds and old age claims the remaining survivors maybe history will be gradually re-written in favour of the revisionist? As for Irving, I don't really know the man. As much as he's offended people I think a prison sentence for having an opinion is ridiculous but it's the price of living in the 21st century where freedom and democracy are an ideology and where a bastardised version has been dictated to us by our financial betters. A place where the revisionism of our rights and freedoms have left us in a state where we're not allowed to think for ourselves and any form of alternative viewpoint is brutally crushed. Lest We Forget...

Excellent resource there Scsi, however I noticed one serious flaw... You missed CT which as we all know is the abbrieviation of Chat-Tastic.

I can almost see the lynchings!

I concur! Ding Dong!

Shouldn't that read "Starling Headlines?"

Nick Griffin is the most familiar to the UK but there is an organisation called Institute For Historical Review (IHR). Founded in 1979 it's the world's largest centre for holocaust denial propaganda.

Bravo Sir!

Fair comments... please forgive me. I couldn't be arsed wading through it all to check.

With great power comes great responsibility... Has the corruption increased to reflect the new software?

Please leave this one for a quiet read, for a couple of hours, before the DL hatchet merges it with the existing shite on Doherty. I'm not normally someone to give this talentless w***** the time of day but this little article made me smile and in the spirit of the article I'm helping spread the bullshit. I will now be regurgitating this information to anyone that likes him. Fun With The Rumour Mill: The Pete Doherty Hoax [Merged - ff]

Dearly Beloved Death-List Comrades... This is my second posting to the Charlton Heston thread and I was wondering "What Are The Thoughts, Of Our Panel Of Experts, On Charlton Heston?" "How Do We View Him And His Life's Work?" ( In The true style of Ben Hur or ) I've read little bits over the last few pages and I can see veiled, polarised, opinions but is there any contributor willing to go on record and prepare CH a eulogy whilst he approaches his 81st birthday? He seems to attract awe from our -Guest- ranters but an equal amount of distaste from out regular DL members. Are the comments, directed at CH, a product of his NRA presidency and battle against Alzheimer's? If so why are they so polarised? Good day

And 10 more than will admit to being a member of the Labour party.

I think the revulsion was directed at her being raped whilst she was dying due to the injuries she sustained from being paralytic. Instead of phoning for an ambulance he decided to take advantage of her during which she sustained further severe injuries. Apart from that I tend to agree with the remainder of your post.