Confronting Holocaust Denial with David Baddiel

[Charles Traynor]

This BBC documentary aired on Monday 17th of February in the UK. The program is nothing less than poorly put together propaganda designed to sell the holocaust narrative to an ignorant and uninformed viewing public and Baddiel's performance damns him as an unscrupulous liar.

Baddiel interviews our old friend Dr. Nicholas Terry (“historian and expert in the evolution of holocaust denial”) and Debs Lipstadt. After speaking with Terry and Lipstadt, Baddiel comes to the conclusion holocaust denial is "anti-Semitic hate speech". Baddiel also interviews Facebook’s director of public policy Europe. Baddiel states that as a Jew he considers holocaust denial to be hate speech and suggests it should be completely censored on Facebook. Jews really do hate freedom of expression especially when it comes to the Hoax.

Baddiel plays dirty and attempts to portray revisionists as being unbalanced and dangerous, he tells us he has consulted with security specialists because he fears for his safety after the programme is aired. This is of course a complete inversion of reality and the many incidents of exterminationist violence against revisionists have been well documented over the years. Later in the film while Baddiel is waiting in Ennis town square for Dermot Mulqueen to arrive he reveals his true hate filled Jew mentality when he says: “I just want to punch this guy in the face” [Mulqueen].

Despite being advised not to speak with deniers by Lipstadt, Baddiel heads to Ireland to interview Dermot Mulqueen an eccentric whose claim to fame is being arrested for putting an axe through a television set in Ennis town square to protest Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2015. I was expecting the interview to be a train wreck judging from the preview clip which had been circulating on news sites recently but Dermot didn’t do too badly in the end. I am sure it has not gone unnoticed that Baddiel despite all his claims of the holocaust being an indisputable fact chose to interview an outsider rather than a published revisionist scholar who knows the history.

Once again the exterminationists have displayed their complete morale bankruptcy by failing to deal with holocaust revisionism honestly. I can only conclude from this documentary that the Jews will soon start pushing for revisionism to be completely censored from the Internet and for denial of the holocaust to be considered a hate crime with correspondingly harsher prison sentences than are currently the norm.

Baddiel also brazenly denies Jews are orchestrating White Genocide several times in this documentary but that is another topic entirely.

[Turnagain]

That should be titled, "Holyhoax Propaganda with David Baddiel". As was briefly mentioned, if Baddiel actually wanted to confront revisionism he would have interviewed someone like Carlo Mattogno or Germar Rudolf. This was a carefully orchestrated load of rubbish.

[been-there]

The injustice, hate-speech, suppression of free speech and expressions of intended violent assault by Baddiel are indicative of the hypocrisy and illegality that is not only permitted but is encouraged by the world's media regarding this peculiar mass delusion concerning one aspect of WW2 history.

The unjust treatment of Dermot Mulqueen was protested against to no avail here:

The sentencing of Dermot Mulqueen to seven months imprisonment for staging performance art is a travesty and disgrace to anyone who believes in the concept of justice or the fundamental human right to freedom of expression. If it is acceptable to imprison someone for expressing their views on a historical event then Ireland is no longer a country which respects freedom of speech or freedom of expression. The imprisoning of this man is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights - both of which Ireland is a party to.
If this judgement is allowed to stand, Ireland can no longer be considered a free country, nor can we lecture any other nation about the importance of freedom of expression when we refuse to follow these principles in our own country. Furthermore, Mr. Mulqueen's actions do not violate the acts which he was convicted of violating. Mr. Mulqueen was staging performance art at the Daniel O'Connell monument in Ennis, Co. Clare. As part of the performance, he swung an axe into his own television as a symbolic act reflecting the title "Liberation of the Mind".
Section 9 of the Firearms Act states:

"9.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), where a person has with him in any public place any knife or any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had the article with him for use at work or for a recreational purpose."

Clearly since he was using the axe as part of his performance art, he had it with him for a "recreational purpose". He was not threatening anyone, or planning to threaten or attack anyone else or their property, which is the whole purpose of the act.
Section 6 of the Public Order Act states:

"6.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned."

There is no evidence that Mr. Mulqueen was intending to provoke a breach of the peace. With regard to "being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned" - if we're going to include performance art as violating this then where does it end? If a clown throws a pie in the face of another clown should that be considered a "breach of the peace"? Should performers raising their voices to draw attention from passersby be considered a "breach of the peace"? Should people shouting anti-government slogans at a protest be considered to "use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace"?

During sentencing, Judge Patrick Durcan stated:

“Mr. Mulqueen was reckless and offensive in the extreme. He was gratuitously insulting not merely to a section of society who we know were most directly affected by the Holocaust but he was gratuitously insulting to most reasonably minded men and women who maintain civic society.”

But being insulting is not a crime. The law under which Mr. Mulqueen was convicted clearly states: "It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace" — there is no evidence that Mr. Mulqueen intended to provoke a breach of the peace. In fact, being able to express views which some people may find offensive or insulting is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Any time you express an opinion on an issue you are potentially insulting or offending someone else.

If a man expresses support for homosexual marriage he is calling for something which many people, including Christians, would find offensive and insulting. Should we imprison people for expressing these views? If I expressed the view that the Great Irish Famine was not an intentional act of genocide but merely an unfortunate natural disaster which Britain held no responsibility for - many Irish people would find that offensive and insulting. Should I be imprisoned for expressing such a view? Would I be? Has anyone ever been prosecuted for denying the Irish Famine? Why are we more concerned with the suffering of a foreign group during a war which had nothing to do with us than we are with the suffering of our own people?

In conclusion, we call on you to overturn this miscarriage of justice and show the world that Ireland is a democratic country which respects the fundamental human rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the rule of law. Regardless of whether you agree with Mr. Mulqueen's views or not, any person who believes in freedom of expression must support his right to express his views to the public. In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall describing Voltaire's attitude to freedom of speech: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

We call on you to do the right thing and free this prisoner of conscience, who is in prison for nothing more than expressing a view to the public which he genuinely believes to be true. If he is wrong, then his critics should show why he is wrong rather than locking him away in prison. That is the solution of totalitarian regimes, not democratic societies. We hope your conscience will urge you to do the right thing. Thank You.

[Werd]

Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf. The cowards dare not speak their names. When's the last time James and Lance Morgan responded to Carlo Mattogno's destruction of their book? Exactly.

On the other hand, part of me wonders if David Baddiel knows exactly who Mattogno and Graf are and is terrified of mentioning their names. If so, I suspect it's because of their vast body of work. If I would have to nominate the top 5 Mattogno books, they would be:

1. The Real Case for Auschwitz. - complete and utter destruction of Van Pelt's distortion of documents and exposing the general absurdities about alleged oven capacities as told by "witnesses." Also begins to scratch the surface of the crude propaganda that Polish resistance groups in the camp were creating.
2. Special Treatment in Auschwitz &
3. Curated Lies. - showing deliberate document distortion of a term and also revealing more than one sonderkommando in the camp, often times having innocent, regular, work related tasks.
4. Open Air Incinerations. - An examination of aerial photos AND documents showing vast INactivity of Auschwitz ovens during May and June, thus meaning we should see mass pyres in aerial photos and yet we don't!
5. The Torture of Rudolf Hoss. - Sifting through all the different depositions of Hoss and showing how they contradict each other, the laws of science, other known Auschwitz documents, and also documenting his torture and psychological trauma - thus disqualifying him as credible. The fact that others still try to excuse or minimize his torture, "Oh he wasn't tortured before Nuremberg therefore we can believe him" is stupid. It is also revealed that his captors were playing slippery with his so called confession.
https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133605#p133605

On March 14, 1946 two days after his capture, at 2:30 in the morning, Rudolf Höss signed an 8 page typed text document written in German. The document lacked any form of formatting, headings or printed administrative references and was littered with hand written corrections. The document was also signed by two witnesses – British sergeants and a captain of the 92nd Field Security Section, who certified that the prisoner made his statement voluntarily. The captain dated his signature March 14, but one of the witnessing officers dated it March 15. The document does not bear any indication of place where it was signed. Remember the dates – March 14 or 15.

Then on April 5, 1946 Rudolf Höss signed a 20 pages long affidavit written in English – language he did not speak. He signed the affidavit under oath, even though it was written in the language of his captors, not his own.

In order to hide that Rudolf Höss had signed an affidavit in language he did not speak, the original text was recast and presented as “translation” into English from German. However during the hasty attempt to hide the deception, mistakes were made so the handwritten addition to paragraph 10 was mistakenly added to the end of paragraph 9, rendering the paragraph incomprehensible. It was the forgery that was used before the Nuremberg tribunal.

Carlo Mattogno's book that is dedicated SOLELY to the atrocity reports from the Poles and Soviets was finally completed in Italian last year (after being re-written at least two times according to my email correspondence with Germar Rudolf) and is slated to finally be put into English. Not since The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz, has a Mattogno book promised to be so damning!

[been-there]

I'm just watching the BBC 'documentary' by David Baddiel.

I am only seven minutes into it and already I have heard numerous statements presented as if factual and proof of a planned genocide.
It's clear already Baddiel knows very little about the actual alleged narrative and much, much less about the revisionist arguments.

For example early on he shows a visit to a 'hollowco$t' museum in America of all places!!!
Why would anyone go to the continent of north America to 'prove' that intelligent analysis of this compulsory history is a form of supposed 'denial'?

He shows there a monument with an inscription in stone of the words of Eisenhower on visiting a recently liberated concentration camp in Germany. Baddiel admits he was quite unaware of Eisenhower's comment stating that he testifies to witnessing 'THE Holocaust' so that future generations cannot deny it.
Yet OBVIOUSLY, OBVIOUSLY, obviously Eisenhower visited a camp that was DEFINITELY NOT a death camp nor an 'extermination camp'. He had visited Ohrdruf camp, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp, and the first Nazi camp liberated by US troops. So Eisenhower's statement is actually proof of the exact OPPOSITE of what the ignorant Baddiel believes. It's proof of either Eisenhower's own delusion OR — more likely — his complicity in an Allied 'atrocity propaganda' campaign that should have been acknowledged as misleading decades ago.
Instead we get ignoramususes who identify as being 'Jewish' like David Baddiel who still believe this post-war misinformation.

Then we get to watch Baddiel visit Chelmno and listen to more unevidenced allegations which Baddiel ignorantly and gullibly accepts as factual.

Baddiel accepts everything he is told CONFIRMING his a priori belief system without any critical analysis whatsoever. I'm only at the seven minute mark (7:00) and both him and his informant are repeating over and over "it's incredible. Absolutely incredible".

Yes, you gullible, nincompoops!! Because it IS INCREDIBLE!!! The whole story is obviously NOT credible. Obviously!

[Lupus Rothstein]

I'm just watching the BBC 'documentary' by David Baddiel.

I an only seven minutes into it and already I have heard numerous statements presented as if factual and proof of a planned genocide.

There is only one statement that needs discussing from this documentary, and that is when the axe-weilding Irish 'revisionist' decides to offer his take on why the Holocaust was a 'hoax'. According to Dermot, the whole gassing/extermination of Jews during WW2 was obviously a hoax because....................................wait for it.............................Jews continue to buy German made cars.

Oh well, at least it's a bit different from the 'Auschwitz swimming pool' I guess !

[Turnagain]

LOL! Lupus is trying to give Baddiel's little propaganda fail a boost. Looks like you're having a traction problem, Lupus.

[been-there]

I have now watched the programme in its entirety.

What a depressingly stupid approach David Baddiel took all the way through.

He started very early on assuming that — although he admitted he knew precious little about either the holocaust narrative itself or what of it is being disputed — he assumed anyone who doubted any part of it was a dastardly "denier" who was doing so from what he deludedly regarded as a position of "obscene" "malevolence".
And he stuck to and operated from that position even after it was explained to him that was not the case by three people in the programme: by Richard Allen a representative for Facebook; by Prof.Gilbert Achcar of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London; and even by Prof. Deborah Lipstadt.
So that is ironically proof of his own 'denial'.

What a shame he didn't interview an informed Jewish person who also questions aspects of the compulsory, delusory narrative. What a shame he didn't interview an informed publishing holocaust skeptic.

Instead he employed the two logically fallacious arguments of ad hominem and strawman misrepresentation of genuine, intellectually sound and well-informed 'holocaust' skepticism — and he did that throughout the entire programme. The arguments of Ernst Zündel and Fred Leuchter were very briefly dismissed with deceitful half-truths. Dr. Terry makes a very brief appearance and says very little of any factual content. He just confirmed and supported David Baddiel's ad hominem and strawman misreprentation of what Holocaust revision actually consists of.

Baddiel concludes the programme by visiting Rachel Levy, a Czech Jew living in Britain who as a girl of 14 survived a period in the Auschwitz camp in Poland, then transportation to Germany and a period in Bergen Belsen.
For David Baddiel meeting a person called a 'holocaust survivor' — who has a story to tell of being in a camp that OBVIOUSLY was NOT an extermination camp as she would not have survived — that alone is for him proof “the holocaust happened”.

To his literally stupid and ill-informed, true-believer mind-set, this meeting of someone who is Jewish and survived internment in two concentration camps is irrefutable proof that 'THE Holocaust' REALLY happened. What an idiot. As no-one denies there were concentration camps, nor that Jews were chief among the inmates. I find it such a literally stupid misunderstanding and self-delusion that I regard it as literally psychotic. A young girl of fourteen now in her eighties surviving two camps that in his ignorance he appears to assume were 'extermination camps', plus a supposed 'death march' is actually living proof for him that the Third Reich wanted to exterminate ALL Jews. When in reality she is proof of the exact opposite, viz that in reality they actually kept her alive in captivity. Otherwise she would have been dead.

He ends by again admitting that the whole narrative is in his own words "unbelievable". But because he'd just met the 'survivor' who'd survived two camps, he now was convinced the 'unbelievable' had actually occurred. What that unbelievable event actually is he never goes into in any detail.

The closest he ever got to going into detailing that, was in the brief excerpts of the half hour interview he had with Dermot Mulqueen in Ireland, were ironically it was David himself who actually was the 'denier'. As he DENIED that Auschwitz had a swiming pool and bakeries. To that and other easily evidenced statements of empirically provable fact David said "none of it is true Dermot, that's the thing. None of it is real. Are you able to understand that you have bought into a lie?"
To which Dermot laughs and smilingly says "Well I'd say the very same about you".
Baddiel replies: "No, no, let me explain. I'm not here to hear you spouting wierd facts and figures”..

So again we have here definitive proof that idiotic belief in a narrative they aren't even familiar with entails and requires the REAL 'denial' in order to maintain that idiotic and wilfully ignorant belief.

What a wasted opportunity to actually engage in genuine dialogue with well-informed skeptics of this compulsory narrative.

And what an ironic confirmation Baddiel allowed himself to become of Jews in the media perpetuating emotionally manipulative misinformation.
Ironically just as Dermot Mulqueen had explained to him, but to no avail.

[Lupus Rothstein]

LOL! Lupus is trying to give Baddiel's little propaganda fail a boost. Looks like you're having a traction problem, Lupus.

The documentary does not need any further 'boost' from me, or anyone else. Mr Mulqueen has single-handedly gave the viewers an insight into the calibre of individual that Holocaust revisionism attracts. His own personal take on why the Holocaust was a 'hoax' has got to go down as one of the most dumbest offerings ever presented regarding this particular 'debate', and considering the amount of other potential winners for this accolade, that takes some doing !!

[Huntinger]

The documentary does not need any further 'boost' from me, or anyone else. Mr Mulqueen has single-handedly gave the viewers an insight into the calibre of individual that Holocaust revisionism attracts. His own personal take on why the Holocaust was a 'hoax' has got to go down as one of the most dumbest offerings ever presented regarding this particular 'debate', and considering the amount of other potential winners for this accolade, that takes some doing !!

Most people now can see through the jüdisch deception and their self preservation biases. It was cut to bits with interesting points apparently edited out; this is confirmed by Dr Adipose himself. Apart from the normal spiel of saying there is a ton of evidence for the big H, none is presented; not surprising considering there is none.