Why is David Irving Blind to Freemasonry?
August 26, 2017
(Churchill became an alcoholic because he had sold out his country to Illuminati Jewish bankers. The Victory Sign is really an occult symbol for their love of Satan.)
Churchill, Hitler and Stalin were all Freemasons. They contrive wars to wage war against humanity.
World War Two was contrived. How could David Irving
miss this?
David Irving interviewed many members of Hitler's personal staff, and their hero worship has rubbed off on him.
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
"History is propaganda about the past," someone said.
Most historians are paid liars. David Irving is an exception because, as he points out in a compelling speech, The Real Winston Churchill, from the mid 1980's, he is not an academic historian. As such he actually does original research and doesn't have to parrot the Masonic (Illuminati) Jewish line, as most historians do. He interviews the players, unearths diaries and looks at original documents. As result, he comes up with embarrassing information.
For example, in a 1937 letter, ex-German Chancellor (1930-1932) Heinrich Brüning revealed to Churchill just who backed his successor, Adolph Hitler:
'I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany."
Irving makes this shocking revelation at roughly the 14-minute mark of his 90 minute speech. It means Hitler and the Nazis were the creation of the Illuminati Jews, i.e Zionists who wanted Germany's Jews to move to Israel, as did many. Then, he ignores the mind boggling implications and focuses entirely on what a fraud and buffoon Winston Churchill was. I am using this remarkable speech as a template for Irving's overall position since I have not studied his every utterance.
For the reasons given above, David Irving is likely the only man resembling a real historian of World War Two. He is an eloquent and inspiring speaker with a photographic memory. However, there is something troubling about a man of his intelligence who doesn't mention Freemasonry and acts like he doesn't know that Soviet Russia was a product of British Freemasonry. In all his original research, did Irving never find evidence of collusion between Freemasons in England and Germany? In All the King's Men, Robert Marshall showed that MI-6 collaborated with the Nazis. Furthermore, Irving refuses to acknowledge a document which showed the Gestapo and KGB collaborated in executing many mass murders until June 1941. (The Soviet Story, 64 min.)
Irving doesn't mention that Churchill was a Freemason like Stalin and Hitler, and that the war was a charade designed by the Masonic Jewish bankers to destroy Western civilization and force Jews to create Israel as the future capital of the satanic NWO. He doesn't mention Hitler's shortcomings like his background as a male prostitute.
Irving only mentions Churchill's shortcomings which include:
1. Churchill was an alcoholic. FDR routinely referred to him as "that drunken bum." His famous radio speeches were delivered by actor Normal Shelley because by nightfall, Winnie was too drunk. US diplomat Sumner Welles arrived for a meeting and found him drunk out of his mind. Churchill's alcoholism affected his judgement. Irving says that after the V-2 raids began, Churchill ordered chemical warfare against the German civilian population but the military refused to carry out this order.
2. Churchill was a paid-whore of British Organized Jewry who wanted to destroy Germany. Irving describes how Churchill provoked Hitler into bombing British cities and stonewalled Hitler's many generous peace overtures. Rudolph Hess made his quixotic peace mission in this context. Hitler clearly saw himself indirectly as a British agent.
3. Churchill and his "Focus" group was financed by Jewish bankers. Churchill also received millions of pounds from the Czech government to overthrow "appeasement" advocate Chamberlain. This constituted treason.
4. Among his lesser foibles, Churchill forged paintings during his leaner years in the early 1930's, before completely selling out.
HITLER
While Irving painstakingly compiles Churchill's faults, he exonerates Hitler, despite Hitler being in the pay of the Jewish bankers as well.
He claims Hitler "didn't know about" the mass murder of Jews. There is no document which orders the annihilation of the Jewish race, Irving says. On the contrary, he cites a Ministry of Justice document in which Hitler postpones the solution of the Jewish Question until after the war.
It is naive to think Hitler would put an order for genocide in writing but he was not shy about threatening it.
Plausible deniability was not invented by the Reagan Administration.
(Hungarian Jews arriving at Auschwitz in May 1944. A work camp?)
The bottom line is that, apart from destroying Christian civilization, the Illuminati Jewish goal was to trauma brainwash Jews into establishing Israel; and for this something resembling the holocaust was necessary. The Nazis did not round up Jews from all over Europe, including children, the aged and infirm, just to provide them with food and board.
In another lecture, The Life & Death of Heinrich Himmler, Irving acknowledges that roughly 1,250,000 Jews were killed in three death camps apart from many more who were shot or gassed in Einsatzgruppe (mobile killing units.) So to call him "a holocaust denier" is incorrect, although he does tend to minimize it.
But the most troubling aspect of Irving's position is that he doesn't realize that all four WW2 leaders were Freemasons and the war was an occult assault on humanity itself. Irving feigns ignorance of the Masonic Jewish plot to turn humanity over to Satan. Why?
----
Updated from Oct 11, 2015
Related- Gifted historian reduced to leading tours of concentration camps (had he sold out, he'd be filthy rich)
-------------------- Winston Churchill and the Jews
First Comment from Ken Adachi:
I heard David Irving give a talk in Costa Mesa, CA somewhere around 1999 I think. He's a likeable guy and gave an interesting talk. However, everyone in that room struck me as Pro Hitler and Pro Nazi, including David Irving. The books on display for sale, the photos, posters, etc,; it looked and felt like a Bund Hall reunion. On one hand, David Irving is wrongly sent to jail for expressing his opinion that there was a great deception imposed on the west by Zionists to have us believe that 6 million Jews were killed in Nazi concentration camps, when the number of deaths was much, much lower. Any intelligent person who looks at the documentaries available on Youtube can see that the math alone doesn't work. You can't kill as many people as claimed, and dispose of their bodies in ovens in the time frame allowed. Impossible. You can't fit that many people into a shower/ "gas" chamber as claimed in order to meet the killing quota. Impossible. It's clear that the Soviet Union (controlled by Zionists) played a role in reconstructing the Auschwitz gas chamber/crematorium etc. The Zyclon B down the vent roof openings story does not stand up to logical analysis or scrutiny. There was no evidence of Zyclon B gas poisoning of people or on the walls, etc.
On the other hand, the Nazis were brutal and vicious beyond words towards innocent civilians in Nazi occupied countries. They stole the property of those they illegally arrested and sent off to Nazi concentration camps. How many died from inadequate food and squalid camp conditions that resulted in typhus outbreaks or were worked to death? How many were experimented on as human guinea pigs by Mengele's group? How many innocent people were rounded up in an occupied town and murdered as retribution whenever members of the Resistance sabotaged something? Nazi apologists want to pretend that Nazis were misunderstood good guys, and simply refuse to look at the big picture of just how evil and cruel Nazis were.
I read some of David Irving's material when I was working on a 2005 article about Hitler faking his death. I found his ability as an authoritative historian less than first rate. He was far less thorough than I had assumed he was and I found many of his statements to be sloppy, and not convincingly researched. I'm sure (honest) academics who review all of his work would have a more accurate assessment than I, but I was surprised all the same.
David A said (August 27, 2017):
I defend David Irving because I've read and heard him speak on many occasions, most recently last month. Never have any of his gatherings resembled a goose-stepping Nuremberg rally as one of your posters implied; you would have to attend an antifas or BLM riot for anything comparable in today’s world. At worst I would describe his meetings as a handful of tweedy history buffs interested in topics delivered by a compelling & authoritative speaker with phenomenal recall.
They have never been more than small groups because inevitably they are always under threat by the local chapter of Zionist thugs (whose credo seems to be “free speech for me but not for theeâ€) vowing physical attacks against anyone who attends (where they succeeded at one of his Chicago speeches in Nov. 2009). At the July speech above, the local Jewish Times has called for reprisals against the restaurant where he spoke (in the true spirit of Kristallnacht). I always keep in mind that anyone questioning the orthodox account of what happened in World War II can expect (like Irving and Ernst Zundel, to name just two) show trials, prison, professional & financial ruin, while the other side owns big bucks, the airwaves, print media and a huge stake in the highly profitable Holocaust industry, as I call it.