Tuesday, 8 August 2017

Irene Lancaster - traumatised by the impure words of the goyim
One of the most sinister constructs employed by Jews in their endless war on free speech is the idea of speech as violence. Here we have a particularly clear and absurd example of it. A Jewish university administrator - who claims that her grandmother died in a concentration camp (we're not told how, maybe one of the camp guards used harsh words to her) - insists that history books written decades ago pose a "physical threat" to Jewish students by merely sitting on library bookshelves.

It is true that some of Irving's books are sizeable tomes. A solid hardback copy of one, skilfully wielded, could perhaps be successfully used to bludgeon a Jew to death with. But no such incidents have been recorded during the many years in which Irving's books have already graced our universities. Jewish fears, then, would appear to be overblown, as they usually are.
Manchester University has come under fire for refusing to move works by David Irving from open display on library shelves or to label them as “Holocaust denial” literature. 
In recent months, growing numbers of British universities, including Cambridge and University College London (UCL), have reclassified works by the controversial writer. They either moved them to “closed access” areas, or inserted disclaimers inside the books, following a campaign led by Dr Irene Lancaster, formerly a teaching fellow in Jewish history at Manchester University, and the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, now master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. 
Manchester University, however, has refused to move Irving’s books to an area where students would have to ask to read them. Last week, it also refused a request from the Campaign against Antisemitism to insert a disclaimer into the books describing them as Holocaust denial literature. Lancaster, whose grandmother died at the Treblinka concentration camp, said leaving Irving’s books on open display was a threat to the safety of Jewish students and staff at a time when anti-semitic hate crime was on the rise across Europe. 
She said: “Leaving this literature on open shelving with inadequate labelling poses a physical threat to the Jewish student and staff body and constitutes a deep insult to the lives of all those who were exterminated in the Nazi Holocaust.” 
Manchester defended its position on the grounds of freedom of speech and said it had surveyed more than 20 university libraries and that its “approach was consistent with theirs”. It added: “However, we do recognise that these works are controversial, so that the context in which they are placed is significant. With this in mind we have taken the decision to reclassify them from ‘history’ to ‘historical studies’.” 
UCL said it had decided to move some of the books to an off-site store; and to move others “from their regular place alongside works of serious scholarship to the historiography section”. It is also going to add the label “Holocaust denial literature” to catalogue records for all copies of Irving’s books “where appropriate”.
Source

The Jews have been waging this campaign against David Irving's books for decades. But it looks like the release of the film Denial has spurred them to renew their efforts.

4 comments:

  1. I recall that name, Irene Lancaster, in the context of when she was one of many people posting on Ruth Gledhill's religious online site at The Times. Lancaster always tried to deflect the attention of the other commenters from Islam and would always paint Islam, and her Moslem students, in the most flattering light. I believe she claimed she had had to leave Manchester because of 'anti-semitism' and even then, it seemed dubious. We need to attack this anti-freedom of speech and dictatorial conduct head on; we should be calling these people out for the charlatans they are, especially challenging them over their false claims and saying that, since they choose to malign an entire nation's people (Germans) and the entire people of the West (over supposed anti-semitism) then the onus is on them to stand open to debate on 'holocaustianity.' We should also be pointing out that they use this specifically and deliberately to silence all protests over invasion of the West whilst ensuring that Israel never faces such a human wave. As for this film, Denial, I don't know if this is about the Irving-Lippstadt case; if it is, then it should be made publicly known that in calling Irving an 'amalekite,' Lippstadt was classifying Irving as someone who should be murdered, as per the teaching of Judaism that their eternal enemy, the amalekites, should be genocided after their false 'messiah' (Satan, perhaps?) tells them who are the ones to be considered amalekites.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rowan Williams was suggested as the Archbishop of Canterbury by then Prime Minister Tony BLair (the Archbishopric is a political appointee). Williams is either a total ignoramus about Islam or a complete capitulator; every time he opened his mouth about Islam it was to present a totally false interpretation which any first year theology student would have rebutted. He never seemed to support the Christian faith nor the concerns of British Christians, so it is no surprise to see him conniving with an enemy of Christ to silence freedom of speech and the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By his own admission, David Irving has never written a book on the alleged holocaust. He has addressed nearly every other facet of WW2 in his work, but not that one. Therefore, how can his books be considered holocaust denial when they don't even address the issue? These miserable jews make absurd accusations that a book can cause physical harm. Since they're the ones making the accusation, why does no one place the burden of proof on them to support such ridiculous claims? Where do these university people come from who have zero integrity and just buckle under to the jews? Make them PROVE their accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If the teachings within a book may cause physical harm, then one should nominate the Babylonian Talmud as having such a position. Any book's teachings may be perverted from its actual tenets (The New Testament, for example), but the difference between the Christian Gospel and the Koran and the Talmud are that the latter two clearly support teachings which are intended to do harm to others outside their adherents and to those within their teachings who might reject or merely question them. This is what lies behind Lancaster's bigotry; the Talmud calls for the destruction of symbols and books which its regards as idolatrous and Judaism considers Christianity as idolatry (and, since jews are not supposed to read the New Testament, that explains perfectly why they remain in ignorance and hostility. Closed minds and closed hearts, to the True God and to Mankind.

    ReplyDelete