It's the end of the semester, and our professor is making us watch the movie Denial. Thoughts?
Denial
Ethan Turner
Justin Bailey
What course are you doing?
Jesus, US universities seem like liberal indoctrination grounds
Josiah Richardson
>Denial
holy shit OP what course are you taking?
Anthony Nguyen
English. It's not for a project or anything, we're doing it for "enjoyment".
Owen Diaz
Well, hope you enjoy it
I certainly did.
Chase King
lol judging by the trailer movie is more redpilling than not. Also not avialable for free which means its not really a propoganda material. What are you concerned about?
Nathaniel Gutierrez
Jesus Christ.
Thomas Perry
So then leave.
Jayden Allen
The greatest trick that the new ever pulled was finding a way to charge us yo corrupt ourselves.
Isaac Lopez
DA FUK YOO SAY NIGGA?
Blake Parker
Truth
Thomas Green
I liked the Agatha Christie one, "Murder and Denial"
Tyler Brown
Jewish lies
Daniel Foster
Doesn't even factually describe the events that happened and yet they expect you to believe their version of the holohoax is true.
Also, Irving is considerably more attractive than the beast that plays him and the rat he was up against is a seriously ugly hag.
Makes you think right?
Jeremiah Barnes
Why not suggest "The Sorrow and the Pity" whilst you're at it? Faggot.
Sebastian Brooks
And here's Irving.
Lucas Cruz
Wow lmao
Dylan Cruz
What level of education is that? Do you get to do finger painting too? I truly hope you don't have to pay for that "education".
Brayden Hall
It's pro Jewish and it's preaches that liberalism and peaceful confrontations will defeat intolerant hate speech.
It would be good if the current left practiced it.
The actor for David Irving in the film was fantastic
David Green
>It's the end of the semester, and our professor is making us watch the movie Denial. Thoughts?
It's abysmal propaganda that paints david irving one of the finest historians alive (regarded as such for 50 years until he dared question auswitz, from his archive work he shows that the holocaust happened but not in auswitz) as a mad dragon needing to be slayed. I've studied the actual case a lot and raed the transcripts, it's a fucking travesty that saw the like of spielberg paying literally millions on defendants to go up against irving. The judge even comments in the case "i'd always assumed evidence for the gas chambers existed?" and when irving compared photos from allies in 44 and the auswitz now (reconstructed in 48, forced to be known at the sight after polish authority pressure) that the pill chimneys for the gas aren't in the original photos, he argues that the reconstruction in 48 is when everything was added. Skip the shit movie and go watch irving talks on youtube and you will see he's a very interesting and credible individual who has found more documents, translated more archive/diaries (fluent german speaker) and done more legitimate work than any other living historian on this subject. Christopher hitchens called him one of the 3 most important third reich historians alive and i agree. David coles auswitz vid is worth checking to.
Alexander Carter
Inb4 you get kicked out of class, employers hire you out of experience, not ability to memorize for a test then forget.
Ask him why he/she/it won't play TGSNT to contrast Denial and give students an understanding as to WHY there is denialism. Very reasonable it seems, right? To disseminate adult information in an adult setting?
Nope... be that guy.. get kicked out of class for being a reasonable, free thinking goyim. Fucking red pill everyone. Be a fucking hero.
Luke Ward
A better way, watch it before hand and dismantle every single lie in the movie and point them each out in class.
Jeremiah Hall
they totally are, why else do you think campuses are full of neo-maoists who are starting to eat their own, including liberal jewish professors
holohoax movie is far from the worst that they feed kids with
Gavin Gonzalez
>College
>End of semester
>Watching a movie for enjoyment, rather than a required part of course
>Thinking students won't be glued to their phones/facebook if they aren't being graded for this shit
Owen Thompson
>one of the finest historians alive
Have you ever actually READ things like the Destruction of Dresden? The guy literally makes shit up. He was never thought of as a fine historian, and guys like Keegan at the trial itself testified that they don't think of him as a real historian.
> I've studied the actual case a lot and raed the transcripts,
No you haven't.
>The judge even comments in the case "i'd always assumed evidence for the gas chambers existed?"
Then you should be able to point to it in the transcripts. Meanwhile, I can point to all the times the judge noted how he went back on what he said, and how he "forgot" things that were clearly attested to.
Dominic Ward
Irving did NOT offer $1,000 for anyone who could "prove the Holocaust happened", he offered it to anyone who could provide war-time documentation proving Hitler knew it was happening. The prize has never been claimed, because there is no proof.
Judge Gray himself remarked of his surprise of the "thin evidence" for the traditionally accepted Holocaust accounts.
The "Holocaust" of 300,000 Poles, Czechs, Gypsies, and some Jews and maybe a few gays, was done by Himmler and Reinhardt.
Hitler himself defended Jews. The Night of the Broken Glass being one example.
Watch David Irving: Talking Frankly
Samuel Turner
Connor Clark
Nothing, do nothing but watch the movie while sub consciously disagreeing with everything you see, that's what you did before and it's what you're going to do now.
Juan Cox
>thinking they won't be glued to their ivPhones in every situation
LMAO
Kayden Lee
In the movie, they win the trial by attacking his character and drifting away from the actual truth. The denial witnessed is in fact the denial of the courts to examine the facts. Felt very angry watching this one.
Kayden Jenkins
The whole movie is a character attack. I understand Irving was never even asked to be involved in the production?
Nicholas Sullivan
Irving was widely respected until he began exposing the Holohoax. Millions of dollars and many hours of work has been poured into shutting him down, and it still doesn't stick.
Irving is practically one of the greatest investigators in history. He has pored over tens of thousands of documents and private correspondence. He exposed the beloved Churchill as an alcoholic war mongering painting forging acolyte of the Zionist International Bankers, and showed us that FDR, who was supposedly so loving of the Jews, in truth was extremely wary of them.
Jonathan Myers
>Judge Gray himself remarked of his surprise of the "thin evidence" for the traditionally accepted Holocaust accounts.
[citation needed]
You want to see some things Judge Gray did remark on?
bailii.org
>13.16 Irving's endeavour to cast sole blame for the pogrom onto Goebbels is at odds with the documentary evidence. Goebbels's diary entry for 9 November, the telegram sent by Muller at 23.55 that night and the message despatched by Bohmcker all suggest that Hitler knew and approved of the anti-Jewish demonstrations. Given the significance of the events of Kristallnacht, an objective historian would in my view dismiss the notion that Hitler was kept in ignorance until a relatively late stage. Yet Irving pays little attention to the evidence which implicates Hitler. He gives a misleading and partial account of Goebbels's diary entry. I cannot accept Irving's explanation for his omission to refer to Muller's telegram and Bohmcker's message, namely that they add little, for both lend support to the thesis that Hitler knew and approved of the violence. Irving also omits to refer to the statement contained in the report of the internal party enquiry into the events of Kristallnacht that Goebbels had claimed in his speech at the Old Town Hall that Hitler had been told of the burning of Jewish shops and synagogues and had decided that such spontaneous actions should continue.
1/3?
Carter Roberts
>13.24 An objective historian is obliged to be even-handed in his approach to historical evidence: he cannot pick and choose without adequate reason. I consider that there is justification for the Defendants' complaint that Irving was not even-handed in his treatment in Hitler's War of the account given by General Bruns of the shooting of thousands of Jews in Riga. Irving appears readily to accept that part of Bruns's account which refers to Altemeyer bringing him an order which prohibited mass shootings from taking place in the future. On the other hand Irving takes no account of the fact that, according to Bruns, it was only shootings "on that scale" which were not to take place in future. (A total of 5,000 Jews were shot in Riga on 30 November 1941). Nor does Irving mention that the order apparently stated that the shootings were to be carried out "more discreetly". In other words the shooting was to continue. Moreover Irving ignores Bruns's earlier reference to Altemeyer telling him of an order that the Berlin Jews were to be shot in accordance with Hitler's orders. My conclusion is that in these respects Irving has perverted the sense of Bruns's account. I was unpersuaded by the explanation offered by Irving for his treatment of this evidence.
>13.26 Irving's submissions on this topic appear to me to have a distinct air of unreality about them. It is common ground between the parties that, until the latter part of 1941, the solution to the Jewish question which Hitler preferred was their mass deportation. On the Defendants' case, however, from the end of 1941 onwards the policy of which Hitler knew and approved was the extermination of Jews in huge numbers. Irving on the other hand argued that Hitler continued to be the Jews' friend at least until October 1943.
Connor Hill
>The unreality of Irving's stance, as I see it, derives from his persistence in that claim, despite his acceptance in the course of this trial that the evidence shows that Hitler knew about and approved of the wholesale shooting of Jews in the East and, later, was complicit in the gassing of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Reinhard and other death camps.
>13.32 In my opinion Irving's treatment of the Schlegelberger note and the importance which he attaches to it shed important light on the quality of his historiography.
>13.33 It is to be borne in mind that the note is undated and unsigned. It is hearsay in the sense that its author is recording what Lammers claims to have been told by Hitler. It is an Abschrift (copy) rather than an original document. It has a number of unsatisfactory features, which might give rise to doubts about its authenticity. There is no clear evidence of the context in which the note came into existence. Yet Irving has seized upon the note and regards it, to quote his own words, as a "high-level diamond document". According to Irving, the note demonstrates that it was Hitler's wish that the entire Jewish question be postponed until the end of the war. It is therefore the linchpin of his argument that Hitler was the Jews' friend. The question is whether that is a conclusion to which an objective historian might sensibly come, taking due account of the surrounding circumstances.
fin.
Jaxon Watson
I'm not surprised. He'd probably read the screenplay and then produce a stack of documents 2 feet high disproving the entire thing, the tenacious bastard. What a great man.
Red Ice Radio interview about it (not with Irving though)
Hunter Turner
Then why does his very first published work of history have glaring factual errors in it, like ignoring the actual report from the Dresden city authorities as to the extent of the damage, or completely misrepresenting Max Funfack's role even after Mr. Funfack wrote to him about it?
Cameron Garcia
>is in college
James Murphy
There's something I need to tell you about Joseph Goebbels' diary.
Juan Campbell
And more clearer.
Ryan Anderson
>and guys like Keegan at the trial itself testified that they don't think of him as a real historian.
You mean guys that were paid to stand trial?
Asher Perez
Tell the teacher you are such a good goy, you want to watch the real trial as well with the class
Asher Diaz
>It's the end of the semester, and our professor is making us watch the movie Denial. Thoughts?
It's your fault for going into a psychology program you retard
Logan Ramirez
Which Goebbels diaries are these based on, kid?
A number of journals and such have been either fabricated or conveniently altered or shittily translated. That General comes to mind, the one who wanted to join the Bundeswehr but couldn't because he was a Nazi and had no record of opposing Hitler, so he had to make a """diary""" to """expose""" Hitler's """criminality""" which was full of fucked up dates and written on paper that was made post-war and so on.
Adrian Reyes
>Talks about Goebbel's diary in regards to the events of Kristalnacht.
>Brings up a 1942 line to rebut it
>That doesn't actually rebut any of the claims made in thread or in the trial, namely that Hitler knew about the killings and approved of them.
Are you trying to make yourself look dumb, or are you just unnaturally talented at the task?
Grayson Evans
Scabbers, lol
Aaron Miller
>He'd probably read the screenplay and then produce a stack of documents 2 feet high disproving the entire thing, the tenacious bastard.
Top kek. I've meant to read some of his work. I'll definitely have to add him on the backlog.
Jordan Diaz
Spielberg and others were behind it. Expert witnesses paid six figures to take the stand.
Irving won every lower court decision leading up to the final one. They probably bought off Judge Gray.
Gabriel Jones
>You mean guys that were paid to stand trial?
Expert witnesses are paid for their expertise, not their testimony. When you have a lawsuit over a pipe bursting, do you throw out the plumber's testimony because "He was paid to stand trial"?
I thought you had studied the trial transcripts. Surely, you can find the bit about the proffered evidence. I'll even give you a hand.
Josiah Clark
Just search through the CODOH forums, they wrote rebuttals to it. Eric Hunt also made some videos about this movie before he went full retard
Aaron Watson
Canadian Universities are twisted too.
After my BA (lol) I did an education degree since it was JUST one more additional year... the whole program was just Cultural Marxism.
Big fucking redpill for this young lad. Next thing you know I wind up on Sup Forums and am here ever since.
Matthew Williams
I've just provided evidence that a part of Goebbels' diary has been mistranslated in English. I'm no language expert, so you can take it as you like, but If someone gave me a book and told me there's a part that's wrong intentionally, I would be hesitant to trust the rest of it. It would be like downloading an adware blocker known for secretly installing ads.
Thomas Morgan
>professor is making us watch the movie
Professor? Don't you mean high school teacher? Professors don't make people watch movies, unless it's a film class.
Logan Parker
I've only heard David Cole talk about it in different places. You could try to find his comments on it. He's portrayed in the movie as well as someone involved in the matter at that time.
Jaxon Clark
>Expert witnesses are paid for their expertise, not their testimony
So the guys that were paid to stand trial?
I think Irving said they were paid thousands to be there (I want to say 100k but I'm not sure), that's not an expert opinion payment. The reason I remember this is Irving made a joke about how the guys he brought were ALL doing it for free.
Xavier Cruz
A masterful and engaging film that exposes the impotent David Irving for the charlatan that he is.
Daniel Garcia
In anthropology and sociology classes They're showing Growing Up Trans, a pro-tranny kids documentary about sterilizing your children because they like pink and want to wear a dress. In the documentary these doctors who perform these surgeries and hormone therapies on little kids even admit flat out that most (95%~) trans kids change their minds when they reach puberty but they're young pioneers so we have to just take the risk
Angel Butler
...
Jeremiah Scott
The world of liberal media is truly some bizzarro world where everything is backwards and upside down.
John Rivera
It's a good movie.
Anyone who says otherwise is a retarded neo-nazi.
Owen Bailey
$250,000.
See above. Snarkposting won't do shit. Sack up or fuck off.
Leo Watson
Fucking jidf out in full force today, newfags.
Eli Sanders
taking the opportunity to post OC that got shadowbanned from T_D a couple months ago
Nathaniel Roberts
Charles Watson
Just like how I have to like Ghostbusters or else I'm a misogynist?
Just like how I have to like Get Out or else I'm a racist?
Just like how I have to eat McDonald's or else I'm a homophobe?
Showing how progressive I am sure costs a lot of money