Ruppert to speak at David Irving event

Mike Ruppert speaking alongside nazi sympathizers? WTF?

G.A. folks get slandered as fascist cave dwellers while people like Mr. Rupert are held up by liberals as god send for justifying your analysis. Mr. Rupert has participated in systems of moral authority before and it should be of little suprise that he does now. IN fact you might want to ask your self if maybe it is precisely this mystique or moral authority given as a result of his turning on his other fascist friends in the police force that drew you to him. And question that maybe, just maybe, you've related to him so well because he spoke to the authoritarian in you. Like seeks like. This is of little doubt. I have personal issues with co-dependency and as a result have no difficulty attracting relationships with people- so long as they are co-dependent like me. The question is are people who would make social change going to learn from this and other situations like it? Or, are they going to continue fight for meaningless abstractions like - right or left- liberal conservative- and fight our real enemy- the authority inside- the authority that is embodied in all systems domination? A.K.A. government.

Let me get this straight... just because Mike Ruppert is speaking at a presentation where somebody says the Allies lied about the Germans, he's speaking for Nazi supporters? Sure, the Allies were on the right side of history, but please give me a break. For just about every war, the opposition is demonized so that the public will go along with it, and then, when the fighting's over with, the victorious side gets to write the history books.

Ruppert has reminded me of Bo Gritz from the first time i heard about him, slipping into the consciousness of oblivious white skinned privileged activists who don't have a cross cultural clue or acknowledge the problem with ongoing white male speakers who keep patriarchy and bigotry firmly in place. Something smelled fishy about the guy and i was bothered by how people were pushing his perspective. I have to honor KPFK in Berkeley for not giving this guy voice or Lyndon LaRouche's bigotry either.

David Irving is a holocaust denier. I am sure some of these other white guy characters at this event have similar credentials. Wake up people who think you are radical activists! Are you willing to replace one form of fascism with another? I'm not. Events like this supported by so called activists show how far we still have to go to dismantle the isms that divide us. Sad.

Lookie here frontlinemom, I did a little research. According to what I've read, Irving does not deny that the Holocaust happened. He instead denies that Hitler knew about it. Not having read his works, I'm not prepared to debate his methodology. I will, however, point out that a lot of people think Milosevic is a totally evil man, and that Palestinians are going around blowing themselves up for no reason. If you came forth with those views in the mass media, people would crucify you. So, though I'm pretty sure the Holocaust happened, I haven't read his book and I don't know where he's coming from.

Anyway, association is not proof of guilt. Not everybody who hangs in the Bush Administration is a fascist, and nor is Ruppert. Think about it--the man is strictly NOT anti-semitic. If you've seen him speak you know he doesn't speak against Jews. And if you've seen him speak, he's not up on the podium bashing women. And he's not putting down minorities either.

What he is doing is urging us not to accept the government's position on 9/11. I don't think they're quite as guilty as he believes, but at the same time I have no problems with him asking the tough questions. The government IS LYING about many aspects of 9/11. So where's your problem with Mike Ruppert? Where's his fascism, and what's he doing to divide us? How is what he's doing hurting minorities? And what are you doing to combat the encroachment on our civil liberties that's been going full steam since 9/11?

A white male? (doubtless some clueless radical activist in your eyes).

First, about David Irving. Irving has gone far beyond denying that Hitler did not know about the deliberate killing of six million Jews by the Nazis (we will leave aside, for the moment, the deliberate killing of Romany, homosexuals, Communists, trade union officials, civilians of every country the Nazis invaded, etc.). As has become clear from his recent unsuccessful libel trial in England and, more importantly, by his political associations over the last decade, Irving is a neo-fascist.
That means that he associates politically with those who deny that the Holocaust ever occurred and those who wish that the Nazis would have been successful. And yes, people who wish to defend Irving should read his books and learn a little about what he does before they spout off in his defense.
Now, about the Institute for Historical Review and other attempts to mainstream Holocaust denial. They are also, not too strangely, associated with neo-fascist organizations. That means that the nazi bonehead who is drawn to Tom Metzger's White Aryan Resistance will eventually get a lecture based on the fraudulent history drawn from IHR 'academics' like Irving.
Finally,Ruppert. Anyone who claims to do good background research would know that that a symposium of Holocaust deniers is going to be full of neo-fascists and anti-Semitic wanks. So Ruppert knows that he will be speaking to people who believe that Sept.11th was a conspiracy. Only, filtered through their distorted world-view, it was a Jewish-controlled conspiracy.
The National Alliance and other neo-fascist groups in the U.S. are already promoting this notion. Ruppert will be speaking to a very receptive audience. Racists, neo-nazis and assorted wanks, but receptive.
The only question I have is: When will Portland IndyMedia get clear about Ruppert?

you're all so fucking boring.

Are you people the same ones who also think that Sharon is the good guy, defending Jews? I don't give a squat about Irving, and I don't know why Rupert is speaking with him, possibly bad judgement, possibly he may not fully go along with the Holocaust figures, line and sinker. That has no relevance to the facts that Rupert has presented about 9-11 foreknowledge. So, you're just going to dismiss what Rupert has to say. Then, I'm assuming you support the Bush - mass media point of view, the same people who have so much compassion for humans around the world (think; Afganistan, Iraq, et al)

good point.

 http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/04/Arlington280402.html

quote:
David Irving does not deny that the Jews suffered tremendously at the hands of Nazi Germany. Particularly on the eastern front, several thousand Jews were gunned down by rogue commanders . The war saw the deaths of millions of innocent people on both sides. Mr. Irving prefers the word "innocenticide" rather than "genocide" when referring to these deaths. The point he makes is that the deaths not only of Jews but of all innocent people should be condemned (and thus people of all races, not the Jews alone, should receive compensation).

Look. I don't have time to read some dull 800 page book on Nazi Germany. The world knows that some evil stuff went down. And you can be sure that I'm *not* defending Irving. What I am saying is that taking a glance at the opinions out there on the net indicate that Irving doesn't hate Jews. What the opinions do say, however, is that his conclusions about Hitler are crap.

Regardless of the truth, which you've probably learned from reading textbooks written by the folks who won WWII, I think there's reason to at least hear what Irving has to say. Remember--the textbooks will probably say that a bunch of extreme Islamists in Palestine got pissed off at Israel for no reason and started blowing them up. That's what the vast majority of the mass media says. Most folks at Indymedia are enlightened enough to know it's not so black and white.

Again, nobody on this thread has shown any inclination towards siding with the Nazi's. All I'm saying is this: I, and probably you, have not read Irving's book so were going on what other people have said. And having read what other people have said leads me to believe he's probably just wrong, and not some evil evil man. And maybe, just maybe (though I really doubt it), Irving is right about Hitler not knowing a damned thing.

And maybe Ruppert HAS read his book and knows the score. That having been said, Ruppert HAS asked some legitimate questions, and HAS NOT been a racist. You can attack him all you want, but until you come forth with a sound argument instead of this wishy-washy "he associates with people that I say are racists but just take my word for it that they're racists." Of course, appearing at one meeting with an accused fascist does not make Ruppert a fascist.

Well. Here's a challenge. Find one line of text from Ruppert's website that shows he is racist or fascist (not some lame "he associates with so-and-so" junk). Of course, you'll fail in your quest.

And while you're at it, why not give some hard links of just who the IHR associates with that's neo-Nazi. Remember--neo-Nazi's will of course choose to associate with IHR because IHR entertains the notion that maybe Hitler wasn't so evil. That's not the same as the IHR associating with them. Oh, and to get you started, how about this little nugget that I found at IHR that CHALLENGES Irving? Sweet dreams!
 http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p289_Faurisson.html

Come on with it! In the end we can learn a lot from this little debate.

 http://www.copvcia.com/

From: Michael C. Ruppert [ mruppert@copvcia.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 4:40 PM
To: David Irving
Cc: ' lfaith@cinci.rr.com'
Subject: Cancellation of Michael Ruppert's Appearance at David Irving Event in Cincinnati
July, 29, 2002

Dear Mr. Irving:

I am in receipt of your message today questioning why I have withdrawn from participating in your event.

I will answer your questions.

First, let me acknowledge a failure on the part of both myself and FTW's staff to have thoroughly vetted the other presenters at your conference before issuing a "tentative" agreement to participate in your August event. In previous correspondence you did not send us a list of the other presenters. I emphasize "tentative" because we have a precise written contract posted online at  http://www.fromthewilderness.com/mike_speak.html and that contract was not executed by either party before I decided to withdraw two days ago. Neither have any monies, including the deposit for my speaking fees, changed hands.

However, after reviewing the list of speakers at your event I was particularly distressed to see Mr. Paul Fromm. After having researched his background and history I find that I have major disagreements with his positions and affiliations. In particular I find him to be, at minimum, someone I would categorize as being a white separatist or supremacist, and possibly a racist or even a fascist. Nonetheless without taking the time to research his entire life I have certainly seen enough to know that Mr. Fromm is not anyone with whom I would like to jointly participate in ANY event, of ANY kind.

I have also received a number of complaints from people (who had seen the promotions regarding me on your web site) alleging that you were a "holocaust denier." While I have taken a cursory look at your site and can find nothing to confirm that allegation either way, I have seen enough to give me pause about your other positions that to me appear to be quite different from what you categorized in a previous email as "leisurely lectures on WWII controversies."

Since 9/11/01 I have turned down a number of speaking engagements that were not solely focused on 9/11. Specifically, I have refused to participate in these events because I have had either political or credibility issues that have prevented me from offering my implicit endorsement of the other attendees. Were this a large conference devoted exclusively to the events of September 11th, representing a broad coalition of independent researchers focusing solely on that topic, I might have felt otherwise. If a victimized public is going to survive the imposition of a dictatorship and criminal empire then many people will - of necessity - have to associate with others who hold different views in recognition of the greater overall threat.

But your event is not so structured.

With regard to your purchase of non-refundable airline tickets, I refer you to our published contract which states that all airline tickets purchased for my transportation must be fully refundable. We have had this policy for some time because rapidly changing events have sometimes necessitated sudden changes in my travel plans. It is quite clearly stated. And I am truly amazed that you had printed and mailed some 5,000 brochures in less than five days after receiving our email but before the execution of a written contract or the exchange of any monies.

I regret any inconvenience this may cause you but it has absolutely reconfirmed our policy that it is necessary to thoroughly vet any soliciting sponsor and other co-presenters before executing a contract to participate in any public event.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Ruppert
Publisher/Editor
"From The Wilderness"
www.copvcia.com

Thanks for posting this reply. Hopefully, this will satisfy those individuals who doubt your sincerity.

I retain my questions about Ruppert's overall approach, but on this event he has shown that he doesn't want to be associated with neo-nazis and Holocaust deniers.
I am glad I was wrong. And that Ruppert did some background investigation.
For you supporters of David Irving, anyone can stand up in a court and call him a liar, a neo-fascist and a lousy historian and not fear a slander suit. Thanks to Irving's own libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, a U.S. historian, the precedent has already been set. Irving bet his own money in the suit he brought in England and lost.
Further, Irving has spoken and associated with neo-fascist groups in England, Europe and the U.S., most notably the National Alliance. For those of you unfamiliar with neo-fascist wanks, that particular bunch of nazi wannabes was run by William Pierce, the author of the Turner Diaries.
The National Alliance and every major neo-fascist group in the U.S. is now promoting a conspiracy theory about the events of September 11th. Of course, they lay the blame at the feet of the Mossad and the 'international Jewish conspiracy'.
For those of you who think that attacking Irving and other neo-fascists means support of Ariel Sharon and other Israeli militarists, guess again. It is possible and necessary for U.S. progressives, radicals and other activists to be both anti-fascist and anti-Zionist. Not easy, but necessary.