Faking the Zundel and Topham trials

Be the 1st to vote.

I concur that the Topham trial is as real as the Zundel trial, without even looking at it. Our intelligence agencies create fake opposition (to the state) to control the income and the outcome of memes. Yes there are and always will be anti Jew people, as long as there are people and religions. These fake trials are faked so as to control every message and every desired headline, injecting every possible permutation and combination of fear and loathing.

They can fake major celebutard trials like OJ,  so why not a minor hate speech trial?

As for the the continual obsession with Jews and hate, the Nutwork has adopted this forever persecuted group, using its more psychopathic members and impersonating them with their own. They then craft protection laws specifically for this group to make criticism or opposition to their deeds impossible or very unpleasant.

This creates a tremendous free wheeling vehicle that can be driven everywhere, running over anyone that gets in its way, without consequence.

It’s a perfect cloak and dagger operation that will continue until more people realize the levels of deception and manipulation of the people of earth.

www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic….

No tags for this post.

9 thoughts on “Faking the Zundel and Topham trials

  1. psyopticonpsyopticon

    The trials and tribulations of Holocaust denier-turned-recanter Dr David Irving were probably staged or faked, too. including his alleged detention, his trial and his brief jailing in Austria, and his supposed beating at the hands of “Jewish extremists”.

    All staged, from start to finish.

    Whoever manufactured Irving built-in two major weaknesses that could be used when necessary to unravel and discredit him.

    Firstly, he’s manufactured as a Nazi apologist; with most of his books portraying the Third Reich and the Nazi leadership in an absurdly positive light. A position that is inappropriate for an historian, and irrelevant to the question of the Holocaust itself. So he’s intentionally poisoning his own well in that respect – deliberately destroying his research by associating it with his overt Nazi sympathies.

    To cite or quote Irving, without qualification, is to align oneself with his Nazi sympathising; an act of academic or political suicide. Ensuring his views on the Holocaust are marginalised.

    The fact he subsequently recanted many of those earlier claims – he says now that some gassings did take place, just not so many as others claim – by design, dilutes and discredits the rest of his claims.

    His “ruinous” libel trial – Irving as Plaintiff, against Defendant Deborah Lipstadt – felt like theatre at the time. Irving is foremost an actor. As happy playing that role in a public court as he is anywhere else.

    Prima facie, it was a ridiculous action to bring. It was never likely a British court would ever favour his version of history – that the Holocaust was a hoax. Any lawyer of any credibility would have warned him to abandon the libel case.

    That he carried on blithely, suggests that Irving was just acting out the role of public hate-figure in court. Setting himself up to be publicly discredited – along with fellow Holocaust deniers – and apparently ruined financially, too. Before falling on his sword, recanting most of what he’d claimed previously.

    1. ab Post author

      Thanks Psy. I know you follow David Irving closely and that analysis is deeper than most people would ever look into. The whole affair is made to be sordid so as to discourage any research.

      1. richard benedict

        @ Ab (and Psyopticon + Tom) I have to once again acknowledge a debt of gratitude to my fellow fakologists for providing clues to a riddle that has befuddled me. When I put on my fakologists lens suddenly an answer suggests itself. I am speaking of a suspicious character I have been following for 25 years and yet still have my doubts: one Micheal A, Hoffman II.

        www.revisionisthistory.org/

        Hoffman wrote the book The Great Holocaust Trial about the Zundel trial. I began corresponding with him when he was in the process of moving from Dresden, N.Y. to Coeur d’ Alene Idaho. Hoffman, I believe, was positioning himself along with other white “radicals” in anticipation of the populist backlash in the wake of NAFTA and other issues in the early 1990’s. Hoaxy folk like Bo Gritz, Richard Butler, John Trouchman were already ensconced in the area when Ruby Ridge and the white populist backlash occurred.

        Micheal Hoffman was a pied piper for these folk. Hoffman promoted the cause of Irving and Zundel. Hoffman once said Hitler merely tried to reinvigorate the life force of the German people (:O).

        But Hitler was Austrian, Mr. Hoffman.

        I long suspected Hoffman et al were positioned in Idaho to appeal to a strata of the U.S. population and diffuse any meaningful opposition.

        After reading this post, I can file the topic in the PSYOP drawer.

        Attached is a photo of Zundel acting hoaxy at his trial.

    2. Tom DalpraTom Dalpra

      That wasn’t your position when we spoke about Irving a few weeks ago, Psyopticon. At that point you seemed to agree with me that he’d been a genuine historian and explained his back-tracking as ‘ them’ perhaps having’ got to him’ finally..

      I’m open to anything, but your leap to now Irving being ‘manufactured’, appears quite dramatic.

      Further, my impression is not that he’s ‘ portrayed the Third Reich and the Nazi leadership in an ‘absurdly positive light’. Again, you never mentioned this before to me when I asked you the question ”Is David Irving a genuine historian with integrity? ‘ You tended to agree with me had been as far as I was aware?
      Maybe he has been absurd about the Nazis in his books, I’ve only read the Dresden book. Otherwise I’ve been informed by listening to him speak.
      When asked what kind of man Hitler was, Irving often refers to Hitler’s cold reaction on the Night of the Long Knives when he had all of his political enemies killed.
      He’s not invoking the image of a nice man in my understanding.

      That his books, I’m sure, have the function of
      ‘ aligning people with Nazi sympathising’ that would seem to me, to be more likely the result of prevailing misconceptions and powerful propaganda rather than what Irving actually says.
      In fact, it’s perhaps people like you calling him an absurd Nazi sympathiser that give him a bad name ? Haha.

      All that said, you’re probably right, in that he’s effectively an actor. Regardless of anything he says, the vast majority see Irving as a ‘wrongun’ before he opens his mouth. He’s made BBCtv appearances. He’s the most famous Holocaust revisionist in the UK. He’s been <em'the one famous one we’ve got.

      His recanting – there were some gas chambers performs a simple but powerful function now, and you make a fair case that his seemingly ill-advised trial that left him’ bankrupt’, is questionable, but I’m still open to him having been the real thing for a while.

    1. ab Post author

      Wanda, one thing is for certain: you’re a consistent, “the jews did it” one trick linking pony. By not acknowledging my point, it seems that you’re just here to spam your programmed mind.

      1. wanda

        So you didn’t watch the video? Great… and we wonder why things will never change. You couldn’t be running on a program that was planted in your mind could you?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.