“Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account and if necessary amend their own case accordingly. They do not present as genuine documents those that they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious but implausible and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents because these documents run counter their arguments; again, they amend their arguments if this is the case, or abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability or otherwise, simply because they want for whatever reason to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures as impartially as possible in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not willfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents, and events for which there is no historical evidence to make their arguments more plausible to their readers.
“At least, they do not do any of these things if they wish to retain any kind of reputable status as historians.”
Pow. This is how historian Richard J. Evans deconstructs pseudo-historian David Irving in Telling Lies About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial.
Pseudo-historians, those that selectively manipulate history like plasticine to fit the mold of a pre-determined ideological agenda, are to genuine historians what Social Justice Warriors are to social justice advocates. Neither pseudo-historians nor SJWs have any interest in objective truths or reality. Both in fact view these as an interference, an obstacle, to whatever perverted, self-serving agenda they wish to drive. Reality is the enemy and is labelled as such – in Irving’s case, it is the manipulation of the global Jewish conspiracy. In the SJW’s, some amorphous, yet all powerful, “Patriarchy”. Reality is to be shut down at any cost – for the greater good.
The above extract is fascinating for two reasons. The first is that it is an analysis of a libel action brought to the British courts by Irving against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books. Lipstadt had called bullshit on Irving’s “falsification of the historical record”, pushing Holocaust revisionism confected as “suppressed historical fact”.
Irving reacted in the now all too familiar manner that SJWs do when criticism unmasks their manipulations and deceptions – he attempted to censor the reality that he was in fact peddling lies and manipulating public records to create a fabricated alternate reality. As the ancient Cynics pointed out so succinctly over two millennia ago – that which cannot withstand criticism or mockery is false. Irving had his feefees hurt, knew that his web of deceit and reality re-engineering would not survive any genuine scrutiny and reacted, just like a SJW, in the only way he could1 – he attempted to silence his critic by taking legal action that, hopefully, would have been prohibitively expensive to defend, and even entertained the notion that the matter could have been settled out of court. Sadly for him, Lipstadt and Penguin did not slink away in fear.
The second is even more interesting. The dissection of Irving by Evans, once fully exposed by the trial disclosure process, is a template that precisely mirrors the one by which PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, Stefanny Zwan and the bulk of freefromthoughtblogs and skepchick operate – and so too the other conspiracy feminist demagogues outside the A/S communities (Amanda Marcotte, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu and an endless list of others) –
- suppressing parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case (aka quote mining) – check
- presenting forged documents as legitimate ones – check
- inventing ingenious but implausible and utterly unsupported reasons for cultivating distrust (rape culture, atheist misogyny etc.) – check
- consciously attributing their own conclusions to books and other sources which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite (pretty much everything they whine about from Dawkins to Hemant Mehta to Michael Nugent to me) – check
- seeking out the highest (or lowest) possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability or otherwise, simply because they want for whatever reason to maximize (or minimize) the figure in question (their bread and butter, without which they are nothing) – check
- willfully inventing words, phrases, quotations, incidents, and events for which there is no evidence to make their arguments more plausible to their readers (the very backbone of the operation) – check
Etc. Really, I have now reached the point where I no longer differentiate these loons from one another. Diarrhoea or constipated golf balls – it all still smells like shit. Apply a sand blaster to any of these frauds to strip away the outer flesh and expose the raw skeleton, and they are all the same. Neonazis, antivaxxers, creationists, conspiracy nutjobs, fear-n-loathing feminists, Myers and his baboon troop – all the same. All use exactly the same bag of filthy tricks to corrupt reality and poison wells with their own toxic derangements.
And to condemn Irving on the one hand, whilst cutting slack and turning a blind eye to Peezee Myers and Rebecca Watson with the other is the very essence of hypocrisy and double standards.
1 – Irving, just like the baboons and SJWs everywhere, is chronically incapable of comprehending he has no exemption from the Streisand Effect. It can be argued that the Lipstadt / Penguin libel suit, with all of the data unearthed and analysed by expert witnesses in the disclosure process and massive associated media coverage, did more to discredit and ruin Irving’s reputation as a “scholar” than the combined efforts of all other debunkers that have taken him to task. Had Irving simply ignored Lipstadt’s criticism, it would only have ever been read by several thousand people that were already aware of his revisionist fairy tale weaving and no more.