Direct Link to Latest News


Why is David Irving Blind to Freemasonry?

August 26, 2017

(Churchill became an alcoholic because he had sold out his country to Illuminati Jewish bankers. The Victory Sign is really an occult symbol for their love of Satan.)  

Churchill, Hitler and Stalin were all Freemasons. They contrive wars to wage war against humanity.
World War Two was contrived. How could David Irving 
miss this?

David Irving interviewed many members of Hitler's personal staff, and their hero worship has rubbed off on him. 

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"History is propaganda about the past," someone said. 

Most historians are paid liars. David Irving is an exception because, as he points out in a compelling speech, The Real Winston Churchill, from the mid 1980's, he is not an academic historian. As such he actually does original research and doesn't have to parrot the Masonic (Illuminati) Jewish line, as most historians do. He interviews the players, unearths diaries and looks at original documents. As result, he comes up with embarrassing information. 

For example, in a 1937 letter, ex-German Chancellor (1930-1932) Heinrich Brüning  revealed to Churchill just who backed his successor, Adolph Hitler: 

 'I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany." 

Irving makes this shocking revelation at roughly the 14-minute mark of his 90 minute speech. It means Hitler and the Nazis were the creation of the Illuminati Jews, i.e Zionists who wanted Germany's Jews to move to Israel, as did many. Then, he ignores the mind boggling implications and focuses entirely on what a fraud and buffoon Winston Churchill was. I am using this remarkable speech as a template for Irving's overall position since I have not studied his every utterance. 

For the reasons given above, David Irving is likely the only man resembling a real historian of World War Two. He is an eloquent and inspiring speaker with a photographic memory. However, there is something troubling about a man of his intelligence who doesn't mention Freemasonry and acts like he doesn't know that Soviet Russia was a product of British Freemasonry. In all his original research, did Irving never find evidence of collusion between Freemasons in England and Germany? In All the King's Men, Robert Marshall showed that MI-6 collaborated with the Nazis.  Furthermore, Irving refuses to acknowledge a document which showed the Gestapo and KGB collaborated in executing many mass murders until June 1941. (The Soviet Story, 64 min.) 

Irving doesn't mention that Churchill was a Freemason like Stalin and Hitler, and that the war was a charade designed by the Masonic Jewish bankers to destroy Western civilization and force Jews to create Israel as the future capital of the satanic NWO.  He doesn't mention Hitler's shortcomings like his background as a male prostitute. 

Irving only mentions Churchill's shortcomings which include:

1. Churchill was an alcoholic. FDR routinely referred to him as  "that drunken bum." His famous radio speeches were delivered by actor Normal Shelley because by nightfall, Winnie was too drunk. US diplomat Sumner Welles arrived for a meeting and found him drunk out of his mind. Churchill's alcoholism affected his judgement. Irving says that after the V-2 raids began, Churchill ordered chemical warfare against the German civilian population but the military refused to carry out this order. 

2. Churchill was a paid-whore of British Organized Jewry  who wanted to destroy Germany. Irving describes how Churchill provoked Hitler into bombing British cities and stonewalled Hitler's many generous peace overtures. Rudolph Hess made his quixotic peace mission in this context. Hitler clearly saw himself indirectly as a British agent. 

3. Churchill and his "Focus" group was financed by Jewish bankers. Churchill also received millions of pounds from the Czech government to overthrow "appeasement" advocate Chamberlain. This constituted treason. 

4. Among his lesser foibles, Churchill forged paintings during his leaner years in the early 1930's, before completely selling out. 


While Irving painstakingly compiles Churchill's faults, he exonerates Hitler, despite Hitler being in the pay of the Jewish bankers as well.

He claims Hitler "didn't know about" the mass murder of Jews. There is no document which orders the annihilation of the Jewish race, Irving says.  On the contrary, he cites a Ministry of Justice document in which Hitler postpones the solution of the Jewish Question until after the war.  

It is naive to think Hitler would put an order for genocide in writing but he was not shy about threatening it.  
Plausible deniability was not invented by the Reagan Administration. 

(Hungarian Jews arriving at Auschwitz in May 1944. A work camp?)

The bottom line is that, apart from destroying Christian civilization, the Illuminati Jewish goal was to trauma brainwash Jews into establishing Israel; and for this something resembling the holocaust was necessary. The Nazis did not round up Jews from all over Europe, including children, the aged and infirm, just to provide them with food and board. 

In another lecture, The Life & Death of Heinrich Himmler, Irving acknowledges that roughly 1,250,000 Jews were killed in three death camps apart from many more who were shot or gassed in Einsatzgruppe (mobile killing units.) So to call him "a holocaust denier" is incorrect, although he does tend to minimize it. 

But the most troubling aspect of Irving's position is that he doesn't realize that all four WW2 leaders were Freemasons and the war was an occult assault on humanity itself. Irving feigns ignorance of the Masonic Jewish plot to turn humanity over to Satan.  Why? 
Updated from Oct 11, 2015

Related- Gifted historian reduced to leading tours of concentration camps  (had he sold out, he'd be filthy rich)
--------------------    Winston Churchill and the Jews 

First Comment from Ken Adachi:

I heard David Irving give a talk in Costa Mesa, CA somewhere around 1999 I think. He's a likeable guy and gave an interesting talk. However, everyone in that room struck me as Pro Hitler and Pro Nazi, including David Irving. The books on display for sale, the photos, posters, etc,; it looked and felt like a Bund Hall reunion. On one hand, David Irving is wrongly sent to jail for expressing his opinion that there was a great deception imposed on the west by Zionists to have us believe that 6 million Jews were killed in Nazi concentration camps, when the number of deaths was much, much lower.  Any intelligent person who looks at the documentaries available on Youtube can see that the math alone doesn't work. You can't kill as many people as claimed, and dispose of their bodies in ovens in the time frame allowed. Impossible. You can't fit that many people into a shower/ "gas" chamber as claimed in order to meet the killing quota. Impossible.  It's clear that the Soviet Union (controlled by Zionists) played a role in reconstructing the Auschwitz gas chamber/crematorium etc. The Zyclon B down the vent roof openings story does not stand up to logical analysis or scrutiny.  There was no evidence of Zyclon B gas poisoning of people or on the walls, etc.  

On the other hand, the Nazis were brutal and vicious beyond words towards innocent civilians in Nazi occupied countries. They stole the property of those they illegally arrested and sent off to Nazi concentration camps. How many  died from inadequate food and squalid camp conditions that resulted in typhus outbreaks or were worked to death?   How many were experimented on as human guinea pigs by Mengele's group? How many innocent people were rounded up in an occupied  town and murdered as retribution whenever members of the Resistance sabotaged something?  Nazi apologists want to pretend that Nazis were misunderstood good guys, and simply refuse to look at the big picture of just how evil and cruel Nazis were. 

I read some of David Irving's material when I was working on a 2005 article about Hitler faking his death. I found his ability as an authoritative historian less than first rate. He was far less thorough than I had assumed he was and I found many of his statements to be sloppy, and not convincingly researched. I'm sure (honest) academics who review all of his work would have a more accurate assessment than I, but I was surprised all the same.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Why is David Irving Blind to Freemasonry?"

David A said (August 27, 2017):

I defend David Irving because I've read and heard him speak on many occasions, most recently last month. Never have any of his gatherings resembled a goose-stepping Nuremberg rally as one of your posters implied; you would have to attend an antifas or BLM riot for anything comparable in today’s world. At worst I would describe his meetings as a handful of tweedy history buffs interested in topics delivered by a compelling & authoritative speaker with phenomenal recall.

They have never been more than small groups because inevitably they are always under threat by the local chapter of Zionist thugs (whose credo seems to be “free speech for me but not for thee”) vowing physical attacks against anyone who attends (where they succeeded at one of his Chicago speeches in Nov. 2009). At the July speech above, the local Jewish Times has called for reprisals against the restaurant where he spoke (in the true spirit of Kristallnacht). I always keep in mind that anyone questioning the orthodox account of what happened in World War II can expect (like Irving and Ernst Zundel, to name just two) show trials, prison, professional & financial ruin, while the other side owns big bucks, the airwaves, print media and a huge stake in the highly profitable Holocaust industry, as I call it.

Ken Adachi said (August 27, 2017):

No one else is covering these stories in as much depth and academic rigor as you. I can't help but agree with most of what you write here. However, I don't think it's accurate to characterize Hitler as an 'agent" or toady of Zionist bankers or Soviet overlords. Obviously, he knew where the money was coming from, but his ego was colossal and he indeed saw himself as a messianic, "destiny" appointed savior of the German people and just 'knew' he was chosen by the gods to lead Germany into its most glorious period of all time. That's why he loved Wagner so much. He BELIEVED it through and through.

He was an indolent and essentially lazy boy who DREAMED a lot of the Big Future that awaited him. He imagined he was a great painter as a young man and the passion consumed him at that time in Vienna. He was not happy when other people couldn't see his greatness. He had the real fire in his belly and the Germans who were drawn to him could see it and feel it. He, and those who believed in him, felt that destiny was guiding his life and there could be only one outcome: total success in all that Adolf Hitler endeavored to do. I think that Hitler felt that "destiny" was steering that money to him in the 30s and never saw himself as beholding to Jewish bankers or anyone else. He was going to go as far as he could with the resources available to him because "destiny" had already mapped out his, and Germany's future.

In Boynton Beach Florida, Otto Skorzeny revealed to Eric Bermen in the Fall of 1999 that the Nazi International is real and remains powerful to this very day. Its highest echelon members have access to secret technologies that can extend human life, with relatively youthful appearance, into a life span undreamed of by most people. Many of the biggest names of the Third Reich who we were told had either died after the Nuremberg trials, or had reported to have died in the 70s, like Josef Mengele, were very much alive when Otto was regaling Eric with his incredible revelations ---and PHOTOS.

The Revelations of Otto Skorzeny, Part 1: Martin Bormann, Reichsleiter in Exile & American Retiree (July 6, 2007)

I believe that Hitler lived till the age of 114 years old and died under the name of William Coates.

William Coates, aka Adolf Hitler (Oct. 5, 2011)

Larry C said (August 26, 2017):

Henry, with the references to Churchill along with your insistence on using the term "Christian civilization," how could I not be reminded of this quote...?

"The defense of "Christian Civilization" as so often stated by Winston Churchill is in fact the advancement of the British Empire under the name of kingdom of God. Churchill knew whereof he spoke when he said that he did not become Prime Minister to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. We have to but recognize its new name...Thus the new concept of Christian Civilization (through British Israel propaganda) has the hidden meaning of a collective world state...therefore when the term Christian Civilization is used (even with the intent based upon individual salvation through Christ) it betrays its user to British Israel and the effect of his efforts is subversion." Helen Peters, The Union Jack, p.133,136

Since you don't believe in individual salvation through Christ, your regular use of the term can only mean a collective world state.


Thanks Larry

I apologize for using the English language in accordance with commonly accepted meaning.


Robert K said (August 26, 2017):

"'History is bunk'--Henry Ford". My MA thesis in history work convinced me that, at least, "History is murk."

Think about it: what do we know about what actually happened in the world yesterday, let alone in decades or centuries past? Ah yes, we are given our daily dose of "the News". And who chooses and "spins" what will constitute our sliver of "the News" out of the millions of events occurring on a daily basis? Anyone who takes this "authentic" formulaic reportage seriously is opting to live in a fantasy world.

Still, we are compelled for our own protection, if not edification, to grapple with making sense of the past. People have written memoirs, biographies have been penned, laws have been promulgated, scandals have been reported and either confirmed or obviously suppressed, interviews have been conducted, trials have been held, etc. We examine this material for understanding as best we can, hopefully always bearing in mind that the Establishment, and lesser mischief-makers who, if achieving any prominence, are likely secretly on the Banksters' payroll, are constantly trying to distract or mislead us.

Unfortunately, most people do no digging and are content to reason on the basis of the distorted mythologies they are fed about the actors and their deeds in the glorified "soap opera" (in Malcolm Muggeridge's mature assessment) of historical and current events.

Z said (August 26, 2017):


When Hitler's doctor tells Irving he was the one chosen by Hitler to cleanse his history, Irving replies, “Why me? Why me? Why haven't you given it to Jacobson or Hilburg or one of the other great historians?” Someone is a terrible speller, and I guess we have to blame it on Hari and the Independent, since I assume newspapers still have editors. In context, Irving must be talking about Hans-Adolf Jacobsen and Raul Hilberg, great historians who specialized in Hitler and WW2. Note the correct spelling. But it gets weirder, because Hilberg is Jewish. Why would Irving think that Hitler or Hitler's doctor would give any information to Hilberg, much less assume Hilberg would re-evaluate him? It is beyond absurd, and is just another example of Irving the prankster. But apparently no one noticed. The article has been up for four years now, and no one has thought to correct the two misspellings.

Jude D said (August 26, 2017):

Hitler was a fan of the British Empire, which meant he was never going to be a serious threat to the Zio-globalists regardless of whether he was controlled opposition or simply a useful idiot. How could someone who spent so much time fulminating against Jewish bankers wax lyrical about the very fountainhead of banksterism - and the source of so much corrupt modernity to boot?

I suspect that like many modern white nats and paleocons he was infatuated by the romance of the Empire, and couldn't bring himself to admit that it was a large part of the problem, not the solution. Either that or he was a complete phoney from the beginning; nothing else can explain his disastrous decisions at Dunkirk and elsewhere.

David said (October 13, 2015):

If David Irving were a disinfo agent and gatekeeper for the real criminals behind WWII, he would have long ago been rewarded with a tenured university professorship, multi-million-dollar books deals from major publishing houses, would be regularly quoted and invited to appear on the corporate owned networks to prop up the orthodox account of what really happened during the "Good War". Instead he self-publishes books whose scholarship dwarfs and shames the garbage churned out by court historians the reading public knows by name; suffers from necropathy after being caged in an Austrian prison for 2 years, and who's about to smeared yet again in a big-budget Hollywood film starring A-list actors Rachel Weisz and Tom Wilkinson.

Truth doesn't need hate-crime laws to stifle even the mere questioning of what we have been force-fed about the Holocaust for 3 generations, and that includes all us citizens of the Western democracies that sacrificed blood and lucre to stop whatever it was Hitler was trying to accomplish.

Robert P said (October 12, 2015):

“The war wasn’t only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn’t want to.”

Winston Churchill to Truman. Fulton, USA March 1946.

“Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system, and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world finance couldn’t profit anymore. We butchered the wrong pig.”

Winston Churchill. The Second World War, Bern, 1960.

“We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler, therefore we couldn’t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So we were forced to play our part in this diabolic scenario after the war.
In no way we could have pointed out to our people that the war only was an economic preventive measure.”

US Secretary of State, James Baker. 1992.
“The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who still haven’t understood this, haven’t understood anything.”

Churchill’s chief counsellor Robert Lord Vansitart, as said to foreign minister Lord Halifax, September 1940.

Sandeep said (October 12, 2015):

It has been apparent for a long time now that we are fighting a war against the 'Jews' i.e. the Zionists. The second World War was just another of endless scams perpetrated on us by them. I agree that the purpose of the second World War was to establish the Zionist state of Israel in the Holy Land. The Jews needed a plausible reason to get the people to go along with the creation of Israel, so they had to use bloody murder, but they also needed an agent and a victim nation to do this. Though there is ample evidence that the Nazis did go after ordinary Jews back then, I believe that the Holocaust was a complete fraud.

I think that people believe Hitler was for real because he was made to appear that he was standing up against the Jews, which plays well into the general sentiment that the 'Jews' are responsible for all our problems. If you look back at this time, this sentiment was still very strong because Europe was still a Christian continent. In reality, it is only a select group of Jews i.e. the Zionists that are responsible. The fact that the gate-keeper media and shills (like Alex Jones) use the term Jews instead of actually acknowledging that people like us are talking about the Zionists tells you that we are going in the right direction of pin-pointing the real problem. Hitler was bankrolled by these people, and he must have known it, therefore making him an agent.

Another problem I see in this regard is how people generalize how a government is controlled. You always got people in government who are not part of the conspiracy. I agree that the Presidents, Prime Ministers etc are, but it does not mean that the people around that person all are. Therefore, an agent has to appear to work for the good of the nation to dupe the people in government who have a sense of pride in their nation, while his actions speak another language. I am sure that people who are not part of the conspiracy realize this really quickly, but either stay silent because of fear or are silenced if they do attempt to say anything. Politics is a very dirty business, and things are not straight forward just because one individual has been identified as an agent of the Illuminati.

H said (October 12, 2015):

Because much of Irving's audience are in the Masonic camp. Few outside of Traditional Catholics even know Masonry is a problem. Your odd Protestant group and a very very few Jews, et al.​

Many in the Irving camp (and I am not saying Mr Irving is in this camp himself) think they must exonerate Hitler in order to drive home the point about the bertrayal of many Western leaders throughout history. Check out Michael Hoffman's latest encounter with those who hold this position.

Ionut said (October 12, 2015):

David Irving has the marvellous skill to tell the story as it happened for the participants, as outcomes were not certain or even probable. You essentially blame him for not judging in hindsight the historical events, yet you owe him a lot for enabling you to do just that. You could at least publish a link to his ebooks

online store

Henrique said (October 11, 2015):

Irving comes off as another "Right-hand path" disinformationist. You have to understand that the esoteric underworld is not unidimensional; they got "specialized" sects pushing different things.

The Left-hand is for Satanists, nihilists, Aloyzius Fozdyke-type characters. The Right-hand path ( now somewhat in the background ) is the sect for "orderly" people, traditional aristocrats, people who value "obedience" over everything else.

As Jews tended to be outcasts, they generally sympathize with the Left-hand ( although ultra-nationalists in Israel have many traces of the right-hand - perhaps why Fozdyke hates them ).

It's the philosophical dialectic Apollo ( Order, righteousness ) X Dionysus ( Wine, Orgies - the darker recesses of the mind, subjectivity ). People like Oliver, Evola, Guenon, the old eugenicists, Yockey, etc. are all very alike. They say, basically, that modern society is doomed because the masses "lost the notion of authority, of the order/obey dynamics". This in a sense, supposedly, turned them into a chaotic, redundant, meaningless mob, with no purpose other than self-destruction. And they all point to the nineteenth century as the beginning of all this in a big scale ( when the Communist manifesto was written, the masses were slowly becoming literate, etc. ). A formula, that's what History is.

There's a lot of truth in both "paths", esoterists always cloak their interests behind self-evident truths. But one thing seems clear: even if Germans had won the war, the future for ordinary Germans would be a nightmare. The Order-worshippers would have turned Europe into Brave New World, right then. "Master-race" was as much a slogan as "indispensable, exceptional, manifest destiny".

In the end, obviously, both sides work for the same capstone. Order out of chaos. Chaos to destroy people psychologically enough so they can't resist the new Order about to be enforced worldwide.

C said (October 11, 2015):

Irving is undoubtedly a very courageous man, but he strikes me as something of an unquestioning Anglo-supremacist. British Hitler apologists are fond of saying that Hitler never had any quarrel with the British Empire - as if this vindicates him, when surely it does nothing of the sort.

As you have pointed out on many occasions, the British Empire was a Rothschild operation and steeped in Freemasonry and occultism from the start. Recently, on another alternative site I saw a talk Irving gave many years ago in Canada, in which he parroted the British Masonic media line that the Americans armed the IRA.

In fact there is now irrefutable proof that British intelligence armed, funded and controlled all sides in the Northern Ireland conflict as part of a divide and conquer strategy.

JG said (October 11, 2015):

David Irving was a threat to the fabricated and establishment propagated history of WW2 and had to be silenced. The uncovering of one lie often leads to more unveiling of more lies and then the house of cards fall. Lies have to be protected in order to stand. In a metaphorical sense political and historical truths are in secured vaults which only the skilled and learned scholars like Irving know the combinations to.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at