David Irving's Fight against Australian Suppression of Free Speech
Australian flag

David Irving v Jeremy Jones 

date of documents

David Irving

David Irving after challenging prime minister John Howard in London on October 23, 1997.

Quick navigation
In the Supreme Court of Western Australia         No. 1676 of 1993




- and -


First Defendant

- and -


Second Defendant



Date of Document: 23 February 1994

Filed on behalf of: The First and Second Defendants

Date of filing: 1994

Prepared by:

Arnold Bloch Leibler Solicitor Code: 54

Solicitors & Consultants DX: 455

Level 21 Tel: 629 7444

333 Collins Street Ref: AHN:934829:KAV

MELBOURNE VIC 3000 (Mr A H Northam)

This is the exhibit marked "AHN9" referred to by ANTHONY HUGH NORTHAM in his Affidavit sworn this 23rd day of February 1994.



This is a recording of my speech made to the Clarendon Club, September the nineteenth 1992.

A public speaker, a humorous David Irving.


Some of you ask me what the significance of this old hat is, it's

I've taken to wearing it on emergency occasions like this and in fact, it isn't just any old hat it's nearly 30 years old now; well it's been polished to a shine. It's my old hat as a German steel worker when I was in Germany as a steel worker back at the end of the 1950's. I kept it handy, I also kept my old steel-capped boots, who knows I may need them one of these days.


In fact, this symbol here on the side, the circle with the 3 slashes, is the symbol which is the great rival, or was the great rival in those days, to Alfried Krupp. I applied for a job with Alfried Krupp when I was a student at London University and Krupp wrote back a letter saying "Dear Mr Irving, we'd like to give you a job as a steel worker with us, but the British destroyed all our steel works, didn't they?" So, no joy. So, I went to the rival, that was the Thiessen steel works, which in fact has been pulled down now, because times change. Times change, economies change, some economies grow strong on the strength and the back and the sweat of the workers, and other economies grow weak, because of the follies and foibles of the government that guides them.

Now I have a bit about that to say in the course of the next half hour that I'm going to talk to you today. Really I'm going to talk about the media, the television, not only of this country, but worldwide, because I've had a lot to do with the Press worldwide and none of it is very favourable.

I've always been an outsider looking in through the windows. But I'm not battering like a demented bee on the window panes, trying to get in, I'm standing on the window sill with my mouth open in frank astonishment at the sordid, perverse tricks and tactics that the Press adopt. I think it was the view of a Mr Humbert Wolf, writing, back in about 1930, when he wrote these lines "You cannot hope to bribe or twist thank God the British journalist but seeing what the man will be unbribed, there's no occasion to".


The journalist. the British journalist.

Last time I spoke to you was on July 4th on the afternoon of my return from Moscow with the Goebbels Diaries in my pocket, which the Sunday Times began serialising the day after, And two weeks later that serialization in the Sunday Times collapsed in flames. They had entered into a contract to pay me £80,000 for that particular job They were scooped two days before, and by the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail paid £20,000 for a rival set of rather inferior copies of the Diaries. And much to their rage, the Daily Mail then found having trumpeted it for one week, that it was rubbish to say that David Irving was one of the few people who could read the handwriting of that German propaganda minister, The Daily Mail found that they couldn't read the handwriting of the pages that they'd paid £20,000 to get.


So there were some nice inside things happening, but what was less nice was the fact that Andrew Neil, the Editor of the Sunday Times attained from me these diaries. He published them. If you remember he had sixty foot long hoardings, posters in all the Jewish ghettos of Great Britain, I had nothing to do with that, I thought it was rather tasteless; got a certain amount of glee out of it, I must admit at the thought of these sixteen foot tall swastikas appearing one morning.


I had nothing to do with it. He didn't come to me. Andrew Neil didn't come to me and say

"Irving, what can we do really to get up the nose of those people.


If Andrew Neill had said to me what can we do to get up the nose of those people, I'd have said Andrew, why don't you put up sixty foot posters, red, white and black with fifteen foot swastikas and some Goebells' phrase like "the world will tremble when we depart".


That's what he did, and of course he never heard the end of it. But, a week after that, he then announced that he'd had enough of having published the material I'd found in the Moscow archive, he said he wasn't gonna pay me. He welched on the deal. He published the goods and then just announced that he wasn't going to pay. And he thought he'd get away with that. But it's a big mistake, and I know why he did it, and I must say that a tiny corner of my heart bleeds for him, in fact if I were a 1950s journalist, I would light a little candle in my heart. A little candle in my heart you remember. That is what the then Prime Minister of Israel said, if he lit a little candle in his heart everytime a British serviceman had been killed in Palestine. So I light a candle in my heart for Andrew Neil, for all the trouble he got himself into.

He told me half way through this crisis that The Sunday Times found itself in, that at no time in his entire journalistic career, had he ever come under such immense pressure from, you know who, from over our traditional enemies. Pressure not just from the advertising industry, pressure not just from the self-appointed ugly, greasy, nasty perverted representatives of that community in Britain. He came under pressure from the international community too, because The Sunday Times like many other newspapers needs international capital to survive. And the international capital is provided by the great international merchant banks, and the great international merchant banks are controlled by people who are no friends of yours and mine. And Andrew Neil found that the sixty foot long posters had annoyed these people, And they put immense pressure on him, and he knows this because from all over the world, I've been getting press clippings sent to me. Nearly two thousand press clippings, in those 10 days alone.

Any normal editor would be delighted at the publicity of two thousand press clippings. You've dominated the front pages of all your rivals, day after day after day. But for him it was a total nightmare, he told me. His hair shrivelled until it resembled the short and curlies on his head. One of the few men who wears his pubic hair on his head. I don't want to get offensive about him. Believe me I've got no desire to be offensive about Andrew Neil. But he has his short and curlies crowning his head, and of course where his pubic hairs are, his bollocks can't be far away.


Some of you may think this is David Irving taking a pretty robust view about his erstwhile editor, and the answer is yes, because as I said, he welched. He decided he wasn't going to pay. He announced to the newspapers, who were putting him under pressure in the Jewish Chronicle front page, the International Canadian Jewish News, the World Jewish, the American Jewish journals. He said I've decided to break the contract with Mr Irving, I won't pay him another penny.

This is going to cost him dear because just three or four weeks ago, we served a High Court writ on that gentleman. On Times newspapers and he's now going to learn what he probably didn't realise as a newspaper Editor, that only a few weeks down the road from receiving service of a writ from the High Court, comes a very ugly stage called discovery, Capital D, like H, capital H, Holocaust. Everything that has a capital letter is a bit phony but a bit nasty too.

Discovery is the nastiest phase you get into in a High Court action, because it's when you're required by law to open your innermost secrets, you innermost files and documents. I had to provide copies of all my telephone logs and private letters and diaries, I don't mind, I've got no compunction. But he has to provide to us, and to my solicitors copies of all their internal conference memoranda, all their internal minutes, all the letters between himself and the advertising department of the Sunday Times, telling him they're coming under immense pressure from Marks and Spencer and the merchant banks and all the big companies and corporations that I know put pressure on Fleet Street, on Wapping, on the traditional organs of the British media to alter opinion, because it doesn't satisfy and soothe this minority. I know it happens because it's happened repeatedly over the last thirty years of my writing career, and journalists who are basically decent upright, honest and true people, deep in their hearts they come and tell me privately - Philip Knightley of the Sunday Times, many years ago when my book 'Hitlers War' was first published he said "David, you know The Sunday Times had a contract to serialise 'Hitlers War', but they had to repudiate the contract under pressure from the advertising department because of the pressure that the advertising department of The Sunday Times bad come under from Marks and Spencer and other bodies like that".

These are the documents that are going to have to be produced in the High Court a few months down the road from now by Andrew Neil and Times Newspaper Ltd. They're going to have to produce all the letters that were written to them by all these self-appointed community leaders, by all the various bodies and worthies and Labour Members of Parliament, and Lesbian groups, by all these gagglest gangs of groups that have been demonstrating outside my apartment in Mayfair again this morning. This odd and motley and ugly and perverse and greasy, and slimy community of anti-fascists that run the severe risk of making the very word fascist respectable their own appearance.


It's all going to come out in the wash. The media was thrown into a total frenzy by the realisation that Andrew Neil had commissioned me, of all people, as they said, to work on the Goebbels Diaries. In fact, it was the other way around, I commissioned the Sunday Times. It was my project, I had the materials, I gave it to the media.

The Sun, when it came out, that worthy journal. The Sun came out with a little article, they called it 'Goebbeldygook' (Laughter): "In this column 3 weeks ago, I warned that Irving was planning a London rally to publicise his warped views that it's a myth that six million Jews died in Nazi gas chambers. We're going to be proven right, I give it another six months to run that particular legend, and then the whole legend will collapse. "I asked the Home Secretary" said this trumped up journalist, of The Sun "to ban the rally as a threat to public order". Who is a threat to public order, us or them? The people outside who demonstrate, that's the way these journalists write when they're acting on instructions from above. They don't get a kind of circular, they don't have a duplicated memorandum saying, "Oh by the way, twist what you've got to write about Irving, twist what you've got to say". They're on auto pilot. They know what they've got to write, they know it, if they want to keep their jobs. Later on, they'll become window cleaners with the rest when The Sun folds, and then they'll have a decent and clean job they can do. Until they're cleaning windows, they're writing this kind of garbage. "I asked the Home Secretary to ban the rally as a threat to public order. But it went ahead, the violence that any fool could have predicted. David Irving's status has been enhanced by working for one of Britain's most prestigious papers".

A word about that word prestigious, incidentally. Those of you who used to subscribe to my old magazine Focal Point. You remember that at the back page you always used to have something called "Prestigious Claims", a competition. People used to submit things like Sotheby's, the prestigious auctioneer. But the real meaning of the word prestigious is not something glittering, and amazing and fantastic. Prestigious if you look in the Oxford English Dictionary means fraudulent. Nothing to do with being wonderful and magnificent. Prestigious comes from prestidigitation, "Oh there's that picture again". Like in The Independent. Prestidigitation which means slight of hand or conjuring or deception. Hence, prestigious. fraudulent. Sotheby's, the fraudulent auction house. Working, David Irving working for one of Britain's most prestigious papers, The Sunday Times. Well I suppose that it's true, one of Britain's most fraudulent papers, The Sunday Times.


My reputation's so enhanced apparently, for example, The Guardian then went on to give Mr Irving half a page to expound his obnoxious views. 15th of July. On the 18th of July, in no other newspaper than The Sun, they gave me half a page to propound my obnoxious views In the same newspaper, "Give blacks £30,000 to go home, says Irving".


£30,000 to go home, I never said this. Again they've got the drift of what I said.

(A member of the audience shouts "a one day travelcard").

They got the drift of what I said, but I was also very plain when I said in an interview that they'd concocted, I never gave an interview to The Sun of course, but they concocted this half page interview in which they give my views, in a very positive manner.

I said many years ago, I think, that it is time to find some way of persuading the ethnic minorities in this country who are unhappy, and who are causing much unhappiness both to themselves and to others while they're living here, to find an upright and honest manner in which we can transport them back in a benevolent manner to their homelands, if they wish to go, but we have to make it attractive to them. We have to provide them with a full economy, a full employment economy to which they can return. You can't send them back to unemployment, because if you pay them £5000 on leaving Heathrow, they'll come back through Prestwick and they'll march out again through Heathrow. It will be the biggest fake army since Henry V.


So my views are roughly given there. But they were given half a page of prominence on 18th July by The Sun with the result that just two days later. The Sun found it necessary to give another half page of prominence to my views. This time a negative sign in front "Irving lies have nazi taste in the mouth".

Obviously their advertisers have got in touch with The Sun or Mr Rupert Murdoch, and said this won't do at all. You're giving him all that publicity, and it is totally unacceptable. You've now got to smear him and smear him in such a way that he finds it necessary to drag The Sun into the libel courts. And so that article is the most appalling concoction with one lie after another. Two or three lies in every sentence against me, and The Sun then sat back until I served a writ on it, and I didn't, because if I learnt one lesson from the laws of Clausewitz the great German military strategist, it is you don't battle on the battlefield that your enemy has picked. Instead, I'm suing The Observer for libel, in an article they published about me.


The Observer decided to hire the services of a bearded prophet called Mr Chaim Bermant, to whom I gave an interview back in January. I didn't realise that he was Jewish, and I could kick myself. I mean anybody called Bermant, or anybody called Chaim, and anybody who looks like a modern Moses,....because he said he was a journalist, and so I assumed, quite falsely of course, that he was upright, honest and decent and true - And so he writes vicious, vicious lies like "Mr Irving who tries to conceal his working class origins, and aspires to a lower middle class,...class status. Wounding, wounding, wounding, wicked lies like that, but that isn't what I went after him for I went after him, I'm suing The Observer because he said in this article, right at the beginning, things that were materially false.

He said that the published article, 'Hitler's War' which had been published already by Macmillan and by Hodder & Stoughton. We've now printed it ourselves, in my own printing house called Focal Point, purely because we can produce a de luxe edition with colour pictures and everything which the big regular publishers can't afford to do. We publish it ourselves. Chaim Bermant said "Mr Irving couldn't find any publisher for his book, so be paid for the production of his own book, when I visited him to interview him, thousands of unsold copies of the book were lining the walls of his home. It's a pack of lies. But of course the idea is to humiliate me in the ideas of the readers, the literary editors, the booksellers, the publishers, just about everybody to make it look as though my name stinks that I'm an unpublishable twerp. Totally untrue, and that's what they're going to have The Observer for. You pick your own battlefield.

What I am particularly grousing the great British media for, is that they are not representing the English people.


They are representing nameless international causes, not just the cause of that particular ethnic minority that finds such delight in harassing us. They are representing the Americans, they are representing Europeans, they are representing Monsieur Delors, they are representing the internationalist, they are representing the African National Congress. They are not thinking straight and asking the obvious question that every English journalist and editor should always ask. How can I write things which are in the interests of the English people, as a whole. The interests of the English people are best served by writing the truth, there's no question at all. Again, again and again, we want to be told the truth, we want to have it laid squarely on the line.

We weren't cold the truth about Robert Maxwell. Those of us who suspected the truth about Robert Maxwell, we were hounded. Robert Maxwell was of course the greatest propagator of the Holocaust myth in Britain. He held the great Holocaust seminar because he and his ilk survived and dined out on the Holocaust myth.

We're all Holocaust survivors, every one of us who was born in 1939 or from then until 1945. we're all Holocaust survivors. We don't go around dining out on that particular menu. The ones who suffered in the Holocaust are the ones who died, not the ones who survived. But the Holocaust survivors are the ones who are earning of course. Robert Maxwell was the Holocaust survivor par excellence. He was nowhere near a concentration camp. He claims that his family went. He never actually enumerated the members of his family that went, who suffered from the Holocaust. He was part of that grand fraud, he held the seminars in Oxford, the seminars in Central Hall, Westminster. And when regular, decent chaps like myself tried to get into those seminars there were these great burly types with walkie talkie telephones who checked our names down on the list although we'd booked in under false names they recognised us and had us had out straight away, like through a revolving door.

The Robert Maxwells, the great, now of course he's identified as the great fraudster and the great cheat and the great manipulator. The man who stole millions of his pensioner's funds, millions of pounds from pension funds of his newspapers, companies that he expropriated. He stole these pension funds in order to get involved in illegal share propping operations to boost the share price, to prop up the share price of his companies, which as we all know is an operation which is totally illegal under the rules and laws of this country.

And yet is that not precisely what our own Government has been over the last two or three weeks? Borrowing seven billion pounds in order to prop up the overseas price of the pound, you're propping up the shares of Great Britain Ltd. and you're borrowing effectively money that's going to belong to generations of Britons to come in order to get involved in what should surely be an equally illegal share propping operation.


Has one newspaper commented. Not one. Because of course, they're all in the pockets of the great merchant banks and the currency speculators, who've been making the killing while we poor mortgage payers have been suffering and sweating. They've all been aghast and agape with frantic astonishment amazement at this conjuring trick which Monsieur Lamont pulled out of his top hat. Borrowing seven billion pounds in foreign currency in order to keep on buying pounds to keep the price artificially high which any man in the street, any workman who's got a bank debt knows the problems you get into once you start borrowing on that scale. You never get out of hock. But of course the people who are behind the newspapers the Conrad Black's and the people who are behind them, they don't want Britain to get out of hock, they want us to be permanently in hock because that is the way to keep Britain, the great British people down.

Yet, has one newspaper spotted this and is one newspaper warning us? They're not talking to us in terms of an illegal share propping, pound supporting operation at all, they're saying it's some marvellous piece of manipulation. What Maxwell did is criminal, of course, but what Lamont did is a wonderful piece of sleight of hand to support his great friend John Major.

We have all seen through John Major too, I'm quite convinced every one of us in this room All of us, even the editors and journalists have seen through John Major, a failed bank teller. No more and no less. We don't expect any more from John Major the failed bank teller that we would expect from a man of that position in life. Yet there he is somehow whisked into power by nameless hands, we don't know how he ended up at the tiller of this county, but there he is and for the last two years now, he's been steering Britain, not through the shoals, but straight onto them, and the British people are trying to scream, but it's like a nightmare when you wake up and you can't find your voice. You can see the shoals ahead. the liner is bearing down on them, but there's noting you can say because you can't find your voice.

We can't find our voices, because the voice of the British people is suppressed. The voice of the British people is the media, the voice of the British people, is the television and radio, and they are not trained to speak for the British people.


For the last 4 weeks, just for once, I've gone away from England, from London and I've been sitting down in Torquay, which is a white community. I think perhaps we saw one black man, one coloured family the whole time I was down there, and I'm not anti-coloured, take it from me. Nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport or at a station or at a seaport and I see black family there. The black father, the black wife and the black children, I think it's just as a handsome spectacle as the English family, or the French family, or the German family or the South African family, or whatever. I think that is the way God planned it, and that's the way it should be. When I see these families arriving at London airport, I'm happy, but I'm even happier when I see them leaving London Airport.


If there's one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit it is this, the way that when you're sitting down in Torquay, you switch on the TV set, you see one of them reading our news to us. It's our news and they're reading it to me.

I mean if I was a chauvinist, I'd say I object to seeing women reading our news to us, because basically the international news is a serious thing and I yearn for the old days of Lord Reith when the newsreader on the BBC, which was then only channel available in those times. He wore a dinner jacket and a bow tie, and he rose to the occasion. And at great state occasions, one has the satisfaction of knowing that not only was the newsreader wearing the dinner jacket and a bow tie. At great state occasions in fact I think it was a white tie that was called for, but you had the satisfaction of knowing that the gentleman behind the camera was also wearing a dinner jacket. It gave one a certain solid sense of satisfaction that all was well in the best of possible worlds.

But now we have women reading our news to us, they must have there own news which they can read to us, I suppose. If we were interested.


I think women are .......in a society for the time being for a kind of transitional period. I'm prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, followed by a lady reading all the less important news followed by Trevor MacDonald giving us the daily news about the muggings and the carnivals.


Because what purpose does life in self-abdication drive the British people to this to do this to itself? Who is it in charge of the BBC, who says okay they're only about 0.5% of the community.

I suppose, but lets give them 50% of the say in the news programmes and lets give them a very high profile indeed in all the children's programmes. Who decides these things, who is turning the world on its head in this manner and more importantly why?

Well the answer to the why is that they're trying to force this multi-cultural, this multi-ethnic mix, what Winston Churchill himself called a kind of artists lunch. Churchill said himself, if you took an artist's palette with all its brilliant and magnificent and pure colours, which you squeeze straight out of the tubes, as God designed them, and you take your palette knife, you smudge them around, what colour do you end up with he said. Churchill said that. This is not some racist extremist from beyond the fringe of the law saying that, it's one of the greatest living Englishmen or English Americans saying these words. I think he knew what he was saying because he was speaking back in the 1940s, the l950s, before this appalling national tragedy was inflicted on us. Not one newspaper is standing up and saying the obvious, that the British people is unhappy at what is being done to it without the slightest shred of democratic make believe. Nobody asked the British people if it wanted it, wanted it to be done to us in this manner. It just happened.

The Cabinet discussed it back in 1958, we can now see it if we go to the Public Records Office and we see that the Cabinet decided back in 1958. Lord Hailsham, the present Lord Hailsham said, "Oh there's just one hundred thousand in at present, I don't think on balance, there's likely to be many more, we don't need any special acts at all". And so the door was left wide open.

And yet, with a bold press and a powerful propaganda machine, and the right kind of linkage and steerage, and the right kind of intellect writing the articles and writing the television films and designing the media, we could persuade these different minorities that yes, we have done them an injustice, bringing them here for some kind of cheap slave labour in the l950s, but yes we are also prepare to mitigate the injustice we've done to them.

We can never totally ethnically cleanse Britain, it would be wrong to set about doing this. But we can relieve the pressure. And there grand ways that we could do it, even now. We could look around if we were the editors of national newspapers and instead of running these rather pathetic appeals for Somalia, or Pakistani Flood Relief, or for the crisis in India, starvation or whatever, we could say let us send our great British forces, relief units to help these countries. Let us send out specially adapted units of British citizens to go and help in Somalia, Ethiopia and Pakistan and India.

Wherever there's a need, we have the expertise because we have these people living in our midst for the last thirty or forty years, civilised folk. The Afro-Caribbeans, the Indians, the Pakistanis. We'll form them together, we could form them, we could do that just as the United States did. We could form peace regiments, an African peace regiment, an Asian peace regiment, a Pakistani peace regiment, and send them out to Somalia. Send them out to Pakistan or India. Send them out to help with the refugees. And we'll provide them with backing and the money to take goodness and benevolence and succour and salvation to these people who have been in the grip of the Marxist elites for too long. And they wouldn't be there just for a few weeks or a few months. It's clear it's a major job. These African peace units they'd have to be out there probably for several years.


All men, and no doubt just as they clamoured when they first came here from India and Pakistan, for their right to have their wives and children with them. A clamour would begin that they have their right to have the wives and children with them out in Somalia, or out in Pakistan and back home in India. And we would be happy to fund that operation too, I'm quite sure.

We could do it with the right kind of background and the right kind of initiative and the right kind of willingness. We've got the skills of the last thirty or forty years. We've been instilling skills into these people, we could do it.

But the newspapers of course would never really dare to do it, because the newspapers are still terrified of that word 'race'. They don't realise that 'race' and 'patriotism' are one and the same thing. 'Patriotism' is good, 'race' is bad. Its a kind of George Orwell kind of paradox that we're all find ourselves in. We're all proud, patriotic English people here, me too.

Occasionally, when I speak in Germany like in Munich last weekend, last Saturday. Somebody in the audience stands up and said "Mr Irving, why do you stand out for Germany so much?" And I answer, "I don't stand up for Germany, I stand up for the truth as a historian. I'm a patriot".


I ask myself sometimes then, where do our journalists come from, who write this kind of appalling garbage and I'm reminded that many years ago I had a lovely friend who worked in Harrods, in the perfumery. Beautiful girl, and we were very good friends for many years, and she told me that when her friends in the pharmacy at Harrods got bored, they used to take packs of condoms and stick needles though them. And I think this is the answer, to where those journalists have come from.


It only takes one little prick. I had a secretary who used to work for me many years ago, he lived not far from here. He came to me one morning and he said, "David, have you seen what The Sunday Times has written about you yesterday", and I said "what this time, what is it Robin". lie said "Look, listen, they've said Mr Irving, it appears, has seriously overestimated his mental stability. They're calling you mad


Website note: No attempt has been made to correct any errors in this unofficial transcript of this recording. As is evident from Mr Irving's letter to Mishcon de Reya, April 19, 1999, he had willingly loaned a tape of his speech to the Jewish Chronicle, London, shortly after the function; the newspaper evidently prepared an illicit transcript of Mr Irving's (copyright) speech, and supplied a transcript to the Board of Deputies of British Jews for its secret dossiers, which in turn rushed copies to its agencies around the globe -- which is how this transcript surfaced in Australia.

© Focal Point 1999 F Irving David Irving