If you’re just worried about the law, steal it from somewhere in Austria. That dumbass did prison time in Vienna for his holocost denial, so maybe they seized all proceeds and profits and all that shit.

I think people overthink spending money on things they don’t support. I think stealing it is justified, but If you’re doing academic studies or learning how to deprogram people, go ahead and buy a Nazi’s book if you have to.

That said, if you’re looking to argue with Holocaust deniers, trying to defeat them by studying their arguments is a classic blunder.

Conspiratorial thinking is rooted in social maladies, and attachment to a theory is a downstream effect. You can no more talk a Holocaust denier out of their belief with evidence than you can fix a broken water main by sand-bagging the street. If you’re trying to deprogram someone, you’ve got to learn how to get them to open up about the background experiences that led them to look for these answers and then usually find ways to help them find alternate communities that obviate their need for the conspiracy in a way that at least feels self-directed.

It’s a much slower process, but if that’s what you want to do, read up on that and don’t bother wasting money on Irving’s book.

libgen[dot]is 😎

You can wheels within wheels this shit for eternity. Answer this question and you’ll have the answer. What do you want to do? Do that.

You can steal it, buy it, borrow it, whatever. Ultimately there is no objective right answer. If you think you’ll be better equipped to counter argue the message by reading it, I say that’s more honorable than arguing against it without knowing what it is.

Check if it’s available at a library?

🏴‍☠️

You could just buy the book second-hand. Authors don’t get any of that money, and you’ll be able to get it for much cheaper than new.

Personally, I’d start with his wikipedia page, and the pages for his books. The people you’re talking to are likely caught in the fascism algorithmic funnel and have only watched videos rather than reading themselves. So they probably don’t have a deeper understanding than what wikipedia provides. That’s part of the appeal of conspiracy theories, that they’re bite-sized talking points that fit neatly together inside even the smallest minds.

I’m willing to bet there are people who have already done the work for you and picked apart the books, and there’s probably conspiracy theorists who have come up with stories for each of those points. And now we’re approaching the point of Branolini’s Law, “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it”

Beyond the scope of your Q, but if I could offer some advice: Instead of arguing, ask interrogating questions, as though you trust them and you’re genuinely trying to understand all the contours. You’ll quickly find many holes in their weak foundation. Success is bringing some awareness to how weak their info is. It’s like asking someone to show you around their messy apartment and now they’re a little embarrassed, so hopefully they’ll clean up or stop talking about it.

Honestly, though, I’d have those convos in person (and worryingly, i have). Algorithmic social media is not built for deep thought or meaningful discussions. IMO It’ll just suck up time and energy that can be better spent elsewhere.

People you disagree with may still produce something of value to you.

https://annas-archive.org/search?q=david+irving

edit: on the ebooks topic, i’ve had a pretty good experience with the kobo libra color ereader along with calibre, but it’s a miserable experience trying to read graphic novels on it-- any recommendations (that are not amazon/apple/android/google) for an ereader that can do graphics well?

Download a book? Illegally? Online? Through a popular torrent website?

I would never do such an illegal and terrible thing!!

go to a library and borrow it?

Just break the law lol. The law is made up horseshit 😆

Ugh, of course those people would point to any source that supports their current claim, without vetting the source itself. They’ll even tell you that of course they don’t support antisemitism, while spouting that antisemitic Irving shit all day, and that’s okay because they pick and choose only what they agree with out of the rhetoric. As though they couldn’t find sources that support their point without the concomitant antisemitism.

First and foremost, then, I’d go about this by not denying the genocide in Gaza and not saying stuff such as “I bet you love Palestine” like it’s a pejorative, spacecadet.

My second point would be to recognise that there is no moral or ethical reason not to pirate Irving’s works. If you were able to find it at a library, it would be there because someone paid a publisher for the copy and likely some kind of library license. Some of that goes to Irving. There is no way to deny him profit and acquire his work legally. So, pirate it. Fuck that guy.

Legally, you could buy a used copy if you could find one.