May 9, 1996

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:



Some readers complain about "filler ZGrams"-missives that are reflective rather than substantive, giving information on the world-wide struggle to bring history in accord with the facts.

I believe we must take time to reflect, to examine and to listen to each other's point of views so as to better sharpen our own.

Here is one of my favorite correspondends in response to a previous ZGRam comment of mine where I said: "The halo of the "Holocaust' keeps many shady characters from justified and long overdue criticism and review, and that's the bottom line."

His answer: "Hatemonger" and "antisemite" are powerful curses to be thrown at one's enemies to intimidate same and, as you rightfully observe, to provide a screen for the disreputable doings of the inventors, guardians and practitioners of the curses.
Use of such terms will not disappear for as long as their power to intimidate others remains real."

Elsewhere I wrote: ". . . Nor, if Revisionists challenge certain aspects of the Holocaust, are they talking about mere diminishing of claims of Jewish suffering. That's not where the argument stops."

His answer: "You hit the nail squarely on the head with that statement. Right on! THIS is where the nub of the issue lies.

The argument is not just about arriving at some form of consensual quantification of Jewish suffering in WW2. The argument is, rather, about freedom vs tyranny; about saving and making flourish our (Western) moral and cultural values, or seeing them zilchified and replaced by alien notions.

In response to my point on "re-christening" ourselves to get rid of the "Nazi taint," he wrote:

"I do not believe you can classify your readership in any kind of convenient global category, and any attempt to do so would probably be misleading.

It seems to me that the only common thread that brings us together is an interest in historical truth, a sense that historical revisionism offers some very valuable insights into that rarest of commodities.

Other than that, many of us may well part company in quite irreconcilable ways, philosophically speaking."

On the subject of Doug Christie defending Malcolm Ross, he commented:

"I had the privilege of meeting that extraordinary man (Christie) in Malcolm Ross's home town a few years ago-a chance encounter one quiet evening, while strolling in a near-deserted shopping mall with my wife.

At the time, Doug was representing Mr. Ross at the infamous enquiry launched by the so-called "Human Rights Commission" of New Brunswick, a kangaroo-court process that culminated in the regrettable Supreme Court of Canada decision of a few days ago.

The lapdog media out there-no friends of Doug's to be sure-admiringly dubbed him "the Wyatt Earp of individual liberty". In complete thrall as they are to that powerful minority which we all know, still they saw well enough that Doug was much more than a common lawyer.

Of impeccably moral credentials, brilliant and unrelenting in his arguments, deadly in his aim, he made minced meat out of the opposition and they knew it, felt it, resented it. He was already then a living legend.

I sometimes wonder: how can any of his fellow colleagues in the legal profession ever dare to look him squarely in the eye, without feeling profoundly to the depths of their souls soiled and ashamed of themselves? . . "

By no means are letters like the above the exception. Most all our correspondence on behalf our our efforts is appreciative, reflective, sober, searching and analytical. It is a treat each morning to settle down to e-mail.

Now you will want to know what our enemies sound like. Here are two fanciful responses:

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

"When the flag is unfurled, all reason is in the trumpet."

(Ukrainian proverb)

Back to Table of Contents of the May 1996 ZGrams