Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid A. Rimland
Our total count for February alone was 11,131 visitors who accessed 102,149
documents.
During the last four days of February we had an average of 584 visitors
per day who accessed 7,143 documents in a 24-hour period.
Not bad when you consider the fact that since I started counting (more than
half-way into 1995 after we had been on the air for some weeks before I
realized there was such a thing as an ADA) that our first visitor count
was a total of 30!
I am wondering if our increased ADA has to do with my redesigning the home
page. It is not yet finished, but I put the sentence "Did Six Million
Really Die?" boldly right up front, followed by Ernst's logo above
his media picture - with very little else. There is something to be said
for a clean, condensed message - uncluttered. Can anyone come up with a
Zundelsite slogan we could make into a possible bumper sticker?
The other day, I accidentally discovered that another way of looking at
how "popular" we are would be by comparison of volume of "pro
versus contra" mail. As it turns out, I was way off - the ratio is
13 : 1 - 28,331 K sent by people telling us that they approve of what we
do, compared to 2,162 K of people regaling the Zundelsite with choice words
we all recognize as to their source and content.
This rare specimen of such a burst of bravery was Congressman Tom Coburn
of Oklahoma who has probably ruined his career. In a release put out by
his Oklahoma office, this brave American announced that airing this film
(he should have said filth) amounts to ". . . to an all-time low, with
full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes."
Said Coburn, furthermore: "I cringe when I realize that there were
children all across this nation watching this program. They were exposed
to the violence of multiple gunshot head wounds, vile language, full frontal
nudity and irresponsible sexual activity."
Of course he was immediately attacked and vilified, and the predictable
apology followed. We say he ought to be commended.
Please write. Write also to your local paper.
According to a Reuters Report of February 26, 1997 an exhibition about "war
crimes" allegedly committed by the German Wehrmacht during the Second
World War has toured the land to a storm of protest and counter-protest.
Peter Gauweiler, head of the Christian Social Union in Munich, responded,
calling it a "campaign of annihilation against the German people",
and questioned the authenticity of photographs shown in the exhibition.
He did more - bless his heart. He and other objectors laid a wreath at the
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Munich. The end of this story has not yet
been told.
"The Internet should not and will not be used as an electronic rendezvous
point for right-wing extremists," exclaimed Herr Kinkel during a speech
to mark the Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp.
A young German newspaper reporter has put her foot in her mouth by having
described the British Foreign Secretary as "the Jew Rifkind",
thus triggering a minor European diplomatic crisis which brought accusations
of anti-Semitism and, according to one paper in Britain, ". . . threatened
to plunge relations with Germany to a new low."
The offending reporter, a 28-year-old woman named Michaela Wiegel of the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, was amazed at the reaction to the choice
of her words.
"Is it an insult in English to call somebody a Jew?" she wanted
to know. The offending remark came in connection with Rifkind having quoted
Martin Luther, whom she described as "The German Martin Luther".
England's Prime Minister was immediately urged to lodge a complaint after
MPs from all parties condemned her words as a slur and insult to Great Britain.
Ms Wiegel explained herself thusly: "I was only trying to underline
how surprising it was that somebody who is Jewish should quote the leading
German Protestant reformer."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, backing their lady reporter, insisted
that it did not consider the remark as reflecting covert chauvinistic phrasing,
but Gerald Kaufman, the Shadow Foreign Secretary of Britain, thought otherwise:
"It is disgusting. I was absolutely appalled when I saw it. Words fail
me. I cannot express my irritation strongly enough."
Sir Ivan Lawrence, the Tory MP and a member of the Board of Deputies of
British Jews, opined: "The Germans ought to apologize without being
asked. I have never known such a thing in recent years. It stirs up our
worst foreboding about closer political union with Germany. I expect John
Major will demand an apology."
The Tory Euro-MEP Graham Mather had this to say:
"We read this with absolute disbelief. They should apologize for this
crass and ill-judged statement. If it is not withdrawn I will bring it up
at the next meeting of Parliament."
And Ignatz Bubis, 80-year-old leader of Germany's small Jewish community,
diagnosed the remark as Germany's "latent anti-Semitism."
In the wake of all this, John Major came under increased pressure to intervene
in the row, while Helmut Kohl's government tried to play it down, though
admitting the words would ". . . make most Germans wince".
As far as we know, as of this date the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung -
Germany's equivalent to The Times - is holding its own and has refused to
apologize, claiming ". . . it was meant to be funny".
Writes one commentator overseas: "So, it is racist to call a Jew a
Jew. It is Fascist to call a Jew a Jew. It is okay to call a Frenchman a
Frenchman, and all the other races can be identified - but not the Jews.
I call this rampant racism."
What is our brave world coming to?
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Great are only the times that realize that they are part of the past."
(Quoted in "Die Entscheidung")