December 29, 1997

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

A couple of days ago, I wrote about the Le Pen situation whereby an official political leader was taken to the woodshed for having violated this century's strictest political taboo. (Le Pen had called the Holocaust a "mere footnote in history. . . " and had refused to genuflect, even though he had been punished previously for the same irreverent phrase).

A number of thoughtful letters were sent in as a response, and I might run a few. Here is a representative sample:

"You know, the really bizarre thing about Le Pen ( which has a parallel in the application of "denier" to anyone suspected of insufficiently sincere genuflection in the presence of the Great H) is that what he said is literally true.

The entire concentration camp subject, whatever happened there, wouldn't get a page in a thousand page history of the war. Or at least it hasn't yet, though that's probably changing.

Yet the courts convicted him of the crime of "denying crimes against humanity."

He didn't say anything like that. He made a statement of truth that only a paranoid could view as even disrespectful.

On the one hand, Zionist activist groups around the world press the case for universal world guilt because no one did anything about their plight (including themselves and the Zionists) in WWII. Le Pen adds a simple corollary to that by noting that it's not a big deal in WWII history books, and he is deemed to have attacked a story which doesn't even enter into what he said.

One thing that's been true since the end of WWII is that mainstream academics have stayed away from the Holocaust story, probably because they saw early that they were not welcome there, and realized that professional interpretation of what they saw was going to go down like barbecued pig at a mitzvah. That's prolonged the life of the now much bloated myth, but one could always hold out hope that one day honest and capable people would begin to examine the issue and see the truth of it, assuming that all the important archival materials hadn't been destroyed or altered by then.

But with this kind of thing playing out publicly, how do you suppose writers of future histories of the period will take the message?

"Boy, you best put in a couple chapters on the camps and a mournful picture of (Elie) Wiesel on the dust jacket if you ever want to work in this town again, maybe even start playing it up as the central reason why the war was fought."

Which in a terribly ironic way is the truth. For references, they can use some of the 30,000 odd purely derivative, grossly embellished derivative pulp fictions that flood out of publisher's pipes like a suddenly loosened sewer blockage each time Israel decides to get a few miles closer to Eretz, or turn a few thousand Arabs into a sudden non-issue.

This could be straight out of 1984!

The words he said were recorded, they did not say what the court claims, any person with a sixth grade education can tell that, and yet no one protests, no stories are written about the turning of language on its head!

Shades of Alice in Wonderland without the benefit of Carroll's stimulants. Le Pen said black, the court says he said white, and that's it.

One would expect professional reporters and news commentators to at least make a neutral observation of this literal verbal fact if they don't have the guts to point out that the judiciary is simply bowing to pressures to "get" him - a newsworthy occurrence wherever it happens and to whomever.

But you hear only the certified version of it, like a damned Russian submission of some commissar's vicious imagination to the Nuremberg court as True Lies, because we certified. The world had to eat that as truth by dent of a miserable treaty, but we have to eat it now because no one has the balls to spit such filth back at the source delivering it up.

The reason for the glaring logical omission on the part of the news sheep and others is that they would face personal attack and possible loss not just of job, but of the ability to work in the field if they told the simple truth without bias. The "terrible power of our purse" as Herzl so elegantly and accurately put it.

Does thought control get any worse than this?

Well it does in one sense, they could start killing people for violating the litany, as was put into law in Russia (wonder if it was ever enforced?), but what I'm saying is when it becomes a crime to utter an inarguable verbal truth, something is very wrong with the system.

One thing I had counted on for decades was that it would never get this bad because as sick and devious as the small group of core Zionists could be, they would reach a point at which the tough-minded Jewish ideals of fair play and insistence on intellectual freedom, held by the majority, which served to liberate them from rabbinical tyranny in Eastern Europe and gentile tyranny in other locations, would say:

"No. No more! We do not have to do that, and we will not operate on that level any longer. There is no clear and present danger to warrant living a skein of lies, this is oppression and we'll have none of it."

Well, I'm waiting for that protest of conscience and not hearing a damned thing. I'm beginning to get just a faint edge of the hopelessness that a few bewildered concentration camp common laborers must have felt as they sat there in the dock listening to astounding fantasies being spun into rope to hang them.

This is not just wrong. It's goddamned evil. My "live and let live" credo is being severely strained.

Surely the bulk of people, at least in this country, won't tolerate much more of this. Surely?

David Thomas.

Thought for the Day:

"I guess we are non-persons. When was the last time that
anyone applied the "behavior reasonably likely, in all the
circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another
person or group of people" to the insulting, humiliating and
intimidating tactics of the Holohuggers?"

(Letter to the Zundelsite)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the Dec. 1997 ZGrams