We are still puzzled about what is happening with mainstream media. A few days ago, in inch-size letters, the London Times proclaimed: "Irving says Holocaust 'logistically impossible" - and then, to put the icing on the cake, smack in the middle of that article, you see a prominently placed Irving quote that says:
"If I was a Jew, I would be far more concerned not at who pulled the trigger, but why."
It is these memorable one-liners porominently displayed in mainstream media coverage that those of us who struggled for so many years for the tiniest smidgen of Revisionist coverage feel is now raining down on this parched, truth-starved globe like the proverbial manna from heaven. What's happening? And why are there breaks in the censorship dikes in England, America, Austria and other countries - but not a word of the trial in France, Germany or elsewhere?
From Australia I have had notice that just one tiny, insignificant article appeared, downplaying the significance of the Irving trial. And from France came this a few hours ago:
Thank you for quoting that extraordinary sentence of the "Times". The reason why I believe that it is an essential sentence is that it is a sentence written BY THE PAPER, and not a sentence reflecting Irving's words!
Do you know that, just as I am writing those lines, there has not been ONE line in French newspapers about Irving's trial? Not one word in "Le Monde", not one word in "Le Figaro", not one word in "Libération"!!!!
If all those stunning titles in British and American papers were the results of a plan, surely they would have been published in French papers too, don't you think so?"
Yes, we do. And it surely feels as though the once so solid and uniform-in-content "Holocaust" coverage is wildly spinning out of control - with important press organs like the major British papers jumping ship and lifting the hitherto monolithic paper curtain of political correctness.
There was an article, for instance, in Profil, an Austrian publication that used to be as poisonous as could be in days long gone in interviews with Ernst Zundel about the same topic. Now it ran a short excerpt of an Irving interview in German that strikes you as anything but hostile - in fact, it reads tongue-in-cheek:
Profil Vienna, Austria, Friday, January 14, 2000 Profil (Robert T Reichler) interviews David Irving.
Profil:
Why aren't you represented by counsel in this matter?
Irving:
Mostly because of financial reasons. Besides, I know the history better than attorneys. But I would like to make one thing clear: this trial is not about what happened in Auschwitz 50 years ago, but what I did in my office in the last 32 years. I am accused by Ms. Lipstadt of falsifying and manipulating documents as a historian.
Profil:
But in the eyes of the public is not the question: Is David Irving a
holocaust denier or not?
Irving:
The concept "holocaust-denier" is a verbal yellow star which is pasted on someone and causes one to be finished as a historian.
Profil:
What is your position on the holocaust?
Irving:
That depends on how you define the word holocaust.
Profil:
What, according to your opinion, took place?
Irving:
Executions by shooting on the eastern front, for example.
Profil:
How about the gas chambers?
Irving:
That's a problem. But even if you believed what I would tell you, you would not be allowed to put it in print. In Germany, at least, this is a crime. It's an officially protected lie.
Profil:
How about the survivors who give witness to what they have seen?
Irving:
Unfortunately many of them are lying.
Profil:
You have stated to the court that you're not an expert on the holocaust.
Irving:
Yes, but I had to concern myself with the topic because of the attacks on me. And I have experts standing by my side as well.
Profil:
What, according to your opinion, is the holocaust?
Irving:
It had many faces. Jews died of all possible causes. They were shot, they died of typhus, they were worked to death in labor camps. That's my definition of the holocaust. Only one thing I can't admit to you, I'm sorry: The gas chambers, they are a legend.
Profil:
Let me ask the essential question once again: According to your opinion, was there a systematic mass murder of Jews in camps specifically built for that purpose?
Irving:
Strike "systematic." That implies everything worked smoothly. That's not the way it was; it was chaos. In Birkenau only a small amount of killing took place, but a lot of dying, particularly in 1942 when typhus broke out.
Profil:
Clearly stated this means: If the holocaust is defined as the systematic destruction of Jews in death camps, then you're a holocaust denier.
Irving:
I won't answer that. You print this in "Profil" and the defense will use it against me. That's the kind of thing they are waiting for.
Profil:
You are quoted with the following statement: "More women died in the backseat of Edward Kennedy's car in Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers of Auschwitz." Do you deny the authenticity of this quote?
Irving:
No. That's one of my favorite sentences, designed to be in bad taste. That is terrible, don't you think? Unless, of course, it is true! In that case, it is not tasteless at all. No one was murdered in Auschwitz in a gas chamber. I can sense the waves of hatred coming from your direction now.
Profil:
Do you describe yourself as an admirer of Hitler?
Irving:
I admire the Austrians.
=====
Thought for the Day:
"Nothing can come of an artist that is not in the man ..."
(H. L. Mencken)