In 1997, David Irving wrote a disrespectful passage about you-know-who in his Radical's Diary:
"They clammer 'Ours! Ours! Ours!' when hoards of gold are uncovered. And then when anti-Semitism increases and the inevitable mindless pogroms occur, they ask with genuine surprise 'Why us?' "
That passage was quoted in court. It came, apparently, from the official monthly diary that Irving supporters receive. There's also a private diary which he, apparently, didn't have to turn over to the lawyers for the defence - but did!
Now it turns out, according to one Michael Horsness who penned an article for one of the British dailies, that Irving has "poisoned his daughter's mind with racism." How? With a ditty - that's how!
But first things first:
A November 8, 1998 video was used against Irving in court. In it, he speaks to famed documentary film maker, Errol Morris - he of the Leuchter film! - ". . . in which (Irving, according to Horsness) analysed anti-Semitism and suggested that money lay at its root."
Writes Horsness:
"The historian, who has denied that Jews were exterminated in the concentration camp gas chambers during the Second World War, said that the Jewish community had only to be called liars for their accusers to be thrown into jail.
"He said: 'The question which would concern me, if I was a Jew, is not who pulled the trigger, but why? Why are we disliked? Is it something we are doing?'
(Irving, still speaking to Morris):
"You people are disliked on a global scale. You have been disliked for 3,000 years and yet you never seem to ask what is at the root of this dislike . . . no sooner do you arrive as a people in a new country, then within 50 years you are already being disliked all over again.
"Now, what is it? And I don't know the answer to this. Is it built into our microchip?"
(Still quoting Horsnell):
"(Irving) questioned whether it could be because non-Jews did not like the way they looked or whether it was down to envy because they were more successful."
(Irving, adopting the royal "we" while speaking to Morris):
"It was not just a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' dislike but on a 'visceral, guts-wrenching, murderous level, that no sooner do we arrive than we are being massacred, and beaten, and brutalised and imprisoned, until we have to move on somewhere else." He added: "I would say that they're a clever race. I would say that as a race they are better at making money than I am. That's a racist remark, of course. But they appear to be better at making money than I am. If I was going to be crude, I would say not only are they better at making money, but they are greedy."
Asked about such remarks by Mr Rampton (attorney for the defense), Mr Irving said: "In my own clumsy way I am trying to find out why we don't like them. It's a very coherent expression of the antiSemitic tragedy. I am putting myself in the skin of a person asking questions about a clever people."
Whereupon Mr Rampton, for the defence, put this question:
"Every time there is a pogrom or gassing or machinegunning into a pit it's entirely the Jews' fault because some of them are very good at playing the piano and making money?"
Mr Irving: "That's a childish over-simplification. . . I am not a racist. I haven't seen a single coloured person on your team behind you."
Questioned why he had said in a Florida speech that he found the Holocaust story "boring", Mr Irving said:
"I think 95 per cent of the thinking public find the Holocaust boring by now but don't say it because it's politically incorrect. What other expression is there for the fact that it's all the Jews go on about now? There have been the most incredible episodes in Jewish history but all you hear of in films and so on of late is the Holocaust."
(end of Horsnell excerpt)
One of our cyber warriors summed it up:
I would like to know how people see the trial going. Understand that there are at least three things going on:
#1 First is the libels proper, I think Irving is cleaning up here because in fact most of the libels are uncontested.
#2 Second is the attempted public disgrace of Irving. I think Irving may be losing here -- in terms of a battle of public opinion -- because of his tendency to speak unguardedly.
#3 Third is the Holocaust aspect of the trial. In my opinion, Irving has kicked ass here, and particularly on Van Pelt. (I was very surprised at how tentative and even unprepared Pelt appears.)
The "public disgrace" item, # 2, as reported by Michael Horsnell in the article mentioned above, it turns out to be a "ditty" in his ***private*** diary. Titled "Diary reveals Irving's ode to Aryans," we find out that Mr Irving
". . . took his baby daughter Jessica out for a walk near their home in London. According to the diary, he had been singing her a ditty beginning "My name is Baby Jessica" when "half-breed" children were wheeled past them in their prams, and he changed the words to something more "scurrilous" which began: "I am a Baby Aryan."
Here's Irving's "ditty" that's being used to shore up Professor Lipstadt's defence and prove that David Irving's chest contains a pitch black heart:
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry
an Ape or Rastafarian.
As one of my friends recently put it: ". . . as the world churns."
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"A little madness in the spring]
is welcome even for a king."
(Emily Dickinson)