This is a follow-up on yesterday's ZGram, especially the questions put out for reply by a British Revisionist who wrote the questions. In today's ZGram, another Revisionist, this one from Portugal, supplied his impression:
Question:
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.
Answer:
So far he has scored way ahead of the opposition, but... don't forget this will turn out to be a "Holocaust" trial in the end. I think his underdog image and "patriotic" appeal are both assets.
Question:
#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.
Answer:
Public opinion should be the least of his concerns for now. No one is taking polls and there is no jury. It's the *judge's* opinion that is crucial. In fact Irving-bashing on the part of the media may even contribute to make him look all the more unjustly victimized in the eyes of the judge, who sounds amazingly fair for an uninfornmed (we assume...) person. Irving should exploit this in court whenever possible, as indeed he seems to have been doing. I think Irving has been doing very well on this account too.
Question:
#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.) But I want to know how others feel. I need someone really trying to be objective. I am trying, but I don't trust myself.
Answer:
I've been impressed by the depth of Irving's information & resources as an amateur lawyer, and above all by his very wise "Faurissonian" strategy: "no holes, no "Holocaust" (even though he says simply "gas chambers") and "no stories please". This is indeed the only possible road to victory. It's the "show me the holes" attitude that will bring down the myth -- if anything will.
But I'm not unduly optimistic; I see thousands of unjustifiable a-b-s-u-r-d beliefs all around me and this particular set has all the advantages to survive for a long, long time. Let's simply hope we manage to put it into the *religious* box where it belongs, which amounts to not allow the revisionist approach to go under, in historical terms.
This is like a guerilla war; they will never win if we simply manage not to lose and keep growing instead. But it may well take a few centuries. Faurisson is right on this account too, in my opinion. We may be in the position of Celsus, when he wrote his "Against the Christians" or of Emperor Julian the Apostate. Battles may still be lost and won for a long time.
Irving manages very well, as a "lawyer". I think the British courtroom rules & style favour his approach enormously. If this was going on among those constant "objection" shouting matches in American "technicalities" style he would certainly be much worse off.
His giving up ground on *some* of the holo-claims is acceptable provided he clings to the "no gas chambers" line. He has to give some ground if he wants to retain the possibility of winning.
A victory would be an important landmark and precedent, even with a few concessions that do not vinculate other revisionist investigators in the least. But, as I said, don't forget this is really a "Holocaust" trial, not a normal courtroom litigation. Everything and more can happen...
=====
Thought for the Day:
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
(--Samuel Adams)