Tomorrow we will know about the outcome of the Irving/Lipstadt Trial. In my "Lebensraum!" newsletter to my supporters I summarized my feelings:
"Irving did better than most of us dared to hope. Did he ever wallop the enemy with marvelously quotable quotes, the best of which was the now globally famous "Chappaquiddick Quote". As I am writing this letter, the verdict on the Irving-Lipstadt trial is still out, and the guarded consensus is that it will take a judge of superhuman strength and absolute integrity to do what's right and not what is expected - but there is no doubt that a very big change in the media has occurred.
One of my cyber friends put it succinctly:
"One thing is certain. Pandora's box is now open and it won't be easy to close it down again."
A few days ago I "polled" some of my cyber friends about their feelings as to the outcome. I prefaced my query with this:
"I have followed the Irving trial - to the extent I had time - with something approaching awe. I would never have given Irving credit for so much staying power.
"And when I saw the media he could command, and the repetition in the media about the main points of Revisionism, I got more and more optimistic that something stunning might come out of this one.
"But last night all of a sudden I had a real anxiety attack, and I told myself:
"'It's one measly judge against the most powerful force on this earth... In other words, a human being with an achilles heel who will turn out to be a heel, given the odds in this set-up.'
"What is the feeling in this group on the outcome? Just curious."
Here are a handful of answers:
=====
Answer # 1: Exactly as you put it. My own feelings have gone the same way. I think it likely that Irving will win but not across the board.
I don't think he will be ruined (as apparently a clear defeat would imply) and he will at least live for the next round.
One thing is sure: if he wins *and* gets a large sum in the process, be prepared for general pandemonium to break out but not directly around Irving. Probably on some sort of diversionary front that will reinforce the "Holocaust" view according to its prophets.
=====
Answer # 2: I'm reminded of what Count Tolstoy said about the Brit Establishment closing ranks to protect its own following his loss to Lord Adlington.
Lipstadt is no Brit peeress, but the Holocaust is very much an Establishment myth -- that might require "a closing of the ranks" in order to protect. (...)
Over brandy and cigars, I can just hear one peer drawl aloud about how Gray had only just started his judgeship and "what a pity ... were you to abort a promising career by arrving at a 'mistaken' conclusion... More brandy?..."
Of course, as some have already said, Irving could be awarded a kind of an in-between verdict.
Somewhere in-between fretful and wishful, I find myself unable to decide what a final decision might be.
Meanwhile I understand Irving will give NO end-of-trial press conference, but that Lipstadt's team will host an extravaganza. What does that *portend* -- if anything? Irving loves the limelight, after all. And here he seems to be a bit like Studio 54's Steve Rubell whimsically keeping people milling around outside an empty disco.
An afterthought: I wonder if Irving's publicity machine via the Net with the serialized transcripts posted there would move the judge to exercise an even greater degree of evenhandedness that might NOT have been the case in pre-Net times?
=====
Answer # 3: I think that Lipstadt et al failed to show that Irving was "lying" or "insincere" in his work. That was critical to the defense.
The slander of "denier" in Lipstadt's definition includes a willingness to mislead and not simply to doubt the gas chambers etc. This is clear in her book when she announces that Buchanan is not a "denier." Why? Because he believes what he says about the diesels etc. Therefore, Mr. Irving does not. In this, Lipstadt and team have failed.
I think Irving however did not convince that his inability to get his books published was directly (attributable) to Lipstadt. Therefore although Lipstadt did libel Irving, the damages are inconclusive. The judge will not buy the widespread Jewish conspiracy angle that Irving shot for.
I believe therefore that the Judge will rule that Lipstadt did indeed libel Irving, thus Irving wins the case; however damages will be rewarded in a very very small amount.
=====
Answer # 4: Which is as it should be. Lipstadt is nothing more than an ignorant shill in a game that's far more sophisticated than she is.
=====
Answer # 5: I expect that Irving will be branded as an antisemite and a right wing extremist, but a sincere one.
Hence, on the one hand, Irving's career is shot, because now he can be called those names with impunity in the future.
On the other hand, Irving will not be classed as a Holocaust Denier (because the term is too slippery), and will be admitted as a historian.
Therefore, he will win on those points but he will remain a pariah because of the other label. He will not have to pay defense costs.
He will get some damages, but only minor. Lipstadt's book will be embargoed in Britain. The purpose of the press conference will be to argue that "it was worth it" in order to expose Irving's antisemitism.
"Antisemite" will become the new yellow star.
=====
Answer # 6: I can't see how he can win.
As others have said, the judge is a friend of the prosecuting barrister, but that is not likely to sway him. Barristers pride themselves on the battle, and judges on finding fine points of law - with no morality allowed to enter into the decisions they make.
But the Establishment pressure on the judge will be huge. And he has lived an Establishment life.
If Irving has been painted to him as repellant, and Lipstadt as a tragic innocent, I think he may well be swayed in her favour.
Strictly speaking, it should all be down to: was Irving defamed, and what level of damage did it do to him.
Whatever the verdict, the papers will be on the side of Lipstadt, and Irving will be slimed.
=====
So there you have it. We don't bet on horses at the Zundelsite, but it will be interesting to see whose horses' nose comes closest.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"At the end of the war there were 2 'holocaust survivors', now there's million$.
(Letter to the Zundelsite)