It's fun to say it over and over again: What a great time it is to be a Revisionist activist these days! Almost every day, we have the luxury of choosing from a hopper full of articles, Leuchter movie reviews, Irving interviews and trial coverage as well as post-Irving-trial, post-traumatic- stress syndrome suffered by our global opposition spilling its ink all over mainstream papers. The kids in the streets would say: "These people are all weirded out over this guy Irving!"
The following item, entitled "History" and dated April 21, 2000, in the Daily Telegraph summarizes nicely what people are saying and thinking:
Brooding in the case of David Irving, I found myself admiring (it is not yet illegal, I think, to say this) his prodigious self-confidence and his heroic folly. He must have known perfectly well from the outset that he could not win his case against such odds. It would have been to defy one of the most powerful contemporary taboos.
However villainous Irving may be, his villainy is not the issue here. The issue is the right of historians to examine and interpret all those innumerable events that have come to be known collectively as "the Holocaust" as freely as they would examine and interpret any other historical events; that is, the right of historians, including Irving, to carry out historical research and publish the results, without being tied to a foregone conclusion.
Moreover, however unacceptable Irving's opinions may be, it is a strange sort of country that can consign him to outer darkness while conferring the Order of Merit on another historian, the Marxist Eric Hobsbawn, an only partly and unwilling repentant apologist for the Soviet Union, a system of tyranny whose victims far outnumbered those of Nazi Germany.
* In its totality this little op ed piece in the Telegram says what scores of readers and followers of the Irving trial have said: What a political show trial this has been - and what unprecedented media fall-out and soul searching it has caused and will still generate for months and years to come!
* For the first time in this long revisionist struggle to get the truth out to the public, intelligent people are "brooding on the case of David Irving." In the case of Canada, where the vilification of Ernst Zundel, who started it all, was allowed to proceed for years while he was tried in other high profile show trials, convicted, and then judicially gagged and thus prevented from replying and defending himself, few people came to the fore in that country in the 1980s, admitting loudly they were "brooding" about the injustices that had taken place. The buckets of slime and the nasty labels being pinned on Irving now come a bit late in the game - the political "damage control" the enemy is engaged in is very transparent even to the casual observer.
* Also please note the "muttering under the breath" as in "It is not yet illegal . . . " to admire a dissident of Holocaustomania and say so forcefully. Irving has certainly stood his ground, much like a German "Landser" in the East in the early 1940s facing down the Red Army. People like gutsy guys. People miss them a lot on the contemporary scene.
* And there you have it - winning would have meant "defying the most powerful contemporary taboo." How much would it have cost to run an ad saying that? We cannot have that, heaven forbid! Imagine a main street British paper admitting after the Irving trial that to question the Holocaust, or at least the gas chambers in Auschwitz, was to tangle with "the biggest taboo"! Such are the perks of political trials, even if the people baring their breast to the beast get knocked down, as Irving was in this one.
* And how right the writer is: Irving's "villainy" was not the issue in this trial - what was, and is, at issue is the taboo. We are in a war for man's mind where the enemy's name is not supposed to leave our lips - and heaven help the one courageous soul who calls attention to the fact that there are indeed villains hiding behind all the scurrility, the distortions, and the outright lies. This writer for the Daily Telegraph said it well: Historians in free societies should not be tied to prescribed and foregone conclusions.
* And finally, the conclusion: ". . . conferring the Order of Merit on another historian, the Marxist Eric Hobsbawn." This, too, shows how the oligarchy and the system in place in the Western world works, and how the enemy is desperately shoring up its crumbling defense posts - by having to vilify and persecute the independent, iconoclastic, self-taught historian David Irving and ruining his career by judicially sanctioned smears - and elevate those who have lied for the mass-murderous Allies of "their" side with an "Order of Merit" - or in Elie Wiesel and Menachim Begin's place, with "Nobel Peace Prizes" no less.
Behind the so-called "Holocaust" stands the real Holocaust of millions and millions of Christians slaughtered in the most hideous, brutal ways - and those out of whose sickening brains sprang those genocidal plans to murder the elites in Russia and Eastern Europe via Stalin's hordes, and in the West by the Morgenthau Plan. More and more people are asking just who did away with both the builders of civilizations and their products in the most advanced, developed region this earth has ever seen.
I say the reckoning has started when main street papers like the Telegraph are starting to ask: "Hey, wait? Just who is getting our Orders of Merit - and why now?"
Ingrid
=====
Thought for the Day:
"The Holocaust is now hot history."
(Editorial in the Guardian, on Hitler's birthday, April 20, 2000 - and on the eve of their own libel trial)