If you have access to PBS TV check out the showing of "Holocaust on Trial". PBS describes it as follows:
"On January 11, 2000, a trial opened in London's High Court that would prove to be a crucial test of Holocaust 'deniers.' British author David Irving brought a libel action against Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. In her book, Lipstadt characterized Irving as a 'Hitler partisan' who manipulated the historical record to deny the reality of the Holocaust.
In seeking damages, Irving claimed that her book destroyed his reputation. Interwoven with dramatized sequences that re-create the courtroom testimony and arguments are documentary segments that explore evidence with the aid of historians Hugh Trevor-Roper and Robert Harris, and Auschwitz authority Robert Jan van Pelt, among others."
Schedule:
Oct. 31 9 PM EST (6 PM PST)
Nov. 1 2 AM EST (11 PM PST)
" " 5 AM EST (2 AM PST)
Ref: http://www.pbs.org/whatson/schedulex/calendar.html
Be sure to watch it with the MacKenzie Paine essay, titled "Hang the Revisionists" as backdrop below. And be sure to send me your feedback.
Hang the Revisionists!
The most common attacks on "Holocaust" Revisionists are that they are "flat-earthers" or that their arguments are as insane as someone denying that slavery existed in America.
These arguments are quite instructive, actually, and even somewhat accurate, but they are aimed at the wrong people. Where would we be today if the radical few theorists who, in the context of their times, believed that the world is round had been condemned, financially ruined, imprisoned and their treatises had been banned and burned by a status-quo majority that believed the world is flat?
Where would we be today if a radical few who, in the context of their times, espoused equality for all and decried the sin of human bondage had been condemned, financially ruined, imprisoned and their treatises had been banned and burned by a status-quo majority of slave owners?
Today we have a radical few who are challenging the accuracy of the WWII historical record, researching, publishing their findings and welcoming debate. . .and they are being condemned, financially ruined, imprisoned and their treatises are being banned and burned by a status-quo majority that would rather deny intellectual freedom than defend its own position.
Did the monstrous Germans electrocute, steam, boil, roast and burn Jews alive - or didn't they? Men were hung from the neck until dead based on these allegations which have now been quietly dismissed as rumors.
Did the monstrous Germans make soap, lampshades, riding breeches and ladies purses out of Jewish corpses - or didn't they? Men were hung from the neck until dead based on these allegations which have now been quietly dismissed as rumors.
Did the monstrous Germans manufacture mattresses stuffed with human hair - or didn't they? Did the monstrous Germans throw babies into the air and bayonet them - or didn't they? Did the monstrous Germans kill Jews with portable "brain-bashing" machines - or didn't they? Did the monstrous Germans vaporize Jews with a secret atomic weapon - or didn't they?
All of these charges, plus thousands more, were submitted at the "war crimes trials." The charges were based solely on "eye witness" testimony and were "true". Now they are not true.
We condemned men to death based on what turned out to be monstrous lies - and yet it is "insensitive" for Revisionists to ask if there were any other claims made that were true then, which are not true now.
In 1946 German publisher and political cartoonist, Julius Streicher, was hung from the neck until dead for publishing his opinions. That was his only "crime." Is that where we are going with all of this? Is this going to be our stance on intellectual freedom?
If so, and if this stance is so justified, then why be namby-pamby? Don't just starve them out! If Revisionists are such a threat to humanity, to national security, to truth and memory, to racial integration, to the ideals of a free people, then why not eliminate them? We didn't have any ethical or moral qualms with hanging men from the neck until dead during the "war crimes trials." Why should we shirk our duties now?
Build the scaffolds, root out the "radical few" Revisionists, forget due process (ala "war crimes trials"), don't bother with defense witnesses (ala "war crimes trials"), ignore the evidence, dismiss the truth, deny any defense and hang them all from the neck until dead.
If this solution disturbs you, as it should if you have any human decency, don't stick with the status-quo majority because you're forbidden to do otherwise. Exercise your intellectual freedom to investigate at least this one historical issue for yourself. There are no secrets. The trial transcripts are a matter of public record, as are press releases issued during the trials. There are numerous analysis of the illegalities of the trials, including the physical and psychological torture of the defendants.
Admittedly, you probably won't find any of this information in your public library or neighborhood bookstore, specifically because these materials are considered "insensitive" to certain people. However, the Internet is still (so far) open to civil discourse and intellectual freedom.
Only bigots refuse to allow the other side of a story to be told. Only bigots deny intellectual freedom for those who disagree with them.
=====
Thought for the Day:
"Where'er we tread 'tis haunted, holy ground."
(Lord Byron)
Back to Table of Contents of the Oct. 2000 ZGrams