In a letter received from France, a ZGram reader wrote:
"I'm amazed that not one revisionist I know seems to have noticed the very particular sentence written in the Times of London on January 12:
"What is at stake here is not the amour-propre of individuals with grossly inflated egos. ***Rather, it is whether one of the blackest chapters of 20th century history actually happened, or is a figment of politically motivated Jewry.*** (Emphasis added)
"Of course, that sentence doesn't bring anything new to us, but does anyone realize what it must mean to the ordinary man in the street, reading that in his bus or his tube (before) going to his office?
"That man has always believed in the Holocaust and, all of a sudden, the Times tells him it MIGHT not have happened? We often forget to put ourselves in the shoes of the ordinary man in the street.
"But, tell me, how is it that such a paper was able to write such words? It is incredible."
It ***is*** incredible!
Actually, a lot of people have noticed, but there has been such a deluge of media coverage of this trial that today, on Day 4, this sentence is almost old hat. The worldwide headlines have been stunning. It is now widely acknowledged - ***except in heavily censored Europe and particularly Germany*** and, apparently, to some extent in Australia (with the exception of England, of course) that this trial is highly significant - geopolitically!
From many quarters of the world have come almost palpable sighs of relief that there is finally a forum for Revisionism - and a spokesman who is a whiz with words. The relief people feel is akin to the day when the Berlin Wall fell and people realized that there was FREEDOM on the other side! I am printing out reams of responses reflecting this feeling. Reader reaction to the Irving Trial is pouring in from many quarters of the globe, and Irving himself is firing off magnificent one-liners and paragraphs - one more memorable than the next!
Who will ever forget when he told the court that ". . . more women died in Ted Kennedy's car than in gas chambers . . . "? That, folks, is ***history***!
Here is a widely quoted excerpt from the trial:
"Was it six million who died in one of the blackest chapters of 20th-century history? A lot of the numbers are very suspect," the historian said.
The judge put it to (Irving): "It's said against you that you tried to blame what was done against the Jews by the Third Reich on Jews themselves."
Mr Irving replied: "I have said on a number of occasions that if I was a Jew, I would be far more concerned not at who pulled the trigger, but why. Anti-Semitism is a recurring malaise in society. There must be some reason why anti-Semitic groups break out like some kind of epidemic."
Or these paragraphs that appeared verbatim in many papers:
(Irving) reaffirmed comments he made in Canada in 1991 when he claimed that the gassing of millions of Jews was "just a legend."
Irving said he found the word "Holocaust" to be "misleading and unhelpful. It's too vague, imprecise, and unscientific and should be avoided like the plague."
Or, as quoted in Irish Times/World News in an article by Rachel Donnelly, dated today:
"Mr Irving said that the phrase 'Holocaust denier' had become 'one of the most potent phrases in the arsenal of insult'.
"'The word 'denier' is particularly evil: because no person in full command of his mental faculties, and with even the slightest understanding of what happened in World War Two, can deny that the tragedy actually happened, however much we dissident historians may wish to quibble about the means, the scale, the dates and other minutiae.'
"He continued: 'Yet, meaningless though it is, the phrase has become a part of the English language. It is a poison to which there is virtually no antidote, less lethal than a hypodermic with nerve gas jabbed in the neck, but deadly all the same: for the chosen victim, it is like being called a wife-beater or a paedophile."
In uk.legal, a newsgroup, we read this, which sums it up as well as anything:
"The case is likely to put the Holocaust itself on trial. Is Irving right when he says there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, there was no Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews and the figure of 6 million Jewish dead is wrong? ***The answers to these questions will have far-reaching consequences for history and politics worldwide.*** (Emphasis added)
Here is a ZGram reader letter reflective of the tone of many:
I am really surprised at just how much media coverage there has already been! My guess was that they'd offer an outline of the situation and leave it at that, believing the majority was more or less disinterested in the minutiae of the arguments and thus accepting of the story as it is commonly understood. I just can't work out what the media is up to. Why is it acting (apparently) so much out of character? Is there a plan?
My guess is that those who control the media are giving the trial enough coverage to allow them to use that exposure as a base from which to launch a major media blitz - should their side prevail. Under those circumstances they, no doubt, will start a campaign to explain the meaning of the trial as seen through the eyes of their paid propagandists.
The outcome will be heralded as conclusive evidence that Irving, a leader among those who question the holocaust, was proven in court to have manipulated and consciously misrepresented that part of history. Under those circumstances, this will remain an argument that will be recycled endlessly to address and rebut revisionist issues.
Should Irving prevail, today's coverage will be the platform from which to explain that the outcome of the trial had nothing to do with proving the revisionist's case, but was only indicative of the deficiency of British libel laws.
Nothing gained, nothing lost.
Doesn't it all hinge on whether the enemies of free speech anticipated this trial or not? Did Miss Lipstadt attempt to goad David Irving into this action or did she and her publishers really misunderstand British Libel Law?
I honestly believe that the publisher did not expect Irving to sue. Sometimes we revisionists overlook the fact that many individuals in the other camp are not hypocrites, but victims of their own propaganda and blinders.
I would wager that some key players on the other side actually believe that if push comes to shove, Irving can easily be discredited in court. In Ms. Lipstadt's case, she may very well have thought Irving would not dare take her to court - knowing that he would have to battle what appears to be the omnipotent international Jewish Holocaust industry and risk losing what little reputation they have not yet destroyed with the mainstream.
What can we expect of this trial? At this point, everything is possible. Before it is out, there will be some surprises. We are all overjoyed, but let us not forget that there's no easy victory - no Big Bang will create a brand new universe:
Here is Jim Floyd's astute observation - that, in the end, it will be the people who will change this unholy Holocaust mess:
". . . the mothers and fathers whose little girls come home crying because the school showed them a horrific film of fifty-year-old cadavers. Who will change it? The hundreds of thousands of foot soldier, out there, who by their own intellect and devotion to truth go about their own neighborhoods and churches telling the truth and making it believable by the weight of their good reputations and personalities. . . it will be the plumbers, shade tree auto mechanics and encyclopedia sellers. It will be those old, untrained, unprofessional journalists, scribbling on the Internet who will change things. Those unsung heroes of this cause who read 700 page books and then run up ungodly phone bills passing the word around the world."
And Michael Hoffman's cautionary words:
It can't all be back-slapping and boosterism. Sometimes our people need to face the reality which their own choices have created. There is just too much emphasis on a magic bullet breakthrough that will save us all. Nonsense! Trials and movies alone can never do it. ***We are fighting institutions which have bored into the life of the nation and the body politic.*** (Emphasis added)
They can wait out any single damaging series of revelations and then just turn up the sound and image of their perpetual propagation machine. The Wiesenthal Center has a $500 million endowment. Morris Dees has at least $111 million. We can only fight that by slowly building our own infrastructure and institutions, however small initially. . . "
I appeal to all of you out there in cyberspace: Please do your part. Get with the times and the program. Get into the newsgroups and chat room and make your presence known. Make known Irving's websites and other Revisionist websites. Remember David in the biblical tale - instead of putting a rock in your slingshot, just click your mouse and get going!
Ingrid
=====
Thought for the Day:
"When history comes calling, one better be ready!"
(Bismarck, Germany's "Iron Chancellor")
Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 2000 ZGrams