The Irving-Lipstadt Verdict fall-out has, among many other things, flushed to the surface a number of very good analysts and analyses as to what really played in this amazing drama - kind of like an undertow that comes at our enemies from nowhere. I came home from an errand and found a whole stack on my fax machine and many more in e-mail. Boy, has the front ever widened!
The essay below was sent to me by someone named Martin Webster who seems to have a lot of insight into what might have really played. He says he wrote this essay "for an American friend" - therefore, I take it that he is probably British and speaks of his own "neighborhood." I thought you would enjoy it.
Re: Irving Verdict.
You may have heard by now that David Irving has lost his libel action against Lipstadt and Penguine Books. I have not read even the summary of the judgement, let alone the full text, but media reports indicate that the Judge was scathing of Irving and appears to have accepted every aspect of the Defence case against him.
I am naturally disappointed by this result and, on account of my partisanship for the 'Historical Revisionist' cause, my initial reaction to it is to wonder whether the judge in this case (Gray) -- or any other High Court judge -- was up to the issue. Normally in England libel cases are decided by juries. This case was, by agreement of the parties, deemed to be too complex for a jury and so it was left to the judge sitting alone. Judge Gray was a top libel QC before going on the bench, but he was only promoted quite recently and so he has his judicial career to build.
The advancement of judges is by the recommendations of senior judges and, ultimately, by the Lord Chancellor who, though always a top lawyer himself, is a senior member of the government. The process of judges' career advancement is, therefore, achieved by patronage of the 'Establishment' and is by no means a transparent.
Though the issues of this particular case were about Irving -- his reputation, his integrity as a historian -- the backdrop were events in recent history which still have massive current and future political implications. Had Irving been given the verdict, even on the narrow specifics of the case, then an in-depth critical re-examination of the whole of the trend of British governmental policies from the 1930s onwards and the influence of international Zionism could have been pursued by scholars other than Irving. The playful claws of one naughty kitten can lead to the unravelling of the most expensive Kashmir cardigan. Obviously the Establishment would not willingly facilitate any such process, even in the sacred names of Justice, Fair Play and Free Speech.
Judge Gray would have been made aware of what the Establishment would (and would not) tolerate -- even if he did not know before! -- not so much from what he heard in his court, but from the fantastically partial coverage of the trial by the whole of the media in Britain. One Establishment historian, writing in the (Conrad Black owned) 'Sunday Telegraph' while the trial was still in progress actually proposed that for the case to go Irving's way would be a blow against everything that Britain had stood for in the 20th century -- a fair point -- and would, therefore, be a blow against British patriotism and an insult to those who died fighting to defend Britain against Hitler -- an outrageous assertion clearly designed to impose social and psychological pressure on the judge.
Was it appropriate to burden a newly-appointed judge with the responsibility to determine such a case? Was it reasonable to expect that a protector and upholder of the Established order (which is what a judge must be) would entertain giving a verdict against the system that had nurtured and groomed him, knowing that such a verdict would lead to him being demonised by the media, socially ostracised and his chances of further preferment reduced to zero? Would we expect the Daughters of the American Revolution to invite for tea a man who, they were assured on all sides, liked nothing more than than burning of the Stars and Stripes while cursing Motherhood and Apple Pie?
Going beyond these thoughts about the feasibility of somebody like Irving being able to turn to the Courts for a just and impartial hearing on issues which directly affect the security of the Establishment, one also has to bear in mind that Irving did provide some 'hooks' on which the Defence were able to hang their central assertion: that he had a personal political agenda and that he manipulates his source material in order to produce a falsified version of history to serve that agenda.
It seems that Irving's adventures abroad addressing ultra Right Wing rallies (especially in Germany) heavily compromised his case that he was a traduced academic historian. Had he not attended such meetings and stuck strictly to writing and publishing, then Lipstadt/Penguin might not have been able to concoct a defence to substantiate their defamations.
Most historians thoughout history can be shown to have had their personal agendas and biases. The Venerable Bede's 'history' of the Christianisation of England (full of "miracles" as extravagant and preposterous as anything encountered in 'Holocaust' mythology and designed to sanctify the Church's brutal persecution on Pagan folk), or Holinshed's "histories" (which served the Tudors in their robber-baron battle to become the royal house of England) are two examples. However, Bede, Holinshed and other 'biased' historians did not devalue their academic coinage by descent into the public political arena to seek the adulation of the crowd. Even had Irving won his case, I think that this aspect of his activities would have greatly reduced his ability secure damages.
One Defence witness said: " . . . during the 1980s, Irving treated West Germany as a playground . . . " in reference to his frequent appearances at rallies staged by 'Right Wing' political groups. This was at a time when his books were, just about, still being published by main-stream publishing companies, so it was not as if he was bereft of any medium to communicate his views. So it must have been sheer ego -- the joy of an accomplished orator strutting his stuff before an adoring crowd -- which prompted this galavanting. It may have been this same impulse which prompted Irving to think that he could, single-handedly, take on the combined might of the Zionist 'Holocaust' industry and the British legal, political, academic and media Establishment.
I hope for the sake of the Historical Revisionist cause and for the discomfiture of those Irving refers to as "The Traditional Enemies of Truth" that he is able to survive this great blow, to turn it to his own advantage. But if he does go down like Icarus, he will not be the first nor the last talented and brave man to fly too close to the flame of his own ego.
=====
Thought for the Day:
Mr. Irving was not judged by his peers, but condemned by his enemies who had already made up their minds. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that when a Judge . . . decides that one careless statement out of millions of thoughtful ones condemns a man as a 'racist' - then the fix is in.
Truth (revisionism) does have a defense- Time!
(Letter to the Zundelsite)