January 22, 1998

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Such amazing distortions and bizarre applications of so-called Human Rights protection are taking place these days that one can only marvel at the inventiveness of those who benefit from shibboleths.

Somewhere I read that "hate" is now being re-defined. Not only are you not allowed to "hate" identifiable minorities in any way, shape or form unless they are Revisionists - folks who are very easily identifiable - but you can't "hate" the rich!

If you live in Toronto, and your name is Ernst Zundel, you cannot get a meeting with the Mayor's Commission on Race and Community Relations to explain your point of view on history, mislabeled "hate", before said Committee will rat you out to the Human Rights Commission, but if you live in San Francisco and are engaged in things like sado-masochism, you can get a hearing in no time. A Human Rights Commission will hear you out serenely.

Here's what I picked up from one of the "fight censorship" posts:

"Practitioners of consensual S&M are seeking protection against
discrimination from the San Francisco Human Rights Commission.

"It's not fair, said a spokesman, that leather people are always
asked to march toward the end in the annual gay parade . . . here's another frontier for the ACLU!"

According to a San Francisco Chronicle article that ran in yesterday's issue, titled "S&M Activists Beaten Down By Stereotypes," a gent named Steve Rubenstein reports on a meeting where a Human Rights Commission was told that "discrimination" of people who whip each other, clamp clothespins on each other's nipples, and stick each other with needles is just plain wrong.

Here I quote briefly:

"The leather community had been invited to present what was billed as 'Leather 101'' -- an overview of issues and gripes among the whips-and-chains set.

The hearing was most civilized. Each speaker got five minutes.

The person testifying about bondage tables got five minutes. The person testifying about dominatrixes got five minutes. The person testifying about bears and otters got five minutes."

'Leather people', as they are called, complain that they face 'discrimination' even in the mainstream gay community."

Such poor dears. At such times, I am close to despair.

And that is not all - and sometimes things are even comical. I just read through a letter from Brazil, where there is a law that protects people being called liars. You have to paraphrase the word and call it something else - like "having spoken an untruth."

One of the feistier Revisionists, a fellow named Castan, did call a fellow named Ben Abraham a liar - and was promptly hauled before a court, found guilty of having sinned against the human spirit, and fined US$20,000. I am not kidding you.

Our enterprising Revisionist friend promptly turned around and sued Ben Abraham, not for being a liar, but for having lied - by having called Castan a "Nazi", a "Racist", and an "Antisemite."

How did that come about? Well, it turns out this Senhor Abraham had written in a Jewish paper that our friend, Castan, was financed with the gold that had been stolen from the Jews - and had used those three words.

Three words x $20,000 netted Castan a judgment of $60,000 - a princely sum, now being appealed by Senhor Abraham.

Imagine the money we are going to collect one of these days from our worthy friends at Nizkor!

But jokes aside: How did we ever get in such a mess? One reader has the answer, at least for our continent:

"High percentages of adult Americans are functionally illiterate and can't find the U.S. on a world map. So it's not too hard to divert their attention and sell them on dumb ideas.

To a generation fixated on TV, the media spin-meisters have sold the impression that if you can't SEE the killing and robbing, it must not be happening.

That's why Charles Manson seems like a more prolific murderer than Norman Schwarzkopf, and why the storefront-looting L.A. rioters appear to be bigger thieves than investment bankers.

Semantics are deadly.

Any government's definition of crime must by necessity exclude its own actions. Officially sanctioned killing is never counted as murder. Taxation isn't called robbery.

Even if the government murders a quarter-million foreigners in the name of cheap oil, this somehow isn't 'terrorism.'

It seems as if the mainstream defines terrorism as '. . . any politically motivated murder that isn't excused with a law book.'

If one were to start actually COUNTING stolen money and murdered bodies, things would look much worse for the establishment than for the so-called extremists."

(with credits to Matt Giwer)

Why am I telling you all this? As I hope you will remember, the ADL has labeled me an "internet extremist" for what I say and write - and what I say and write is that a human being called Ernst Zundel - whom people have been taught to hate in Canada for not a single thing that he has ever done to hurt another human being except to call a crook a crook, and many crooks an industry - needs to be listened to with courtesy, civility and due regard for what he has to say based on a lifetime of hard study.

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

"Those who want to mitigate Israel's crimes find the Holocaust serviceable."

(Norman Finkelstein, Author of "A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth")

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 1998 ZGrams