00 02 20
It seems to me that a conclusion can be drawn from
the Irving vs Lipstadt verdict: bowing to the abstract "Holocaust"
vacuum as a necessary pro-forma ceremonial before any criticism
of its tenets doesn't pay.
Either one ignores the cliché altogether and therefore
neither confirms nor denies one's position as a "H denier"
on the grounds that there is nothing sufficiently explicit in
the concept to be affirmed or denied (this was more or less Irving's
*implicit* position but not sufficiently repeated during the trial
or outside of it, since he was trying to fight the "dogma
denier" murderous label) or one simply assumes the position
of "denier" in the sense that the "Holocaust"
is a set of sufficiently falsifiable propositions. It doesn't
pay to walk the middle "definitions" ground and this
is the part that constitutes little surprise to me.
Nevertheless I must say I expected a partial vindication of Irving's
position since clear instances of libel existed. I was impressed
by his courtroom performance and his mastery of the subjects under
examination. I was therefore dumbfounded to see the truly amazing
extent to which one side doesn't even need to speak any more to
have practically everybody -- judges, politicians, historians,
media opinion-makers -- intellectually capitulating and crawling
on all fours before the Dogma of the 20th Century and its blindingly
mediocre and ignorant proponents.
Something is terribly wrong here and this is much more worrying than any overblown estimates of Jewish power in contemporary non-Jewish societies, for the symptom is not the disease. What we have is not "Jewish power", but the power of stupidity, ignorance and the good life over integrity and the desire to know more and in better ways. Jews in general -- and I don't mean the Jewish professional charlatans that know very well what they are doing to their own people for the sake of a few more shekels in their purses -- are as much the victims as anybody else.
In any case, you'll notice that we are back to scholastic discussions of the religious type and this is not by accident. The "Holocaust" debate nowadays is the equivalent of proclaiming oneself an agnostic on the grounds that the concept of "God" like the concept of "Dwjwlrkjf" is not sufficiently clear to be discussed in an exclusively logical way; or claiming one is an atheist on the grounds, say, that a gaseous mammal is not conceivable as an igneous talking vegetable in the world of our experience, where things like virgin human births and beanstalks that reach the sky and gas chambers with roof-holes that simultaneously exist and don't exist, are factually *false* (an everyday irreligious concept that means the opposite of *true*).
It's already a fully fledged new religion, no more, no less. And although it benefits the group that actively -- but not solely -- contributed the most to it, its perverse appeal extends to many outside the Jewish fold, just like early Christianity progressively outreached the circle of its original Jewish inventors and reached the heart of so many unfortunate slaves and haters of free philosophical inquiry. Let's face it: good Christians still love to crawl at someone's feet and good Christians deserve what they get at the hands of good Jews. It's their way to happiness. It's not fair to make the Jews guilty of *this* particular crime. They are quite right when they claim the "Holocaust" is now part of the human heritage and not an exclusively Jewish hoax for power and money.
By all means fight the "Holocaust" religion and its followers of every nominal creed and nationality, including Jewish sham-foundations still drilling the ridiculous mountain of golden teeth, British judges that put their unashamed faith in judicial circuses such as Nuremberg or Frankfurt, German and French halfwit imbeciles empowered as lawmakers, Polish popes trembling on their feet, American preachers and show-bizz politicians, Muslim "realists" even if they are Palestinians doing their best to call your attention to their unhappy lot, and all who proclaim the "Holocaust" dogma from their many different pulpits in any way you think worthwhile. A plague on all of them.
But don't fight the "Holocaust" as if it was something else. It's an ecumenical phenomenon, and no longer the vanguard of any particular highway-robber gang with a single-minded purpose. Irving's expression "the traditional enemies of freedom" may be a good counter-propaganda formula to the "Holocaust" amoeba-like monster we are forbidden to pin down. And, unlike their Big H weapon, it's not unfair, it's not addressed to individual innocent people, it doesn't need the ritual sacrifice of inarticulate old men and it's unmistakable in context. We know what we are talking about. At least I do.
*Mankind* -- not Jewry -- is "the traditional enemy of freedom". Freedom is a lonely divinity and individual eccentrics are its only friends. As long as you understand this, as I hope Irving will in spite of all, not everything will be lost. And, of course, the historical psycho-drama can be an amusing spectacle in spite of its many tragedies, great and small.
I'm very sorry for Irving. I appreciate his courage and aplomb and his brave stand in the face of adversity and truly scandalous conspiratorial persecution. I hope he will find ways out of his continued predicament as well as the health, the financial help and the mental strength to continue the good fight. And I hope his small daughter will live happy in a happier world. We need more people like him, but we also need more Rassiniers and Faurissons above all else. Also more Zundels: politics is an entirely secondary matter in the present context; we are talking about *religion*, not politics. And politics is child's play compared to empowered religion. If you have what they call a Nazi party in your neighbourhood, vote Nazi. I'm sorry, I won't because I never vote; but if you feel like winning the accolades of your local masters for doing your "civic duties", vote in a way that will show those despicable characters that run our societies exactly what you think of *them*.
You can fight the Nazis later on if the need arises. Most probably it won't, because the Nazi menace in our present context is nothing more than a ridiculous bogeyman to condition our mind. That's why we still get -- after more than half a century! -- one daily "Hate Hitler" hour on every channel, with the same old images of a silly man making wildly accelerated soundless gestures and they still don't manage to reduce the movie speed to the normal rate. Alas, the emerging risk of an anti-semitic backlash to an endless stream of abuse and exploitation from the Jewish sham-organisations dedicated to the conditioning of the imbeciles and the suppression of free-thought and free-inquiry is a real risk.
If you have any remaining doubts, please read the British libel legislation -- regardless of whether you agree with it or not -- then the complete transcripts of Irving vs Lipstadt, and then draw your own conclusions after reading the verdict. My advice to you is not to judge lightly or cowardly, even in the face of the scurrilous, revolting, indecent behaviour and total impunity of untouchable entities with names like the Board of Jewish Deputies of the British Parliament. They were not on trial, of course, nor could they ever be, for we don't live in free societies.
But do avoid anti-semitism and let the superstitious bastards on all quadrants silently deface their own graves and spit on their own dead through their own actions. That should be punishment enough.
Spit on the murderous "Holocaust" lie instead. Spit on the dark "Holocaust" because that's where true evil -- an heritage for all mankind -- will take sanctuary for a long time to come.
But not for ever, rest assured.
12 April 2000
After a two month trial in London, British High Court Judge Charles Gray ruled on April 11 that revisionist historian David Irving was not libeled by Deborah Lipstadt, whose book, "Denying the Holocaust" has become the manual of the new Holy Inquisition against those who dare to practice the virtue of skepticism and doubt the dogmas of Jewish supremacy.
Irving had contended that his 1996 biography, "Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich" was suppressed by means of clandestine pressure exerted against his publisher, St. Martin's Press, due in part to the influence of Lipstadst and her book.
The suppression of Irving's work was a classic example of the absurdity and obscurantism of the "Holocaust" lobby. His Goebbels book shows the Nazi propaganda minister to have been the evil genius behind many of the crimes of the Nazis. It is the most exhaustively researched biography of Goebbels ever produced. It was blocked only because it was written by the blacklisted Irving.
In his ruling against Irving, Justice Gray, in his traditional British magistrate's wig, which conjures the spectacle of countless indigent whites sentenced to hang or to "transportation" (enslavement) by his august predecessors on the British bench, pelted Irving with the familiar sing-song ("racist and anti-semite"), refused him leave to appeal and stuck him with Lipstadt's legal costs (estimated in the millions of dollars and rumored to have been provided by Canadian liquor baron Edgar Bronfman Sr.).
Eleven years ago Mr Justice Gray was Charles Gray QC, Lord Aldington's barrister in the "Cossacks Libel Trial" of 1989 in which Aldington sued the revisionist scholar Count Tolstoy. Aldington had been named in Tolstoy's book, "The Minister and the Massacres" as responsible for an Allied war crime, the handing over of 70,000 anti-Communist Russian soldiers to the mercies of Stalin at the end of WWII. Aldington prevailed in his lawsuit thanks to Gray.
Gray's verdict in the Irving-Lipstadt case was predictable given the display of naked Jewish power during the trial, which saw the intervention of a sovereign state on Lipstadt's behalf, when the Israeli Attorney General, with the customary media flourish, rushed Lipstadt's legal team the jailhouse memoirs of Adolf Eichmann, the Yiddish-speaking, confirmed Zionist among the Nazi high command.
It turned out that Eichmann's writing contained nothing particularly valuable for the defense -- no lurid account of a tour of the alleged homicidal gas chambers for example, even though the Nazi officer had been to Auschwitz. But the gesture could hardly have been lost on the judge: Lipstadt not only had the best British legal team money could buy (including the late Princess Diana's solicitor, Anthony Julius), but the full might and influence of the Israeli government.
The media also flexed their muscle throughout the trial. The London "Times" and the Manchester "Guardian" turned their coverage off and on like a spigot. When Irving had a good day against his detractors the newspapers published nothing, whereas when a witness for Lipstadt offered a scathing denunciation of Irving, coverage magically resumed in detail.
In addition to being savaged by the fourth estate, Irving has come in for criticism from revisionist colleagues, largely because he represented himself in the non-jury trial and because he chose not to call revisionist experts as witnesses, with the exception of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald (author of a trilogy on the Jewish mentality and its survival strategies) and an involuntary witness, Sir John Keegan, who grudgingly testified to Irving's competence as a military historian (a fact seconded by Gray in his judgement).
The fugitive German scientist Germar Rudolf, who last autumn lectured at a revisionist history conference in Ohio organized by Irving, writes:
"David Irving refused to present Germar Rudolf as an expert witness. Here is the price he has to pay for it: He lost his lawsuit, and has to pay $3.2 million (AP) or even $4.5 million (Reuters). (See above)
There is no question that Irving crafted a highly individualistic, even eccentric attack on the libeler and her publisher (Penguin Books) and that his strategy contained flaws and shortcomings.
But his single-handed performance in court was consistently magnificent and the gallery was frequently bowled over by his near total recall of the most minute details and recondite facts of the military history of the Second World War.
Under relentless assault for two months, including material researched by a Cambridge University professor who was paid to pore over every line Irving ever wrote, Irving was seldom short of a credible retort or a telling bon mot and maintained his composure and credibility thoughout intensive cross-examination by the lead barrister for the defendant, Richard Rampton.
Harvard's Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, whose bestselling book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" was denounced as a "crazy thesis" and demolished by Prof. Norman Finkelstein, would have been reduced to shards in court had he faced the kind of legal firepower Irving stared down (Jewish historian Raul Hilberg was destroyed on the witness stand by defense attorney Doug Christie during the 1985 thought-crime trial of Ernst Zundel).
Irving may have impoverished himself for life and may not have dotted every "i" nor crossed every "t" in the course of his trial, but thanks to his prodigious memory, work ethic, command of the primary source materials and personal courage, he astonished courtroom observers and reporters alike by putting before the judge a giant portion of contrarian historical research of the first order; research which the establishment has decreed can't exist.
Moreover, his audience was not limited to the Royal Court of Justice in London's Strand, or even to those dependent on the spoon-fed pabulum of the New York Times and CNN. Though there have been others online, the Irving-Lipstadt trial is the first virtual trial of this proportion and significance thanks to Irving's highly professional website, where the entire transcript was posted weekly and read, without editorial omission or falsification, independent of the system's journalistic filters.
There has been very little interest in this remarkable transcript on the part of Irving's detractors. Mystification abhors details and the gas chamber legend is mystification par excellence. "Holocaust" movie director Ra'anan Alexandrowicz has written, "My generation doesn't know what to do with the historical details concerning the gas chambers. These facts estrange us from the subject of the Holocaust. Therefore, it's useless to chase these answers." (Jewish Chronicle, Feb. 25, 2000).
The upholders of official history rely on government decrees, judicial proclamations and when those fail, imprisonment (the list of incarcerated "deniers" is too lengthy to mention here), beatings (revisionist Prof. Robert Faurisson was badly beaten in 1989), terror (the revisionist Institute for Historical Review's $400,000 archive of books was burned to the ground in 1984) and even assassination (revisionist scholar Francois Duprat was murdered in France).
The power of money and the power of the state (and not just the Zionist state, but the governments of Europe, North America and Australia) have all made "denying" what Jewish power-brokers hold sacred either an outright crime, or a career and reputation-destroying outrage against decency.
But anyone with half a brain can see that this emperor has no clothes, that history by decree is no history at all. In the course of the trial, historian John Charmley, taken with Irving's performance, contacted him and offered him public support, at risk to his own career. Charmley is the historian who reversed one of the most of-repeated cliches of the 20th century, that of Neville Chamberlain's infamous "Munich appeasement" of Hitler (cf. "Chamberlain and the Lost Peace").
There are tens of thousands like Prof. Charmley, in key positions, who have been energized by the quintessentially Western role that Irving has recreated, that of the lone hero, of George before the dragon, of Christ before the mob, of David before Golipstadt.
David Irving, previously a chronicler of history, has now made history and history of an electrifying kind. Great libel trials are dramas that stick in the memory for generations and posterity often takes a very different view than contemporary received opinion. The trial of Oscar Wilde is but one example of a protaganist whose cri de coeur, "De Profundis" (from out of the depths) resonates down the corridors of time in his vindication.
Revisionists were hoping for a world-shaking miracle in the Irving-Lipstadt face-off, instead they got another revisionist weed pushing itself up through hairline cracks in the Jewish concrete that covers our planet.
In so gigantic an imposture, so merciless and all-encompassing an inquisition, it is ever thus. It may take decades, even centuries before the world acknowledges that an immense tyranny interdicted the progression of free inquiry and independent research in our time, with the victims being the German people (but not their leaders) and the Palestinians who have been holocausted with impunity under the cruel irony of the rubric of Never Again.
The battle is for the long haul and only those with a goodly portion of backbone and elbow grease will finish the course. We revisionists of this time may yet end our days in collective shame and penury or even in a dungeon.
We should not think ourselves better than Michael Servetus, the mathematician burned by Calvinists in Geneva because he doubted the Holy Trinity; or the poet Edmund Campion, hanged by command of the Queen at Tyburn, not far from the Strand courtroom, because he doubted the Reformation tenet of the Divine Right of Kings.
Calvinism and Anglican Divine Right have long since tottered into the dust of time where Jewish orthodoxy will one day also find fitting repository. How grand a fate to stand against that orthodoxy now, when it is still the reigning king of the world, enjoying the obeisance of presidents and prime ministers, moguls and merchants, pundits and peasants.
What an honor to be among the few who refuse to dance attendance on propaganda, who live for conscience' sake, come rack, come rope.
To David Irving may be applied the phrase which Horace wrote about Daedalus seeking to fly to the heights of heaven on the wings of Icarus: "Si non tenuit, tamen magnis excidit ausis." (Even though he succeeded not, he failed in daring and noble attempts).
Such daring will not be forever
circumscribed by the verdict of a minor functionary in the British
bureaucracy. The verdict of history will be another matter altogether.
************************************************* *
T H E H O F F M A N W I R E,
April 13, 2000, compiled by Michael A. Hoffman II * Independent
History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816 USA, http://www.hoffman-info.com
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: wire@hoffman-info.com Hoffman is a former
reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and the
author of "The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle
for Freedom of Speech" (Wiswell Ruffin House, 1995). This
book may be purchased online at: http://www.hoffman-info.com/cgi-bin/store/commerce.cgi?item=19
David Irving and the Verdict of History is posted online at http://www.hoffman-info.com/libeltrial9.html
+++++++++++++++++++
All Mr Rampton, the able Queen Councillor, has in his hands, is a rhetoric of insistance. He is trying 10 times, 20 times, a hundred times to press his opponent, Mr. David Irving, into a strait jacket of words which have been carefully prepared to paralyze the plaintiff, and keep him alive until his very substance will be sucked off by the crowd of the defendants. Spiders hunt that way. On the transcripts, we can follow Irving avoiding the traps, slaloming thought the mines, and staying alive at the end of the day. As Irving refuses to be captured by the net-word "Holocaust", the Mr Rampton tries hard to have Irving accepting the word "systematic", as in "systematic killing". That is the trap behind the other trap. After many maneuvers, Irving asks: "We are trying to justify the word "systematic?" On which Justice Gray intervenes: "Do not worry too much about what Mr. Rampton may or may not be trying to do". Which is, if you think about it, a poisonous advice: what Mr. Rampton is trying to do is to use words as running knots, using sweet sentences to calm down the restive Irving and let him pass the head into the knot. Now it looks like wild horse capture. If Mr. Rampton succeeds several times in doing this, Irving will be tamed, first, and ritually executed in public.
When he does not reach the bliss, Mr. Rampton begs Irving to "use imagination" to represent himself in the physical situation of Adolf Hitler, king of the German world. As these people are not very good in knowing (see poor van Pelt) they prefer imagination. This we can accept from a QC, but from a so-called historian?
The best reply of Irving came on the third day when Mr. Rampton asked him if he had read Ian Kershaw's latest book:
University historians spend most of their time reading books, books written by ancient, former or present and future colleagues, and spend minimal time in the archives, as this time is substracted from their holidays. Irving is of a different nature. He wries after finding documents. These two kinds of historians cannot communicate, even in normal life. So what can happen in a courtroom?
This exercice is monstruous. Take anybody who is more or less in the writing business. Extract from him everything he wrote in the last 30 years, his books and articles, but also his notes, his diaries, his letters, his recordings, his laundry bills, everything you can think of. Now you hire a team of students full of hate, ethnically motivated, and bury then in the stacks of papers with a mission: comb it to find one word, one half idea, one note made in the rear area of the writer's brain, and twist all these excretions into some form of "statement", to which you'll attach some convenient "motivation, political or otherwise. I think that no one would escape the rope. Or Siberia. Our finishing century has been rife with these thought polices. One of them, at least, is still there to protect the last colonial endeavour in the Arabian sands.
As Irving said, he is not a Holocaust denier. We do not distribute labels. But this is a fight picked up by a man with a tremendous courage and we wish to salute him with 21 gunshots. His enemies and our enemies are the same: those with everything to lose if and when truth is exposed. The issue will shape things of interest for us for quite a time.
Let's see how it turns.
The first great revisionist event of the year 2000, and perhaps the greatest Holocaust revisionist event ever, is underway.
David Irving is challenging the entire Holocaust industry with his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books.
The irony of course is that Irving denies that he is a Holocaust revisionist, and in fact has never published so much as a monograph (dealing) specifically with the Holocaust.
In short, he is demonstrating with his action that you do not have to be a Holocaust revisionist to be skeptical that there were no homicidal gassing chambers at Auschwitz, or that a million or so Jewish and/or others were murdered there, or that the National Socialist German Workers Party planned an ethnic extermination.
I was rather dismayed, and I don't think I was alone, when I learned that Irving would represent himself before the court.
Professor Lipstadt has a herd of twenty (count 'em - twenty!) of the Queen's best lawyers, led by the man who represented Princess Diana and Nikolai Tolstoy -- not that he helped either of them in the end.
The trial is at the end of the third week, and Irving is doing just fine.
He's doing better than we could have hoped, and better than the Lipstadt people could have feared.
I think Irving is in his element.
He risks physical exhaustion, but I do not believe he is going to become psychologically exhausted, which would be more dangerous, and he is a man of great energy and physical strength.
He will be shown to have made errors of fact and judgment in his books (he's written 30 of them, so how could he not have?), and he will be shoved in a corner with some of his public statements.
He will accept claims made by the Lipstadt people that will confound and even anger knowledgeable revisionists.
But I think Irving likes the game, he likes the odds, his heart is in it and everything else he has is in it.
And Irving is risking it all.
He is risking his standing as an historian, his wealth, and his life.
Irving brought the libel complaint, so Lipstadt has to prove she was right in her accusations against him, which may prove to be much more difficult than her twenty lawyers have convinced her it will be.
But if Irving loses, he will have to pay Lipstadt's legal costs. Twenty lawyers for three or four months?
He'll be finished.
Or will he? With Irving, it's difficult to believe that even if he loses everything, that he will be finished.
A nice adventure.
Very nice.
[...]
The trial of Irving vs. Penguin Books and Lipstadt is proceeding with unprecedented, almost fair, world-wide publicity. British papers carry paperback sized photos of Irving nearly every day. The courtroom is filled up. The sign on the door says "No Standing." Some visitors peer through the double glass doors for a while, then walk away because they hear nothing. On the bench sits Justice Gray, bedecked in a wig and full length black robe, crimson scarf and white cuffs. Below him sits the court's clerk, frequently a black woman in a short white wig [...] Below the bench, on the left, is the defence crew of about twenty individuals.
Mr. Rampton, 70, the chief barrister, has a silly gray wig and black flowing robe.
When he tires, he develops dowager's hump, and he constantly corrects his wig, which falls on his presbiopic eyeglasses. When he gets really tired in the afternoons, after five to six hours on his feet, he lets Irving make speeches and converse with the judge during cross-examination on the witness stand.
By late afternoon, Mr. Rampton has a pronounced dowager's hump.
He spends much of his time looking for some pages in voluminous briefs.
His barristers, solicitors and secretaries scuttle around pulling at his robe and telling him:
"Stop Irving.
Stop Irving now."
I guess in the British law system they are so terrorized by their boss that they do not dare to do it while Irving carries out what would be considered in America a no-no, or "ex parte communication" with the judge.
Half of the gallery is filled up with reporters, mostly from England but also from most of the important countries around the world.
The other half of the gallery is filled with visitors, mostly Jews, a mix of very young and very old.
Some elderly Jews have their eyes immobilized and fixed on Irving, as if they would like to influence his faculties with a curse.
The gallery is speckled with a sheik's turban, one African face and several Hasidic hats.
There are no outbursts of emotion in this court except when barrister Rampton cracks an anti-Nazi joke.
But when Irving answered "None" to the question, "How many Jews were gassed at Auschwitz," put to him by My Lord, one saw many jaws fall and could hear a needle drop.
While a Catholic Briton, assisted by a Slav, is defending the national honor of Germany and the German people, no Germans appear in the court.
I wonder if they know that when Irving carries books and briefs to the court, there is no one there to help him.
He has no lawyer.
[...]
From now on, Irving is fighting for his financial future and defending the honor of Germany alone!
During the closing hours of this week's trial, Justice Gray gave Irving a stern warning; while the judge said he would remain open-minded, Irving had better present absolutely watertight arguments that there were no gassings at Birkenau, because there is a mountain of evidence that there were."
<end>
I want to get this newsletter to my friends quickly so that you can all join in the battle for Revisionist freedom and public outreach, which has temporarily shifted to London, England, where an embattled David Irving is slugging it out with Deborah Lipstadt's and Penguin Book's 20-person legal team. There is not a day, or a night, that goes by that I don't get disappointed, anxious and upset, even angry calls from my supporters about something -- some statement or some far-reaching and off-the wall concession David Irving is said to have made, often quite casually and carelessly, in that courtroom in London. They all said: "Irving must know better! Why is he conceding clearly ludicrous points so easily, like "... 97,000 gas van victims in 5 days..."?
I read many of the same news reports, of course, and have also read Dr. Faurisson's published, incisive reactions to the Irving Foxtrot. [See below] I am as disturbed as many of my friends are by it all, but I am also a battle-scared and combat-hardened courtroom fighter. I have had long involvements with lawyers, friend and foe, and prosecutors, jurors, dozens of judges, male and female and of many nationalities -- English Canadian, French Canadian, Jewish Canadian, American and German -- in the law courts of many provinces, even countries and continents. This has given me, I think, more insights than most ordinary people would have inside and outside the legal profession on court proceedings, especially highly charged political, i.e. Holocaust trials. And that is what Irving is facing -- a purely political show trial with high financial stakes for him, but even higher stakes, namely Holocaust believability, for his enemies.
It is a pity for the cause of Truth in History and for historical Revisionism that David Irving does not have that experience of how to fight a political trial to draw upon or to fall back on. I watch this important trial from a "ringside seat", largely from reports in the media and the Internet, 5,000 km away -- and in spite of his waffling, I have to admit I have empathy for that embattled, enigmatic, haughty and, at the same time, suicidally courageous, frequently brilliant, sometimes unexplainably shallow, non-reflective, spur-of-the-moment, shoot-from-the-hipwith-a-loose-lip "Englishman". Irving is frequently more French or Mediterranean in mannerisms and behaviour, in flair and pizzazz than the reserved, stiff upper lip types we think of as British. He actually is unlike most English people I have ever met -- which means we are right smack in the middle of the "Irving Problem" -- or, better, the "Irving Phenomenon."
David Irving is undoubtedly what we call in German "eine schillernde Persönlichkeit" -- which is only imperfectly translated as "a colorful, enigmatic figure". The Jewish writer, D.D. Guttenplan, writing for Atlantic Monthly, said that there was a "quicksilver quality" about his arguments. I say: not only about his arguments; about his personality.
Irving is definitely a showman par excellence. His infuriating ego and self-admitted arrogance, which he says were honed to a fine art in British boys' school and learned as part of the schooling of Britain's upper crust, is a double-edged sword. I have seen him deeply offend well-meaning friends, intimates and supporters -- literally biting the hand that fed him, belittling and tonguelashing helpers, male and female, who for no seemingly good reason became the object of his cutting sarcasm and acid ire. How often over the years did I have to smooth over rifts and serious upsets caused by Irving's uncalled-for behaviour! How often did I have to intercede, calm down and mollify people who were snubbed while helping him organize entire lecture tours or individual meetings, set up book tables, carry and sell his books -- all done willingly and freely, without charge to him, out of respect for his work! Over and over again, the same pattern repeated itself. Often I would follow one of his speaking tours a few weeks later to mend fences and calm people down. Several times I had to step in from thousands of miles away to take an Irving speaking tour into my own hands, using my own network of friends, to organize and rescue the completion of such a lecture tour because our volatile Champion of Truth in History had one more time left behind "einen Scherbenhaufen" -- a pile of chards -- like some bull in a china shop. It seemed he would not or could not control his temper, hold his tongue and respond in more measured and civil tones to people who he felt deserved his wrath.
Now it is the enemy who has to deal with these personality traits -- something Lipstadt's expert witnesses, Mr. Rampton, Q.C. and even the judge will soon find out and remember for the rest of their lives, I am sure!
With this libel action, Irving has achieved an echo on the international level, as far as press coverage is concerned, which we achieved only on the national (Canadian) level during those memorable days with my 1985 Great Holocaust Trial. Certain quarters are obviously hoping to build him up as their straw man, as the world's most prominent "Holocaust Denier" -- it doesn't seem to work. He has kicked loose an unstoppable avalanche with this libel action of what must be shocking and jarring information and questions on the "Holocaust" topic by reporters, columnists and academics. This will have a huge impact on how the Holocaust story is perceived from now on by the general public -- but especially how it is told, handled, marketed, packaged and promoted, not only in England but around the world, especially by politicians, the media, academia and even the Holocaust Lobby.
This impact or fallout is already of huge benefit to society generally and to Revisionism and Revisionists particularly. We are no longer a marginalized movement relegated to the fringes. We are now at the center stage of an internationally debated controversy about a highly charged aspect of World War II history. I can already sense the new caution, even some backtracking, as well as the much more pointed and detail-focused interest by media interviewers, talk show audiences and conversations with just plain people in all walks of life since the "Irving story" first broke.
One example highlights this indirect benefit of the Irving trial. The publisher of Michael Shermer, Editor of Skeptic Magazine, who has written another book on Holocaust Revisionism, has delayed the publication of Shermer's book by ove half a year because a team of lawyers are apparently going over the Shermer manuscript with a fine tooth comb. The publisher is afraid; he does not want to be sued by Revisionists named by Shermer in an Irving-Lipstadt type libel lawsuit. He has good reasons to be careful.
There has been a marked change in the attitude of Revisionists. Finally the enemy is beginning to feel what Revisionist authors have felt like for years -- the chill and the terror of expensive lawsuits about alleged "facts" and people and events. The enemy can see the writing on the wall, for around the world, and especially in Canada, Revisionists have recently gone after their cruel but careless tormentors who fancied themselves immune to legal repercussions. Malcolm Ross in New Brunswick has successfully sued some Jewish cartoonist. Eileen and Claus Pressler have also successfully sued some TV station, as well as Commie professor named Lethbridge in British Columbia. One of Doug Christie's clients won a settlement with the insurance company of a publisher who slandered his client. Paul Fromm of Toronto is suing some Jewish organization and, of course, I have so many cases before various courts, from the Supreme Court on down involving these people, that I need my attorneys to work from a flow chart about dates and court cases in a war-room-like setting.
We should also remember that, as far as Irving is concerned, there is not only the Irving-Lipstadt trial. He is also suing Gitta Sereny in a similar action. So when one trial is over, another one is likely to begin, the topics and the enemies being very similar. The experience gained by Irving in Trial-I will undoubtedly be put to good use in Trial-II -- and David Irving might well go after others, now that he has "tasted blood" and can see the media fall-out. He can do what I was forced to do, in jiu jitsu fashion -- rewrite history and get his viewpoint publicized via these court cases. He will have it all taken down, word for word, by court stenographers, ready to be formatted and go to print. He could start an entirely new career in mid-life and sell his books, videos and CDs of all these trials -- which already exist in all their drama in newscasts and headline-making articles as virtually ready-made products when married with the recorded court transcripts. Gifted writer that he is, he could embellish and flesh them out with interviews and general press coverage, with a few human interest tidbits from his detailed diary. With the help of his prolific pen, he could turn misfortune into fortune. Since he is defending himself against the unfair libel by prosecuting Lipstadt and Penguin Books, he could virtually use the court reporters as his personal stenographers for months on end. It would almost be like Martin Borman ordering shorthand stenographers in the Führer Bunker to take down everything the Führer said. I wonder if the irony of this not-too-unlikely scenario has dawned on the Holocaust Cabal yet? Ingrid Rimland would call this a "delicious" possibility.
That is just about the situation Irving is in now. Given his talent as a mainstream writer of name recognition worldwide, the whole thing is a gold mine in the making for Irving and for Revisionists and historians for generations to come. Irving, the maligned historian, is turning the tables on his enemies and making history in his own right -- by his own cases! What a hoot! He forces the historians or promoters of the state-approved, politically correct Jewish versions of history to justify in a public forum their distortions of true historical facts! Can an Oscar-winning movie by some talented iconoclast producer, fed up with the traditional, boring and predictable Holocaust fare, really be far behind? Errol Morris could make a maxi-series of irreverent documentaries about this one! He told me he thought Irving's interview was great!
Perversely, or by karma, Deborah Lipstadt, who jetted from continent to continent for years like some hired reputation -- and character assassin of Irving and other Revisionists -- all the time recommending to all within earshot in govemment, the media and academia that they should not engage in any debate with Holocaust "Deniers" -- has seen her role reversed. This gadfly of a woman has caused a globe-girdling debate and discussion of the Holocaust in great detail. Already, Irving has argued with her "expert", Van Pelt, about "... how many pounds of coke (coal) it would take to, incinerate a human being..." to "how many corpses can be taken by freight elevators of such and such a size, down to the last inch or centimeter, up a floor from the alleged gas chamber to the crematory..." Now is that irony -- or what?
As Americans would say: "Been there. Done that." When Sabina Citron had me charged, the courtroom became my pulpit, and even the Jewish-dominated media became my megaphone or bullhorn. And David Irving, who haughtily declared that he was not going to fight a Holocaust trial, that he found the Holocaust boring, is now involved in a more tedious Holocaust trial than even I was -- just as I predicted more than 6 months ago to him! He dismissed the suggestion for an in-depth, no compromise offensive-defensive strategy before I could even explain it fully.
One might draw from these two opposing examples that arrogance and ignorance, as well as improper assessment of the opponents' capability, plans or agenda, exact a terrible price. Deborah Lipstadt, desperately trying to stifle and snuff out the nascent Revisionist debate, has unleashed a debate about the Holocaust worldwide the likes of which we could only have dreamed of. David Irving, who hardly ever has written anything on the Holocaust -- maybe because he realized the danger it means to anyone tackling the Sacred Cow of modem Jewry -- self-deceptively or arrogantly did not prepare in time or in the necessary depth or detail for the grueling fight in which he now finds himself. Strange twists of fate! Strange indeed!
I can understand and fully appreciate his reluctance and not wanting to get involved in the sadomasochistic, banal, ethno- and judeocentric minutiae and collected hallucinations of mentally ill people, brazen liars and con-men who make up the scaffold on which all too many so-called "Holocaust scholars" hang their fanciful tales and careers. I hated my own trials and the tiring preparations for them with every fiber of my artistic being. I hated to forage around the vomit and effluent of the addled and perverted minds who barfed their sick hate and insanity unto an unsuspecting world for the last fifty years -- from Nuremberg to Hollywood, in articles, books, films and, yes, even courtroom testimony. I HATED IT! I resented the days and nights, the weeks, months, years -- now turned into decades! -- that this disgusting issue took away from my productive life. How many beautiful paintings could I have given to the world in all the years I spent first preparing for those terribly difficult and complex court cases and then actually fighting them in court? And then came the long, nerve-, strength- and money-draining appeals all the way to the Supreme Court in Canada and in Germany for more decades. I hated the humiliation of strip searches, handcuffs, jailings, endless questioning at the border etc. Yet I quickly realized that courts have become the modern battle fields of the mind, of ideas, of history itself -- and prepare and fight I did! I knew by instinct that my enemies meant to destroy me, the truth researcher and truth teller, so as to save their lucrative Reparations Racket and their diabolical design of eternal victimhood through global deception. I was knocking away their Holocaust shield -- behind which they were hiding!
I had the good fortune to attract, find and keep valuable helpers, teachers and friends like Adrien Arcand, Thies Christophersen, Udo Walendy, Dr. Arthur Butz and above all Dr. Faurisson and Mark Weber. There was also Dr. William Lindsey, my advisor on chemistry, Tijudar Rudolf, Jerome Brentar, Frank Walus, Joseph Ginzburg, my courageous Jewish, anti-Zionist advisor, mentor and ultimately witness -- and, yes, there was finally that brave, brash and media-savvy Englishman, David Irving, who at least temporarily overcame his reservations about me, one could say even his dislike for me, and who stepped into the witness box in Toronto on ApriI 22, 1988 -- and thereby crossed the Rubicon.
David Irving was not fooled or conned or sucked in by me, Leuchter or anyone else to testify in 1988 in Toronto. He, a man of obvious intelligence, even brilliance, made a deliberate choice, a conscious decision in that fateful trial of 1988 -- to put himself on the side of historical truth. That was the beginning of a "new kind of history." Any writer or historian, said Irving, who did not take Leuchter's findings into consideration about the "gas chambers", wouId not write history but propaganda.
The factors which persuaded him to throw caution to the wind then are still as true today as they were twelve years ago. Nothing has changed -- only David Irving's attitude has changed, tempered by a decade of persecution and vilification giving him some 20/20 hindsight.
I have heard him say on numerous occasions that this 1988 decision was a big mistake for him, with terrible consequences for his life, his career and his reputation as well as for his income. Who better than Emst Zündel can appreciate all that such bravery entails! I have heard some of my attorneys say the same of their lives and their careers. There is a price to be paid for courage. Ask Dr. Faurisson, Leuchter, Walendy, Butz, Graf, Christophersen. Ask Germar Rudolf! I heard it said by the IHR's attorney during a recent visit to California that he is now a marked man in the courts he practices -- that judges now routinely rule against him even in non-political cases. A writer -- I think it was for Maclean's Magazine in Canada -- said once that Doug Christie had now joined the "Legion of the Damned" by defending people like myself, Jim Keegstra, Imre Finta, Malcolm Ross and others.
I don't think I am part of any "Legion of the Damned" -- I feel that I am a member of a growing fratemity of truth seekers and truth tellers who battle the forces of evil and organized, Holocaust-shielded malevolence. These forces have temporarily gained ascendancy over the minds and intellectual life of the Western World. Lies and distortions, demolished by the Faurissons, Webers, Zündels and Irvings of the world, are in a nose dive. I do not feel damned in the least. I feel blessed, privileged, inspired and awed that destiny would choose me to lead this noble fight, this quest for unadulterated truth, aided by friends, supporters and helpers -- this struggle for self-liberation of a whole planet. I have said many times that I feel like a mere tool or instrument of destiny, battered about by some inexplicable forces I cannot even fathom, to live out a fate I cannot really understand -- and yet, I thank my lucky stars every day that I have been given this task in life, even though it brought with it much pain, sorrow and hardship. Many others bemoan and lament their fate. I live mine with gritted teeth -- but relish.
Maybe that is the reason why I have been able to survive the trials and tribulations, the beatings, humiliations, being spat at, stripped naked in jail before hundreds of guards, the interrogations, jailings, fines, bombings, arsons and even the betrayal by people I believed were close to me. I remember walking down the corridor, alone, utterly humiliated by my then wife's betrayal when she testified against me in court in Toronto in 1997 -- and there stood an Austrian supporter, calling gently but resolutely out to me from the sideline: "Ernst, you will overcome this, too!" My heart ached, my mind raced, my soul hurt. I was numb with pain, but I did survive, for my job was not yet donc. To have given in to the frequently suggested temptation, to simply give up, to throw in the towel, would have been to me like going AWOL from the battle field of Stalingrad. I had my inner marching orders. I was listening to that inner drummer calIed my conscience -- and it made me dig in my heels, remembering what Adolf Hitler so beautifully called in many of his finest speeches, "Ich folgte meinem inneren Befehl" -- I followed my innermost, self-given order. And thus I carried on.
David Irving, prolific and gifted writer and researcher, a handsome man, with charisma, charm and courage and an astounding energy, now stands in England's courts, facing the "traditional enemy" as he calls them. My predictions -- to no satisfaction to my own -- have come true. He is being dragged, however much he might dislike it, into that mental ward of the "Holocaust" -- the realm where psychopaths play their cruel mindand number games. None of the court-tested, battle-hardened veterans of the Holocaust Trial of yesteryear are there -- not because they were not prepared to come and to help in whatever capacity; they are not there because David Irving has stated that he is not a "Holocaust Denier" and does not want "Holocaust Deniers" near him.
I needed to tell you that, because I am tired of the accusatory tone of the question asked: "He was there for you. Why are you not there for him?" The same holds true of the other well-known historians, researchers and exceedingly knowledgeable Revisionists like Mark Weber and Dr. Faurisson, and even some of the lawyers with experience in fighting Holocaust Trials. They are standing on the sidelines unutilized. It feels like battlehardened SS-divisions cooling their heels -- while some Rumanian and Italian units slug it out with the Red Army!
Months ago, maybe years ago, David Irving obviously made some choices. He now has to live with the results of these choices. He has no real Holocaust experts with their well-ordered files and in-depth knowledge at his side, able to help him formulate well-informed, instant responses to the defense's lying witnesses. There are no devastating follow-up questions formulated right then and there, which can make your enemy cringe and slouch out of the courtroom weakened and demoralized before the next day's proceedings. No skilled, well-trained, experienced lawyer is present to advise Irving instantly when the other side's twenty lawyers and paralegals play underhanded legal and illegal tricks, missed or tolerated by the judge, in the proceedings by questionable moves and motions. Even lawyers as capable and skilled as Doug Christie, Barbara Kulaszka or Jürgen Rieger could sometimes be tripped up or stymied. I have seen that happen time and again. It has the effect of a well-placed artillery barrage in your supply or ammunition dump during a running battle. And Irving stands there, all alone -- without years of law school or courtroom experience!
Then there is the question of legally trained note-takers for appeal points, which used to occupy a whole team of Zundelists in every trial. There are dozens of little annoyances during daily court sessions -- like no one to rush off to the law library for reference books for some legal precedent, no one skilled in research to go to public archives, newspaper morgues, Imperial War Museums etc. There are dozens of incidents I can recall when we flummoxed our Jewish opposition with rare documents obtained by volunteers during lunch or even ordinary breaks to checkmate their outrageous claims within an hour in an open court. I see and hear no evidence of David Irving having this kind of valuable network or back-up in place in London. Apparently, he even has to carry his own boxes of documents, books, evidence etc. into the courtroom. I know what it means to start the day struggling heavy boxes from taxi stands up steep courthouse stairs through heavy security past hostile onlookers!
There also seems no arrangement made for organized protection of Irving's person. David Irving is vulnerable, not only physically but also psychologically. The more points he scores, the more vicious the enemy will get. I shudder when I think back at the verbal and physical attacks against my witnesses, translators, lawyers and mere spectators during our trials in Toronto. Heinz von der Heide, our court translator, former SS-man, ignored my warnings about potential assaults and strayed from the group on the way to court. He was punched and beaten in the face -- his blood gushing all over!
I know first hand that no man, not even a man as robust physically as David Irving, can withstand the drain of energy by staying up late each and every night until two or three in the moming. Within the first week of his trial, he told the judge that in the last three or four nights, he had slept for only 6 hours. No man can sustain this pace under pressure for very long before concentration and recall as well as mental focus and acuity are affected. No amount of coffee and no spoonfuls of sugar can replace the lost energy. That's what worries me -- mostly Irving's possible mental fatigue and emotional resilience. lt worries me more than the enemy's concocted stories, possibly forged or clearly mistranslated documents, or even their dirty tricks. Mental strength, endurance and psychological stability is what might well decide the outcome of this trial, more so than the documented facts on either side.
I give David Irving credit for being one-of-a-kind, for being blessed with one of the quickest minds and glibbest tongues, with a formidable vocabulary, near-encyclopedic knowledge of World War II history -- and a phenomenal memory to boot. And does he ever have an ego! One would have to be possessed of quite an ego to think one could outsmart 20 lawyers and their backup networks -- which, you can be sure, range from the ADL and other numerous dirt file keepers to the Mossad to the Bundesnachrichtendienst to the new KGB et al !
But David Irving is no Holocaust expert. He woefully neglected to study his enemies' writings in this field, much less master the Revisionist work already done -- and his and our enemies know it! They have undoubtedly bugged his phone and fax machines for years already. They have studied that man to the last fiber of his being. David Irving has been psychologically profiled -- which means, analyzed, probed and researched -- maybe like no one since Adolf Hitler. These people fear him and loathe him -- because he can match their brazenness and checkmate them in their verbal calisthenics.
I admit I am scared for him as a man, because he has no lawyer by his side and no experts to come to his aid instantly. This worries me -- however, it has also a good side, the silver lining in the cloud. Given his personality traits and character strengths as well as his flaws, this might actually so unnerve and demoralize the opposition lawyers inside the courtroom -- by his unlawyerly unpredictability, by what lie might say next, what he might do next that would land smack in the transcripts and stay there forever, or what obscure document he will wave under their noses at any given moment, or even by the zigs and zags of his inscrutable defense strategy, if he has one! -- that they will make errors, miscalculations and misjudgments.
That is one of the biggest plusses of not having a "member of the craft" which is what lawyers are called and which I call a "mechanic of the law" -- meaning a lawyer to defend oneself. That's why judges and courts hate the idea of people defending themselves. They want someone who has been trained at law school to "expedite" the case throughout the trial and the system without too many inconveniences to them. I have seen that every time I acted for myself in court. Judges and opposition lawyers look upon amateurs in the courtroom like a trained soldier looks at a guerrilla -- with alarm, even panic, because the "accused", in this case (although he, David Irving, is really acting as the prosecutor in his own case, which makes matters even worse for them) might act in a rash manner. I imagine the judge sometimes must be "fit to be tied", as they say, his patience sorely tried. The transcripts already show his annoyance with Irving -- like when he told Rampton, Q.C., after being called a racist once too often, that he saw no coloured faces in the Lipstadt defense team! Not one in twenty! The judge sharply admonished him, but Irving defiantly repeated it three times!
I don't know if David Irving has the time to appreciate the effect this trial is already having on the mind and behavior of the enemy. 'I doubt it! As The Independent recently described it:
To which a cyber revisionisit added: "This is what its all about. The Kafkaesque dream is materializing. Not even Garaudy got this coverage, and we are still in the beginning..."
If Revisionist purists are alarmed by the seeming concessions Irving is making inside the courtroom -- his allegedly agreeing to "... one to four million victims" and "... 97,000 casualties in a few days by five 'gas vans"' etc. -- imagine what Jewish Holocaust lobbyists must feel like by such immortal Irving zingers like "...more people died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car in Chappaquiddick than died in an Auschwitz 'gas chamber"'!
Imagine! I have gone to jail for less than that, believe me -- and I have been before a Human Rights Tribunal for three years, with no end yet in sight, for saying things that are now a daily part of the world's mainstream press, written by Jewish academics like Norman Finkelstein, repeated everywhere! The reaction of Jewish community spokesmen, leaders and especially Jewish academics, book authors and writers is amazing to me! Absolutely amazing! They are clearly scrambling for higher ground, for the "sin flood" is rising and rising! Many are beginning to distance themselves with all kinds of "politically incorrect" comments. The almost obvious glee and brutal frankness of some of the media pundits' comments about the Holocaust "racket" and "industry" is a big surprise to me.
Ingrid Rimland has monitored the world's leading media outlets and has commented on the evolving situation. Here is an excerpt from her January 29, 2000 ZGram, based on the BBC's Homepage (1/26/2000):
This is only a small sample. Unfortunately, space limits other selections, but Irving has gotten top billing in every major paper in England, Germany, the USA, even France -- where Le Monde finally bestirred itself to comment on the trial.
[...] I think of David Irving -- and ask you to put aside any feelings of hurt or disappointment that you might have felt about things said or done. Forgive him his gyrations and compromises. We all have our character trait and snail houses we carry on our backs. He is a remarkable personality -- a long time ago I called him the "locomotive of Revisionism", even though he resents that label and says over and over that he is not a "Holocaust denier" or "Revisionist." If you are in Europe -- go and attend his trial! If you can help him financially, he can use the money, believe me! He also needs the moral and psychological support. He is fighting for his honor, reputation, livelihood and future. He has a young child and an ailing wife. I feel for him. It is important not to feel alone, especially in court. Don't ask him -- just go and attend! If you are young and strong, try to be non-intrusively protective of him. You never know what these crazy, hate-filled Jewish Defense League, Betar-Tagar thugs will do if he continues to score points and rattles their cage! Irving seems to be oblivious to his own security.
[...]
NOTE: The Zundel World Organization is selling five videos featuring David Irving, about 8 hours of "British dry wit", for less than US$ 200!!! (Pal-Secam included). Send for Samisdat Publishers, 206 Carlton STreet, Toronto, NO, M5A 2L1, Can(of worms).
Although he himself has never undertaken research into the "Holocaust" of the Jews, the British historian David Irving is subject, intermittently, to promising bursts of revisionism. In 1988, at the second trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto, he affirmed his high esteem for the "Leuchter Report", the study which concluded that the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps was a physical impossibility. Thereafter, however, recognising the damage done to his career as a historian by that burst of revisionism, he proceeded to keep a certain distance from the revisionists, while at the same time unloading some strange accusations upon Germany. But no matter! Today, the libel suit which he has brought in London against the Jewish-American historian Deborah Lipstadt compels him, representing himself, to put forth the revisionist case on the gas chambers in order to fight his own. The prestigious Times in its 12 January issue carried a piece by a reporter who, having attended the previous day's sessions of this trial expected to last three months, went so far as to write:
On the 13th, The Guardian headlined the impossibility, according to D. Irving, of the Nazi gas chambers.
In France, on the 18th, Libération devoted nearly a full page to the subject and to D. Irving's trial. A sidebar dealt with "Le négationnisme et la loi en France" (Holocaust denial and the law in France).
Breaking with its policy of shrouding revisionism from the public eye, Le Monde, on the front page of its edition of 19 January 2000, has printed an article about the revisionist David Irving. In keeping with the newspaper's deep-seated dishonesty, this piece is oblique and malicious, lumps together disparate elements and repeats hearsay. But, as the careful reader will note, the article, by one Marc Roche, does let some information on the importance of the trial leak through.
Personally, I expect David Irving to make twists and turns and recantations. He writes and publishes too much in order to allow himself the time, beforehand, to read attentively the documents which he quotes or which the opposing side submits. If he is acquainted with the revisionist literature, it is only just barely; he cannot be considered a spokesman for historical revisionism. I have always called him "the reluctant revisionist". Strong in appearance, he is, in reality, fragile. His opponents will have an easy time tripping him up. If one day he wins his case, at first instance or on appeal, it will certainly not be on the strength of his knowledge of the "Holocaust".
Posted on Irving's website <www.fppp.co.uk>
What do I personally think about the Irving-Lipstadt
trial? The points below are written relying on memory from bits
and pieces I picked up while
traveling - there was no opportunity to analyze, digest and come
up with some closure. I am sure that in the weeks and months to
come, I will find
many gems. But these are the thoughts in my mind:
* Irving has given the Holocaust Hustlers
one heck of a fight. In the beginning, we all felt such shudders,
thinking what that man, wrestling
with his demons, from within and from without, might say or do
that would inflict major damage on what Revisionists had so painstakingly
distilled
from that morass of lies over decades. Revisionist victories have
not come easy. Many of us thought that in a fit of temper, or
in attempting to
ingratiate himself, Irving might let go of the three major tenets
that summarize in broadest terms what Revisionist have said all
along: 1) No
gassings 2) No Führer Order, and 3) hugely inflated numbers
of victims. (I am abbreviating and simplifying here...) To his
credit, Irving has stuck
to these tenets.
* The mainstream media have warmed to the
Revisionist stories. I must say that, with the exception of the
highly politicized and controlled media
in Germany and, naturally, the Israeli/Jewish media, the coverage
has been amazingly even-handed and fair. Better yet, the focus
has remained as
steady as could be expected - and huge, huge doubts have been
repeatedly raised that all was not well with the traditional Holocaust
tale. In sheer
volume, the fall-out has been amazing. I remember reading somewhere
that Irving claimed 167 major articles dealing with content when
he was under
attack - that is, in cross-examination - and only one-eighth as
many when he did the attacking while cross-examining the expert
witnesses of the
defense. That in itself shows astonishing and measurable bias
- but even so! The wealth of quotes that were slipped in that
illustrated the nature
of the struggle continued to astound me.
* We must also not forget that this was
the first time that the Holocaust Hustlers were under the gun
and had to defend themselves for
reckless and hurtful behavior - on a vast, global, documented
scale. That in itself was a switch. Just what this means is best
exemplified by saying
that what Professor Kevin MacDonald has offered as a theoretical
construct - that there exists a Jewish culture that acts in concert
in opposition to,
and often to the detriment of, their various host societies -
has been translated into stark and concrete colors in this Irving-Lipstadt
trial. I
must confess I personally was shocked at the extent to which these
people went to hurt, block, vilify and demonize one man - who
had the balls to
call their bluff in court.
* What personally amazed me also was the
vacillating nature of the tactics of the defense. They seemed
to threaten - and back off. Threaten
and back off. Threaten and back off. The trial was to last three
months - it lasted only two. It was to be moved to Auschwitz for
effect - a notion
that was quietly dropped. A Russian archivist was to brand Irving
a thief - he never did materialize. The Eichmann Diaries were
taken out of
mothballs in ostentatious fashion - but hardly ever used. When
all was said and done, the defense had very little to show for
itself except the
old Nizkorite tactics: smear all you can - and duck! This was
not lost on the media.
* Last but not least, we should not forget
that, as starkly as we could have wished for, the world was treated
to the massive spectacle of money
being thrown at Irving in fistfuls upon fistfuls to get him to
shut up. On one side you had 20 lawyers/legal staff - and juxtaposed
stood David,
struggling to pay for the transcripts. Irving himself has estimated
that the tag for the defense is in the ball-park of six million!
* When all is said and done, what will
it mean? What can we expect as the outcome? Irving himself thinks
that his chances might be fifty-fifty.
It seems a fair assessment. A realistic judge will look at all
this money, might and clout and maybe start to quiver. Many men
would. Lesser men
have. An honest judge would look at what the opposition has come
up with to bolster their "defense" - and maybe start
looking for a magnifying glass.
No matter what, the outcome will be significant
for accuser and for accussees alike. There is Angst written all
over the Holocaust Hustlers,
as one might infer by this brief glimpse of an article titled
"Could David Irving succeed? World awaits London verdict."
(Jewish Telegraphic Agency,
March 20, 2000)"
"The burden of proof fell on Lipstadt
to show that Irving actually had evidence to support the conventional
meaning of the Holocaust; he says he
did not because it is a subject he finds 'endlessly boring.' So,
too, is the burden on Lipstadt to show that Irving had evidence
to link Hitler with
an order to kill Jews; Irving maintains that no such definitive
document exists.
"It is possible, on strictly technical grounds, that the judge will find in Irving's favor, and the effect of such a decision could be far-reaching."
Now how about it, Debbie Lipstadt? Was
it not you who wailed: "No debate!"? Was this not, in
the end, the Mother of all Holocaust Debates?
And to think that there could be an appeal - on your side? Or
on David's? Was it wise to fool Mother Nature?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
David Irving refused to present Germar
Rudolf as an expert witness. Here is the price he has to pay for
it: He lost his law suit, and has to pay $3.2 (AP) or even $4.5
million (Reuters).
Justice Gray made it pretty clear that
refusing to present me as a witness forced him to reject Irving's
law suit:
For my comments on van Pelt's and Dr. Roth's
nonsense, see vho.org/GB/Contributions/RudolfOnVanPelt.html
++++++++++++++++++
[Note de l'AAARGH: : cf la
page actualité de l'AAARGH pour la situation de Germar
Rudolf, obligé de quitter l'Angleterre où il
vivait incognito depuis sa condamnation en Allemagne en
raison de son rapport.
Ce texte a été affiché sur Internet à des fins purement éducatives, pour encourager la recherche, sur une base non-commerciale et pour une utilisation mesurée par le Secrétariat international de l'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerre et d'Holocauste (AAARGH). L'adresse électronique du Secrétariat est <aaarghinternational@hotmail.com>. L'adresse postale est: PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA.
Afficher un texte sur le Web équivaut à mettre un document sur le rayonnage d'une bibliothèque publique. Cela nous coûte un peu d'argent et de travail. Nous pensons que c'est le lecteur volontaire qui en profite et nous le supposons capable de penser par lui-même. Un lecteur qui va chercher un document sur le Web le fait toujours à ses risques et périls. Quant à l'auteur, il n'y a pas lieu de supposer qu'il partage la responsabilité des autres textes consultables sur ce site. En raison des lois qui instituent une censure spécifique dans certains pays (Allemagne, France, Israël, Suisse, Canada, et d'autres), nous ne demandons pas l'agrément des auteurs qui y vivent car ils ne sont pas libres de consentir.
Nous nous plaçons sous
la protection de l'article 19 de la Déclaration des Droits
de l'homme, qui stipule:
ARTICLE 19
<Tout individu a droit à la liberté d'opinion
et d'expression, ce qui implique le droit de ne pas être
inquiété pour ses opinions et celui de chercher,
de recevoir et de répandre, sans considération de
frontière, les informations et les idées par quelque
moyen d'expression que ce soit>
Déclaration internationale des droits de l'homme,
adoptée par l'Assemblée générale de
l'ONU à Paris, le 10 décembre 1948.