[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: David Irving The trial and conviction of David Irving provides much food for thought. First, there is Irving?s own confession that he is a ?holocaust denier.? Whatever one may think of the merits of Irving?s work, his confession?for whatever motive (probably fear)?casts an ugly shadow on what he has done. He and many of his defenders have always denied this charge. Now he has admitted it, there is no more to be said. Then, there is his recantation. You see, he is now convinced, after going through Adolf Eichmann?s papers, that the Nazis really did kill millions of Jews. That should about do it for Irving?s admirers who based their defense of the Third Reich on his work. Irving?s foolish and dishonest behavior did not convince the judge, who sentenced him to three years?prosecutors are appealing for a longer sentence!?and it should come as no surprise to people who have known him or followed his work. Even some of Irving?s warmest admirers say they would refuse ever to invite him to speak, much less into their own homes. Irving is, to put it simply, a self-seeking and self-important jerk, an unstable personality devoid of integrity. In his early days, however, before giving way to passionate egotism, he did valuable work in correcting the morality play which propagandists had made of WW II. The repentant Irving, however, is correct: Millions of Jews were killed or died of mistreatment at the hands of their Nazi masters. This does not mean that an honest man should have to swallow the entire story of genocidal Germans and freedom-loving Soviets and Americans. Had Irving possessed either the intellectual virtues of the true scholar or the inner strength of a Christian gentleman, he might have avoided the extravagances that brought him to disgrace long before this sentence was imposed. But like so many unstable personalities drawn to extreme causes, he lost his balance and took the plunge into counter-factual fantasy. From pointing out the war crimes of the allies and challenging undocumented assertions about Hitler?s policies, Irving became a defender of Hitler and joined forces with the Institute for Historical Review, whose head had been one of the leading Neo-Pagan bigots in America. Finally, what can we say of a country that would impose three years on a 67 year old foreigner, who is guilty of bad taste, misplaced zeal, and, probably, anti-Semitism? How could any dissident thinker or controversial writer ever dream of going to Austria? Today, it is criminal to challenge the story of the holocaust; tomorrow it will be the civil rights revolution and feminism; then what?the tale of man?s inhumanity to dog? Nothing is too absurd. I love the music of Mozart and respect Austria?s noble past, but I cannot imagine any decent American visiting that country except out of absolute necessity. What is to prevent an Austrian prosecutor from downloading an American?s blog and using it as evidence of a thought-crime? What is even more despicable is the hypocrisy of a country that was home to the most highly honored war criminal of WWII, Kurt Waldheim, a man who did not merely challenge orthodoxy but used his power to kill the innocent. Of course, it is remembered in some quarters that the current governor of California praised Waldheim after the revelations were made public?and, please, spare me the knee-jerk defense of Waldheim. Tito protected his record, but he is indefensible. Irving may have had decent motives in the beginning?though I have my doubts even there?but in response to criticism he became what he was accused of being. But there is hardly anyone willing to stand up to propaganda who is not sick or crazy, and Irving?s sentence is a clear indication of why. A normal person with wife and family and career will not risk it all simply to correct the historical record on the thugs and goons who ran Nazi Germany or, for that matter, on the thugs and goons who ran the US in our own version of the Third Reich we call the New Deal. It is hardly a paradox to say that in this world you have to be crazy to want to tell the truth about anything significant?from the War Between the States to the Iraq War, from women?s rights to Terri Schiavo. On some questions?the Schiavo case, for example?there are two sides telling opposite lies, but in many others left and right join forces to tell the same lie about the greatness of Lincoln or FDR or, reaching back a bit, Pericles. Here is my advice to anyone contemplating a career as guru or pundit: Pick your side, lie like the devil for as much money as you can get, and hope that your side will back you up at the trial or when the media lynch mob led by Sean Hannity or Maureen Dowd decides to destroy you. A word to the wise: Choose the left. They sometimes support their people. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: continental op (#0)
............
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|