|
January 1, 2004 TODAY’S DEMOCRACY IN AMERICAOn Wednesday afternoon December 17, 2003 I received an e-mail message from David Irving inviting me to a next evening’s dinner meeting at a nearby local restaurant where he would be talking about comparisons between World War II events and the current situation in Iraq. I had met Mr. Irving several years ago when I had attended one of his annual conferences on “Real History” in Cincinnati and since I was not particularly impressed with the qualifications of the speakers I had not returned. But this is how I got on his e-mail list and since the meeting was only 15 minutes from our home I decided to go and hear what he had to say. I knew, of course, that David Irving has aroused the ire of Jewish officials because he has publicly questioned not only the number but also the manner in which Jews were killed at the infamous Auschwitz death camp. For this he has been labeled a “Holocaust denier,” which is currently the most powerful epithet to use if one wants to destroy someone’s reputation. The label “anti-Semite” no longer seems to be strong enough, especially since some Jewish authorities insist that any critique of the policies of the state of Israel amounts to anti-Semitism. Inasmuch as this now involves the entire Muslim world as well as numerous European countries, “anti-Semites” seem to have multiplied to an extent to make the term meaningless. Therefore, “Holocaust denier” had to take its place. David Irving acquired this title in a book by Deborah Lipstadt Denying the Holocaust. The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, published by the Penguin group in 1994. The book received high praise from The New York Times Book Review, New York Newsday and major newspapers from around the country. It is an impassioned plea to fully accept the current version of holocaust history and to abstain from further questions about details. I shall not go into a discussion of Professor Lipstadt’s book because she is a professional student of this tragedy occupying the “Dorot Chair in Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta,” although I have reservations about how she presents some of the data. Since Mr. Irving felt that Ms. Lipstadt had unfairly slandered him he initiated a libel suit in Great Britain against her as well as Penguin books, the publishers. For reasons known only to him, Irving chose to act as his own attorney, while several high priced lawyers represented Lipstadt and Penguin books. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. The dinner meeting was supposed to start at 6 pm with coffee in a room separate from but adjacent to the main dining area on the main floor of the restaurant When I arrived promptly at the stated hour there was only one other person present apart from Mr. Irving and members of his family. Therefore, I had a chance to talk to him in an informal manner and get a feeling of the kind of man he really is. He talked in a very rapid manner, with a somewhat clipped British accent and seemed to be preoccupied, looking nervously at the outside. Since my hearing is no longer quite what it was five years ago I had at times some difficulty understanding everything he said. This was compounded by music from the main dining area because the glass doors, which separated our room from the other guests, were open. At the time of the mentioned Cincinnati meeting Irving stated that he would appeal the negative court decision and I was, therefore, curious about what had happened in the meantime. He told me that several appeals had been turned down, and that British authorities had also raided his home and confiscated all his archival material. His books, which had been his major source of income, have not only been removed from all major bookstores but even libraries, so that he is in serious financial difficulties. His appearances before groups, like the one I was presently attending, have been disrupted by protesters and he has been deported from Canada as well as Austria and been denied entry, among other countries, to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Italy. In England his printer’s office was firebombed. I was rather surprised and did not want to believe this because the man is not a wild eyed radical. He simply espouses and presents unconventional views, which should be tolerated in democratic countries where free speech is valued. There is no evidence that he ever advocated violence. Since I am by nature and profession a skeptic I thought that he was either exaggerating or paranoid. This feeling was reinforced by his furtive glances to the outside, which seemed to continuously distract his attention, and where I could not detect any problems. By 7 pm some individuals as well as a group of people flocked in and we had dinner. There were hardly more than a dozen people present and with one exception, a Vietnam veteran, they were all in their twenties or early thirties. After dinner, the glass doors to the main dining area were closed and Irving started his talk. He drew a comparison about President Bush’s shifting reasons for the invasion of Iraq and those of Chamberlain and subsequently Churchill at the onset of WWII. America’s reasons from imminent threat by WMDs, through: connections to Al Qaeda, regime change, deposing a vicious dictator and establishing democracy in Iraq are, of course, known to everyone who reads the papers or pays attention to the news. The WWII events as seen from the British side are less well known. Irving explained that Chamberlain declared war on Germany because he had given a guarantee to the Polish government that if Germany attacked the country, England would come to its assistance. By the beginning of October of 1939 that question was moot because Poland no longer existed. It had been partitioned between Hitler and Stalin. Although Stalin was clearly a partner in the destruction of Poland, Chamberlain did not declare war on him because that was not feasible militarily. For England to reject Hitler’s peace offer of October 6 and continue with the war there had to be a new reason, and that was “the defense of the British Empire.” But this was an excuse because Hitler had no intention to rob the British of their Empire; on the contrary he wanted them to keep it so that the Nordic Brits would hold the “inferior races” around the world in check. When Churchill took over the government in May of 1940 he knew that England could not possibly win the war by itself and that he needed the Americans for that purpose. WWI had to be replayed. But since Roosevelt had absolutely no interest in defending the British Empire, and on the contrary would do everything in his power to abolish it, another reason for the war had to be advanced. This was the final one, “to rid the world of a megalomaniac dictator who would destroy Western civilization.” All of this was no news to me or anyone else who has lived through WWII, although it does conflict with what people are being taught today as the history and origin of that war. Actually it occurred to me at the time of this writing that it wasn’t Hitler who had initiated the war on September 1, 1939. It was his partner, Stalin, when he had agreed to the partition of Poland on August 23. Had Stalin not entered into the non-aggression pact with Hitler and told him instead that he would oppose any change in Poland’s territorial integrity, Hitler would have abstained from his September invasion. A war against Russia, England and France was clearly beyond his military capabilities in 1939. But this is an aside, which belongs to subsequent thoughts rather than the events of December 18, 2003. Irving’s talk was then interrupted with a message that the manager of the restaurant wanted to see him. When he returned a couple of minutes later he apologized that he has to cancel the meeting because the manager had ordered him to do so. I couldn’t believe that this could happen in our very own Sandy. That somebody was not allowed to give a quiet presentation to a dozen people was unimaginable. I, therefore, told him and the group to just sit tight while I talked to the manager in order to find out what was going on. I could only get the assistant manager who told me that there had been complaints about Mr. Irving’s presence and a group outside the restaurant was distributing leaflets to warn potential guests to stay away. When I looked outside I did not see a group and none of the diners in the main area seemed to be upset in any way. Nevertheless she was flanked by a deputy who I thought might be one of “Sandy’s finest,” but it turned out that he was in charge only of the complex where the restaurant was located. I told the deputy that Irving was giving no offense, any group which might have been there earlier must have left, the man wasn’t going to start a riot, so what was the harm to let him talk for another three quarters of an hour. Restaurant assistant manager and deputy seemed to agree, that as long as no employees entered the room it would be ok to continue for the stated period of time. I went back with “mission accomplished” and told Irving he could carry on with his presentation. He did, but not for long. He was called out again and came back with the message that it was indeed curtains. This attitude clearly aroused my feelings again because I am, after all, a resident of Sandy, a citizen of the United States, had patronized that restaurant before, and free speech was surely one of the reasons why I had come to the U.S. in the first place. Again I went out and demanded to speak with the general manager of the establishment. We talked on the phone; I explained my views and so did he. The problem was that the leaflet group had threatened to tell The Salt Lake Tribune that he was allowing a Holocaust denier to use his restaurant and this would surely drive potential future customers away. I pleaded again for another half hour reprieve and he said that if Irving does not call him personally within the next thirty minutes the deputies in charge of the complex were empowered to evict us. I returned to the group explained what had happened and Irving continued in an obviously distracted fashion for another ten minutes or so when all of us thought it might be better to quit before the place was raided and his books, which he was trying to sell, were confiscated. The January 1, 2003 installment of the Hot Issues was entitled “Deconstructing America” and I discussed in it the changes that have taken place in our country since I arrived here in 1950. I was, therefore, no longer quite naïve but the event described above was surely unexpected and had I not personally experienced it I would not have believed it. Are these the values our troops in Iraq are fighting and dying for? We must remember that this event took place not even in Salt Lake City with a more diverse population mix but in quiet, mostly Mormon, Sandy! Irving was not paranoid, he had reason to fear, and leaflets had indeed been passed out by a group, which listed itself only as “The Holocaust History Project” with an Internet address www.holocaust-history.org. The group had apparently come after my arrival but the mentioned Vietnam vet with whom I had exchanged war stories gave me his. Under the title “Who is David Irving?” we find statements attributed to the London Times, “Britain’s leading anti-Semitic lunatic;” to Vice President Al Gore, “ That awful falsifier;” and to Judge Gray, “… he is an active Holocaust denier; … he is anti-Semitic and racist and he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo–Nazism.” These are just some samples, giving the reasons why Irving should be regarded as an “Unwelcome Guest.” Since Irving had told me earlier in private that a letter had been sent out by special interest groups to libraries requesting that his books be removed from their shelves I checked the website of the University of Utah library and indeed none of his books which were published after 1989 are available. When I looked at amazon.com only the 2002 hardcover update of Hitler’s War was available to be shipped within several weeks, others were listed as either out of stock or out of print. The Salt Lake County library system likewise has none of Irving’s books that were published after 1990. The greatest surprise came when I looked at the Library of Congress’ catalog. Hitler’s War is available in 1977 and 1990 editions but not in that of 2002. Rommel. The Desert Fox exists but the books about Goebbels and Hess do not. Furthermore, and most astounding, was that his book Nuremberg. The Last Battle is on the shelves but only in its German translation! Irving is now forced to self-promote through the website www.fpp.co.uk/books, and personal appearances which lead to the result described above. I regard this entire situation as a terribly sad commentary on the current state of America’s democracy. Regardless of what one may think about Mr. Irving personally, or his views, there is a principle at stake. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the most fundamental hallmarks of our constitution. It is true that groups have the right to pass out leaflets protesting a given person’s presence. It is also true that the manager of an establishment has the right to ask guests to leave when he is afraid that they might interfere with future earnings. But it is, furthermore, true that a climate of fear has been created in this country that effectively silences voices that challenge the currently accepted versions of history. This is a throwback to the Catholic church of the early renaissance when the dogma of the sun rotating around the earth was not to be doubted because the Bible said so. Scientific evidence was irrelevant. Nearly 500 years later we have advanced to the point where we no longer burn dissenters at the stake we just deprive them of their livelihood and ostracize them. The ancient Jewish cherem, which was pronounced against Spinoza, has now taken the place of papal Bulls. The “Index of Forbidden Books” also seems to have been resurrected and is enforced by Jewish pressure groups rather than the Catholic Church. Let me make it clear that Jewish groups have a right to protest, like everybody else, but the fearful submission of the vast non-Jewish population to the demands of small pressure groups is truly appalling. It is also most remarkable that anyone is free to deny the virgin birth of Jesus, his stature as Son of God, or any other religious dogma but the Nazi holocaust has to be written nowadays with a capital H and is absolutely taboo. Scientific investigations are not allowed. The book has been closed, the canon set in cement! I have used the word cherem, which stands for excommunication of members from the Jewish community, and it may be of interest to read an excerpt of the formula, which was pronounced over Spinoza in Amsterdam on July 27, 1656. It starts with: “Having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza they [the governing body] have endeavored by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds . . . the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel . . .” “By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with consent of the entire congregation . . . Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book [Torah] shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day.” I am indebted to Professor Lindemann of the University of California Santa Barbara campus for having provided me with the article by Asa Kasher and Shlomo Biderman: Why was Baruch de Spinoza Excommunicated? which served as the basis for the quotes. As one says in the German language: Kommentar ueberfluessig; the text speaks for itself. Let me reemphasize that I am not talking primarily about Mr. Irving’s fate, regrettable as it is, but about the nature of our democracy and what we are allowing it to become. Discerning readers may already have noted that I borrowed the title of this essay from de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America first published in 1835. It is therefore of interest to read what this French world-traveling aristocrat told his contemporaries. He was a cautious optimist who predicted the spread of democracy throughout the world : “The good things and the evils of life are more equally distributed in the world: great wealth tends to disappear, the number of small fortunes to increase; desires and gratifications are multiplied, but extraordinary prosperity and irremediable penury are alike unknown . . . Each individual stands apart in solitary weakness; but society at large is active, provident, and powerful: the performances of private persons are insignificant those of the state immense. . . . There is less perfection, but more abundance, in all the productions of the arts. The ties of race, of rank, and the country are relaxed; the great bond of humanity is strengthened . . . A state of equality is perhaps less elevated, but it is more just; and its justice constitutes its greatness and its beauty.” De Tocqueville also warned: “That men living in aristocratic countries may, strictly speaking, do without the liberty of the press: but such is not the case with those live in democratic countries. To protect their personal independence I trust not to great political assemblies, to parliamentary privilege, or the assertion of popular sovereignty. All these things may, to a certain extent, be reconciled with personal servitude. But that servitude cannot be complete if the press is free: the press is the chief democratic instrument of freedom. . . . I perceive mighty dangers which it is possible to ward off, - mighty evils which may be avoided or alleviated; and I cling with a firmer hold to the belief, that, for democratic nations to be virtuous and prosperous, they require but to will it.” More than a century and a half later democracy is indeed spreading throughout the world and its strengths and weaknesses are becoming more apparent on a daily basis. We are currently losing our freedom of the press, the only guarantor of personal freedom, and fear instead of confidence rules. Fear of losing income, prestige, or job, allows small groups with access to the press to muzzle those who do not toe the prescribed line. Those of us who do not agree with this increasing trend need to speak out. David Irving is not alone in his plight to get his books circulated. Gordon Thomas, the author of Gideon’s Spies, has also run afoul of the Anti- Defamation League. Barnes&Noble withdrew its support for his latest book Seeds of Fire and his book promotion interviews on national radio and TV were cancelled. The facts which led up to this event can be found on his website www.gordonthomas.ie under “The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith.” One truly wonders what has happened to the citizens of this country who were told in the past, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Our media are full of praise for having rescued the Iraqis from the fear of Saddam, yet hardly any attention is being paid to the fear that is generated at home. The word fear is, of course, shunned. It has been replaced by the German angst, spelled with a lower case A, apparently in an attempt to hide the real situation. Benjamin Barber has recently published a book, which I became acquainted with in its German translation. Imperium der Angst. Die USA und die Neuordnung der Welt is its title in German. The original English language title was Fear’s Empire. Terrorism, War and Democracy. Our neoconservatives believe that they can rule the world through military power. First come intimidation and subsequently, when the opposing country is weak, occupation. This seems to be the new morality and those who are in charge of our policies act surprised when they find that the rest of the world is no longer enamored with America. Jewish authorities complain about rising anti-Semitism but fail to understand that actions like the ones described above will not make people any fonder of Jews. The dozen or so people who were at David Irving’s meeting were not neo-Nazis or rabid fanatics, they were simply curious to hear another version of history and subsequently debate its merits or flaws in a civilized manner. Should it be surprising when some of these people may subsequently feel animosity against “the Jews,” and not distinguish between militant zealots and the common Jewish people who likewise feel concern about these tactics of intimidation? The end should not justify the means. There is perhaps no better final comment on today’s situation in America than the cartoon from Singapore that appeared in The Salt Lake Tribune a few days ago. |
 |
| Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you. |
Please E-mail this article to a friend
Return to index!
Return to index!
