Archive/File: holocaust/england/irving irving.aus.005 Last-Modified: 1994/10/27 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 16:32:28 +1000 Message-Id: <9410140632.AA03459@tmx.mhs.oz.au> To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com Subject: Australian Revisionism/Irving Attached please find the first chapter of the book "The case for David Irving (The selective censorship of history and free speech)" written by Nigel Jackson, who is one of our most active and prolific exponents of Holocaust Deniers' "Rights". The full book runs to some 207 pages, with numerous refernces to the inability or failure of critics of irving to prove that Leuchter is wrong, Irving is wrong or Holocaust deniers do not merit imminent canonisation. Given the author's numerous claims that he is neither antisemitic or anti-semitic, it is surprising that the religion of all Jews (and no one else) is regularly stated! EXTRACT FROM "THE CASE FOR DAVID IRVING" by Australian Irving-supporter Nigel Jackson, published in 1994 by Veritas Publishing Company Pty Ltd, Cranbook, Western Australia, 1994 CHAPTER ONE THE REVISIONIST HISTORIANS "In order to grasp the mystery of the 'historical', I must have a sense of it and history as something that is deeply mine, that is deeply my history, that is deeply my destiny. - Nicolas Berdyaev, The Meaning of History When British historian David Irving was banned from Australia early in 1993, he made use of modern technology to speak to Australians via a video film, "The Search for Truth in History". Even though the proprietors of a number of halls were intimidated by David Irving's opponents, and cancelled bookings with Irving's Australian representatives, thousands eventually managed to see the film, which concludes with a powerful statement of faith by Irving. He likens freedom of speech to an ancient right which, unless constantly used, will fall into decay and eventually die. He makes the telling point that freedom of speech is essential for an historian who seeks to discover the truth. Prepared to admit that he could be proved wrong on some issues, Irving says that without freedom of speech, he would even be denied the right to be proved wrong. History is not something of mere academic interest. As George Orwell wrote in Nineteen Eighty-Four, "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Early in 1992 I published an open letter to the Australian people warning that our traditional freedom of speech was greatly jeopardised, by legislation ostensibly directed against racial vilification, violence and hatred. I expressed the hope that I would later publish appendices, additional statements, to support the claims I was making. A time has now arrived at which it is particularly appropriate to state a defence of one group of people who, not only in Australia but elsewhere in the world, are menaced by political censorship, masquerading as legislation against "racism". I refer to the "revisionist historians", with David Irving now the most publicly prominent. If one were to go by the "wisdom" of the mass media, of various magazines which have some reason to be regarded as cultured, of parliamentarians of all parties and of spokespeople (more or less representative) for various ethnic minority groups, then one would hold to the belief that these revisionist historians are not true historians at all but rather "pseudo-academics", "extremists", "racists", "neo-nazis", "fascists" or "ultra-rightists". There is actually quite an extensive prepared armoury of insult terms available for adoption by those who, whether through laziness, indifference, apathy, opportunism, cowardice, or whatever motivation, are ready to succumb to the conditioning which entrenched and powerful cliques are eager to trap them with. The truth is quite otherwise: and the best way to establish that is to read a judicious selection of the books and essays published by the revisionists. The Institute for Historical Review, a much-slandered American-based community of scholars and researchers, has published a brief pamphlet by its director, Tom Marcellus, entitled The Tradition of Historical Revisionism. This is a useful starting point for the case for the defence. Marcellus dates the origin of the phrase "revisionist historians" to Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, who founded a school of historical thought following World War One. Revisionism to him meant "nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historicial record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude." The term, Marcellus explains, originated with a group of scholars (French, British, American, Germand and others) whose researches undermined the presumption of unique German responsibility for the outbreak of World War One. It has subsequently come to include all historical findings at odds with the Establishment version. (Marcellus could also have added: "or established version", a wider-ranging phrase). Marcellus then concludes that to support the principle of revisionism is to support the freedom of speech in history, He explains, moving into more controversial territory, that when history is written by partisan historians from victor nations, it tends to be biased. Correction is needed by impartial study of the secret records of wartime governments and of their ministers, diplomats, military leaders and other functionaries. There is no doubt that David Irving is a master of this method. Since World War Two, Marcellus asserts, it is regrettable that the "court historians" (those historical writers who, for one reason or another, support the Establishment line) have often been given privileged access to the records, while dissident historians have been excluded from them. The access given to Churchill's official biographer, Dr Martin Gilbert, by Her Majesty the Queen, but denied to David Irving, is a case in point (relating to documents held by the British Crown). Contrary to the view of the profanum vulgus, Marcellus points out that the revisionist scholars who are working in many nations around the world cannot be grouped together at a particular position on the conventional "left-centre-right" political spectrum. They are men and women who believe that citizens have right to know what their governments are doing behind the scenes and behind the propaganda. They are opposed to the imposition of monolithic "orthodoxy" in the area of historical studies. Their approach tends naturally to lead towards reconciliation, greater understanding, the resolution of conflicts and the diminution of future wars. "By wresting control of the past from established interests and returning it to those who lived and suffered it, revisionist may make possible a secure and prosperous future for all of us". However, the concept of revisionism is more profound, and requires further explication. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (the two-volume 1973 edition) provides the Latin origin of the term. The prefix "re-" in front of the verb videre (to see) can denote "back", "again" or "repeatedly" - and all of these possibilities are relevant to our topic. The revisionist approach is one which looks back, sometimes very far back indeed, even into ancient times; it looks again, not accepting the first offered explanation; and it looks repeatedly, in that it engages in a very serious and onerous and rigorous study of its materials. The esteemed dictionary further gives us a 1611 date for the earliest reference to "revision", understood as the "action of revising, especially critical or careful examination or perusal with a view to correcting or improving". There is an 1865 date for the first appearance of a "revisionist" as "one who advocates revision"; and there is an 1881 date for "revisionists", these being the revisers of the Bible. That last reference remids us that the act of revision applies to every aspect of our traditional inheritance of culture and civilisation - and not just to history, or the history of our present century. Revisionism is an attitude that is indispensable to the maintenance of that inheritance; it must be undertaken anew by each generation; and there is nothing that can claim to be sacrosanct from such renewed investigation. Only God, Allah, the ain-soph, stands immune to such scrutinies - but not the man-made theologies, rituals, cults, texts and political forms which are created (more or less wisely) in the name of that ultimate. The great traditionalist poet, T.S. Eliot, understood well the importance of revisionism. His famous essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent, is filled with its spirit, applied to his own field of literature. He knew that being traditional does not mean "a blind acceptance or timid adherence" to the previous generation and its successes (real or apparent). He wrote: "Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly indispendable to anyone who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer, and within it, the whole of the literature of his own country, has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order." Our time is disfigured by a squalid attempt by a currently powerful ehnic minority with long-established antecedents (or some of the members thereof) to stamp out the works of the revisionist historians whose researches are felt to offend them or strike at their interests. Because of his status, David Irving is seen as a major threat to those groups who seek to profit by their own version of history. No honourable person or educational institution will succumb to the pressure associated with this misdirected enterprise. The revisionist historians (in the narrower senses of the phrase) are a part of a much larger community of endeavour that is vital to the continued wellbeing of humanity; and that is the prime reason why their freedom to speak, research, write and publish should be firmly and fearlessly defended.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor