Back To Comment Archives|
Comment Dated Mar 15, 2006
This week sees the disgraceful sentencing in Austria of the British Historian David Irving for disagreeing with what those in authority require that we believe. Others are imprisoned elsewhere in Europe under similar charges, by nations that crow about their upholding of free speech by publishing tasteless and insulting cartoons. Mark Weber, Director of the Institute For Historical Review in California, describes the circumstances and lists some of the victims at www.rense.com/general69/orvv.htm. What is it, exactly, that the Revisionists are saying and not saying? Professor Arthur Butz of Northwestern University--also currently the subject of considerable controversy and misunderstanding--sums it up cogently on his web site at pubweb.northwestern.edu/~abutz/abhdhr.html.
The ritualized arrogance of the parrots that I read in the mainstream media makes me doubt if they have tried to learn anything about the subject before playing back their culturally indoctrinated opinions. Have any of them actually read any of the Revisionists' works, studied their sources, or compared objectively and critically the Revisionists' arguments with the officially dispensed story they've been told? If not, how do they presume to form any judgment that can be called informed before lecturing the world at large?
I have. In fact it was Arthur Butz's book (see Home Page from the link above) that first aroused my interest in the subject many years ago now. I got to know Mark Weber quite well during the time that I lived in California, as a result of my following up various further researches. And I find their case more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says. So I suppose that expressing such skepticism makes me a guilty party too.
In June this year I'm scheduled to visit Germany as the Guest of Honor at a science-fiction convention in Lubeck, and I have no intention of withdrawing on this kind of account. So are S.F. writers now to risk being arrested when they step off a plane, simply for looking at two bodies of evidence and reaching a conclusion other than the one demanded? Well, we'll see, won't we?