[From an Australian user] 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).

The original plaintext version of this file is available via ftp.

[ Index | Next ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor