Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid
February 26, 1998
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
While I was doing the David Cole series, all kinds of interruptions and
reconsiderations interfered, and an announced "series of ten"
became a "series of nine."
There is one essay left I feel is beautiful, albeit esoteric, and I am shipping
it today for our ZGram connoisseurs who hunger for sophisticated interpretation
of what is happening to our souls and our cherished freedoms.
While Ernst spoke of the practical lessons to be drawn from the David Cole
defection, David Thomas of CODOH wrote one of his classics - a milestone
of sorts, I believe, that illustrates the nature of our intellectual struggle
as we take back our minds and our children's future.
"WHILE (the story) is ostensibly about David Cole, his
case really only serves as an illustration of a problem seldom discussed
in public, and therefore not known to most of the public.
Cole's experience demonstrates graphically a fairly benign instance of the
methods used around the world, day in and day out, to relentlessly and ruthlessly
quash attempts by honest people to examine in detail a historical event
of legitimate interest to a great many, if not all people in the West and
The concern about this is not mollified by the fact that many of those who
engage in this program of intimidation through slander, mass propaganda
and physical threats do so in sincerity, with a firm conviction that what
they do has a greater good which more than justifies its wrongs. We ignore
these wrongs at the risk of our legitimate rule of law and our own freedoms.
The seeming dichotomy of great wars fought by opposing religions who both
seek to convey the love of their God to all people, and who will slaughter
millions of them to do that, is no mystery if you look at it from the zealot's
or fanatic's perspective. The fact that others do not see the greater good
at work is due to their own spiritual shortcomings, he tells himself, and
in the land of the heathen you do what you must to survive - and keep the
Whatever you must.
Our position on this affliction of the fanatic is a simple one. The one
universal good that outweighs all others must be a person's right to follow
any life path they choose so long as they offer no infringement on the rights
of others. Our Declaration of Independence speaks of the inalienable rights
we all have to our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness - which is to
say the sanctity of our own bodies, freedom of movement and association,
and freedom of thought.
Those who seek to deprive others of any of these outside the unfortunate
but necessary repressions of the State we call justice earn for themselves
what they gave. The principle is that of equity at its most basic level.
As you deprive others of their liberty, so shall society see that you are
deprived in equal measure, because there is no justification for any individual
to take away any other individual's freedoms, even to the smallest part.
That power is and must be confined to our mechanisms of government.
The right to harbor unpopular, even intolerant beliefs, and the right to
express them are protected by the Constitution, which spells out the unqualified
right of all Americans to unfettered freedom of speech. But intimidation
aimed at silencing speech, and thus infringing on that right, be it through
slander, threats or force, is not so protected.
In fact, people who used those exact methods of intimidation to keep blacks
from voting found themselves jailed for conspiring to deprive others of
their lawful civil rights. The basis for this was a post-Civil War law passed
to address widespread abuses of that kind.
That law has expanded quite liberally to include now a variegated collection
of non-enumerated rights, such as going to school or working at a job, free
of harassment aimed at depriving you of those opportunities. It is not necessary
to argue about whether everything falling under this aegis is a legitimate
"right" in order to see the illegitimacy of how it is applied,
because we will look in a direction that should be a given - toward the
inarguable central rights, to see how they fare in the protection game.
It is fashionable now to approve the increasing scope of civil rights law,
yet some attempt to make the case that applying it to portions of the Bill
of Rights is not proper or not needed. A common rationale is that differences
of opinion are private matters that government should not, cannot be involved
in. A valid point when only differences of opinion are present - invalid
when coercion is applied to limit or deny freedom of speech or deprive someone
of their livelihood (such as black-balling dissident authors in the publishing
Once coercion enters, the argument is without logic, for if government
oversight is valid for protecting any one right, then it is valid for all.
Politically selected application of justice is a repugnant practice that
coarsens and weakens all involved.
Yet that is exactly what is taking place in this country today. (...) Justice
is truly blindfolded. No one seems to see the blatant abuses committed by
those who oppose those views, including vicious beatings on the steps of
courthouses, arson, letter-bombs, terrorizing with threats of harm.
If you happen to be pushing a topic deemed by popular opinion to be so
lacking in merit that it somehow poses a danger to the citizenry, you will
find little interest on the part of authorities to address these crimes
or lessen their occurrence. This is nothing less than state and public sanctioned
vigilantism, or terrorism, and it has no place in societies that would call
One of the hottest areas for this is Holocaust historical revisionism,
which to a newcomer seems an oddity. (Emotions run high over history ??
That's the class you sleep in!) Attempts to point out glaring inconsistencies
in the popular and now institutionalized account bring howls of rage from
those who disagree. If the initial rage isn't enough to make someone cease
and desist (which it often is), then the ante is raised and will keep on
being raised to whatever level is needed to silence the target.
It may start with simple slander, automatic and unfounded labels of "anti-Semite",
"denier", "hater", "Nazi" and more are pasted
on with the often expressed intent of destroying resolve and/or career,
legitimate aims because the target is deemed "unfit" to be a member
of any decent society. Those who don't give up are then marginalized by
campaigns to convince the public of their evil and 100% erroneous views,
their universally undesirable nature.
When these aren't effective enough, then threats of injury or death are
employed, such as with David Cole. At the extreme end, people are killed,
like American-Arab peace activist Sami Odeh, murdered by a letter-bomb of
suspected Zionist origin.
The open existence of and tolerance shown for this despicable practice fouls
our national social fabric immensely. This is a major thing we'd like to
see the public become aware of and hopefully say, "You know, this seems
pretty un-American to me. And even if I'm wrong about that, it sucks to
allow people to hurt others because they don't like their opinions. And
I believe government should give some attention to what's going on."
The rest of our job would then be very easy, as frightened people with
much knowledge of the truth of the matter could at last speak openly. We
might turn out to be right, and we might be wrong. But it would be settled
quickly and we could quit hassling about it. Those who claim their feelings
are so tender that this can't be allowed would be over it before you know
it, and life would go on a little more peacefully.
If getting rid of a death-threat by giving in to coercion was what it took
for Cole to regain peace of mind, we understand and neither resent nor condemn,
only empathize. No one should be faced with an ultimatum to choose between
their beliefs and their personal safety in the United States of America.
That is a despicable, and in our minds, criminal affair.
We are all forced to recite a government mandated litany affirming a nonsensical
collective belief in non-existent Arab terrorists every time we board an
airplane. While we docilely play these sheep-like roles in the instillment
of our own "good think," the real terrorists operate publicly
and unhindered because they belong to any of a number of designated groups
whose excesses one is forbidden to criticize, however legitimately or temperately.
It is disturbing to realize how very far this nation, and much of the Western
world, has fallen from the fiery spirit which threw off the yokes of ancient
tyrannies in the 18th and 19th centuries, ushering in the Age of Enlightenment.
That light now dims because we are all too willing to take "Give me
liberty or give me death!" and Newspeak convert it to, "Give me
liberty at any cost except personal discomfort or civic involvement."
This is how it comes to be that good men stand and say nothing - how in
fact we came to be where we are now.
But let us return to the matter at hand, David Cole's run-in with the dark
side of the strident opposition to open examination of a historical issue.
Addressing the possibility that this complete reversal of belief was sincere,
then we hope David Cole is successful in his new endeavors whatever they
Perhaps we'll meet on opposite sides in some future debate forum. That
would be a treat, because David was always a worthy opponent; quick, well
informed, and with a gift for public speaking. He'll do well in any situation,
because he has enough intelligence to sort truth from pretense all by himself
- as long as the moral vigilantes and intellectual terrorists among us allow
him to, that is.
(David Thomas. Posted with permission)
Thought for the Day:
"What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness."
Comments? E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Back to Table of Contents of the Feb. 1998 ZGrams