He who casts the first
I was pleased with the thoughtful nature
of the many responses I received about the waitress, a withered old retainer comment,
and I apologise to those who feel like Maureen that this is gossip, which it is!
But it does clarify things and it
indicates that Revisionists have not only intellectual but also moral concerns,
i.e. Revisionists are human after all, and most attempt to balance the
physical and mental qualities within their person!
As a right of reply is precious to me, and I offer it wherever
possible, I did not receive a reply from David Irving.
Here is a selection of responses, and with that the matter is now
1. If David Irving wants to air his
comments in Action Report, I think it is mischievous for others to hone
in and publicise these remarks. This
really amounts to trivia and
2. Fredrick! - ditto to your
Regardless of the outward appearances! Whether guests are
present or not, let your table etiquette be faultless. Show some
consideration/respect. Address everyone with courtesy - to show you follow
the laws of good conduct and courtesy. Usually the custom for well-mannered and
well-bred individuals, is to always display the gift of good manners, followed
by gentle and polite conversations/replies in unknown places - lack of
etiquette-indicates the neglect of the tenets of good breeding!
3. If what Irving writes is true, then as a
Canadian, I am shocked too. But as my British father--later a naturalized
Canadian--used to say, insulting and being rude is natural to "upper-class"
Brits because they are trained to be superior snobs while in school. Maybe the
trend is changing.
class" knows how to behave and only upstarts thereto flounder in their
behaviour - is this owing to the fact that 'class -thinking' is false
4. Subject: FW: American customs
Fred, Mark, Just a few words. We're old timers and don't have time for newspeak.
I've been in the so called movement for freedom all my life. During this
time, in numerous states, individuals -who didn't know one another-
had similar remarks about DI. Some of these men were from the cremedla creme.
When I was a kid it was said that personality defined man's definition. You
see, that was the layman's term and it was really okay. When studying for my
doctoral degree, I was told about the five major variables of personality.
Because psychology is not a science, we can get to the chase without any
semantics. Here, one could use two words that are generally prevalent: (a)
Traits; and (b) characteristics.
The character of any individual who will act
as you describe, demonstrates a rotten intrinsic mould. Such behavior paradigms
denote obvious facts: (1) A disregard for the feelings of another human
being; and (2) A disrespect for those in one's environment.
Bottom line: Such an individual, as you described, would do the same to
you (especially if you crossed him).
Dozens of patriotic men, of different
Euro-American ethnic backgrounds, have indicated that DI has the most primitive
behavior, is rude and obnoxious. I have no personal contact with the man and so
cannot present more time on this matter. However, in all probability, all those
indicating the traits of DI can't be wrong.
Look, when I was distributing
AB's book to ministers within the Polish Gov., some disliked Germans. Others
were merely full of trepidation. None were rude. All privately admired Prof.
B. To say such publicly could have cost them their lives. Yet, not a
single official -privately- could induce anything but praise towards
Mr. AB. On the other hand, if I had shown the book to an individual
belonging to the "best of all people," a trait similar to that
attributed to DI would have proven a disorder...
Sometimes we are overjoyed
with great writers. At the same time we cannot separate the pen from the man. I
have no idea why you shared this with me. To me it's old news. Besides, I
believe my few lines will make the adjudication of what you already know,
easier. I hope so.
Friends, it is one thing to argue. It is quit another to
have a primitive
(in a suit) within one's environment. Nuff.
all the best/Bruno
REGARDING IRVING'S BAD
I am inclined to agree that most Americans, at least those
with whom I am acquainted, are naturally inclined to exceptional good manners
but I am sorry to say that, as a British citizen, this is becoming less the case
with my fellow countrymen. I have always held the opinion that good manners are
a mark of a civilised people but then you get bad eggs in every nation. It is a
cultural thing, with Arab nations, especially, offering a genuine hospitality as
a matter of course ... their exceptional good manners following a strict code.
Wo betide those who transgress it.
In the case of David Irving this could be
a wanna-be "great man" imitating a genuinely great man whose memory lives on in
a way that Irving's never shall. Irving is an admirer of Sir Oswald Mosley but
never an active supporter of Mosley, as I can claim to have been.
Mosley's late secretary, Jeffrey Hamm, recalls an episode
autobiography, ACTION REPLAY, published in 1983. Hamm travelled to Le
Havre in France to meet up with the Mosleys in a hotel at midday to take down
some dictated letters. After three hours delay Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley
Sir Oswald said, "We have a lot of work to do, I think we'll have
that table over here". No lunch was ordered, although Hamm had anticipated some
and was suffering the pangs of hunger after three hours wait, and the patron was
waved aside after enquiring if they wanted a room. When Lady Mosley
ordered some coffee and rolls for the hungry Hamm, Sir Oswald looked
disapprovingly, allowing Hamm only a sip and a bite.
After using the hotel
for several hours in order to complete their work,
Mosley ordered one bottle
of wine and left Hamm to it with the parting words of, "I don't think we'll come
here again. It was rather noisy".
Hamm, ever loyal, poses the rhetorical
question of whether this was
arrogance or contempt and then goes on to claim
that it was really the
"supreme self-confidence of a man conscious of his
great talents, driving
himself hard and demanding equal dedication and
devotion to duty from all who served him, impatient at any petty impediments to
the grand purpose".
Make of this what you will. Was Hamm being sycophantic
towards his leader or did he recognise that true greatness transcends what some
would regard asbourgeois pettiness?
Irving's blunt remarks to the beleaguered
American waitress are another
matter altogether. To tell someone who enquires
after one's well-being to
"go away" is not only arrogance but threateningly
hostile. I have no doubt that Irving is acquainted with the story of the
Mosleys' meeting in Le Havre and wrongly thought he could pull off something
similar in California and win admirers for having done so. Unfortunately, Irving
lacks the style found in true greatness and comes out of it with the attitude of
an obnoxious barrow boy.
That Irving actually boasts of this episode in his
REPORT is remarkable for its insensitivity. "I do not
American customs [good manners] , even after all these
years", seems to
suggest that Irving has learning difficulties and his
American admirers must now be looking elsewhere for a
revisionist champion. Who needs Irving, anyway? "Please go away", is a
phrase that springs to mind.
6. Irving! At a speech Mr. Irving held
in a hotel in Durban some years ago, during question time I raised the question:
"Mr. Irving, have you had any access to Russian archives?"
Unfortunately I asked:
"-- -- have you had any access, (stressing the last syllable) instead of access
(stressing the first syllable). Irving on the spot made a fool of me before 50 listeners
because of wrong pronunciation. Sometimes he can really be a tactless
Schwacke with a grin.
7. Dear Fredrick, I have dined in a
few restaurants where they have taken to the American affectation of
asking "how's everything? or "how's your meal?" or "is everything alright?",
usually several times whilst my group is eating. May I suggest that;
the waitress wanted to know how everything is, she'd have to ask some one a hell
of a lot smarter than me;
(2) If the waitress wanted to know how much I had
enjoyed my meal, the least she could do is give me the courtesy of letting me
finish it uninterrupted as by then I could have given a reasoned and factual
reply. Mechanics don't ask you how well the car is going halfway through a tune
(3)If anything was NOT alright, I would be perfectly capable of
summonsing a member of the staff myself.
I DO find it rude for an unknown person to
interrupt me mid chew (or gulp) and I believe that this situation has been
brought about by the American system of every person who does ANYTHING for you
expects a gratuity. This constant interruption is merely a fishing opportunity
for money. A meal out is meant to be with friends, not sundry hangers on who
will dive in as soon as you pause mid forkful. I was once asked "how did you
find the steak?", and I replied that it would have been easier if it wasn't
hidden under a lettuce leaf.
If I have been well watered and fed, I will
always leave something extra for good service given, but to me good service is
meant to be neither seen or heard unless it is summonsed. Yes, manners are
important...from BOTH sides.
Oh, and by the way..."Have a nice
Guys - I would imagine the question put to Irving and his companion was
"Is everything alright, sir?". This is a standard question which American
waitresses are obliged to ask after a customer has eaten a few mouthfuls of food
in order to avoid lawsuits arising from contaminated food.
If the answer is "No" then the
food will be removed. If the answer is "Yes" then don't expect to sue the diner
if you later go down with e-coli poisoning as you have agreed that everything is
alright. There is no getting round this - answering "I'll let you know tomorrow"
will be taken as "No" - and the food will be removed, the manager will be called
and you will be expected to leave (without being billed) and to not
I am not trying to defend Irving's rudeness, only to shed some
light on the probable circumstances. Persecuting someone who is only doing her
job is indeed inexcusable. She would be fired for not asking the question. Not
that she has ' employment' as we understand it. In most US 'Greek' diners the
waitresses work for tips alone and are merely permitted by the management to
work given tables at given hours. That permit would be withdrawn if she did not
cover the diner legally by asking the required question.
extends across a much wider spectrum of behaviour than in Europe and elsewhere.
The most mannered people I have ever met have been Americans - and the biggest,
rudest arseholes too.
Having said that, I've never
met anything nastier than an Englishman. I recall one fellow warning me to be
careful because "there are some real nutcases in New Jersey". I could only reply
that he had obviously never visited England. By comparison with Britain, New
Jersey is tame. In New Jersey you really do have to cross the Mafia to get in
In England your only crime
needs to be that some other fellow's girlfriend is looking at you. In fact she
is probably looking at you in order to provoke a fight, since English women
traditionally love to watch their men
=========and the item that started it
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 12:41
Subject: American customs
David Irving's Action Report (#25,
January 20) describes a lunch he had with "Mark W", apparently in southern
"When the waitress, a withered old
retainer by whom however Mark seems disproportionately taken, interrupts to
inquire if everything is alright, I say: 'It was, until you interrupted our
conversation. Please go away. And don't interrupt again.'
shocked. I don't understand these American customs, even after all these
I am shocked too.
Fredrick Töben comments:
Most Americans have
a gentility and politeness that I admire. There is
something morally wrong
with individuals who are not shocked as Butz and Mark are - there is such a
thing as manners because morals and manners maketh man!