There is more yet on the ". . . don't pick on poor me!" discussion thread about the Holocaust topic.
This discussion is ever more visibly moving away from a dogmatic "The Holocaust happened! Period! And you are evil to say that it didn't. . . !" to a slight-of-hand minimization of the ***consequences*** of the Holocaust dogma on society.
Here "Gabor", a Jew, argues against "Slade", presumably a Gentile.
(Qualifier: Since these strings become very entangled in the cyber-back-and-forth, it could be that there are more than one "Gabor" speaking for the Holocaust Enforcer side and more than one "Slade" opposing the Holocaust Enforcer arguments. But I think that, with the help of some grammar and punctuation, I have condensed the gist of this discussion - Gabor's argument being: "What's ***really*** up your sleeve? ***So what*** if it turns out that you were right? Does that not make you ***still*** an anti-Semite with wicked motivations?")
Gabor:
"(C)ould you take a discussion seriously, if the focus of it was (for example) whether it was Edison who invented the light bulb or someone else? For a brief while the subject would be the technical details of the carbon filament - then (it would change to) whether ". . . carbon was created by God" or ". . . is it organic fossils?"
Slade:
"Whether I took it seriously or not would be irrelevant, since I would fully expect discussion to drift away to questionably relevant, and even bizarre, side issues. I'm not kidding here - name one forum that is open to the general public that doesn't routinely devolve into constant bickering over side issues."
Gabor:
"Ah...but you see, in ***this*** topic the side issues are not being brought up by the opposition, but brought up by the Revisionists. Big difference!
"Here we have a group (Revisionists) pushing a particular main topic - allegedly to point out that gas chambers in WWII didn't exist - and it is also (Revisionists) who muddy the issue with the various side issues - from Biblical topics, through the Khazar issue, through Zionism - all the way to what happened yesterday in Israel."
Slade:
"Excellent question. The way I see it, they ***should***. The topic is specific, and addresses one particular issue - although a complex one - more than half a century ago.
"I would expect the common intention/motivation to be a genuine inner craving of seeing the correct history written. And that is exactly what some or most Revisionists initially claim - until the surface is scratched and out come so many other possible intention/motivation(s). Just as you suggest with your question."
Gabor:
"While I certainly can't argue with your opinions/observations, I think I didn't phrase my question properly. Let me try again:
"Do all Holocaust revisionists share the same intention and/or motivation to the exclusion of any others? By this I mean: Can Revisionists hold differing ***additional*** intentions/motivations beyond the common ones that bind them as a group?"
Slade:
"For all practical purposes you are asking: Can revisionists have ***other*** motivations than finding out the truth about the gas chambers?"
Gabor:
"They can, but more additional motivation will lessen the credibility of the original one."
Slade:
"May I respectfully submit that most of us have a difficult time in remaining focused in the middle of such an atmosphere? Have you actually read alt.revisionism for any length of time? It's Hell in there!"
Gabor:
"I am not responsible for the behavior of others. I am a Jew. I am here discussing views which one way or another are aimed against Jews. I can remain perfectly focused, and I expect no more, but also no less from those I am discussing with.
"If there is a scientific level interest in a topic (any topic), no goading and chiding should be able to influence the central body of the topic. At least not in "my book" of "rules of conversation".
"Since I have never heard of people having different approaches, ways, different interpretation of evidence data about whether 2+2=4 or not, it seems fair to state that Holocaust Revisionism is far from being obvious."
Slade:
"I freely admit to not being trained as an historian, but surely you can't compare the interpretation of empirical data - such as in the case of 2+2, which has a single solution/interpretation - with the way history is studied."
Gabor:
"True. Yet, revisionists demand 2+2=4 like proof to some of the debated events and their conclusions are based on the lack of such proof. Let's ask the question, whether Revisionists would stop if, let's say, one day it would come out that the holocaust really didn't happen?
"Would they retire with a fulfilling satisfaction that they achieved their goal, now history correctly being written and life can go on?"
Slade:
"Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I would certainly find something else to pass the time with, once the revised version of the Holocaust was known to the general public."
Gabor:
"Then I think you are a minority among Revisionists. So far, from my conversations with Revisionists I observed (at least) the following goals:
1. No gas chambers.
2. No planned killings of the jews
3. Therefore no Holocaust
4. If there was no Holocaust, the establishment of Israel was wrong.
5. Therefore, either no Israel, or at least no US support of Israel.
6. If there was no Holocaust, no condemnation of National Socialism.
7. Hitler was not such a bad guy.
8. Stopping alleged Jewish influence on media, politics, finances (without much if-then connection).
9. And believe it or not, I have even observed the following "conclusion", based on the Khazar issue: "The Biblical Jews don't even exist anymore, therefore present-day Jews are not the "chosen people"" Do you see that as a realistic possibility? Or would there be some next steps?"
Slade:
"I'm not sure what you mean by "next steps"? Are you talking about actually getting out there to help disseminate the new information - or something more nefarious...?"
Gabor:
"No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the list above. Do you honestly believe that the isolated issue of ". . . gas chambers or not" would trigger such an issue, would trigger so many people to spend their lives to explore such isolated issue? I don't think so.
"If there would be no consequences of the ". . . no gas chambers", very few would bother, with perhaps the exception of a few professional historians. How many other historical topics can you name, which drew thousands and thousands of amateur "historians" to explore and fight for the topic in order to revise it? (...)
"Jews are an "irritating minority" - for thousands of years. Irritating, because despite thousands of years of opposition, they somehow "bounce back", continue to exist, and not only to exist, but somehow playing some kind of significant role in society, wherever they appear. Jews seem to be somewhat better off than the grand average, which always bothered the grand average.
"For about 2000 years, the religious aspect was the great trump against Jews. But somehow in the 20th century, this became somewhat of a lesser issue in general. Then came Hitler, the Holocaust, quickly followed by the establishment of a Jewish nation.
"Jews continued to play a higher than average role in societies. We know that human nature has one amazing capacity: Never blame self for whatever problem, but blame someone else.
"It is almost an instinctual reaction, almost automatic.
"And I admit that Jews indeed infiltrated the media, Hollywood, some important political positions in USA, and at some other places too. So, what would be the most logical ". . . I am not doing as well in life as I think I should" explanation by many? How would one do it in the more and more complex age of the end of the 20th century?
"Saying a "Damn Jews!" would be too primitive, definitely too ineffective.
"Going back half a century, trying to "undo" the perceived cause of Jewish success during the second part of the century seems a lot more logical.
"And those who are doing that, pull some others, the intellectually curious, without a gripe or an agenda, with them. That is why there are quite a few Revisionists who really and honestly believe that the true goal is to set history right and find out whether there were gas chambers or not.
"But the true motivator ***could be*** the age old Jew-Gentile squabble.
"Finally: if at one point, I will be convinced that not only there were no gas chambers, but indeed there were no planned killing of jews, I will be the first one to come back and profusely apologize for the above blurb."
Slade:
"So far, from my observations among those who make Holocaustalism a profession, I have observed the following goals:
1. Make everyone in the world feel guilty for what was allegedly done to the "Jews".
2. Force anyone in the world with doubts about the historical factuality of the Holocaust to back up, sit down, and shut up.
3. Make it punishable by fines and prison senences to express doubts about the Holocaust
4. Give the Middle East land and oil fields to Organized Jewry.
5. In the meantime, since the world is taking so long to give up the Middle East, make the US give Israel billions in foreign aid to prop up their inflated currency.
6. Use the Holocaust story to grab money from European banks and insurance companies.
"Now since the world is being beaten heavily about the head and shoulders with this guilt trip, it becomes natural for people of ordinary curiosity to get curious about the fulcrum of the Big Stick: the Holy Holocaust.
"And lo and behold, there ***is*** something wrong with the Holocaust. All that compensation for exaggerated pains and outright lies!
"Now we come to question compensation paid ***on the basis of these false claims***.
"We question the refuge built in the desert for the poor tortured peoples. We question the atrocities THEY committed in securing their refuge in the desert, and the real Semitics they had to displace to get it. We come to question the mechanisms used to push these false claims, including Hollywood and the other "media". And we come to question the pedigree of those who make their false claims on the basis of race, and we find that they are not Hebrews, as they pretend, they are not even Jews, as they call themselves, but they are only watered-down racial descendents of the Khazars, the ancient European Turkic empire from the Dark Ages.
"That is why so many subjects are (dragged) into the debate: The Zionists have a long history of lies and fraud. The revisionists, in tracing those lies and fraud, follow the thread of fraud as it has been laid down - and they wind up covering a lot of ground.
"What you see here is not a Revisionist agenda. This is only the ***unraveling*** of the Holocaustian/Zionist agenda.
"It is a Mississippi of lies followed from the delta to the tributaries and the source. The fact is that you, personally, are willing to push any lie to further ***your*** agenda. Pardon me if I recognize it. And I know you will not.
"Take, for example the following, (your statement):
"Jews are an "irritating minority" for thousands of years. Irritating, because despite thousands of years of opposition, they somehow "bounce back", continue to exist, and not only to exist, but somehow playing some kind of significant ole in society, wherever they appear."
"In the Biblical period, they were not just an irritating minority. They were the meanest sons-of-bitches in the valley. They started their career in Israel by massacring hundreds of thousands of people and stealing a fertile country out from under the natives. Victims tend not to forgive or forget that sort of thing. You are putting humor where it does not belong when you term it "irritating".
"The "Jews" as you call them, were not a people until the separation of the Two Kingdoms, sometime in 400 BC. Prior to that they were Hebrews. Following the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian and the last Diaspora in about 70 AD, the "Jews" have not existed as a political entity in any quantity. Judaism was a flickering candle until the Khazars took up the religion in about 800 AD. In about 1300 AD, they supplanted the ancient Hebrews just as rabbinical Judaism supplanted Biblical Jehovaism.
"(And) as though Hollywood (were) not the continuously overflowing toilet of the nation - - indeed, of the world! As though Hollywood did not spend billions to outrage every sensibility, moral, principle, and cultural tradition! As though Hollywood just ". . . puts out what people want"!
"Hollywood very definitely has an agenda, and a big part of that is portraying Nazis as the worst evil since the Black Plague, over and over and over in every third picture. It is also steadily engaged in degrading and destroying the Christian culture. I am not a Christian, and so I can watch impartially as Christian ministers are portrayed with a hatred exceeded only by Hollywood's hatred for Nazis. When was the last time we saw an honest Hollywood Christian or hypocritical Hollywood rabbi?
"And so it goes, from one huge gasping lie to the next, right through to this last one - - the pretense that you are "convincible". Sure. But there is no truth here, only the continued pretense of conversation.
"You are partaking in this noise as though you were throwing out a "WOOF" now and again to keep the neighborhood dogs barking. You have no idea what you or anyone else is saying, and you don't even care.
"It is just amusing to yell "WOOF" and listen to the response."
(end of cyber-string)
Small comment here from Ernst Zundel when I showed him this string:
"I wish it was that! It is not! The arguments or WOOFs are for the Holocaust Enforcers what the ejected burning magnesium flares are for the Israeli Air Force - to attract and deflect deadly heat-scaling missiles from zeroing or honing in on the actual jet.
"The missile seeks out the hotter heat of the magnesium flare and harmlessly explodes. The jet zooms on - fulfilling its mission of death and destruction."
Thought for the Day:
"Those who awaken early pay the price."
(Letter to the Zundelsite)