A few weeks ago I wrote a small op ed article for a rather pokey paper wherein I asked my readers to take a kindergarten quizz, to wit:
This is to challenge readers with a small opinion poll. Please take two minutes of your time to answer ten simple questions by circling "Yes" or "No":
# 1. Did Harvey Oswald shoot John F. Kennedy? Yes No
# 2. Was the assault on Ruby Ridge legitimate? Yes No
# 3. Was Waco justified? Yes No
# 4. Has the disastrous Oklahoma City bombing been explained? Yes No
# 5. Have you been told the truth about Vince Foster? Yes No
# 6. Was Princess Di's death an accident? Yes No
# 7. Do you trust your elected leaders? Yes No
# 8. Is Clinton trustworthy? Yes No
# 9. Are mainstream media accurate? Yes No
# 10. Have you been told the truth about the Holocaust? Yes No
I added, knowing that my potential readers were new to the Revisionist battle:
"Was there some hesitation? Did your heart skip a beat? (...) Now ask yourself: Why would grown people shy away from eight small letters - "Holocaust"? Why would they flinch? For fear of being called a name?
"Why would intelligent, discerning individuals consent to being neutered in their reasoning and logic by a few words and phrases - a handful of emotion-laden slurs and mere intimidating trigger words?"
Needless to say, I poked into a big fat hornet's nest. Upon reflection, I should have added Question # 11 to this quizz:
# 11: Have you been told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about your favored villain, Adolf Hitler?"
Since I pretty well know my ZGram readers, I am sure that quite a few of them would have had little trouble circling "No" for Question #10.
I bet you equally that 95% of my readers would have been startled, shocked and probably dismayed if not insulted by question # 11.
Now ask yourself: Why is that? We have been lied to about just about everything else - does it not stand to reason we have been lied to equally - and massively - about the man just about everybody loves to hate with the irrationality of a beheaded rooster?
Here's my good cyber buddy, Giwer, posing a few penetrating questions:
Historians can only read what is in the official record. The official record is from the government and from what the media chooses to publish.
What did the people think? Where is it recorded? If not recorded, how can we know?
As a short digression, in our short eight year involvement in Versailles' Yugoslavia, this time around, there was one and only one "town meeting" on the subject. That was in Columbus, Ohio in 1994(?).
The government was hounded out of the meeting. No citizen supported the government.
Before that, it had all been the government and the media singing one tune. After that, it reverted to the government and media singing one tune.
That one tune has been: The government is always right.
That tune has been polls, always in a majority supporting everything.
Blame me, but I cannot find anything but the opposite of those polls. Even polls around that Columbus Town Meeting were the exact opposite of the people actually speaking.
Another observation: The New York Times, America's paper of record. Why? Because it says so.
Record of what? Its staff views only - as it can be nothing else.
So what can historians look back upon for this recent involvement in Yugoslavia? Only what is in the media.
And it will be very difficult to explain, should they even try, that very strange aberration at one meeting in Columbus, Ohio.
Given the absolutely overwhelming sources of record for historians to consider, one might actually conclude that the majority of the citizens of the NATO countries actually supported the involvement in Yugoslavian affairs.
What will they read in the official record?
That there was a war - when there was no war.
That there was massive support - when there was no massive support.
History has been controlled, writen and even choreographed in the NATO countries.
Now we have seen how it is done. We have been given an object lesson.
Now let us look to our own past.
With so many of my fellows, I grew up immediately post WWII. My experience was hearing veterans talking.
And from that talk I can understand why so may of them were anti-war, anti-Vietnam in particular, and anti-government in general.
In fact, from my (listening to) those veterans, I cannot explain my military service ideals save in their expression of duty above personal opinion and experience.
But look as hard as I can, I cannot find ONE WORD in any media source reflecting the common point of view that I grew up with. These were both European and Pacific veterans. The media is silent on them as though they never existed.
I may be unique but I doubt it.
So where are they in history?
Spielberg goes around remembering a footnote. No one takes the time, and maybe does not even suspect, that there is a larger story to tell, that the US really went about WWII out of duty to country rather than about conviction.
We often talk about (Jews) using their holocaust and antisemitism as a vehicle of socialization and unification. But how are they different from anyone else?
Our "elite" promotes the fiction of national dedication, publicising no disagreement, brooking no public disagreement, and create a public record to the contrary of reality.
We have just seen it happen. It has happened before. It will happen again. It is happening now. <end>
What I would like to understand is this: If people can be deprogrammed about most anything, why is it, then, so hard to have them make allowance for the fact that maybe, just maybe, what Hitler said and did made sense?
Do people in the Western world ***know*** what he said and did? Or do they ***think*** they know?
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Ingrid mentioned that she was in need of some humor. Well, this should do it. This was posted at John Ball's site; at his 'Forum' BBS (www.air-photo.com). The poster indentifies himself as John W.. He said:
"'Check out the lakes in Birkenau II that are so full of human ash that 55 years later they are silver. Tests have demonstrated they are full of ash. However, ash can be easily disposed of.'
"There you go, Ingrid. That should help."
(Another cyber buddy)
Back to Table of Contents of the June 1999 ZGrams