Everybody knows that Elvis Presley is dead but some
people deny it. Everybody knows that the Earth is a sphere but some people deny
it. Everybody knows that the Twin Towers were brought down by terrorists but
some people deny it. Everybody knows that Israel was kicked out of Gaza by
Palestinian freedom fighters but most Jews deny it. Everybody knows that the
Holocaust happened but some people deny it. Why? Why do people deny the
obvious?
There are many reasons why people deny something that
would cost them little or nothing if they'll just admit that it happened, and
see that they are left alone. But that's precisely the crucial point in this
discussion: “be left alone.” If these people were left alone whether or not
they denied the obvious, they would not deny it. But if you force them to admit
to something that's of little interest to them or of great interest or of no
interest at all, they'll be inclined to deny it. This is human nature.
One of the events that seems to leave no one alone
these days is the Holocaust. The fact that someone can get into trouble for
denying it or questioning an aspect of it, no matter how trivial it may be ––
makes some people want to deny it, and enjoy watching you squirm as you try to
convince them they are wrong. Whereas these people are not serious in their
denial but doing it to “pull your legs,” other people are serious in their
denial of it because much rides on what they are asked or compelled to affirm.
This represents a conundrum for the Jews, and you'll
get a sense of how massive it is for them when you go over the article that
came under the title: “For Auschwitz liberation's 75th anniversary, fight
Holocaust denial with education,” written by Beth Bailey and published on
January 27, 2020 in The Washington Examiner.
Of the many points that were made by the writer in her
article, two points [referred to below as (a) and (b)] hit the readers in the
face as being more illogical than the others:
(a) Beth
Bailey's first point is represented by the complaint she made about those who
“participate in revising the past for motives, which, though not anti-Semitic,
harm Jews.” What she means by that, is one of two things. Either
(a-1) she says that the final version of the Holocaust
history has been written, and no revision should be allowed; or
(a-2) she says that only the Jews can revise the
Holocaust history.
Well then, in the case of (a-1) Bailey shoots down her
own assertion a few paragraphs later when she says this: “Additional Holocaust
evidence is still being uncovered today.” This being the case, the history of
the Holocaust must be revised to take into account the additional evidence that
keeps surfacing every day, something she admits herself.
In fact, it is the nature of history that it remains
open for revision and reinterpretation till such time that it is absolutely
certain everything that's there has been discovered. However, since logic
dictates that we don't know what we don't know, we can never be sure we
discovered everything that's there. Therefore, this requires that history
remain open for revision and reinterpretation forever.
In the case of (a-2) Beth Bailey seems to say that
only the Jews can revise or reinterpret the history of the Holocaust. First of
all, it is not up to the Jews to make that decision. But if for some screwy
reason, it is so decided by everybody, the consequence will have to be that the
Holocaust must remain the exclusive purview of the Jews in every sense of the
word. Well then, what does that mean? It means that the Holocaust shall be
mentioned only in Jewish circles. It must never be acknowledged or referred to
in non-Jewish circles of any kind, especially the mass media.
(b) As to
Beth Bailey's second point, it is the illogical complaint she voiced, which
goes like this: “Traditional deniers blame Jews for the Holocaust.” Did you
catch that, my friend? How could someone write a sentence like that without
being alarmed and instantly hitting the delete button … Unless, of course, she
was inhaling the wrong kind of fumes?
Look how this woman has mutilated logic: If someone
blames the Jews for the Holocaust, it is that they are affirming it, not
denying it. But if these people are affirming the Holocaust and Beth Bailey is
calling them: “traditional deniers,” something must have been going screwy
inside her head when she typed these words. And we are left to ask the
question: What was she consuming to have been so distracted?
Because the Holocaust is playing a big part in the
Jewish scheme of things these days, leaving it to them without push-back is the
worst thing to do.