Many people, especially in America, lost children, some of them toddlers, because a crazed kid armed with an automatic gun walked into the school and sprayed them with bullets. This has to be the incident most deserving to be remembered, not just by the parents, but by the community and the nation. In fact, such incidents are those most deserving to invoke the dictum: Never again.
No one that did not live such an experience can imagine
the pain of the parents who lost a child in this manner. Below this level of
pain comes that of the parents who lose a child, even an adult child, to a suicide,
an accident or a terminal illness, and they have to bury the child, never once believing
that they would outlive it and bury it.
Various parents react differently to the tragedy that has
befallen them. Some show their grief for a short period of time after the
tragedy, and then carry on with life as normally as can be. They invoke the
memory of the one they lost only on such occasions that make those listening to
them, sense the depth of their pain, and appreciate the quiet and dignified
manner with which they hold on to the memory and yet function as normally as
can be.
Other parents, on the other hand, never cease to invoke
the memory of the child they lost. Most listeners, while annoyed, say nothing
out of respect for the grieving parent and the child they lost. But when the
habit goes too far, it can happen that someone close to the grieving parent,
would tell it that their obsession has gone too far, and is beginning to annoy
the listeners. This is usually enough of a reproach to turn the parent a little
more inward and more sensitive to the audience they are addressing.
All of that happens at the personal level, but it has its
analog that happens at the community level. It is that most nations were
involved in wars or were hit by a natural disaster that took the lives of a
number of their citizens. The survivors remember that moment on the anniversary
of the tragedy, and commemorate it in a dignified ceremony that lasts an hour
or longer, after which everyone returns to carrying on with the business of
running the country and living their normal lives.
This happens with everyone on the planet, except with one
group of people calling themselves Jews. These ones have turned the memory of
the tragedy they champion into a wailing toy they want everyone to carry around
their necks, and be prepared to wire a dollar or two into the account of their
favorite Jew whenever the toy wails: Gimme compensation, gimme compensation,
which is something it does frequently and does it annoyingly.
You can see some of what these people do to turn the
memory of what they call the Holocaust into a never ending stream of
compensation money for the pain that was suffered by others long ago and far
away from here. You can see that incredible phenomenon play out in an article
that came under the title: “Holocaust denial and distortion: Which is a greater
threat?” It was written by Dani Dayan, and published on January 26, 2022 in the
New York Daily News.
Dani Dayan who began his article by questioning which is
worse, the denial or the distortion of the Holocaust, first gave the impression
that he was saying something when, in fact, he was saying nothing. Look at this
condensed version of his opening sentence: “Holocaust denial was once a major
issue; however, various developments led to its marginalization.” What
information is conveyed by a sentence like this? What are the developments that
led to the marginalization of Holocaust denial? He is not saying.
Having said nothing, Dayan went on to assert that Holocaust
distortion was a cousin of Holocaust denial, and that it must be understood
well if we are to confront it effectively. To make us understand that
relationship without giving an example that might clarify what he is saying,
Dayan continued his lecture, saying the following:
“Distorters of the Holocaust, unlike
deniers fabricate historical narratives that go beyond reasonable historical
discourse and are false. These narratives are meant to serve contemporary
agendas. Holocaust distortion is dangerous because it distorts facts of history
to legitimize past and present misdeeds”.
Huh! What the hell does that mean? What historical narratives
is he talking about? What reasonable discourse? What contemporary agendas? What
past and present misdeeds?
Having had it up to here with this abstract and
void-of-all-substance lecture, let me tell Dani Dayan about the relationship
that has existed between the denial of the Holocaust and what he says is the
distortion. It all began when ordinary historians wanted to look into the event
that later came to be known as the Holocaust. They approached the subject as pure
history, and described it as they saw it.
This is when the Jews came unto the
scene with fire in their bellies and hollered their disgust at the historians
who would not express anger at the Nazis in every sentence they wrote,
preferring instead to narrate the historical events as they saw them. Still, blowing
their fiery entrails out of their bellies, the self-described instant Jewish
historians, hounded the real historians out of the field.
When the real historians dropped out of
the field, and were asked why they stopped researching the history of the
Holocaust, they answered something that went like this: Holocaust? What
Holocaust? I ain’t seen no Holocaust. Did you see a little thing run around
calling itself Holocaust? Not me. No; I’m not going to waste my time looking
for Holocaust or whatever that thing is.
And this, my friend, is how the denial
of the Holocaust happened.