Every human progress that was made came about because
someone said something, and another one said something else. For example, Newton said that time was
absolute, and formulated a great hypothesis that worked under certain
conditions. Then came Einstein and said that time was variable, and formulated
a great hypothesis that worked under Newton 's
conditions, as well as a wider set of conditions.
That was a he-said, she-said kind of debate across time that
was a good one. On the other hand it can happen that a car standing in a
driveway is damaged by a scratch that extends from end to end. Since only kids
were seen playing in the neighborhood at the time, they were asked if they knew
who did it, and they said they did not. The parents were then asked and their
responses made it clear it was going to be a matter of he-said, she-said. This
would have been a bad kind of debate.
The conclusion we draw from these two examples is that the
phenomenon we call “he-said, she-said” is one that belongs to the human species
only. And like everything else, it can be used to good ends; and can be used to
dubious ends. But the very fact that it can be used to dubious ends does not
mean it can be trashed. To do so would stifle a debate by cutting out one side
of it. This will make of the side that remains a dogma to be believed on faith
as if it were a religion.
And this happens to be the current epic battle; one that is
conducted on a planetary scale between those who wish to preserve the right of
human beings to conduct free debates, and those who wish to regulate debate for
the purpose of steering it in the direction that suits their purposes. The
first regard debate as the endowment bequeathed to humans for the purpose of
advancing the achievements of the species; the second do all they can to trash
free debate so as to monopolize the marketplace of ideas and turn their causes
into dogmas to be believed religiously by all of humanity.
You can see one such attempt by reviewing the article that
came under the title: “The Holocaust is not a he-said, she-said debate” written
by Michael Gerson and published in the Washington Post on May 19, 2014. Gerson
is not a Jew, but the Washington Post is heavily influenced by Jewish thinking therefore
advances Jewish causes at the expense of everything else. One such cause being
the transformation of the Holocaust into a construct that is complete with
religious level dogmas to be believed without question by all of humanity, you
see the author trash the very concept of debate by associating it with the
he-said, she-said style of human give and take, and then belittling the latter
by trivializing it.
Gerson begins the article by telling the touching story of a
man who survived the Holocaust to become a grandfather, and viewing this
happening as a personal triumph over a Hitler that tried to exterminate him.
That's fine. There are many people in this world who beat tremendous odds, and
survived to beget children, even dynasties after that. Their stories should be
told for their human value, however, not used as a prop as it was done in this
case.
And what was done in this case is use an event to which all
human beings can relate in order to attain a goal from which any and every
human being would recoil the moment they understand what is being pulled on
them. And this goal is to use every insidious trick known to man so as to
advance the notion that whereas there exist equivalences among all subject
matters relating to human beings, there is no such equivalence when it comes to
matters relating to Jews.
That approach has been the Jewish way to truncate the other
side of the debate, leaving only their side to take on the force of a religious
dogma. Throughout time, people have gone along at first with this Jewish sort
of approach to every subject in which a Jew or his surrogate were engaged. But
when people discovered what they were being dragged into, they became Hitlers
at heart no matter where they were on this planet and no matter when that was since
the beginning of time.
And for Michael Gerson, who is not a Jew, to have written
the article the way he did, makes you suspect he is not all that innocent in
this matter. Just look at the following three quotations and ask yourself if he
is trying to do the Jews a favor or trying to speed up their day of reckoning
in North America :
First, there is this: “The assumption of two-sidedness when
considering the Holocaust is positively dangerous.”
Second, there is this: “The argument requires a morally offensive
false equivalence.”
Third, there is this: “In this case, the assertion of
two-sidedness is a victory for one side.