Posts Tagged ‘history’

Truth at Gunpoint

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

Bishop Richard Williamson made news around the world with his recent refusal to recant his statements concerning the Holocaust, at least not without doing further research first. Bishop Williamson currently doesn’t believe that gas chambers existed, that at most 300,000 or so Jews were killed in the camps and that there was no “final solution” ordered.

My opinion of Bishop Williamson’s stance is not the point I wish to make here. (Frankly, I haven’t seen his data, so I can’t form an opinion on it.) My point is to show just how much a debate over history has instead become a war over dogma.

The term given to those like Bishop Williamson is “Holocaust denier”. In the traditional sense of the words, this would mean someone who denies that the whole thing occurred. However, the term is now loosely slung around to include anyone who expresses even the mildest curiosity over any aspect of the official story embraced by the Jewish community (who refer to the event as “Shoah”.)

For example, if you were to ask why it is that the official figure of six million Jews killed hasn’t been adjusted in any way, even though the officials at Auschwitz have changed the plaque from reading, “Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945″ as it was in 1948 – to the plaque that replaced it in 1989 reading, “For ever let this place be a cry of despair and a warning to humanity, where the Nazis murdered about one and a half million men, women and children, mainly Jews from various countries of Europe. Auschwitz-Birkenau 1940-1945″ – then you are a Holocaust denier. Even though it doesn’t take a mathematics genius to figure out something is wrong here, if you even question why the 2.5 million person mistake took place at all, you are labeled a Holocaust denier by those wishing to protect the official story and the question itself is dismissed out of hand.

If it were any other subject of history, an error of this magnatude is considered grounds for complete dismissal and a new evaluation from scratch. Such is not allowed by the Shoah complex, which instead demands that six million were killed and refuses to account for even the slightest discrepancies which show up.

The result: history becomes unquestionable dogma.

To give an idea of just how rabid the protectors of the official story are, bear in mind that there are currently thirteen countries which make Holocaust denial illegal. Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland will jail you for questioning any part of the official holocaust dogma or in some cases, for simply investigating the data.   The European Union agreed in 2007 to impose a sentence up to three years in jail for anyone questioning, denying or “trivializing” the Holocaust.  Over the current affair with Bishop Williamson, Richard Prasquier, president of the French Jewish umbrella organization CRIF said, “Today we strongly reaffirmed that the denial of the Shoah is not an opinion, but a crime.” When David Irving was taken to court in Germany for Holocaust denial, his lawyer was jailed for defending him!

My question out of all this is a simple one: why does the truth need to be protected by the law? Shouldn’t the truth be so self-evident as to repel attack from those who’s arguments are not based on solid evidence? That’s how every other event in history is dealt with. That’s how we determine the past. Why is it that one subject of history – and only this one subject – needs to be protected at gun point by government enforcers?

These laws enforcing the history of the Holocaust are no different in nature or purpose than the laws of the Church were on blasphemy – they are designed to protect a story to the point of making it into canon. This dynamic is utterly odious to intellectual honesty.

So, what does this mean for the official Holocaust story? Even assuming all of the current official story is the truth, that it is being protected as canon will automatically produce the exact opposite of the desired result. It will fuel some people to disbelieve, simply because there are those fanatical in protecting the dogma – no matter what the truth really is. By hiding behind the force of law, those supporting the history become liars by default to the skeptical.

If the Shoah complex combated dissent with data rather than the threat of violence (which is all imposition of incarceration at the point of a gun is) then I’d predict that a great deal of the more ridiculous Holocaust denial hypothesis would dry up and blow away like chaff in the wind.  Data against aspects of the official story which are not so easy to dismiss, could then be properly questioned, examined and tested to see if history needs to be adjusted. This is not a process to fear and cannot belittle the Holocaust.  There are plenty of official records left over from the Nazi regime to prove just how vile and extensive the whole affair was.  Adjusting minor aspects based on new investigation will never abolish the dark horror of the Holocaust.

In the end, maybe nothing needs to be changed at all, but when questions themselves are persecuted and denied investigation, truth is impossible to find.

All Things Foul and Ugly

Saturday, September 20th, 2008

A dear friend of mine is going through some dark times at work and home these days, which has him questioning a lot of the reasoning of how things are done by his colleagues and even family. We’ve talked on the phone about his thoughts and misgivings, but his first text message to my cell phone in this conversation, got me thinking the hardest.

“It just finally sank in that you and I take for granted or as rote, what others consider forbidden, evil or sick…”

At first glance one might take this statement the wrong way, but the meaning was clear to me. He was talking about the thin veneer of “normalcy” that people in our society like to present, sticking their heads in the proverbial sand when something rears its ugly head to prove their little preconceptions of reality to be false. He was referring to the bulk of humanity in the “first world” which staggers around in their special, imaginary “harm free zones”, pretending that somehow, someway, they are immune to injury or ill – as if some guardian angel is watching over them.

Neither my friend or I suffer from this kind of delusion. Cynical as it might be, we take for granted that there are people out there who have no kind feelings toward us or our loved ones. People who at a moment’s notice, would actively cause harm – with even a sense of glee. We know they’re all around us, hiding behind that veneer, trying their best to fit in, until they can’t stand against their impulses anymore and they strike out at someone.

We also know that nature throws things at us which are dangerous and upsetting – that we can’t possibly control. Animals who decide to know what we taste like, lightning that happens to follow the charge potential to where you’re sitting, storm winds which happen to rip the roof off the house; all striking with complete dispassion.

When these things happen to those who hide behind that veneer of normalcy, the reaction is typically out of control shock and hurt surprise. When these things happen to my friend or I, the response has always been a subdued acceptance and analysis of what steps need to be taken to correct or deal with the situation – and a rapid enactment of that decision follows. The process of thought is as cold and emotionless as that of a computer, but has the advantage of remaining clear and concise.

My thoughts turned to ask why this was? How was it we had developed this sense of acceptance that many others seem incapable of facing? Was it that we had suffered too many tragedies that cynicism set in? Or was it just part of our wiring?

Frankly, I can’t remember living behind the veneer of normalcy since I was very young. I don’t recall any tragedies happening to push my mind toward cynical acceptance of the world’s horrors. I had a good childhood. No, the attitude set in the more I read history. The patterns became apparent and constant tales of woe showed nature for its unpredictability and man for his constant expression of what can only be called, evil.

Let’s face it, for all the advances mankind achieved in the twentieth century, it was also our most violent and vicious period. The tens of millions of our own kind that we killed through war and genocide are almost too staggering a number to imagine. The weapons we’ve developed to kill each other in greater numbers are almost too efficient to believe. The more I read and the more I understood what we had done through two world wars and beyond, all painted a picture I couldn’t ignore. Mankind is less noble than he would like to believe. In fact, true nobility is few and far between. I know I can’t claim it, though I have tried to be so.

The twentieth century is why I have a hard time believing we will make it as a species past the twenty first. As we dabble with genetic engineering, nano-technology and new energies – we will turn them to ill. It’s pretty much inevitable. We’ve showed none of the needed maturity to handle our technology over the last century, so we will show the same deficiencies with the new technologies we’re now pushing.

In my own mind, it is a simple acceptance of our nature. We are apes bound by selfish instincts and jealousy, not social evolved enough to handle our inventions. Worse, the ugliest of human personalities, who crave power over others, not just their property – are drawn to the rolls of our “leaders” in society, where they scheme and play with human lives, as if playing with toy soldiers.

Many are going to read such and recoil, unable to understand how anyone could function on a day to day basis with this cold attitude about mankind. Yet, I can’t understand how anyone looking at the evidence could come to a different conclusion.

I will admit that it breeds a sense of futility. It becomes hard to motivate yourself for the common good, when you know that the impact will be fleeting at best. It’s difficult to bring yourself to contribute, when you’re pretty much convinced that it will do nothing in the larger picture.

Instead, I find myself concentrating on the care of myself and loved ones. I can do good for them which will last. I can make a difference in their lives, even if it is small in the grand scheme of things. I can do this without hurting anyone else in the process, which allows me to at least try to reach some level of nobility.

For when the world around you is filled with hatred and prejudice, you can either give in and follow suit, or hold yourself to a higher standard. Though I cannot change the world, I can change myself – and in the process bring good to at least a few around me.

God of the Sun

Thursday, June 28th, 2007

This video has to be one of the best synopsis of the Christian myth and it’s origins. Think of it as the Reader’s Digest version of the history involved. There are other sites putting this video up, but I’ve made a direct link here for convenience.

Sex, lies and the “Moral” Minority

Friday, April 6th, 2007

sperm.jpgChristianity in the United States appears to have some seemingly messed up stigmas concerning sex, left over from the Puritan nut cases who escaped to here from Europe.

From the abject horror of being exposed to women’s nipples, right down to the hellish fear of seeing anything below the belt, the American Christian should be an endangered species. After all, no child is born believing in God, they have to be taught to do so. Hence, aside from adult converts, Christianity depends on familial population increases. The Catholic and Mormon variants certainly strive for this goal.

So, perhaps their workshops and publications, preaching the sins and dangers of pornography, are simply steps to ensure that no sperm is wasted in the grand design of Christian population expansion. Their unwavering support for (Christian) adoption is certainly related. Even the advent of circumcision as the norm in the United States, is based more on Christian attempts to reduce the potential for masturbation, than any health benefits. Frankly, all the evidence seems to point that there are no health benefits to circumcision, in spite of the old school medical beliefs.

Whether it is admitted or not, the loss of potential flock is the main portion of the reason that many Christians get so upset over the subject of porn, taken hand-in-hand with masturbation. Sex is evil, unless it is used to make more Christians. (This is their hidden fear over same-sex marriage and a slew of other related topics. Christians like to spout off over the “sanctity of marriage,” as if they invented it. Hint: they didn’t.)

This is also the root of their fear of abortion. Articles like Zygotes and Embryos are People stress that such cells are fully a human being, because the human soul is present from the moment of conception. They hence equate an abortion with murder, and heap upon that zygote their unjustified fear for its immortal soul. Some go so far as to claim the same sin when using birth control. They base these ideas completely on their holy text, ignoring science. They have to ignore science, because science can’t find evidence for a soul, let alone God – and a clump of snot is more complex biologically than a zygote.

The debate ultimately boils down to those who would protect a fertilized cell due to unsupported conjecture, taken from ancient, anonymous writings; against those who attempt to understand the biological nature of the situation and make moral judgment based on actual capability of the organism to a given stage of development.

This deadlock leads to some rather pointless arguments. As an example, the famous argument of, “You could be preventing the next Einstein!” Usually countered with, “…or the next Hitler.” Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Either is completely unsupported speculation, with no method of determining likelihood. The argument is stupid and unproductive.

The real argument at hand, is a pointed question for the Christians; “What makes you think that your beliefs, utterly devoid of evidentness, are even worth contemplation?” The simple fact of the matter is, without objective, scientific merit; basing legality of abortion on the Christian argument is a violation of the First Amendment, as it embroils religion with the state. This is the crux of “Roe vs. Wade.”

Personally, I have a follow up question, in our over-populated world, “Why do you insist on breeding?” Once the selfish reasons for the process are exposed, the Christian breeding dogma becomes a bit ugly. “Breed to succeed,” is not an enlightened stance.

When the anti-abortionist’s argument boils down to, “the zygote has a soul!” the stance is without substance from the beginning. Prove that the soul exists, then we’ll talk. Christians don’t even have the tiniest shred of evidence for the existence of the human soul, but they have a whole dogma of beliefs surrounding it, beliefs that they are more than willing to force unto others. The abortion debate is more about Christians pushing their beliefs unto others, than any real concern over the people involved in these heart wrenching decisions.

So, the abortion debate will continue as long as intangible bullshit is allowed to have say in legal decisions.