Do you BELIEVE in the Holocaust?

One of the problems I have with Holocaust remembrance is its aura of religious dogmatism.
Holocaust is a historical event but has been elevated into an article of faith than maintained as a matter of knowledge.

When it comes to the American Civil War or World War II, the relevant question is ‘do you know about this event?’ or ‘how much do you know about such-and-such?’ When it comes to the Holocaust, the question is ‘do you BELIEVE in the Holocaust?’, rather like asking, ‘do you believe in God?’
Personally, I believe that the Holocaust happened because I’ve been taught in schools, books, tv programs, and movies that it happened. I have no reason to doubt all the experts. I’m not a conspiracy nut, and I think most people in the Holocaust denial industry are creepy, dishonest, or just plain crazy. There seems to be more than ample evidence that the Holocaust did take place. I’m all for Holocaust revision, and perhaps fewer than 6 million died. That should be for genuine historians to do the research and decide.

Still, what I BELIEVE about the Holocaust is inseparable from what I KNOW about the Holocaust. I don’t believe in it to be a good person, a saintly person, a correct person, or an approved person. I believe in it based on what I’ve come to know about it. I have no blind faith in the Holocaust nor in liberal historiography. Yes, most historians are liberal or on the left, but nearly all serious historians seem to accept that it happened. So, based on what I’ve read and based on my reasonable trust in experts, I believe that the Holocaust happened.
And, I think this is all we can expect from people. To believe in something based on what they’ve seen, heard, or read and thought about.
So, it’s perfectly sensible to have a conversation where you might ask someone, ‘do you know what the Khmer Rouge did?’ or ‘have you heard about the Great Famine under Stalin?’ You would not ask someone, ‘do you BELIEVE in the Killing Fields or the Great Famine?’ We can’t expect people to believe something they may know little or nothing about. Belief in God is a matter of faith. Belief in history isn’t or, at least, shouldn’t be.
If you ask someone, "do you believe in the Great Famine?’ and if the person says, "I don’t know", you would not look upon him as a scumbag. You would look upon him as someone who may need to read up on history. The person may be ignorant but ignorance is not evil.

Yet, this isn’t the case with the Holocaust. People are simply supposed to BELIEVE in it even if they know little or nothing about it. Of course, one could argue that people SHOULD believe in the Holocaust since it’s been discussed and taught everywhere. Who hasn’t heard about the Holocaust in the schools, tv news programs, tv documentaries, Hollywood movies, etc? There is no excuse for anyone to not know something about it. Fair enough. But, hearing or seeing something isn’t the same as having sound knowledge of it. After all, Chinese children are told that Mao was a great man; they’ve heard it a million times, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so! (Also, people should ask, ‘why do we hear so much about 6 million dead Jews yet almost nothing about the 100 million killed by communism?’ This state of affairs should make us more suspect of those who control popular remembrance of history and shape public morality.) Sure, we’ve all heard of or seen "Schindler’s List", but it’s an Hollywood movie. Since when is something true because it’s a movie? Also, most historical films have been notorious for their distortions of history. "Lawrence of Arabia" may be a great film, but much of it is not real history. Most Westerns about the conflict between whites and Indians are fanciful or ludicrous from a historical angle. So, just because we’ve been exposed to the Holocaust in the mainstream news and Hollywood movies doesn’t mean that we MUST believe in it. A person is obligated to believe in the Holocaust ONLY IF he has actually done honest research and pored over the evidence. Otherwise, all we have to go on are insubstantial textbooks(packed with generic and politically correct narratives), movies, and stuff like Oprah. Consider the fact that a bogus Holocaust story was featured on Oprah, and the entire nation believed in it. Was the story true because Oprah embraced it and called it ‘the greatest love story she ever heard’? The fact that certain stories or events have been over-hyped by the mainstream media should make us all the more skeptical. Skepticism isn’t the same as denial. It means having the courage not to simply follow herd instinct and having the ability to think for oneself. Of course, one has to be careful lest one fall into the trap of knee-jerk contrarian-ism where something is true simply because it goes against the grain.

Anyway, the point is the knowledge of the Holocaust is more crucial than belief in the Holocaust. Historical belief must always be based on historical knowledge. Considering that very few people have actually read anything substantial or done research on the subject of the Holocaust, it is ludicrous to ask, "do you BELIEVE in the Holocaust?" That kind of question only creates a climate of moral bullying(which is, of course, what the Jews want. They want goyim to worship the Jews-as-God). It commands people with superficial knowledge of certain subject to simply believe in it because you’re scum if you don’t. (The same kind of mindless worship centers around Martin Luther King. The question is never, ‘what do you know about Martin Luther King?’ but ‘how many times do you wanna get on your knees and kiss his ass?’ People who have REAL knowledge of the Kingster knows that he was just a shrewd political operative and no saint.) How ironic that liberals and leftists take so much pride in their rationalism and skepticism yet demand that the populace take for granted certain TRUTHS. If liberals are genuinely honest, they should encourage people to learn more about the Holocaust. What people feel or believe about the Holocaust should be based on what they know about it. And, I don’t mean Hollywood movies which are based on fictional scripts and actors going through the motions. Movies are fun but have nothing to do with truth. The only truth of a movie is that it is a movie. It may dramatize an actual event or psychological truth, but it PROVES NOTHING. Documentaries can be factual, but they often serve partisan purposes. Nothing is true simply because a documentary said so. After all, Holocaust deniers have also made their own documentaries. There are documentaries that tell us that US government and Mossad carried out 9/11 attacks. That makes it true? Even many well-researched books are not too helpful in making us understand the Holocaust because their main purpose is to make us feel sympathy only or mainly for Jews. As such, those books are less about the Holocaust than about using the Holocaust to monopolize all sympathy for Jews and Jews only. In a way, every new Holocaust book is really to reinforce Jewish power. If we read about those ‘poor innocent Jews killed by Nazis’, we’ll be less likely to criticize Jewish power since it may feel Nazi-esque to do so. Or, we may think twice before criticizing Zionism and its brutality against Palestinians since Jews are the ‘eternal saintly victims’.

Of course, there are true historians and bogus historians, but it’s also true that many respected historians have been wrong on many things, sometimes willfully so. Just because a historian is intelligent, respected, and capable doesn’t mean he’s without prejudices, ideological bias, or gullibility. Recall that Trevor-Roper, one of the outstanding historians of his time, staked his reputation on the authenticity of Hitler diaries. Though he retracted later, his reputation never fully recovered.
Of course, in most cases, there is a consensus arrived at by most historians over many generations, and there isn’t much doubt that the Holocaust happened. Even David Irving came to the conclusion that Hitler not only knew about the mass killings but ordered them.

However, even consensus in an open and democratic society doesn’t guarantee that truth always prevails, especially if the academia and media are near-monopolized by one group. And, in our democratic society, much of the control of the media(eyes, ears, and mouth of society) and the academia(the brains of society) are held by people of certain ethnic group or ideological fixation. Jewish power is tremendous, and liberal and leftists control much of the media. As a result, we don’t see or hear much about what Israelis have done to Palestinians recently in Gaza. Or, the news is watered down and carefully balanced with stories of Jewish suffering. So, a 1000 dead Palestinians is treated as the equivalent to one dead Israeli.
Of course, liberals and the Left play the game of suppression or neglect than outright denial. They can play this game because they control the media. Liberals and leftists don’t deny communist horrors, and by not doing so, don’t soil their moral reputation. They quietly admit that horrors happened under communism, BUT those narratives are generally neglected or suppressed in public discourse; they are rarely revived and treated as ‘past history’, something we should let go and forget.
Liberals and leftists practice communist-burial than communist-denial. But, the effect is the same as if they had practiced communist-denial because relatively few people come to know about the full extent of communist crimes and horrors. It’s almost as if 100 million people did not die in the 20th century. (And, when the horrors of communism are discussed, it’s in a more objective and detached manner than in a morally bullying manner. Also, it’s generally treated as macro-history, a matter of statistics than as a criminal tragedy involving individual victims. Communist horrors have not been Anne-Franken-ized. We are told that Stalin killed 20 million, but we can’t match their faces with any individual victim. So, it’s almost like hearing that Stalin killed 20 million chickens. We think of them as faceless victims.)
Since liberals and leftists don’t actually say, ‘millions were not killed by communism’, they don’t come across as evil like the Holocaust-deniers who say that millions of Jews were not killed.
If the Right owned much of the media and controlled much of the academia, it could play the same game. It would run many stories, make many movies, and present many news stories about the evil history of communism while burying–rather than denying–the horrors of the Holocaust. They wouldn’t need to deny the Holocaust to produce the defacto effect of Holocaust Denial.
Since, people will hear a 100 stories about evils of communism for every story on the Holocaust, it will be as if the Holocaust was just a footnote in history.

Anyway, the point is something isn’t necessarily true or truer because it’s always in the news or has been popularly disseminated. Even in a free society such as ours, reputations can be destroyed if certain truths are dared spoken. As a result, people seeking respectability stay mum about things they know to be true but are deemed taboo by controllers of public opinion and much of the national wealth. If you offend the Jews, Jewish organizations and groups will mount pressure to have you fired, boycotted, ostracized, or isolated. People who do business with you will be pressured to disassociate themselves from you. As a result, most people seeking respectability or simple profit don’t speak out on certain matters because it may be too controversial.
As a result, the only people willing to go against the grain tend to be extreme types who, as outcasts, have nothing to lose from politics of confrontation. As a result, something true(though taboo)can come to be regarded as ‘extreme’ and ‘hateful’ due to its association with extreme groups. (The problem with extreme groups championing certain truths is that despite their courage, they do espouse ideas and views which truly are extreme or idiotic. It’s great that David Duke fearlessly takes on Jewish power, and there is much truth in what he says. But, because of his mindless Holocaust denial and blind hatred for all things Jewish, he undermines and unwittingly disqualifies, in the eyes of many, even the legitimate points that he makes. Kevin MacDonald is a much better scholar because he’s far more cautious and thoughtful in what he believes and says.)

Anyway, here’s an obvious example of a truth that most people dare not speak.
Consider the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than gentiles and that blacks are stronger than whites. These are undeniable facts, and many respectable people actually know them. But, because such views are deemed ‘racist’, very few mainstream people talk about them. The only ones with the balls to do so are people like David Duke, and as a result, such views are deemed to be ‘white supremacist’–rather iroinic since those observations point out the intellectual superiority and physical superiority of, respectively, the Jews and blacks.

The Holocaust has been turned into such a secular religion that many respectable historians are afraid to even call for honest revision of it. The very idea of revision of Holocaust is anathema to the liberal and leftist(especially Jewish)community out of fear that it may open up the floodgate of Holocaust denial. But, the real reason why they want to suppress a truly secular approach to the Holocaust–at least in the popular perception–is because reality is more complex and ambiguous than myths. To understand the Holocaust, it must be studied in the context of European and Jewish history. Such approach may not lead to Holocaust denial but may lead to something akin to Holocaust Understanding. Understanding is not the same thing as Excusing, but it undermines the simple good vs. evil religious aura that surrounds the Holocaust. The current popular narrative says that these wonderful perfectly saintly Jews were rounded up by irrational and demented Germans who just went crazy and were out to kill people just for the hell of it. In the Bible, God’s truth cannot be understand and we aren’t supposed to question it. We are merely supposed to BELIEVE. The liberal and leftist Jews want us to feel the same way about the Holocaust. Just to believe in the saintly goodness of Jews and unfathomable evil of the Germans.

Intentions do matter in history, and a full understanding of the Holocaust will require us to study why the Germans–and many others–hated the Jews. Liberal and Leftist Jews in the US don’t want us to ask this question. They simply want us to hug-a-Jew, love-a-Jew, weep-for-a-Jew, worship-a-Jew, etc. Jews know that the more we study and understand Jewish power, the more we realize that they are a threat to our way of life and values.
The reason why Jews want us to see Holocaust as a unique and singular event in history is because they want to separate it from the larger historical context. If we see the Holocaust in relation to the larger context, we may understand, if not excuse or condone, what happened. Of course, a context of sorts is supplied by Jews where the Holocaust is the culmination of Jew-hatred through the ages. But, this is a purely a morally narcissistic, self-serving, self-pitying, and self-aggrandizing Judeo-centric context.
It leaves out the other contexts, such as Jewish contempt and hatred for goyim. It doesn’t take into account the cunning and manipulative nature of Jewish finance capitalism(which still goes on today, indeed, stronger than ever). It fails to take into account the Jewish role in communism and other radical movements that set out to undermine and even destroy the world order of the goyim. It refuses to consider, for example, that the Holocaust grew out of holocausts committed by communists–many of them Jewish–in Eastern Europe. It fails to take into account the collusion between rich capitalist Jews and power-hungry socialist Jews(something we still see today) to gain more power and influence over goyim. If European Jews were indeed very much like they are today in the US, it’s understandable why there was so much hatred against Jews. What a cunning, manipulative, arrogant, contemptuous, selfish, sniveling, sneering, self-righteous, and hypocritical people many of these Jews are. I think there would a lot of anti-Jewish feelings in the US today if it weren’t for the fact that Jews have such control of media and academia and have been brainwashing us to love them and feel sympathy/guilt for them. If European Jews were indeed like American Jews today, ‘anti-semitism’ back then was surely understandable even if not justified on the level that led to the Holocaust. Why should we like the Jews? If it’s not hard to understand why many Americans distrust and dislike the Japanese/Chinese(as The New Republic often does) or why many Europeans look upon Muslims with disgust, who says we have to like Jews? Who says Jews are likable and we must like Jews? Many people like Jews because they’ve seen too much TV and got all their news from the Jew-run media. Many people who know the ugly truth about the Jews force themselves to like Jews since they’ve been brainwashed since infancy that not liking Jews means you’re a Nazi who wants to shoot babies.

And, don’t Jews have their own biases? The Jewish owned/run media in this country allows a great deal of anti-Muslim bashing on the airwaves, print, tv, and academia. It’s perfectly okay to write respectable books on what’s wrong with them Arabs, with Islam, with Saudi economic power, etc. But, we can’t scrutinize or criticize Jewish values, Jewish attitudes, Jewish power, Jewish wealth, etc when its influence in the US is greater than the influence of rest of America combined? We have to take it on faith that Jews are good, good, good.

Understanding intentions doesn’t alter the fact of the crime, but it does alter the nature of the crime. Killing someone for revenge because he raped your wife and killing someone for the hell of it are both instances of killing resulting in a dead body. Both may be illegal and morally wrong, but one is clearly more understandable than the other. Jews want us to see the Holocaust as a case of evil people who, for no reason at all, decided to kill totally innocent people. But, was this what really happened? If European Jews acted like American Jews are acting today, wasn’t it understandable why so many people rallied around a man like Hitler who scapegoated the Jews? Of course, there is some discussion of how Jews were perceived by their persecutors, but this perception is said to have been purely delusional, paranoid, or false. But, was it?
Clearly, the perception of Nazis and their ilk was extreme, unhinged, and pathological, but was it based entirely on fantasies? Was there something about Jews in general or in particular that was threatening, hostile, and ruthless to the interests to the goy majority? Of course, there was, and there is today. Just look at the vile Jews on Wall Street, Hollywood, academia, law, business, and government. How cunning, disgusting, deceitful, and manipulative many of them are. And, utterly hypocritical and self-righteous. Just consider the likes of Woody Allen and Alan Dershowitz. Whether it’s on the Right or on the Left, we have a people who are largely very unpleasant, contemptuous, arrogant, deceitful, and sneering. Of course, there are many wonderful Jews as well, but because Jews are intelligent, we see the extremes in both good and bad. Bad Jews gain far more power than bad people of other stripe. Because of their sense of ‘eternal victimhood’, even good Jews often cover up for bad Jews. Also, because bad Jews are so smart, they can make a lot of money and buy respectability that most other bad people cannot. A bad Italian-American is likely to become a mafioso and be seen for what he is: scumbag. But, a bad Jew like Alan Dershowitz becomes a lawyer and talks intelligently and fools us into thinking he’s a man of integrity and principles when he’s just a huckster lawyer scumbag.

Anyway, faith requires us to simply believe without asking questions. Jews today want us to just BELIEVE in the Holocaust based on some Hollywood movies and TV programs. They don’t want us to study the subject further and ask questions. We are only to fixate on what the Jews and their dimwit goy puppets show and tell us about the Holocaust. Jews don’t want us to be Galileos when it comes to the Holocaust. We’re not supposed to think. We’re not supposed to revise the Holocaust or look deeply into why persecutors of Jews felt the way they did. People who hated Jews had NO rational reason, Jews tell us. It’s not possible for us to say that, though the Holocaust was a great crime against humanity, there were sound reasons why hatred against Jews existed. Just because one crime was extreme and evil doesn’t mean that its victim was totally innocent. That is the way Japanese peaceniks think; they argue that since Japan was punished so badly in WWII by the US, Japan has been cleansed of its sins and is now the moral beacon for the world. If we don’t buy this crap from the Japanese, why should we buy it from the Jews? The Holocaust was an evil and extreme reaction on the part of the German people led by pathological Nazis, BUT many Jews had done horrible and lowlife things that led to a great deal of justified anger and hatred against Jews. If Jews cannot honestly consider this fact and keep acting like eternal saints, they indeed are pompous self-righteous scum of the Earth.
Look at what Jews have done to Palestinians, yet Jews act like Palestinian hatred and anger are totally unwarranted. Alan Dershawitz’s biggest client in his role as defense attorney has been Israel, and all we hear is some weasely lawyerly bullshit. Yes, many Palestinians have become psychotic and unhinged in their hatred of Jews, but only a moral idiot–many of them in the US where people are brainwashed by the Jew-run media– would deny the fact that much of Palestinian hatred of Jews is justified.

There is little sense of historical context except the Judeo-centric kind when it comes to understanding history relating to WWII, especially when it comes to Ukraine. For instance, US government has been hunting down American citizens of Ukrainian descent who may have served as SS guards in the death camps. There is no question that those men committed horrible crimes. But, what’s missing is the context. If you were Ukrainian in the 30s, you saw 1/3 of your countrymen die at the hands of communists, many of them Jewish. Ukrainians suffered their own holocaust before the capital "H" Jewish holocaust happened. (Notice how only the Jewish holocaust gets the "H" treatment.)
So, in the way that many Europeans(including Jews)attacked and killed many Germans–guilty and innocent–out of revenge after WWII, many Ukrainians had joined up with Nazi invaders to kill Jews–out of revenge–when Nazis ‘liberated’ that part of the USSR.
Indeed, vengeance was one of the great forces of the late 19th and 20th century. French involvement in WWI had a lot to do with vengeful feelings against Germans going back to Franco-Prussian War. WWII was fueled by sense of revenge on the part of Germans. Many Jews joined the communist enterprise to avenge their persecution at the hands of the Tsarist regime. And, there were horrendous acts of revenge against Germans after WWII. The reason why USA was crucial to European peace after WWII was that it was a neutral player. Even though Americans had fought the Germans, there was a sense among Germans and other Europeans that America was a relatively impartial guarantor of the new order.
Anyway, revenge is still a major factor in the 21st century, mainly among Jews and Muslims. Blacks also operate on the basis of revenge, but I’d say it has more to do with resentment than revenge. After all, blacks hate not only whites but other peoples whom they perceive as succeeding ‘at the expense’ of blacks. With Jews, it is revenge(fueled by arrogance, condescension, and contempt). After all, Jews are the most powerful and most wealthy people on Earth. Yet, they seem so angry, bitter, venomous. Why? They want revenge against the white race for all the wrongs–real and imaginary–done to Jews in the past. Jews who fixate on the Holocaust will not be happy until all white men are castrated into pussyboy dweebs and all white girls run into the arms of negro studs. Jews want to see white men turned into a bunch of Jim Jeffries and Max Schmelings. Jews enjoy the fact that they own most of the sports franchises, that black males dominate on the field, that white women cheer for black studs, and that white boys meekly cheer along, accepting the superiority of black manliness.

Anyway, we must reject the moral bullying of those who venomously and self-righteously ask, "Do you BELIEVE in the Holocaust?" No one should believe in anything unless he really knows something about it. And, to truly know about something, we need to rely on something other than what we see on TV, in the movies, or read in textbooks written by liberals and leftists. There is a large body of scholarly literature on the Holocaust and there is much film footage that documented the horrors. The Holocaust is well-documented because the Nazis lost. Though the 6 million number may be exaggerated, millions most likely did die. Of course, there is the issue of victor’s justice and the fact of Jewish domination in history and the media. Of course, Jews are going to favor data and evidence that proves than disproves the Holocaust, but there is simply too much evidence for any sensible person to deny that there had been a willful and concerted effort on the part of the Nazis to kill Jews. To be sure, questions still remain, not so much over what happened but as to the why. That Hitler hated Jews and wanted to see many of them disappear from the face of the Earth is beyond doubt. But, perhaps we’ll never know why the Holocaust happened the way and when it happened. Did Hitler use the cover of war to kill Jews? Or, did he kill Jews out of revenge for the reversal of the war in the East–and the perception that venal Jews in UK and US were pulling the strings to get Churchill and FDR deeper into war. Hitler saw Churchill and FDR as his racial brethren, and so it was appalling to him that those men would ‘do the bidding’ of the Jews.

The question should be, ‘Do you KNOW about the Holocaust?’ and ‘WHAT do you know about the Holocaust?’ What a person comes to believe should only be based on what he knows, what he knows from weighing evidence from all sides. And, we must not pretend that there are only two sides–saintly Holocaust believers and evil Holocaust deniers. In fact, there are many scholars who simply seek to know MORE about the Holocaust. They come up with different number of victims, they explain different intentions on the part of Nazis, they offer different insights and perspectives and offer differing contexts. Again, context is very important. If we take Hiroshima and Nagasaki in isolation, they are horrendous and unspeakable crimes against humanity. But, seen in the context of WWII, we know that the Japanese were not totally innocent and the Americans weren’t out to just kill for the hell of it. I wouldn’t say of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalents of the Holocaust, but we need to see the Holocaust within the contexts of its time. (Indeed, Jews–mostly liberal and leftwing–are experts of contextualism. They’ll say we must forgive Obama’s associations with Wright and Ayers since he’s a member of the ‘oppressed race’ and, as such, understandably allied with angry radical groups. Or, when blacks riot and kill whites, the Jew-run media say we must understand the violence in context of American history. Since whites committed violence against blacks in the past, blacks have a right to be angry and even attack whites on occasion. And, Jews say we must not criticize Jewish power and influence because of the historical context of ‘anti-semitism’. Since anti-semites gassed Jews during WWII, no one may criticize Jewish power anymore given the nature of the historical context. And, it’s as though Jews have some divine moral right to crush and kill Palestinians, again all because of the historical context: since Jews suffered the Holocaust, they deserve a homeland, even by expelling other peoples off their land; since Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab nations, Israel has the right to have nukes and attack and kill civilians in Lebanon and Gaza; since Jews suffered the Holocaust, they have the right to apply ‘Never Again’ at all times and even kill Palestinian women and children in order to prevent another Holocaust. If this logic goes on, Jews will commit holocausts against goyim and then say it was justified within the context of the Holocaust and Jewish history.)

Certain contexts are bound to make Jews look better, others are likely to make them look worse. Some people will surely use particular contexts to justify the Holocaust while others will use contexts to explain or understand it. We need more explanation and more understanding.

And, we need more points of views. In the US, the educational system and educational TV–very important as most people get their historical lessons from PBS and History Channel–are dominated by liberals and the left. As such, they cannot be wholly trusted. Monopoly power always corrupts. If conservatives dominated much of the media, there would be the same problem. A conservative is intrinsically no more honest or principled than a liberal. But, the fact is liberals and the left do dominate the media and education. And, just look at the kind of garbage they’ve been trying to feed us. There was the bogus PBS documentary called "Liberators" which falsely told us that black GIs liberated the death camps. This was a Holocaust hoax as odious as Holocaust denial. How were the people at PBS able to get away with a hoax this big? Why didn’t the media make a bigger stink about it? In some countries, it’s a crime to say the Holocaust didn’t happen or even to minimize its historical significance(Le Pen got fined for calling it an ‘incident’), but it appears that Jews can make up any number of lies about the Holocaust and get away with it. Though the Liberators hoax was exposed, the people involved didn’t end up with ruined careers in the way that critics of Jewish power do. And, PBS never ran a documentary about how the hoax came about or how the entire series was made despite all the protests from soldier and scholars who said it could not have happened the way it did. The only thing that mattered to the Jews who made "Liberators" was strengthening the bonds between the black and Jewish leadership. Jews tried to pull another instance of Joe Louis beating up Max Schmeling, this time against American whites who’d done so much to save Jews in WWII. Many Jews are gratuitous in their vileness and cunning than grateful for anything done for them by other peoples. Though they are richer and more powerful than others, they still want others to serve them. It’s like when Bob Dylan was a kid in Hibbing Minnesota. His family was richer than most families, and he had more pocket money, but he made the local yokels buy stuff for him. Manipulating dumb goyim to suck Jewish cock is the Jewish way.

Are you a leftist who opposed US invasion of Iraq? Then, explain your defense of the 'right of Israel to exist'?

Though Hussein was a scumbag, a good argument could be made against the invasion. One could argue that Iraq didn't attack the US, was no threat to the US, and was not involved in 9/11. (By the way, moveon.org went one better and even opposed the invasion of afghanistan because, in its warped anti-neo-imperialst worldview--typically chomskyite--, any group that hates or attacks the US is motivated by American domination of the world through global capitalism. This argument is funny since it really amounts to a new form of anti-semitsm. The most important agents and champions of globalism are American Jews, most of them liberals. Of course, neocons are also for globalism, but they've been much at odd with Paleocons who tend not to be Jewish and prefer national capitalism over globalist capitalism. Anyway, if US economic 'domination' is imperialist, the villains are mostly American Jews. It's not the dimwit Southern white baptists, negroes, Hispanic lettuce pickers, or South Dakotans who manage and reap huge rewards from the global economy. Sure, there is Walmart but much of its business operations are run and managed by liberal Jews. And, look at Hollywood and US media with worldwide influence and control. They are mostly Jewish-owned. Even Fox is an hononary Jewish company because Murdoch is a neocon pro-Zionist and has hired mostly super liberal Jews to run the entertainment departments. It's not Mormons, hicks, or Midwestern Swedes who own and run Hollywood. So, if globalism dominated by the US is indeed imperialist, neo-imperialism is controlled by Jews since Jews control the US. So, anti-Americanism has become the new anti-semitism, which explains why Godard's anti-American sentiments cannot be disassociated with his anti-Jewish sentiments. Many leftists feel betrayed because the holocaust was supposed to have taught the Jews a lesson once and for all; Jews were supposed to be noble saints and lovable victims for all time, but most Jews turned out to be 'greedy' capitalists or imperialists--over the Palestinians. So, it's awful frustrating to people like Godard. He's sorry that cinema didn't stop the Holocaust--come to think of it, it didn't stop the Great Famine in Ukraine, the Great Leap Forward in China, and the Killing Fields in Cambodia either, but I guess they matter less. He dutifully obsesses over the horror of the Holocaust. But, the very people he wants to embrace and sympathize with are now the richest and the most powerful people on Earth. Jews run Hollywood and have commited 'cultural genocide' the world over. Jews have manipulated US political and military power to make trouble in the middle east. Jews, with the help of the US, has crushed Palestinians and gotten away with murder.)


Since Iraq didn't attack the US, what right did the US to invade Iraq? Every one of the pro-war arguments could be dismissed as bogus. One was that Iraq had WMD. It turned out that Iraq didn't, but even if it did, was the invasion justified? After all, China is a non-democratic nation with WMD. Russia too. And, whole bunch of other nations. So, why pick on Iraq? There was the argument that the middle east was important because of oil, and a man like hussein shouldn't control all that wealth--which he may use to cause trouble, as when he invaded Kuwait. Okay, but US pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Weren't there ways to check Hussein's power without actually invading the country? And, a whole host of other arguments could be made against the invasion, all legitimate--though legitimate reasons could be made for the war too.

But, let's suppose the invasion of Iraq was wrong, violated international laws, was unprecedented(for the US in relatively recent times anyway), and didn't serve the interests of the US. And, it must be said that opposition to the war came from the right as well from the left. Paleocons and libertarians generally denounced the war as the doing of ex-trotskyite neocon jews. Many on the right denounced the invasion as radical democratic fundamentalism and/or zionism controlling US foreign policy. The left has denounced the war as neo-imperialism. (I must say I'm a bit confused by this. Again, the world economy is pretty much run by Jews, most of whom are liberal. The most powerful leftists are also Jews. So, are Leftist Jews attacking Liberal Jews for global neo-imperialism? Perhaps, but it's never stated this way. Leftist Jews blame ALL of America for global capitalism when most ethnic groups in the US are not the masters of the world economy. Take Alaskans like the Palins. They are national capitalists who fish and drill for oil for fellow Americans. Or, take them bible thumping hick farmers down sooooouth. They never been travelin' around the world and makin' deals. Their entire world is their smalltown community. The masters of the global economy are mostly the Jews in the US. So, you'd think leftist Jews would attack liberal capitalist Jews by name--like the Wall Street Jews who took bad loans and sold them all over the world and has sunk the economy of places like Iceland. But no, leftist Jews blame ALL of AMERICA as though all Americans are equally to blame. The fact is that though Jews make up only 2% of US population, they own more than 40% of the wealth. 35% of donations to the Republican campaign came from Jews. 70% of donations to the Democrats came from Jews. This is JewSa. So, why do leftist Jews blame ALL of America for neo-imperialism when the masters of this world order are the liberal and neocon Jews? Also, even your average Marxist-leaning Leftist Jew is significantly richer than your average conservative 'greedy' goy. Lawyers, professors, academics, and even rich businessmen are leftwing Jews. Just look at Hollywood with its many billionaire left-leaning Jews. They sell cultural sewage all over the world, buy huge mansions, bang shikse bimbos left and right, and then put on airs as progressive saints who care about humanity. Is it any wonder why anti-semitism has been a worldwide phenomenon? Not only are Jews pretty gross, they are awful hypocritical.)


Anyway, to get back to the original point. why so many liberal and leftist goyim--who got their worldview from reading the books of more intelligent leftwing Jews--support Israel while attacking the invasion of Iraq? Wasn't the creation of Israel worse than the invasion of Iraq? Iraq wasn't invaded for keeps. US sought only to remove Hussein, put in a better regime, and then pull out. But, when Western imperialists allowed Jews to settle in Israel, it was for keeps. The people who'd lived on that land--the Pallies--would be dispossessed forever. Suppose US had invaded Iraq with the intention of dispossessing Iraqis, pushing most of them out of the territory and then settling non-Arabs to create a new nation. Wouldn't that have been far worse than merely invading a nation to bring about regime change? That is what happened in Palestine which was turned into Israel. Western imperialists allowed European Jews to arrive in ever larger numbers, push out the original inhabitants, and set up a new nation. Today, Palestinians are living in utter squalor. They are hungry, diseased, poor, and dehumanized by the Jewish controlled media in the US--worse than how Jews were dehumanized by Nazi propaganda. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not romantic about the Pallies. They are a bunch of sand negroes as far as I'm concerned. But, they are people too(and still better than actual negroes, not to mention them rascally Jews.)


What I wanna know is why American progressives who bitch and whine about the American invasion of Iraq are okay with the fact that Israel was created and continues to crush the Pallies? Why are they far more offended by the Iraq invasion than the Jewish invasion of Palestine under the cover of Western Imperialism? I've heard the arguments before. Jews got burned in the holocaust and so deserved a land of their own. Then, why not give Jews a piece of land in Europe since Europeans killed the Jews? Some argue Palestinians had colluded with the Nazis and therefore deserved to be punished. But, Italy and Japan were closer to Nazi Germany. So, why not give a chunk of Japan or Italy to the Jews instead? Besides, so what if some Palestinians had been chummy with Nazi Germany. They were merely playing power politics since the Middle East was dominated by British and French imperialists. And, didn't US and UK side with mass murderer Stalin? Some have argued that Palestine was the homeland of the ancient Jews, but if we wanna send everyone back to their ancestral homelands going back centuries or millennia ago, expect there to be WWIII, IV, V, etc.


So, I want all your progressive jerkoffs to explain why you oppose the invasion of Iraq but agree that "Israel has the right to exist"? Don't you see that Israel's right to exist negates the right of Palestine to exist? You will say, 'give West Bank and Gaza to the Pallies and call that Palestine'. But, does that make sense? Suppose the chinese invade US, create New China and drive Americans to California and Florida. Suppose the chinese demand the 'right of new china to exist' and are willing to compromise by allowing california and florida to be america. So, does that mean America too can exist alongside New China? What American would swallow his pride and fall for this shit? When a little island was attacked in 1941, US totally bombed Japan and killed millions. Yet, this nation--created by killing and taking land from the red man--is now lecturing, at the behest of Jews, to Palestinians about peace. You'd think Palestinians are the aggressors because they cannot accept the idea of 'right of israel to exist'. But, Palestinians have nothing against the idea of a Jewish homeland. They just don't want it on top of their own homeland. Similarly, Americans have no problems with chinese having their China. Americans just don't want New China on American Soil. It's bad enough that US is turning into JewSA at the top and negroland on the bottom and spreading wider and wider.


So, why are progressives okay with Israel? Allow me to venture to guess. It's because Jews taught us history where they've always been saintly victims and noble folks all throughout history. And, we've been taught that ONLY Jews--and negroes--suffered and know pain. We've all been drummed day in and day out in schools, tv, hollywood, etc, etc about the holocaust--though we know next to nothing about 100 million killed by communism(much of it dominated by Jews. Chomsky and other leftist intellectuals in the US did everything to help khmer rouge come to power in cambodia, but he hasn't been hounded out of the academia like James Watts who only spoke the truth about race.)


Also, I believe there is a natural worship or admiration of all things Jewish since so many of our intellectuals, artists, writers, etc, are Jewish. I think it happens like this. Suppose you dig Dylan or Norman Mailer. You look up to them, admire them, and wanna be liked by them. Even though they don' t now you and you don't know them personally, a part of you is like Rupert Pupkin in "King of Comedy". You want to win the approval of those Great Guys--if only in fantasy. I think the rise of acceptance of gayness also has to do with the fact that so many gays are in culture, arts, and entertainment. Why, it's so unhip, uncool, and un-smart not to bend over for the gay agenda(Clay Aikin and Ellen Degenerate)!

Suppose Arab-Americans were a lot smarter than Jews. Suppose most of our intellectuals, artists, writers, and movie makers were Arabs for a free Palestine and opposed to Zionism. I'll bet most of the progressives in this country would be anti-Zionist. So, a kind of cult-of-personality operates here. Perhaps, one could call it a cult-of-nationality. Jews are not only seen as the saint victims of history but as the ultimate cool, intellectual, smart, talented, creative, and brilliant people. So, sucking up to Jews is prerequisite for being cool, progressive, and etc since Jewish artists and intellectual determine and define what is 'intelligent', 'cutting edge', 'brilliant', and 'genius'.

This may also be true with blacks as well. If blacks weren't so good at pop music, dance, and sports, there may be less sympathy for them. But, because of the power of cult-of-nationality, even when blacks riot and go crazy, progressives go out of their way to make excuses for the 'cool' negroes.

This must be true. We need only consider the case of Edward Said. Recall that prior to Said, most of the compassion and sympathy were with the brilliant, smart, and original Jews. But, Said in the 1970s wrote a book called "Orientalism" which has come to be considered one of the most brilliant books ever written. Said became admired, revered, worshipped, and dick-sucked by many. He was said to be the most insightful, radical, daring, and blah blah thinker ever. (I read the book. It sucks.) Said's celebrity had a huge impact on the Israeli-Palestinian equation, at least in the academic setting(which is signficant because academic trends eventually ripple outwards.) Those who came to admire Said's brilliance also came to agree with his positions. So, admiration of brilliance leads to adherence to commitment(of the brilliant personage). There is a conceit in the intellectual community that something brilliantly argued must be truer than something dumbly argued--even if the dumbly argued position is true or true. This is the conceit of brilliantism and accounts for the appeal of Marxism. Had Marx not been so brilliant, his positions wouldn't have amounted to much. But, people who came to admire his Moses-like aura and intelligence couldn't help but think that a man so intelligent must be true. Same goes for the sheep of Ayn Rand. Rand, though a nut, brilliantly argued her case and suckers fell for it. Jews, because of their high intelligence, have a way of making even falsehoods sound true. Take a show like Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm. It's about nothing and annoying as hell; but they are addictive to many people because they are brilliant. Jews can even make nothing look valuable. If women(and men) have fallen for Woody Allen for his wit, this is all very understandable!
Anyway, my point is Jews will control much of our intellectual culture because many people look upon them as the smartest, most talented, most creative, and most original. So, we feel this emotional need to be in good graces with such Great People; so, our admiration of their artistic and intellectual talent leads us to sympathy with their political and social positions as well. But, notice how a single brilliant Palestinian challenged the equation significantly. Said wrote one brilliant book, influenced a whole generation of academics, and there is now a good amount of anti-zionism on campuses. There had long been anti-zionism among Pallies before, but it was Said who made it intellectually respectable. The most powerful weapon is the pen, not the sword. If Pallies produce more Saids, Jews will really be in trouble.


In a way, Jews too had been blinded by brilliantism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Many Jews loved and even worshipped French and German culture. Though many of the great artists were anti-semitic, Jews were blinded by brilliantism. Consider the fact that the Jew Mahler wept and wailed out in the streets when Wagner died. He screamed, 'the master is dead, the master is dead'. And, this is why so many Jews never woke up from their doldrums when the political landscape was changing fast in the 20th century. Many French Jews, so deeply in love with French culture, shared the French prejudice against Eastern European Jews. And, many German Jews refused to believe that something terrible would happen in a land that had created Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, and Rilke. Today, many honkeys refuse to believe in the dangers of negroes because they are so enamoured of jazz and blues and etc. And, consider the film "Last Samurai". It's so fascinated and amazed by Japanese aesthetic and culture that it fails to see the dark side of the samurai order.

This applies to our sympathy for victims too. For all their professed egalitarianism and brotherhood-of-man-ism, even leftists have their favorite victims. Jews are favored because we feel that a Jew is more capable of greatness than a goy. When we hear of 10 million Ukraianians killed by Stalin( and his Jewish henchmen), we have this picture of a whole bunch of dirty, illiterate, dimwitted peasants dying. But, when we hear of a single murdered Jew, we wonder, 'could it have been another Einstein, another Dylan, another Mailer, another Don Rickles'?
In our imagination, some nationalities have a face, a voice, a mind--a personality. Even if we don't actually know them intimately or directly, we feel a certain kinship or admiration or reverence through the personality of the nationality. Perception-through-personality shapes nationality. Consider the effectiveness of Aung Sung Suchi and Dalai Lama. Without them, stories of Tibetans and Burmese would merely be faceless sad stories--dime-a-dozen on BBC. But, because we know their faces and heard their voices, we feel greater sadness when we hear of oppression in Tibet or Burma; we visualize the saddened or anguished faces of Dalai Lama or Aung Sung Suchi, individual personalities we've come to regard as 'friends' or 'teachers' or 'gurus' or 'heroes'. Anne Frank did much the same for the Jews. She added a face to the 6 million dead.
In today's public perception, Jews have a lot more faces and personalities than Palestinians. This may be why Hollywood is eager to suppress the rise of Arab or Muslim actors or film folks. When an Arab or Muslim American seeks a role in Hollywood, the Jews only offer roles of evil terrorists. Jews in Hollywood know that if Arab and Muslim Americans become more famous and liked, their possibly anti-Zionist causes too will be more popular and acceptable. Of course, none of this is rational, but humans are like this. Ever since we've had more gay celebs, more and more Americans are for 'gay marriage'. Ingmar Bergman was right. The Face is the key.