|
The Razor and the Ring
By John Weir
“Plurality is not to be assumed
without necessity.”
William of Ockham
The fourteenth century
Franciscan theologian, William of Ockham is credited
with using a method to trim logical absurdities out of
arguments that came to be named for him. This method,
today known as Occam’s Razor, or “Entities are
not to be multiplied without necessity,” was developed
to show that the realm of theology was separate from
that of science; Scientific proof for the existence of
God, he concluded, was not possible. Therefore science
and theology, being different, required different
methods for their advancement.
This division of science from theology allowed
modernism to take hold in the West. Scientific
investigation could now go forward unfettered by
religious dogma which men relegated to the world of
metaphysics. Scientific knowledge thereby became
restricted to that which could be observed and tested.
Theology, on the other hand, advanced through thoughtful
speculation and faith.
The basis of the razor is simplicity. A model based
on the simplest explanation of the data available is
usually the best. Scientists and mathematicians,
therefore, strive for simplicity and elegance in their
theories describing the physical reality that surrounds
them.

Philosopher, William of Ockham
Consequently, a basic question
that needs to be answered is whether history is to be
described using scientific principles since the events
of history occur in the physical world, or is it part of
theology since historical events are used in the making
of myths which support a particular world view and
popular basic philosophical truths.
Recently, a few documents have been “discovered” in
archives -- some of which have been only recently
declassified -- which purportedly shed light on certain
details of the Jewish Holocaust that were not known
before. These recent revelations are an illustration of
the taffy pull of history that is happening now between
the scientific Occam’s Razor and theology’s
Holocaust decoder ring.
The Holocaust is more than an historical event for
Zionists. It is the embodiment of their view of the
world. The Holocaust verifies that Jews can never trust
Gentiles, but must control their own destiny. Otherwise,
only death - at the hand of the Gentiles - await them.
The Holocaust is proof of that and reinforces the need
for a Jewish state to safeguard their survival. The
theological dogma to this must only be supported--not
undercut--by historical events. Therefore, events and
documents dealing with the fate of the Jews at the hand
of the Nazis must be interpreted only in a way that
supports this Holocaust theology and Zionist view of
reality.
The first of the documents I addressed in my
“Chilean Document” essay. This document is dated 24
November 1941 and was in the hands of the American OSS
by March 1942. It is quoted in the press to read in part
“[I]t has been decided to eradicate all the Jews and
send some to Poland and others to the town of Terezin,
whilst looking for a more remote place.” The press
articles concluded from this that the OSS and therefore
the American government knew the Germans planned to kill
all of the Jews by March of 1942 and the Germans had
planned it by the previous November. Yet that is not
what the document says. It says the Jews were to be sent
to Poland until a more remote location became available.
Then, in January of 1942, the famous Wannsee
Conference was held to finalize the details of "the
extermination of the Jews" or so it has been said. Yet,
this is not what the minutes of the meeting actually
say. They read, in part, in translation to English as
follows:
“Under proper direction the Jews should now in the
course of the Final Solution be brought to the East
in a suitable way for the use as labor... The
evacuated Jews are to be bought first group by group
into the so-called transit ghettos, in order to be
transported from there farther to the East.”
This is consistent with the Chilean Document: Jews were
to be deported to the East.
The next document was very recently discovered and
published. Its publication was treated by the
Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) in an article
posted on their Web site on Wednesday, January 16, 2002.
(See
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Korherr/JTA150102.html)
This document is the translation of an intercepted
German encoded message that summarized the activity at
the so-called transit ghettoes, described in the Wannsee
Protocol, for the year 1942 and was dated 11 January
1943.
The JTA correspondent, Toby Axelrod states this
intercept “indicates” the number of Jews killed at these
“extermination camps” during 1942. Now the decoder ring
is at work. The document doesn’t say the Jews were
killed, it only indicates the number at each camp:
24,733 at Majdanek, 434,508 at Belzec, 101,370 at
Sobibor and 713,555 at Treblinka. The document also
provides a total of 24,733 for Lublin (Lemberg), but
since Lublin is not considered by the keepers of the
Holocaust to be an extermination camp, that is omitted
from the article.
If this document doesn’t in fact describe mass
exterminations, what does it reveal about the fate of
the Jews at these camps? The encoded wireless telegraph
message marked “State secret!” describes these numbers
as “recorded arrivals.” The same terminology is used for
Lublin in the document as is used for the imagined
“extermination camps,” but the wielders of the
decoder ring can tell the difference: When the Nazis
used the term “arrival” for three of the four camps that
“indicated” the Jews who arrived were killed, but -- for
one out of the four – it did not.
The total recorded arrivals for the four camps for
the year 1942 was 1,274,166. It was this number that
stimulated the interest of researchers Stephan Tyas and
Peter Witte, the discoverers of the intercept, because
it matches a number which appears in an April 1943
secret statistical report by Nazi statistician, Richard
Korherr on The Final Solution of the European
Jewish Problem. (See:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Korherr/index.html)
This report was assembled by Korherr on the order
Reichsführer-SS, Heinrich Himmler. The report was to
estimate the change in the number of Jews in
Nazi-controlled territory from 1933 to the end of 1942.
Korherr subdivided his statistics into several
categories: Deaths over births, Emigration, Evacuation,
and Other. There was no listing for “killed in death
camps” or anything like that. The number that appeared
in the intercept and also in Korherr’s report is listed
under the heading “Transport of Jews from the Eastern
Provinces to the Russian East: Processed through the
camps in the Government-General” which falls under the
“evacuation” category.
Though it is clear from the context of the report
that Korherr didn’t consider these people to be dead,
today’s guardians of “Truth and Memory” believe a
euphemism is being used here for “killed.” Despite the
fact that Korherr’s Report is a secret document created
for Himmler who would certainly know what the report was
about since he commissioned it, we are told that it
contains code words to hide the fact the Jews were being
murdered en mass though the report clearly states the
evacuated Jews were to be considered a reduction in the
population of Europe’s Jews for purposes of the report
only.
Similarly, “arrival” is supposed to “indicate” that
people were “killed.” Also “transported East,”
“evacuated,” “resettled” and “send to Poland” are all
phrases which mean “killed” according to the Holocaust
cryptographers. Conveniently, when this principle is
applied, just about anything can mean “murdered” and
does when it comes to Nazi documents dealing with the
Jews. All you need is the Holocaust document decoder
ring. With it the wielder can find new meaning in
already decrypted and translated documents and –even
better—that can be any meaning desired. Neat.
The decoder ring is the theological opposite
of the scientific razor. It allows one to add a
layer of complexity so that evidence can be manipulated
to fit the model. No longer does a document have to mean
what it says. This makes the decoder ring much more
useful than the razor for dogmatists because Occam’s
Razor demands inflexible simplicity while the ring
presents infinite possibilities and complexity.
The conclusion to this conundrum is rather simple.
Since there are two choices of how to interpret
Holocaust documents, what to pick depends on one’s
philosophical outlook.
If the truth is known, then apply the ring and
‘arrival’ means murdered; ‘evacuated’ means murdered;
‘resettled’ means murdered; ‘transported’ means
murdered. This is convenient when one knows truth
apriori.
Conversely, if the truth is to be determined, apply
the razor. The documents mean what they say: The Jews
were assembled and transported East by the Nazis where
the Jews were put into ghettoes deep inside occupied
Soviet territory.
It is a matter of taste as to which to use. The
Revisionist historians use the razor while the defenders
of “Truth and Memory” use their Holocaust decoder rings
which always “converge” the evidence anywhere their
world view focuses it.
References
The Good Old Days, by Klee, Dressen,
Riess.
Richard Korherr and his Reports, by
Stephen Challen.
The Auschwitz Myth, by Dr. Wilhelm
Stäglich.
Eureka! What Archimedes Really Meant and 80
Other Key Ideas Explained, by Michael Macrone
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on
Truth and Memory, by Deborah Lipstadt. |