Outlaw History #2
Fanatics do not talk to fanatics, unless those they talk to are fanatic about the same matter/s. Otherwise, fanatics shoot fanatics, bomb them, starve them, isolate them, cut off their heads, and act generally in a way that is tacky almost beyond belief. "Almost," because human culture is soaked through with poor taste and fanaticism, so with a modicum of reflection we are able to observe what goes on.
Cutting off the heads of innocent, unarmed civilians for a greater good is, if not normal, certainly human. What's that? Beheading innocent folk for a "greater good" is what small-timers do who do not have the funding to burn alive or blast into oblivion hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians for a greater good.
Sometimes small-timers break into the big time, like Osama did in New York City and Washington, but usually their numbers are not all that good. Big-timers, on the other hand, are big-timers because they can produce the numbers. They can initiate preemptive wars for the greater good of – well, it depends on circumstances. Personal whim, whether it's winter or summer, things like that. Big-timers have very good numbers. That's why they're big-timers.
This being the case, we have to wonder why "terrorism" gets such bad press in America and other places around the world. America, for example, has much better numbers than the Arabs or the rest of the Muslim world. Israel, thanks to the U.S. Congress, has much better numbers than the Palestinians. Yet terrorism, the intentional killing of innocent, unarmed civilians for a greater good, is condemned by those who are best at it, while rationalized by those who are second best.
Well, terrorists are evil when they try to kill you, and swell fellows when they're killing the families and neighbors of those who are trying to kill you. So far Americans have killed somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 innocent, unarmed Iraqi civilians for what the administration believes is a greater good. This suggests that Americans have wounded and maimed at least 50,000 innocent, unarmed Iraqi civilians. Probably more. Probably a lot more.
The difference between the Arab terrorists who killed us, and the American soldiers who are killing the Arabs, is that the Americans can morally justify killing Arabs for a greater good, while the Arabs cannot morally justify killing Americans in any way whatever. Moral justification is always the ground upon which the terrorists stand.
Americans morally justify intentionally killing Arab civilians for a greater good because Arab terrorists intentionally killed American civilians first. It has nothing to do with the individuals who are being killed. This is group think. If you're in the wrong group, and you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, your ass is mud. Is this how we all are – or what?
Arabs morally justify killing Americans because Americans fund the colonization of Arab land by Israeli Jews, and fund the Israeli military in a way that makes it a foregone conclusion that Israeli Jews are going to have better numbers than Palestinians, or any other Arabs who get careless. Very much better numbers.
So we have a situation in which there would be no moral justification for war in Iraq without 9/11. There would be no moral justification for 9/11 without the U.S. alliance with Israel. No moral justification for the U.S. alliance with Israel without the Holocaust story. And no Holocaust story without the "gas chambers." The irony being that revisionists have shown that the gas chamber stories cannot be demonstrated to have existed.
Those who wanted to morally justify the invasion and colonization of Arab land in Palestine by European Jews were pleased to be convinced, or pretended to be convinced, that the gas chamber stories are true. That is why the opposition to an open debate on the Holocaust story is opposed so fanatically by the Holocaust Industry.
Holocaust fanatics depend on the gas chamber story to morally justify their working the U.S. Congress to underwrite the U.S./Israeli alliance, to morally justify the conquest and colonization of Arab land by Jews, and to morally justify the preemptive war against Iraq that was so valuable to Israeli security, in the short run.
Holocaust fanatics do not talk to "revisionists" because they believe that they are in a "war" against intellectual (revisionist) terrorism. They believe that, if revisionist arguments continue to make their way through Arab and Muslim culture, as they are making their way now, it will add to Arab and Muslim convictions that Jews had no moral justification to invade Palestine or colonize Arab land.
Holocaust fanatics are justified in fearing that revisionist arguments will add fuel to Arab fanaticism. I think Holocaust fanatics are right about this, and I feel a certain sympathy for them. If they allow the truth about the gas chamber stories to emerge freely into the light of day, one result will be that Arab fanatics will kill Jews, using the Holocaust "hoax" as morally justifying it.
That is one reason why Holocaust fanatics believe, and find it to their benefit to believe, that those who question the core image of the Holocaust story – the gas chambers – are anti-Jewish fanatics. In some cases, as a matter of fact, that is true. But the vast majority of Holocaust revisionists are willing to be convinced that we are wrong. I count myself among these fine fellows.
Holocaust fanatics want to see revisionists imprisoned and censored and their work destroyed. Revisionists want to talk to Holocaust fanatics. This reminds me – this is a very sentimental anecdote and I probably should not tell it here, but what the hell. It's a story that my mother loved to tell. I more than half remember the morning it happened.
When I was four years old, we lived in an apartment in a Victorian house on a street that ran up a hill in downtown Los Angeles. Bunker Hill. There was a boy who lived in another apartment in the same house. His name was Alvin. One day Alvin punched me out over – I can't remember what. I wasn't hurt, but I went in the house crying and complaining. My mother asked me what had happened. I told her. She said: "Bradley, the next time Alvin hits you, you just hit him back."
I said: "But, Mother, I don't want to hit him. I want to play wif him" (that's the way she always pronounced it).
That's the problem that Holocaust fanatics have with Holocaust revisionists. We don't want to be at war with them. We want to talk things over. We know that most fanatics are fine fellows – have you noticed the way Osama smiles? – and we understand that allowing the truth about the gas chambers to be told publicly will result in Arab fanatics having yet one more moral justification for killing innocent, unarmed Jews.
That's the problem that Holocaust fanatics have created and nurtured for themselves and for Jews everywhere. If they continue to censor and imprison revisionists who want to talk to them, Arab fanatics will continue to see through that sleazy behavior and feel morally justified in killing Jews for "lying" about how the "Holocaust" justified the Jewish colonization of Arab Palestine.
If Holocaust fanatics stop censoring and imprisoning revisionists, Arab fanatics will feel morally justified in killing Jews for finally revealing that Holocaust fanatics have lied for half a century about how the Holocaust (without "gas chambers") morally justified their colonization of Arab land.
What to do when in doubt? Go with the truth. Don't demonize your enemy. Talk to him. Keep your guard up. Remember, while he's no worse a man than you are, he's no better either. He may be a fanatic.
Additional information about this document
|Author(s):||Bradley R. Smith|
|Title:||Outlaw History #2, Fanatics Do Not Talk to Fanatics|
|First posted on CODOH:||July 2, 2012, 7 p.m.|