From: Manuel Sotil <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: From Prof. Charles Weinblatt re: What's a historian? Who's a historian?
Cc: reportersnotebook <RePortersNoteBook@yahoogroups.com>
Some musings on history professionals and dilettantes....
Zionists support the official dogma of holocaust (whatever that may be) despite the fact that there is no definition of what is meant by the word. When I took religious classes back in grade school, "holocaust" was described or translated as "burnt offering", like when Abraham was about to offer his son to God in burning sacrifice, only to have his hand stayed and shown a substitute in the form of a white sheep (or lamb) that was ensnared in some bushes nearby.
I find nothing to relate this definition with current accounts that involve imaginary gas chambers, diesel buses fumes (however, the Soviets during the Stalin era did experiment with this method of killing victims), flexible or loose references to gas ovens, as in "throwing the Jews into gas ovens" bypassing the Zyklon stage and presumably, burning them alive (holocausting them?).
You have to be very careful of how you play loose with those tenets of holocaust. In bypassing the Zyklon gas stage for you would be in effect denying the use or even the existence of Zyklon, thrashing perhaps someone's neatly crafted theory (I mean, finding) and incurring the wrath of some bureaucrat in, for example, Germany, France or Austria. This is no laughing matter because the scandalized bureaucrat can demand your extradition for trial and guaranteed imprisonment. Apparently, holocaust bureaucrats in those countries have plenty of time and budget on their hands.
Such is the misuse, abuse, exaggeration, improvisation, outright fabrication and lies in any story relating to the holocaust that one can only recoil in shock and awe before the powerful unknown. Like myths of ancient times, holocaust is impervious to attacks by logic argumentation, proof of consistency, rules of arithmetic and just plain decency. It is rich in invention, imagination, flexibility, boldness and shamelessness.
Even the magnitude of the claims elude analysis or questioning. When pressed into an uncomfortable position Zionists (a term that includes the goyim that depend on their favor and do their bidding) issue the ultimate challenge that goes something like this: "If no holocaust took place, then explain what happened to the xxx millions (enter your favorite numbers) Jews that were in such and such place before the war".
The problem of course is that, except for small villages, nobody knows with certainty how many Jews were in any given place. All numbers before and after the war seem to be an invention. So we don't know about the living (except for the ever increasing number of survivors). How about the dead? Names? Lists? (other than that of Herr Schindler which dealt with living souls at any rate). How about graves. No graves? Ashes then? The Nazis erased all trace of bodies, ashes, passports? Yes, we know about German efficiency, but we would like so see more specific information.
Why will not historians ferret, investigate and determine, as accurately as possible, these numbers and other facts? The reason is that such activity is not allowed under risk of spending anywhere between three to ten years in prison, plus financial ruin, plus loss of job, position, tenure and future in academia, on some set of extravagant charges. This is a subject where no clarity is desired. The latter day Stalinists will find the legalese to nail the impertinent who dares to interfere with the game when the Zionist has all the cards. As Lavrenti Beria aptly put it: Find me the man, and I'll find the crime. You will be told that the matter has already been adjudicated and any attempt to question the dogma will result in charges of incitement, hatred and disrespect for the dead to start with.
Since the academic historians will not do their job owing to well-founded fears of touching an object as sacred as the very Arc of the Covenant that supposedly turned (turns?) to cinders anyone who dare to touch it, then some non-academic historians have to do the job.
The Zionists allege that the amateur historian is not "trained" to do history and therefore all his findings are of dubious merit if not outright invalid, because the would-be Herodotus or apprentice does not possess an advanced academic degree in history. By the way, was Herodotus a historian?
Well, bless my soul. Eureka (or Evreka, as Archimides is said to have exclaimed)! The following comes to mind. Did William Shakespeare have and advanced degree in Literature? A Ph D in Belles Lettres, perhaps? How about Wolfgang von Goethe? How about Cervantes, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Dostoevsky?
None of them?
Then I can now report my discovery that the master works of Messer Shakespeare, Goethe, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Cervantes, Maupassant, inter alia, are worthless blather, utterly without redeeming social value. You see, none of the aforementioned writers was authorized to write anything, for they lacked the proper academic credentials in the field of Literature or Belle Lettres. Only members of organizations such as MASSOLIT can write something worthy of being committed to print for the enlightment of the masses and for posterity.
By the same reasoning bodies cannot float in water, since the principle of water displacement was discovered by Archimedes, a man utterly lacking in academic qualifications. He conducted experiments in physics without any training whatsoever, much less troubled himself to obtain a degree let alone an advanced one in physics or any other related discipline.
So as a parting warning. Do not go swimming in a pool because you will not float.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chuck Weinblatt <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: What's a historian? Who's a historian?
To: Michael <firstname.lastname@example.org>
You missed the point. Of course, some people are very knowledgeable about
something outside of their undergraduate or post-graduate degree. I know a
lot about Mozart, but that would not help me in my professional field.
Would you ask a group of lawyers about the best way to remove an appendix?
The point is that the group called professional historians has the final
word on history. That group, virtually unanimously, has said that current
Holocaust knowledge is accurate. They have been saying that since 1945,
despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of new documents and new
testimonies have been uncovered since then. Instead of spreading doubt, all
of the new documents and testimonies simply corroborate earlier research -
confirming that millions of innocent Jews were exterminated by Nazi Germany.
Mike, the community of professional historians has not only stated publicly
that known Holocaust facts are accurate, they have denounced Holocaust
revisionists. Do you perceive any wiggle room there? If so, then you're
saying that the world community of Historians is wrong and you are right.
Ergo, you know more about Holocaust history than hundreds of thousands of
professional historians who slaved over eight years of college and have
produced tens of thousands of approved thesis and dissertation projects
about the Holocaust. Hmmm. I'm trying to work that logic out in my brain.
It's just not happening, Mike.
A historian is a person who is an expert in history. This person is more of
an expert than someone whose expertise is in a different field. So,
historians know more about history than non-historians and virtually all
historians agree that Nazi Germany murdered millions of innocent Jews.
Mike, life can at times be confusing. But, when virtually every
professional historian tells me something about history, I tend to believe
it. Why don't you?
From: Michael [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:26 PM
Subject: What's a historian? Who's a historian?
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?