The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Tobias Langdon Archive
The Hollow Cult: Sins of Omission in the Rhetoric of the Holocaust
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Suppose a hungry donkey was placed exactly midway between two identical piles of hay. Could it choose one of the piles to eat or would it hesitate, growing ever weaker, until it starved to death? This was the question posed in the medieval problem of Buridan’s ass.

“And so on…”

It might seem an esoteric situation, but you can sometimes see human beings frozen like Buridan’s ass between two equally compelling alternatives. Here, for example, is the Canadian-born Jewish journalist Barbara Kay writing at Quillette in praise of the recently deceased English philosopher Roger Scruton:

Scruton did eventually get some recognition in his home country. He received a knighthood in 2016. But then in his last year, Scruton fell victim to the scourge of “cancel culture.” A few words, taken out of context in an interview, and then mendaciously twisted by the New Statesman, brought on a mobbing of the kind we are all too familiar with, with accusations flung at this gentleman of harbouring “white supremacist” views.

As the night follows day in this feckless new world, Scruton was stripped of a recent government appointment, and there were demands that he lose his knighthood, too, on account of his homophobia, Islamophobia and so on — all complete fabrications. (Remembering Roger Scruton, Defender of Reason in a World of Postmodern Jackals, Quillette, 14th January 2020)

The strongly pro-Zionist Barbara Kay behaved like Buridan’s ass in the final sentence, when she wrote “and so on.” She had a choice, you see, between being completely honest and being completely dishonest. If she’d chosen to be completely dishonest, she would have written simply “on account of his homophobia and Islamophobia.” If she’d chosen to be completely honest, she’d have written “on account of his homophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.”

The Board of Deputies is satisfied

As you can see, Barbara couldn’t bring herself either to admit the truth or to entirely suppress it, so she hid the uncomfortable truth beneath “and so on.” Unfortunately for her, she was still being dishonest. As I described in “A Philosopher Falls,” Scruton was accused of anti-Semitism by Luciana Berger, a prominent Jewish MP in Britain, and was removed from a government committee after intervention by the Jewish Board of Deputies, Britain’s most important and powerful Jewish organization. The Board of Deputies then self-importantly announced: “As soon as we saw Roger Scruton’s unacceptable comments we contacted the government to make our concerns heard. We are satisfied the right decision has been made to dismiss him.”

It’s obvious, then, why Barbara Kay felt unable to mention the accusations of anti-Semitism against Scruton, who had criticized the subversive Jewish financier George Soros and mentioned the influence of Jews in Eastern Europe. Like the accusations of homophobia and Islamophobia, these accusations were “complete fabrications” and “mendaciously twisted.” But Zionists like Kay do not want to admit that accusations of anti-Semitism can be fabricated and mendacious. And Zionists like Kay are even less willing to criticize the Zionist Board of Deputies and Zionist MPs like Luciana Berger. The central Jewish role in censorship, identity politics and “cancel culture” is a can of worms that Barbara Kay and Quillette want to leave strictly alone. In other words, they don’t actually want to fight effectively against those pernicious things. Not if means challenging what is truly important to them: Jewish power and Jewish victimhood.

No hints of a bigger story

But Barbara Kay did at least hint – “and so on” – at something more in the Scruton story. There were no hints of a bigger story in the propaganda issued by the National Holocaust Centre and Museum (NHCM) before this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day in Britain:

Leading football players and managers have taken part in a video to be shown at fourth-round FA Cup matches this weekend urging people to stand up against hatred and discrimination.

The two-minute video, marking Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January, features Harry Kane, the England men’s captain, Steph Houghton, the England women’s captain, Frank Lampard, the Chelsea manager, Jürgen Klopp, the Liverpool manager, and the Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker alongside two dozen others.

Close-ups of their faces are cut with images from the Holocaust as they deliver an uncompromising message directed at football fans and others who fail to call out racism and discrimination.

“We remember those who stood by, those who did nothing, those that shook their heads. … We remember those who turned away, who watched the deeds of others but did nothing. We remember the good people, the decent people, all the regular people who didn’t hate but encouraged and supported hatred through the power of their silence,” they say.

Against images of antisemitic graffiti, Islamophobia and a lesbian couple abused on a London bus, they continue: “When we see racism, antisemitism, discrimination or hatred, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant … we mustn’t stand by, we need to stand up, we need to stand together.”

The video – made by the National Holocaust Centre and Museum – will be shared on social media by clubs and players on Holocaust Memorial Day, which this year also marks the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in German-occupied Poland. (Top footballers to mark Holocaust Memorial Day with anti-racism video, 24th January 2020)

Is the message of the video sincere or insincere? Let’s suppose it’s sincere and see where that leads us. The National Holocaust Centre and Museum (NHCM) are telling us that we mustn’t stand by and allow evil to triumph. And in recent years, the United Kingdom has been shaken again and again by scandals about the authorities standing by and allowing evil to triumph, even though they were fully aware that it was taking place. From Rotherham in the north to Oxford in the south, from Manchester in the west to Newcastle in the east, we’ve heard about girls and young women being raped, prostituted, tortured and sometimes murdered by gangs of brutal, misogynist men.

The early stages of genocide

Worse still, the brutal men and their victims come from different racial and religious groups, and the men have often used racially and religiously abusive terms against their victims. The horrible crimes therefore fit neatly into “The Ten Stages of Genocide” laid out by the organization Genocide Watch: “Mass rapes of women have become a characteristic of all modern genocides. Rape is used as a means to genetically alter and destroy the victim group.” Therefore, if the NHCM had been sincere in its message about combating evil, it would have mentioned those horrible stories about misogynist rape-gangs and their many thousands of victims.

But the NHCM didn’t say a word. It found “antisemitic graffiti, Islamophobia and a lesbian couple abused on a London bus” worthy of mention, but not the stabbing and drowning of an abused 17-year-old girl by two men who described her as a “kaffir [i.e., infidel] bitch” or the incineration of an abused 16-year-old girl with her mother and sister by another of the men’s co-religionists. And those are only two examples of the murder, sexual violence and psychological suffering visited for many decades on one racial and religious group in Britain by another racial and religious group. So why did the National Holocaust Centre and Museum not mention any of it?

Safeguarding and extending Jewish power

The answer is quite simple. The Holocaust Cult in Britain does not exist to combat evil or defend the vulnerable, but to safeguard and extend Jewish power. It does this by insisting on a series of lies and by suppressing historical facts that contradict those lies. The scandals I mentioned above are, of course, about non-White Muslim men abusing White girls from at least historically Christian backgrounds. This contradicts a central lie of the Holocaust Cult: that the majority is always the aggressor and minorities are always the helpless victims of the majority. It also contradicts another lie of the Holocaust Cult: that it’s always Christians who attack Jews and Muslims, never vice versa. For Jews, Muslims are “natural allies” against the White British, so any evils inflicted by them on the White British or other Christians are simply omitted from their account.

For example, on the website of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust you can find some brief discussion of how “the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire were systematically persecuted, deported from their homes and murdered.” This followed “a period of deterioration in relations between ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire.” But if you want further details, you won’t get them from the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. You will not be told that the Armenians were Christian or that their genocidal oppressors were Muslim. That does not fit the propaganda of the Holocaust Cult at all! In the Holocaust Cult, Muslims are like Jews: a saintly minority who must be defended against the hate of the White Christian majority.

Jews as oppressors and mass-murderers

And of course the Holocaust Cult does not even mention communist atrocities, like the genocide committed against the Ukrainian people in 1932–3, which is estimated to have claimed between 7 and 10 million lives. Again, communist atrocities contradict the lie that minorities are always helpless victims. The Holodomor, or “death by hunger,” was directed and enforced by a heavily disproportionate number of Jews, from figures at the top like the little-known Lazar Kaganovich, who oversaw the genocide in Ukraine, to the ordinary, hard-working Jewish police, executioners and torturers who followed his orders. The Soviet communist party as a whole was disproportionately ruled and staffed by minorities like Jews, Georgians and Latvians who held historic grudges against the Russian and Ukrainian majorities. That was at the beginning of the twentieth century, but minority tyranny has not gone away. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we can see the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, which consists of an Alawite minority elite tyrannizing over a Sunni majority after a prolonged period in which they were victimized by the Sunnis.

It is not true that minorities are always victims and that majorities are always victimizers. But the Holocaust Cult can’t admit this glaring historical fact, because the Holocaust Cult is a vehicle for the interests of Jews—the very same minority that supplied so many commissars, executioners and torturers to communist parties in Eastern Europe. And Jews believe that it is in their interests to flood Western nations with Muslims, the very same group that committed the Armenian genocide and another genocide in Bangladesh in the early 1970s. Once Muslims are in the West, the Holocaust Cult simultaneously works to suppress discussion about their predation on the White majority and to incite them to increased hatred of the White majority.

Working for genocide

In other words, the Holocaust Cult is working to promote evil and increase the risk of genocide. The Cult laments the civil war and genocide that took place in the marvellously diverse former Yugoslavia when an authoritarian regime collapsed and separate groups turned on each other. At the same time, the Cult is working to turn all Western nations into new versions of Yugoslavia and new potential sites of civil war and genocide. As Chateau Heartiste has often pointed out: “Diversity + Proximity = War.” But that doesn’t bother the Jewish proprietors of the Holocaust Cult, because they think they can stay on top and avoid harm themselves this time. The impending chaos can be managed from the top, and they will emerge unscathed.

The Holocaust Cult is a Hollow Cult because it isn’t sincere and isn’t interested in truth and historical objectivity. But its hollowness doesn’t render it harmless. The Trojan horse was also hollow and not what it pretended to be on the outside. And the Trojan horse succeeded perfectly in bringing down a great civilization. The Hollow Cult of the Holocaust is trying to do the same to Western civilization.

The Chief Rabbi speaks

Roger Scruton was supposedly a doughty defender of Western civilization. But he never criticized and condemned the Holocaust Cult. That’s one reason I can’t join the Zionist Barbara Kay in singing his praises. Then again, if Scruton had criticized the Holocaust Cult, Barbara Kay would never have sung his praises. Nor would Mark Steyn. Or Douglas Murray. Or any of the countless other admirers of Scruton who turn a stern eye on Muslim claims of Islamophobia and transgender lunacies while ignoring the central Jewish role in censorship and identity politics. But surprisingly enough, if you do want the truth about that central Jewish role, it was supplied thirteen years ago by Jonathan Sacks, the then Chief Rabbi of Britain:

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)

The Holocaust Cult is at the heart of the “culture of victimhood” described so well by Rabbi Sacks. It is being used to drive the West towards tyranny, social collapse and civil war, which leaves us with a simple choice. Either we destroy the Holocaust Cult or it destroys us.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Patricus says:

    No need to destroy the Holocaust Church. It overreached and is now dismissed by increasing numbers. Only a minority of younger people think the holocaust story is credible. This despite the Holocaust museums in every city. School children are forced to visit these places to witness German inhumanity. In a generation or two it will be one of those grand delusions of history.

    Informally I have asked people of different ages if they believed six million died. To my surprise skepticism appears the prevailing view. Some think “maybe a million Jews died in the war”. Some say “hundreds of thousands”. No one says zero. No one shows signs of anti-Semitism, that I can perceive. They just aren’t buying the terrible story.

    Lies are eventually outed, or just forgotten. Jews were singled out for persecution even if the reality was no holocaust. That might also be forgotten.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  2. J – “…but what about the holocaust?

    G – “Which holocaust do you mean?

    J – “…all those Jews the Nazis killed?

    G – “Isn’t that just a social construct?

  3. As I’m anything but an expert in these matters, I’m hoping someone can explain this conundrum for me.

    Many of the Jews traveling in steerage on the steamship lines across the Atlantic refused the non-kosher food served on their journeys … In 1911, the Society installed a kosher kitchen on [Ellis] Island. Between 1925 and 1952, HIAS’ kosher kitchen provided more than a half million meals to immigrants; in the peak year, 1940, 85,794 meals were served.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIAS

    Now, I was taught (as most of us were) that one of many reasons the USA is complicit in The Holocaust is because we refused entry to Jews fleeing persecution in Europe. Yet here we have the peak year of kosher meals served to Jewish migrants from Europe being 1940.

    Unless we’ve been systematically lied to, the only possible explanation is that a large number of Jewish migrants from previous years refused to leave the island, and stayed on permanently in order to enjoy regular free meals. But that supports yet another anti-semitic stereotype, doesn’t it?

    Can anyone explain this?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @jody
  4. Anonymous[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Some were refused entry, some were granted entry.

    85,794 meals in a year means 80 persons having 3 meals per day for a year. So in the mean the queue was around 80 “religiously adamant” jewish immigrants on Ellis Island. Supposing that one stays only a couple of days at Ellis Island, the immigration rate would be ~80 per day. Multiply with 2 (say) to include the number of Jews accepting non-kosher meals, and one obtains ~60000 immigrants. But not evreryone passed through Ellis Island either.

    Let’s take a look a Jimbo’s Carefully Curated Content Collection:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States#Refugees_from_Nazi_Germany

    Refugees from Nazi Germany

    In the period between 1934 and 1943, the Congress, the Roosevelt Administration, and public opinion expressed concern about the fate of Jews in Europe but consistently refused to permit large-scale immigration [so how large are we talking?] of Jewish refugees. In a report issued by the State Department, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat noted that the United States accepted only 21,000 refugees from Europe and did not significantly raise or even fill its restrictive quotas, accepting far fewer Jews per capita than many of the neutral European countries and fewer in absolute terms than Switzerland.

    So the 21000 number does not match, and seems to be an understatement.

    According to David Wyman, “The United States and its Allies were willing to attempt almost nothing to save the Jews.”

    Unsaid is that the modern cries of “[new Hitler] gassing his own people” and the pavlovian interventionist reflex it is supposed to trigger (if need be, constructing the required news using meedja power) did not exist back then.

    It is unclear what the US should or could have “attempted”, even with perfect foresight. Which was not to be had, as the Wannsee Conference lay both in the future of ’42 and was not exactly written about in the New York Times.

    Note that no saving of Jews occurred during the Soviet-Polish war of 1920 either, and both sides didn’t hold back in that particular exchange.

    U.S. opposition to immigration in general in the late 1930s was motivated by the grave economic pressures, the high unemployment rate, and social frustration and disillusionment. The U.S. refusal to support specifically Jewish immigration, however, stemmed from something else, namely antisemitism, which had increased in the late 1930s and continued to rise in the 1940s. It was an important ingredient in America’s negative response to Jewish refugees. [Jews in the mind of America, p. 53-62 by Stember, Charles Herbert, 1916-; Sklare, Marshall, 1921-; Salomon, George, 1920- ed; American Jewish Committee]

    Did everyone read Henry Ford? Was the administration “antisemitic”? Did it influence decisions? Compared to what? I don’t know.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
  5. El Dato says:
    @Patricus

    ‘Every 2nd Jew in Germany wishes to leave’: Berlin to seek EU-wide criminalization of Holocaust denial

    Eu-wide criminalization of Holocaust denial will make Jews feel safer!

    Maas slammed anti-Semitism as “an absolute nightmare” and “a terrible disgrace 75 years after the liberation of Auschwitz,” arguing that it is a Europe-wide problem that requires the efforts of all EU members in order to be solved.

    According to the minister, the measures Germany plans to champion during its presidencies of the Council of the European Union and of the Council of Europe, both of which it will assume later this year, will include the creation of a European network of anti-Semitism commissioners and a crackdown on online hate crime and disinformation.

    Taxes will go up to pay for a new army of functionaries repeating the pointless tasks that others already perform.

    He also specifically mentioned that Berlin plans to “ensure that all EU member states finally make it a crime to deny the Holocaust” and will help set up a Global Task Force Against Holocaust Denial.

    But what about the Galactic Task Force Against Holocaust Denial? “Captain Kirk, your Prime Directive has seen an amendement, please read this missive in your quarters.”

  6. Svevlad says:

    Well, it wouldn’t be bad if things went the Yugoslav route.

    Since the west with their massive boner for interventionism would be the one to be in a mess, nobody would stop it.

    What happens? Best man wins, and gets everything. What’s next? Well, the people who caused it in the first place are not gonna have a good time…

  7. jody says:
    @Mr McKenna

    The answer is …. these demon worhsipping sorcerers are masters of the guilt trip and obfuscating the truth . Thye now control the U.S government through AIPAC . They are lobbying right now to make it a crime to condemn Israel publicly.

  8. @Anonymous

    So the 21000 number does not match, and seems to be an understatement.

    That is putting it very kindly, it would appear. Was the 21000 figure annual, or overall? Shall we account for the number of non-orthodox jews? Shall we account for the number of jews who entered by other ports aside from Ellis Island?

    The closer we look, the worse the propaganda appears. If nothing else, this helps to explain why daring to examine the facts of the case will quickly get you written out of so-called ‘polite society’.

  9. Proof the holocaust narrative is failing–one, why does anyone believe the EXACT number of 6 million? Like the ADL and rest have empirical proof that the EXACT number is 6 million? (holocause or not, I NEVER believed the EXACT number was 6 million!); two, research the population of Jews in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s and the numbers of Jews in nations conquered by Hitler (including western Soviet Union) is somewhat over 6 million (esp. in Russia and Poland) but since not all the Jews in these countries were holocausted… three, that they are forcing this narrative in public schools these days is proof the narrative is failing if they have to force it; four, American young Jews are even giving up on it! These Jews knew what Israel is doing to Palestinians and they don’t like it!

    Now I don’t know when Christian Zionists will wake up, but when Noahide comes around they’ll have to make a choice, and God forbid they make the wrong choice!

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tobias Langdon Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
Becker update V1.3.2
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.