Shoah or Ritual Murder?

Shoah or Ritual Murder?

When I wake every morning one of the first things I do - other than get a cup of tea and have a shower - is to browse the morning’s latest news about all things jewish. It never ceases to amaze me that during that morning browse I usually find multiple references to the ‘holocaust’ or how some ‘holocaust survivor’ has decided to grace the world with his or her ‘memories’ about the event some 60-70 years after the fact. However I am forced to wonder how holocaustians account for the sheer chutzpah they are engaging in by ‘collecting’ this ‘oral testimony’ to serve as ‘evidence’ for alleged crimes that occurred decades ago (not that I am impugning the gathering of claims and data).

Perhaps they realise that the ‘holocaust’ theory of what happened to the jews of Europe is based largely on a few dozen testimonies, which with a little bit of creative editing can be made to fit a preconceived thesis that also happens to then be re-confirmed by scholars who believe in the theory and therefore see the evidence through that lens. It is rather like believing in say the Illuminati and looking at history with the idea that there is a great rationalist conspiracy against religious belief going on. You are going to find what you want to see in history, and you can then present your theory to the world with all its accompanying evidence.

The difference between a believer in the Illuminati and the ‘holocaust’ is essentially that the latter is far better educated, holds higher social position and is able to call upon the assistance of a wider range of fellow researchers who also happen to be staunch believers. It isn’t an uncommon tactic in debate to simply bombard your opponent with references and points until they cry for mercy and retreat, which is essentially what holocaustians habitually do in their literature.

We need to realise that historical fact is largely historical theory and like in scientific theory we are never totally sure something happened or didn’t happen, but we can be as sure as we can be that something did based on what currently know. The difference between historical theory and scientific theory however is that the latter is testable while the former is generally not.

The only way we can almost totally sure that something happened - and we should realise that this is constantly evolving - is if all the evidence we have points to the same conclusion. What you might call ‘convergence of evidence’, but again a difference between science and history rears its ugly head. You can pick a hole in a historical theory easily enough by using linguistics, archaeology and so forth. It isn’t hard to find something to attack a theory with, but in science the proof is in the pudding. If you say you can build a perpetual motion machine or think Einstein’s theories are junk then the onus is on you to prove it, because if you are right and truly believe you are so then you should be able to do what you claim you can.

In history things are rather different, because even the most apparently objective fact is often not what it seems because other historians have picked away at it for some time and come up with other theories and related evidence that you should (and indeed must) address in order for your interpretation (i.e. your theory) to have a seat at the proverbial table. And let us get another thing clear shall we: the popularity of a theory doesn’t make it right, but rather the best propagandised theory.

The interesting thing about all this is that the jewish historians - particularly of anti-Semitism - try to have their historical cake and eat it to. What do I mean by that?

Well on the one hand we have ritual murder - supposedly committed by the jews and the evidence for which is largely based on eyewitness testimony - and on the other we have the Shoah: supposedly committed by the Germans and the evidence for which is largely based on eyewitness testimony.

Yet our jewish historians tell us that the first - ritual murder - is an outrageous lie made up by an evil anti-Semites to defame the jews, while the second - the Shoah 0 is the lord’s honest truth and was carried out by evil anti-Semites to exterminate the jews.

Notice a pattern there?

In both statements of belief we see that the jews assume the anti-Semite - otherwise known in Judaism as Amalek (the eternal enemy) - to be both completely evil and obsessed with hurting the jews: the Chosen people of Yahweh.

So what are the jewish historians doing?

Well it should be obvious by now: they are applying the ideas of Judaism - consciously or not - to their positions in order to deal with uncomfortable evidential realities where they should know - as some jewish historians have covered both ritual murder and the Shoah in their research (Leon Poliakov is a good example who published extensively on both issues) - that their two evidential standards are incompatible especially considering that there were several major ritual murder trials in the 18th and 19th centuries (which are often touched on by literature on the ‘holocaust’).

That said they simply ignore this and carry on purporting their double standard as if it were the most logical thing in the world. However, that said it is logical in its way, but only if we take as read the assumptions that underlie both Judaism and to a large extent secular jewish culture as the truth. We, of course, would dispute the logicality of those assumptions (as I suspect would many jewish historians), but it doesn’t stop them from being implicitly made by jewish historians as a group (and they have been transferred in varying degrees to non-jewish historians of jewry).

That is the problem with historical theory in many ways: in that with science one has the ability to experiment, but in history one has no such recourse outside of the growing field of experimental history where historians and experts physically test different things to see if the historical record is credible.

However in most cases - outside of testing whether something could have worked or physically happened - experimental history is of little use. We can’t really test historical theories outside of their purely physical properties, which means that the ‘holocaust’ is actually a testable theory as many of its claims are purely physical and fantastic. But then it depends whose testimony you take to be credible doesn’t it?

As you can see history is not really an objective science (as wishful thinking historians of many different disciplines like to pretend), but in fact the creation of a believable and arguable pseudo-mythology supported by a cloud of interpretation and data in the same way that believing in Thor’s hammer is backed by the existence of thunder clouds.

So the question remains: what do you want believe in?

You pick: the Shoah or Ritual Murder?