https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/southlake-texas-holocaust-books-schools-rcna2965

Ironic as it may seem, the above-mentioned Texas proposal might as well be a manna-from-heaven to Jewish Power because the discussion could easily be construed as a matter of “Holocaust Did Happen” vs “Holocaust Didn’t Happen”, with hardly any light in between. It’d be like posing the Soviet Question as one of “Stalin killed 30 million people” and “Stalin killed hardly anyone.” What about the possibility that Stalin might have killed 20 million, 10 million, or 5 million? The question of the Khmer Rouge’s role in the Cambodia Tragedy shouldn’t be boiled down to “Pol Pot kill three million” or “Pol Pot killed no one.” It would be a false dichotomy, the kind which has long dogged the discourse on the Shoah.

What we need is the Holocaust as history, thereby opening up the discussion and allowing questions, some of them inconvenient(given the current political, moral, and even ‘spiritual’ climate, as the Holocaust now comes closest to being a state religion in the West). The real problem is the Holocaust is treated as a dogma, even a matter of faith. We are to believe that 6 million Jews were killed(and one digit less is tantamount to ‘denial’) and that Jews were totally innocent and pure-as-snow, i.e. the German and other Anti-Semites just went bat-shit crazy due to legacy of Christian ‘antisemitism’ and ‘scientific racism’. (Christians have responded in two ways to this accusation: 1. Most Christians did what they could do to save Jews, and besides, it was the neo-pagan Nazis who were responsible, not the Christian West that, led by Liberal Democracies, especially the UK and US, defeated Hitler’s Empire. While Christians do need to re-examine their anti-Jewish prejudices, the true evils of Nazism were rooted in paganism and secularism, of which ‘scientific racism’ was a part. 2. Yes, Christianity is indeed to blame for the Holocaust with its charge against Jews as usurious Christ-killers, and therefore, the only path to redemption is to atone and apologize at the feet of Jews.)

The insistence on the 6 million as some sacred number is ludicrous. It’s not how history works. It’d be like saying 200,000 Japanese perished instantly in the nuking of Hiroshima(and don’t you dare ask if the casualty number might have been less, say 100,000 or 80,000 as that would be Denial!) and that the bombing was done just for the hell of it(because America couldn’t resist doing something horribly ‘racist’, which is part of its DNA).
Now, it’s true that many innocents died in Hiroshima and there was a lot of anti-Japanese and anti-Asian animus in the US. But the nuking cannot be understood minus the larger context of the Pacific War and Imperial Japan’s role in it. Even if one concludes the nuking was unjustified, it’d be foolish to argue that it happened simply because white Americans, riled up by anti-Asian prejudice, decided to nuke Japan for the fun of it. Japan too had been a player in the imperial conflict for hegemony over the Pacific and had plenty of blood on its hands.

Of course, just because Japan did bad doesn’t mean the US did good. And even if one were to argue the US did bad in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it doesn’t follow that Japan was wholly good. Gangsters fight and kill one another all the time. It’s possible that all sides are bad in one way or another. Some may be worse, but that still doesn’t make the less psychotic gangsters good. Foreign Affairs have always been a game of gangster politics, and genuine good guys on the international scale have been as rare as the white tiger or two-headed snake.

Then, in order to have a deeper and more meaningful discussion of World War II and the Shoah, there must be an honest discussion of the historical-social-economic contexts. Now, care must be taken so as not to use the context as a mere excuse or rationale, which would be too easy. Any side can say, “We did it cuz they did it” or “They did bad, so we did bad too to get even.” It’s like a trial where lawyers for the prosecution and the defense frame events in such manner to favor its side.

History isn’t about who is innocent and who is guilty. While it’s reasonably simple and fair-minded to ascribe guilt or innocence to individuals, matters are far more complicated as the participants in History aren’t lone individuals but elaborate systems, vast populations, and entire eras. Thus, one can be part of a nation or population that was once victimized by aggressors but later became powerful and aggressive toward others. Americans, for instance, could see themselves as rebels against British Tyranny, ‘genocidal’ invaders against the American Indians, the enslavers of blacks, the liberators of blacks(and enders of slavery), spreaders of liberty(and democracy), champions of free enterprise, neo-imperialist exploiters, robbers of Mexican lands, slayers of evil German and Japanese empires(and saviors of Jews), and/or enablers of Jewish Supremacism.
And many events have been controversial, to say the least. Some see the US role in Vietnam as having been noble, an attempt to spare the Southern Half from the brutality of communism in the North. Others see American Power as neo-imperialist interventionists that stood in the way of the unification of a nation that just prior threw off the yoke of French Colonialism.

Even when it comes to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists, one ends up with a cartoon history if they’re seen merely as evil. If Hitler was little more than Charles Manson and if National Socialism was only about murderous nuttery, how did they come to power? Why did they gain such popularity? Isn’t it more likely that they had some good ideas that appealed to the masses of long-suffering Germans and had some genuine policy triumphs before Hitler increasingly embarked on a game of ‘chicken’ with neighboring nations that, since late 19th century, developed a certain dread of German power?
So, even if National Socialism eventually steered toward the abyss with a reckless foreign policy, it had come to power with a measure of legitimacy because its platform and narrative struck a chord with many German folks who’d directly witnessed the degenerate dystopianism of the Weimar years. (If the Weimar era and National Socialist era demonstrate one thing, it’s that neither brazen dystopianism nor radical utopianism is the answer). If National Socialism and its supporters weren’t all bad, then it follows that the Jews, who became the main victims, weren’t all good.

Besides, it’s not as if the Germans picked on some hapless and powerless minority. It was not like a cat attacking a sparrow or a tiny little mouse. Rather, the Germans targeted the Jews as the most powerful and problematic minority group in Europe(and the UK and US). Germans felt especially betrayed by Jewish crimes during the Weimar Period because their nation, relatively speaking, had been more open and fair to Jews than, say, Poland and France have been. Germans-against-Jews wasn’t like a cat picking on a sparrow or a dog attacking a rabbit. It was like a dog attacking a fox or weasel in the henhouse.
Many Jews weren’t a hapless and powerless group of kindly merchants selling toys(as depicted in THE TIN DRUM the film by Volker Schlondorff) but gangsters, financial thieves, cultural degenerates, and/or part of the global World Jewry cabal. Of course, there were nice Jewish merchants who had no part in Jewish Evil, and National Socialism was wrong to target all Jews, but Germans had no choice but to deal with the JQ as Jewish Power permeated, often negatively, into all aspects of the German economy, culture, and society.

It’s true that context is often invoked(especially by polemicists) to excuse certain actors and their actions, but history cannot be understood without context. Nothing just happens out of the blue. People react to conditions and events. They may misdiagnose the problem and do foolish and even horrible things. Also, the so-called response or solution may make things worse. For example, we can understand why Ugandans and other black Africans were upset with Asian Indian domination in the economy as part of the British Empire’s legacy. But the solution was misdiagnosed because Asian-Indian market dominance owed to the lack of black talent in those areas. And so, the forced departure of the Asian-Indians didn’t lead to economic boom for the blacks but depression and shortages(that soon fueled more social strife and political crises).

Still, we can understand why native majorities have often been upset with the economy being dominated by foreign minorities, a sentiment widespread in Southeast Asia and Philippines in regards to the ‘overseas’ Chinese. Part of the reason is envy, but it is also a matter of anxiety. How can any patriot be certain that the foreign minority influence won’t undermine true national interests? (Indeed, what have Jewish wealth and power done to the sovereignty of Western nations?) And the super-rich rarely happen to be men of integrity or principles. While plenty of successful people have smarts and talent, few rarely reach the top without dirty tricks and traits of sociopathy.
Then, it should be of no surprise that European native majorities found Jewish Minority Power to be deeply problematic. Not only were Jews smart and successful but many of them were devious, cunning, and without scruples.
Besides, even if many Jews had redeeming qualities, their fealty and devotion were mainly tribal than for the goy nation and people in which they made their fortunes. It’s like Sheldon Adelson made his billions in the US and the goy world, but his stated regret is having donned the uniform of the US military than of the IDF. So, Adelson’s one redeeming quality, that of patriotism and loyalty, wasn’t to the majority goy America but to the Jewish Israel.

The problem with the Holocaust Narrative is it concentrates on ‘Anne Frank’ Jews while wholly ignoring ‘Leo Frank’ Jews. (Leo Frank was an American Jew, but we’re using him as a metaphor here.) The Narrative would have us believe, Jews were all or mostly sweet and innocent like Anne Frank, but deranged ‘Anti-Semites’ just went crazy and murdered a whole bunch of the nicest people in the world.
In truth, there were many Jews who were more like Leo Frank, especially in the upper echelons of power. The Leo Frank case offers a glimpse into how World Jewry operates. Instead of good Jews standing with good goyim against bad people(Jews and goyim alike), Jews(even more than goyim) stick with the bad among them on the basis of tribal loyalty and supremacism. So, the Shoah was more like the goyim reacting to Leo-Frank-Jews of the world but then, tragically enough, even going after Anne-Frank-Jews. Sadly, it’s often been the case that an attack on one tribal pathology exposed yet another tribal pathology, which is what National Socialism turned out to be.

There was a time when Neo-Conservatism was appreciated as setting forth a new path for American Conservatism that had grown moribund over the years — indeed the old-school Republicans in the late Sixties and Eighties capitalized on Liberal/Democratic failures than coming up with winning formulas of their own. It was at this time that Neoconservatism saw its opportunity as the energetic and creative wing of American Conservatism. It gained traction for valid reasons.
But just like National Socialism shielded a pathological core, the innermost agenda of Neo-Conservatism turned out to be pathological Jewish supremacism, and once the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton’s synthesis of ‘economic conservatism’ and ‘social liberalism’ was achieved(which is exactly what most Jews wanted), the so-called Neocons had little on their minds but Wars for Israel and Jewish Global Hegemony.
Zionist fingerprints are all over not only the Iraq war but on 9/11 that finally pushed the American Public over the edge in supporting massive troop deployments to the Middle East to transform the entire region into puppet-democracies(the strings of which would be pulled by US in the palm of Zion) or ceaseless war zones where Arabs and others, driven to sectarian distrust, would end up slaughtering one another while NATO & Zion armed the various sides to further the blood-letting.

As with National Socialism, the evils of Neoconservatism cannot be understood without taking the larger context into account. One wonders if Neoconservatism was always demented at the core with future war plans to bring about Jewish World Hegemony or it became demented over time because power has a way of growing bolder, more arrogant, and more reckless with every victory. Given the possible Zionist role in 9/11, it suggests Neocons were always dark agents of Zion or, at the very least, inseparable from the Zionist or Yinonist Agenda. Still, Neoconservatives gained influence by proposing some useful ideas to an American Conservatism that had grown staid and stale.

Now, if Jews were a poor and powerless people, it wouldn’t much matter what we believed about the Holocaust. What we believe about the American Indians or Australian Aborigines hardly matters because they are powerless groups. But the Holocaust Narrative has had a malignant impact as a political weapon of the Jews as the most powerful people in the world, not least because they tamed the Northern European stock to be their war horse. It’s one thing to be willfully naive or innocent about a powerless people but quite another to be so about the most powerful people whose megalomania, political-spiritual-moral-historical-intellectual-etc., is totally out of control.
It’s like the West’s willful gushiness about blacks-as-innocent-childlike-saints has done great harm, especially in the Era of St. George Floyd. In truth, the black race comprises some of the most aggressive, most criminal, most brutal, and most savage thugs in the West, BUT the Jewish-run Narrative holds that innocent blacks are being brutalized and murdered by ‘racist’ white cops and whites in general. The result has been demands to ‘defund the police’ while defending the thugs, leading to more murders and mayhem in city after city.

Now, just because Jews are powerful and have done lots of bad doesn’t mean that the Shoah didn’t happen or that many innocent Jews didn’t perish, no more and no less than the fact that many innocent Germans and Japanese died in World War II, even those who opposed their regimes and the wars. It’s like the dire facts of black brutality and aggression(that largely arise from black genetic character) don’t mean that blacks weren’t exploited as slaves and were victimized by whites in the past.

Also, in a just and sane world, even the worst Jews(like Leo Frank) deserve their day in court(though, in a world of so many crooked and sleazy Jewish judges and lawyers, the Law is often on the side of evil). It’d be fallacious to say, just because Jewish Power is currently so evil, innocent Jews weren’t met with goy evil, or just because so many blacks are now deranged thugs, they didn’t suffer in the past under white domination.
But it’s no less a fallacy to assume that, just because Jews experienced a great horror in WWII, Jews today are a bunch of Anne Franks radiating with victim-sanctity, or just because blacks were once slaves or faced racial discrimination, blacks are always upright and struggling for a righteous cause.
If the collective character of a people become affixed to a historical event, it depends on which event is memorialized. It’s like 1776 makes the Americans out to be resisting tyranny and struggling for independence. If we focus on the years in which Japan invaded China, the Japanese come across as a bunch of murderous aggressors. But if we focus on post-war Japan when the nation developed into a peaceful ‘democracy’, Japanese seem a kindly people. But history never stands still. Just because Romans once kicked Germanic Barbarian butt didn’t mean Romans/Italians were eternal victor-invaders while Germanics were eternal victim-conquered. Indeed, it wasn’t long before Rome was sacked by the Germanic barbarians.

The problem is the Holocaust is treated less as history than idolatry or Holodolatry, canonization of a historical event into quasi-spiritual worship. Worse, Holodolatry would have us regard Jews as a single entity. So, we can’t speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, good Jews and bad Jews, radical Jews and moderate Jews. When it comes to most peoples, we speak of the powerful and the powerless. For example, we don’t blame all the Japanese for all time for what happened in the Pacific War. The main blame goes to the militarist adventurers. This allows for one perspective on the powerful Japanese and another on the powerless Japanese, such as civilians who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Granted, there is no absolute dividing line between the powerful and the powerless(unless children are involved), as so many of the powerless often support the powerful. Lines become blurred. Many Japanese supported their ruling regime, and the powerless throughout history have looked to the powerful for meaning and direction.

Still, there are decision-and-opinion-makers(the powerful) and those who blindly follow along(the powerless) because they don’t know any better, have been hoodwinked, or feel obliged for reasons of tribal loyalty. Any interpretation of events must hold to account the powerful with greater burden of responsibility. Such an approach can help us understand Jewish Power and ‘antisemitism’ better. Some powerful Jews acted badly, and it led to anti-Jewish sentiments, not least because too many in the Jewish Community either looked the other way or took part, even if indirectly, in the malfeasance, not unlike the non-criminal elements of the Italian-American community that either ignore or benefit from the organized crime in GOODFELLAS. (Sadly, when some Jews did stand up to Greed, they took it to radical extremes with ideologies like communism that devastated entire societies.)

If we could speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, we could better distinguish the guilt and innocence among Jews(though, of course, one doesn’t need to be powerful to be bad, as plenty of underclass blacks have proven). But Holodolatry forces us to look upon ALL Jews as sacred victims of ‘antisemitism’, i.e. bad powerful Jews hide behind the image of the helpless Jew, especially of the Holocaust. This would be like bunching together Tojo & other Japanese militarists with the Japanese victims in Hiroshima.

Holodolatry has turned into trickery whereby powerful Jews morally shield their abuses from scrutiny and criticism by hiding behind the cult of Jewish Innocence.
Jewish Evil is mixed with Jewish Good to make the sacred kosher sausage, much like bad loans were bunched together with good loans prior to the collapse of the housing bubble in 2008. Is it because Jewish Evil, with its vast wealth and power, forces it will on the good Jews? Or do even the good or the better kind of Jews prioritize group unity and tribal power over universal principles, deemed for the suckers in the works of David Mamet?

When will the world admit that the bad Jews must answer for the plight of the good Jews? If the bad Jews didn’t act so badly, good Jews wouldn’t have gotten burned in the goyim’s overreaction against bad Jews… just like so many good decent innocent Germans and Japanese would have been spared the horrors of WWII if the bad and powerful among them didn’t play fire with History. But if the world holds the bad/powerful Germans and bad/powerful Japanese accountable for the suffering of innocent Germans and Japanese, it has yet to do the same with bad/powerful Jews whose vile deeds led to a backlash that destroyed many good Jews. If anything, whereas all Germans, even good/powerless ones, have been tainted with the guilt of Nazism, all Jews, even bad/powerful ones, have been sainted with the aura of Holy Holocaust.

The current ‘moral’ logic is as follows: If ALL Jews must be regarded as holy-schmoly innocent victims, then ALL Germans must be regarded as evil-schrivel guilty murderers, which is why every new generation of Germans is inculcated with the cult of eternal guilt regarding Jews. Under the rules of Holodolatry, even the worst Jewish thug-murderer is a holy victim while even the nicest German must bear the burden of guilt. Holodolatry has merely led to a new kind of quasi-spiritualized racial supremacism where a certain historic tragedy absolves everyone within a certain group while debasing everyone of another population to the status of the eternally damned. Notice how even the foulest Jew, like the crooked lawyer Michael Cohen, squeezes out of trouble by yammering about how his so-and-so relative may have been a ‘holocaust survivor’. In the current climate, if a Jew raped and murdered a white goy’s mother, the white goy is likely to praise the attack as justified because a holy Jew done it. Just ask the Palestinians how morality works in the current West. Jews can do no wrong because Holodolatry elevated them to permanent status of holy-hood.

We need a more rational discussion of the Holocaust in the media and academia. If someone has clearly been murdered, it’d be retarded to turn the discussion into a matter of “It was the greatest and worst murder of all time” vs “It didn’t happen.” Rather, the murder should be investigated thoroughly and understood within the larger context. Was the victim a totally innocent person who was killed for no good reason by some deranged nutter, or was it more complicated?
Among individuals, moral simplicity is sometimes sufficient for understanding an act of homicide: A real sicko killed a perfectly nice person for no rational reason. But on the historical level where every nation/group is made up of so many individuals, some good and some bad, moral dynamics become far more complicated. As for WWII, it’s reasonable to say the Jew acted badly and the German overreacted with brutality and even murder. Why deny the murder when it did happen? But then, was it the greatest murder of all time? And did the German really stab the Jew six million times?

Of course, many Jews will spin even the most sincere attempt to better understand WWII and the Shoah as just another case of ‘holocaust denial’. To these Jews, anything shy of the narrative claiming that “totally innocent six million Jews died at the hands of totally deranged Germans” is tantamount to ‘denial’. But whatever such rabid Jews say, responsible people can and should support a new historical approach that tries to understand the context in which the horrors took place.

Indeed, this is the approach with the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and etc. While most historians will agree that millions perished under communism, they nevertheless take into consideration the context in which these things happened. Communism gained influence because there were real problems with capitalism. The Bolsheviks did terrible things but won popular support because the Old System failed on so many fronts(and because White Armies offered nothing new). The Khmer Rouge came to power because the CIA destabilized Cambodia and the US rained tons of bombs on the country. And even though the Khmer Rouge were genuinely nuts, many Cambodians turned to them for a reason. So, even without justifying the evils of communism, one at least tries to understand the events and why they happened under certain historical circumstances.

The same kind of perspective is necessary in regards to the Holocaust. Why did so many people come to hate Jews, and not just in Germany? Was Hitler simply evil or were some of his decisions justified given the challenges? Also, should we speak of simple good guys and bad guys when the British, Americans, French, and Russians were also super-imperialists with blood on their hands in the creation of their empires? And what was the Jewish role in geo-politics(of World War I, Russian Revolution, and World War II) that made the tensions between National Socialist Germany and World Jewry all the worse and more dangerous?

In other words, we don’t need the Denial Narrative to better understand WWII and the Shoah. We need the Corrective Narrative(to revise the falsehoods about the Holocaust) and better contextual understanding to explain why such a thing could have happened.
And, if Jews had many enemies, why should that be surprising? Many peoples throughout history were hated or dreaded for some reason or another. Romans, Germanic Barbarians, Huns, Assyrians, Egyptians, Vikings, Mongols, Greeks, Persians, Japanese, and etc. They had fans but also haters. Given that Jews amassed vast fortunes and used influence to steer world events(to the detriment of certain peoples), why is anyone surprised that some of this led to Jew-hatred? We aren’t surprised that those living under British Imperialism came to hate the Anglos. Or that the Poles came to hate the Germans and Russians. We understand why the Chinese came to hate the Japanese.

Then, it should be understandable why some peoples came to resent or hate Jews. Indeed, should Palestinians be marked as ‘irrational Anti-Semites’ for hating Jews given what Jews did to them? Clearly, anti-Jewish hatred is understandable given the circumstances. (For this reason, Jews generally didn’t conflate anti-Zionism with ‘antisemitism’ on the basis that Palestinians and their sympathizers had valid reasons for condemning Zionism and its excesses, i.e. one didn’t have to hate Jews to hate Jewish oppressors. But of late, Jewish Power is working hard to erase the distinction between the two categories, whereby Jews are to be shielded from criticism no matter what they do.)

If Germans and Japanese came to be hated and died in large numbers as the result of backlash to their aggressions, then why is anyone surprised that Jews were also met with violent backlash?
But, it gets worse. Jews bitch about past pogroms against Jews but usually rationalize black pogroms against whites and non-blacks on account of black victimization in the past. Using the same logic, pogroms against Jews could be justified on account of Jewish exploitation of goyim. But of course, Jewish Morality accords the Tribe the power to fix or nix any narrative. So, goy violence against Jews was, is, and shall always be bad, but black violence against whites or non-blacks can be deemed justifiable on account of ‘history’, which is what Woody Allen thinks of black-on-white violence. It’s almost as if Jews are above history as they and their favored allies cannot be judged by history even as they tirelessly judge it.

Instead of denying the Shoah, its falsehoods need to be corrected and questions must be asked as to what role Jewish Power played in exacerbating tensions around the world that led to the conflagrations of the 20th century. While Jews shouldn’t be scapegoated as the sole villains of history, neither should they be escape-boated as the only ones with clean hands who, for no reason at all, got their knuckles smashed.

Perhaps, the hope among some whites was that smart and pushy Jews would change their nasty ways and act more gently IF whites denounce Nazis as the worst evil and defend Jews as eternal saintly victims. So, how did that work out? Jews grabbed the mantle of eternal victimhood only to act like ultra-gangsters. The result has been consecration of Jewish megalomania as the summit of morality.