I haven't been able to finish my research on the Barbarash ZGram I promised you a few days ago, and it might not be ready tomorrow either. One of my crucial articles seems to have taken a hike.
In the meantime, I thought I would share with you a little controversy that is simmering in one of the private news groups to which I belong.
The controversy pertains to Dr. Norman Finkelstein, the Jewish fellow I have been praising to the hilt for his courageous little booklet, "The Holocaust Industry" - on the motto: Always praise your enemies! Nothing annoys them as much!
Some of our own people have taken offense because Finkelstein is unwilling to "go all he way" - if you know what I mean in this context. While he blasts his tribal brethren for their greed and their dishonesty, he fervently believes the gassing tale. No kidding. At least that's what he lets shine through.
To make a long story short, my argument was that we ought to support "allies" wherever we find them, even though they aren't as "pure" in their own beliefs as we are. I discussed the harsh feelings displayed over this matter briefly with Ernst, who came up with a perfectly soothing example:
"Imagine a piano" said Mr. Z., "with many different keys. Music is never made by playing just one shrill note. If you want a rich and intricate concerto, you utilize as many as you can."
I like that one.
Here is just part of the "Finkelstory" cyber dialogue, with two participants:
"It won't be long before (Finkelstein) will be labeled as an *anti-Semite* or *self-hating* Jew....think about that buzz-word for a moment! Why should he be referred to as a *self-hating* Jew when it is clear that he *hates* what the *Holocaust Industry has been up to for decades now? He has placed himself into the position of one despised and accursed by many of his co-religionists-not only ala *Cole* but, more significantly, like *Spinoza*-and we all know what they tried to do to him.
"For whatever reasons, this man has voluntarily placed himself into the line of fire. In effect, he has dug himself a foxhole right next to our trenches."
It isn't too hard to envision where he's coming from either. Most of us have at one time or another witnessed a friend or co-whatever passionately embarking on something that is wrong, self-defeating and generally of a level that we can't in good conscience let go by without comment. So, do we set out to destroy every element of the other's position? Make a case that their entire program is without redeeming value? Not unless you want to create an enemy who will listen to none of your counsel. What you do is limit your focus to what you perceive to be the most damaging part of the actions.
"So with Finkelstein. He's bright enough to see the layers of hokum slathered onto this myth from top to bottom, and in fact obliquely refers to it in some devastating commentary. He avoids what would be a fatal mistake. He's already committed a cardinal sin by questioning the holy aspects. If he tried to go into the factual as well, his efforts would be for naught, he would be thoroughly destroyed by powerful Jewish groups, maybe even offed.
"If his views can begin to take hold, the stripping away of the mystique accompanied by an association in the public mind with a high level scam will put this issue back where it belongs, on a dusty historical shelf where all the other ordinary records of human self-abuse are stored. Then if the believers want to believe, fine. At least it won't be part of the central operating mechanism of Western society any longer, and that is by far the most important thing that must be done. A thorough and permanent debunking (pardon my liberty there:) would be nice, but it isn't necessary."
Thought for the Day:
"Shake and shake the Ketchup bottle. Nothing comes - and then a lot'll!
(Sent to the Zundelsite)
Back to Table of Contents of the Dec. 2000 ZGrams