At the behest of several friends who are seriously struggling with the leaked new instructions from the Church's Handbook of Instructions (A policy guide for local leaders), I'm going to venture a response to the announcement and its implications.
First, by way of open disclosure, you should know, Dear Reader, that this blog entry is an attempt to deal with a difficult, complex, and largely misunderstood issue intelligently, fairly, and reasonably... so if you are looking for fiery emotional vitriol, you will be sorely disappointed. And if you LEAVE fiery emotional vitriol in the comments, you will be sorely deleted.
Some have suggested with varying degrees of hysterics, histrionics, hand-wringing and not a small amount of weeping and wailing that the Big, Bad Church is now not only hateful and homophobic, and but is Satanically Cruel in denying salvation to little children of gay couples.
Here's a news flash.
The Big, Bad Church has ALWAYS decried homosexuality as a serious moral sin. Always. That's never changed. The only thing in that area that HAS changed is that a) the Church has made their love and concern for those affected by Same Sex Attraction much more clear and noticeable, and b) their alarm over the increasing acceptance of this practice in our society... something which would have been unheard of even 30-40 years ago.
"But condemning innocent children and babies? Seriously? How cruel and heartless! Those little children didn't do anything wrong!"
This is where the proverbial wheels fall off the critics of the Church who are attempting to turn this issue into a rallying cry for wholesale apostasy. This announcement has nothing whatsoever to do with "punishing" children of same-sex parents. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.
The reality is that baby blessings are not salvific in nature. In other words, a baby blessing has nothing whatsoever to do with babies being saved or not. It is an opportunity for the father of that child to give it a father's blessing, and to announce the baby's name as it will appear on the records of the Church as a "child of record." Being a "Child of Record" is not the same as being a member of the Church. That only occurs when the child is baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... just like everyone else.
The prophet Moroni made it very clear in the Book of Mormon that babies are saved in the Kingdom of God, as they are innocent. That hasn't changed. They are still pure, precious, and entitled to Celestial glory should they die before the age of accountability. Nothing in this announcement changes that.
So what changed? Children of same-sex couples (who, by the Lord's standard, are living in serious moral sin and if married, apostasy) cannot receive this blessing, and when eligible, have higher standards to meet for baptism because of the circumstances of their home environment... just like a child of polygamist parents, which the Church also considers to be serious moral sin, and apostasy.
The concern is that the influence of parents living in serious moral sin may have created beliefs and attitudes in the child that are contrary to the Lord's standards of righteousness. This is the situation with children of polygamist families as well. Since gay marriage has now become the law of the land, it is no surprise that this policy has been extended to them as well.
For those who question why innocent children "should be held to a higher standard" regarding baptism, there is extensive scriptural precedent.
Throughout history, particularly as documented in the Old Testament (see, for instance, 1 Sam 15), innocent children were actually slain "for the sins of the fathers," presumably because had they been left to grow up in the toxic and unrighteous environment they were in, they may have been worse than the parents who raised them in rebellion against God... and taking their lives as innocent children, where they were assured of salvation, was actually a blessing for them and a merciful act of a loving Heavenly Father.
While this is not the same situation in severity, of course, and no one is advocating mercy killings of children of same-sex parents, it very much is in principle... and the concern is reasonable and prudent.
Let me try to put this in a secular situation that might make more sense.
Let's say that a certain employee, who has worked for General Motors all their career, decides to go to work for Ford Motor Company. During all of their years at General Motors, they have been taught and indoctrinated about how evil and deficient Fords are.
The hiring manager at Ford, knowing of the employee's background at General Motors, might reasonably be more cautious and probing in the hiring and interview process no matter how much they wanted the employee to join them, perhaps even referring the hiring decision to the CEO for approval, to ensure that Ford's interests are not being compromised by someone who might believe that Ford Motors is, in fact, evil and deficient. They are not rejecting the employee from being hired... they are simply being cautious throughout the process. Without this caution and due diligence, the employee might have caused serious damage to Ford from within, and may have poisoned the reputation and quality that Ford may have worked long and hard to create. The employee could have caused serious damage to other employees, "poisoning the well," so to speak, regarding the other employees commitment to Ford.
This is precisely what the Church is doing with children being raised (and perhaps indoctrinated by) same-sex parents... just like those children being raised (and perhaps indoctrinated by) polygamist families. The Church has not only a right, but a sacred obligation, to protect itself and its members. No one is denying salvation to anyone. Rather, the Brethren, in an action that they had to have known would cause negative emotions, had the courage to do what the Lord directed them to do to protect His Church, rather than take the "easy way out" and do nothing.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Allodoxaphobia. Say THAT Three Times Fast.
For those not familiar with the subtle nuances of the Wide, Wonderful World of Phobias, Allodoxaphobia is the "fear of opinions." And it seems that this particular phobia is growing at an astronomical pace in this country.
For those burdened by this phobia, the very idea that others could hold an opinion (much less a valid opinion) that differs from their own is terrifying and, in fact, soul-crushing. It threatens their very existence, and all that they hold to be sacred. The very existence of such a differing opinion implies that their own opinion might not, in fact, be de facto truth.
Because of this irrational terror, those suffering from Allodoxaphobia spasmodically label anyone with a different opinion to be a "hater" or in a master stroke of Transference, as having a <fill in the blank here>phobia themselves... e.g. "transphobia," "homophobia," etc.
Those suffering from this malady have a compulsive need to silence any and all others that have differing opinions in order to give their own more credence. Indeed, anyone embracing a different, contradictory opinion is a serious threat to the emotional and mental well-being of the Allodoxaphobic, and must be immediately marginalized, minimized, trivialized, and demonized in a desperate attempt to invalidate the offending opinion, dampen its terrifying nature, and reduce the chance that it might just hold some validity. If there is one thing that Allodoxaphobics can't deal with, it's admitting that a differing opinion might have even a modicum of said validity. To do such would necessarily weaken the inerrant, exalted, and unimpeachable status they have arrogantly awarded their own personal opinions.
This explains why those that have a differing opinion on whatever issue has been blessed as the cause-o'-the-hour cannot be allowed to simply disagree. They must be crushed. They must be silenced. They must be eliminated. They cannot be allowed to exist. Resistance is futile. We are One Of Many.
To Allodoxaphobics, Free Speech is not a fundamental liberty at all, but a conditional liberty that the Left only affords to themselves, as they have already judged those who reject their progressive agenda and liberal ideals as being unworthy of that particular freedom, and, as the Gate-Keepers of All Things Rational, they believe that only they have the inherent natural right (Nay, DUTY!) to deny basic rights and freedoms to the stupid, moronic mouth-breathers who are too colossally dumb to remain in lock-step. Such are clearly not thinking rationally, and therefore have forfeited their right to speak freely.
Those who disagree must be portrayed as "hating" the object of their disagreement, as such a negative and emotionally-charged word MUST demand that having a different opinion is a Very Bad Thing, and those that have the bad form to embrace such different opinions are Very Bad People. And, as we are all acutely aware, Very Bad People cannot be trusted, and their opinions don't matter. After all, everyone knows that if you HATE something, you are automagically WRONG. And BAD. And EVIL. Did I say "Bad"?
Of course, the alternate to labeling all who disagree as "haters" is to claim that such have some sort of irrational fear of the target of their disagreement. In the minds of Allodoxaphobics, it is literally impossible to have a valid disagreement with their opinion. It simply cannot be. One who claims such has a serious mental defect, as no sane (informed) person would disagree. Again, the object is to reject any semblance of validity to any differing opinion and to strongly demand that anyone harboring such a differing opinion is mentally ill or otherwise untrustworthy. Therefore, anyone who disagrees MUST be petrified of the awful and indisputable reality (truth) thrust forward by the Allodoxaphobics. No, when Allodoxaphobics speak, the "thinking has been done." All that remains is to get in step with their official pronouncements.
One recent example of this bizarre and disturbing phenomena was the article released by Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, author of 6 books and 125 peer-reviewed journals, in which he states that "transgenderism is a 'mental disorder' that merits treatment, that sex change is 'biologically impossible,' and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder."
Of course, the Left instantly had an apoplectic seizure, refuting Dr. McHugh's opinion with such erudite and stunning intellectual gems as "And so's yer old man!" "Moron." "Mentally imbalanced hack" and many other equally-substantive and well-reasoned responses.
Dr. McHugh (and those that agree with his conclusions) are not simply those with differing opinions, they are Very Bad People. And they must be silenced.
For those burdened by this phobia, the very idea that others could hold an opinion (much less a valid opinion) that differs from their own is terrifying and, in fact, soul-crushing. It threatens their very existence, and all that they hold to be sacred. The very existence of such a differing opinion implies that their own opinion might not, in fact, be de facto truth.
Because of this irrational terror, those suffering from Allodoxaphobia spasmodically label anyone with a different opinion to be a "hater" or in a master stroke of Transference, as having a <fill in the blank here>phobia themselves... e.g. "transphobia," "homophobia," etc.
Those suffering from this malady have a compulsive need to silence any and all others that have differing opinions in order to give their own more credence. Indeed, anyone embracing a different, contradictory opinion is a serious threat to the emotional and mental well-being of the Allodoxaphobic, and must be immediately marginalized, minimized, trivialized, and demonized in a desperate attempt to invalidate the offending opinion, dampen its terrifying nature, and reduce the chance that it might just hold some validity. If there is one thing that Allodoxaphobics can't deal with, it's admitting that a differing opinion might have even a modicum of said validity. To do such would necessarily weaken the inerrant, exalted, and unimpeachable status they have arrogantly awarded their own personal opinions.
This explains why those that have a differing opinion on whatever issue has been blessed as the cause-o'-the-hour cannot be allowed to simply disagree. They must be crushed. They must be silenced. They must be eliminated. They cannot be allowed to exist. Resistance is futile. We are One Of Many.
To Allodoxaphobics, Free Speech is not a fundamental liberty at all, but a conditional liberty that the Left only affords to themselves, as they have already judged those who reject their progressive agenda and liberal ideals as being unworthy of that particular freedom, and, as the Gate-Keepers of All Things Rational, they believe that only they have the inherent natural right (Nay, DUTY!) to deny basic rights and freedoms to the stupid, moronic mouth-breathers who are too colossally dumb to remain in lock-step. Such are clearly not thinking rationally, and therefore have forfeited their right to speak freely.
Those who disagree must be portrayed as "hating" the object of their disagreement, as such a negative and emotionally-charged word MUST demand that having a different opinion is a Very Bad Thing, and those that have the bad form to embrace such different opinions are Very Bad People. And, as we are all acutely aware, Very Bad People cannot be trusted, and their opinions don't matter. After all, everyone knows that if you HATE something, you are automagically WRONG. And BAD. And EVIL. Did I say "Bad"?
Of course, the alternate to labeling all who disagree as "haters" is to claim that such have some sort of irrational fear of the target of their disagreement. In the minds of Allodoxaphobics, it is literally impossible to have a valid disagreement with their opinion. It simply cannot be. One who claims such has a serious mental defect, as no sane (informed) person would disagree. Again, the object is to reject any semblance of validity to any differing opinion and to strongly demand that anyone harboring such a differing opinion is mentally ill or otherwise untrustworthy. Therefore, anyone who disagrees MUST be petrified of the awful and indisputable reality (truth) thrust forward by the Allodoxaphobics. No, when Allodoxaphobics speak, the "thinking has been done." All that remains is to get in step with their official pronouncements.
One recent example of this bizarre and disturbing phenomena was the article released by Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, author of 6 books and 125 peer-reviewed journals, in which he states that "transgenderism is a 'mental disorder' that merits treatment, that sex change is 'biologically impossible,' and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder."
Of course, the Left instantly had an apoplectic seizure, refuting Dr. McHugh's opinion with such erudite and stunning intellectual gems as "And so's yer old man!" "Moron." "Mentally imbalanced hack" and many other equally-substantive and well-reasoned responses.
Dr. McHugh (and those that agree with his conclusions) are not simply those with differing opinions, they are Very Bad People. And they must be silenced.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Sleepless on Mother's Day
Tylenol PM has been a trusty friend to me over the last few months... and rarely lets me down. Until tonight. Instead of a deep, peaceful sleep, blissfully sucking air out of the C-PAP machine purring quietly in my nightstand, I'm sitting at my computer, restless, with a ponderous weight on my mind.
It's Mother's Day, 2015. And this may surprise you, but this isn't about my mother.
No, it's about another mother. The mother of my children. My sweet wife.
Later on this morning, while mothers the world over are being pampered, indulged, and showered with love and attention, my sweet wife has yet one more annual reminder of the mean-spiritedness and vindictiveness of her oldest two children... another opportunity to wipe tears from her eyes and pretend that her heart is not permanently broken. For reasons only known to the Almighty, my wife's oldest children have turned their backs on her and have shut her completely out of their lives. For over 14 years now.
It would be understandable if she were able to point to some huge fight, tragic event, or life-changing incident to explain how this could possibly be, but neither of us can. It is nothing more nor less than selfish vindictiveness, cruelty and spite. It is evil and Satanic. And utterly unforgivable. And every year, we unwillingly are forced to relive this particular train-wreck in all of its technicolor glory and emotional gore.
A little back-story might help.
When my wife and I married in March of 1997, she had five children by a previous marriage. The oldest daughter, Michele, was 14. A strong-willed, intelligent young woman, Michele had happily and eagerly settled into the role of quasi-parent after my wife divorced her then-husband, a mean-spirited and abusive husband and father, who would later commit suicide. My wife had just completed court reporting school, and Michele took on a significant amount of responsibility after her parents divorced.
And that's when it all started to go South.
When my wife and I married, all of a sudden Michele was no longer in the "inner circle" of parenting... and became deeply resentful and angry. This anger seethed under the surface until she left our home around 4 years later. Even though her anger smoldered over the next several years, my wife was still invited to be a part of her life. Then, almost out of the blue, Michele changed her mind about having a relationship with her mother. Apparently, she decided that her mother should be "punished" for replacing her as a quasi-parent with a real one. For no apparent reason, she shut her mother out of her life completely, and to this day refuses to speak to her, or to allow her mother to see or have any relationship with her grandchildren.
I've agonized over this over the years... a lot... trying to wrap my arms around how a grown child could be so cruel to their own flesh and blood for no other reason than to "get even" for a perceived slight this ridiculous. And I've failed. I just don't get it. It's beyond my comprehension and experience. It's foreign territory.
In my world, families stick together. They get mad, angry, bent out of shape, butt-hurt, whatever... but time heals all wounds, and the day invariably comes when things are made whole again... apologies are extended, forgiveness is granted, and feelings are mended. Not in this case, however.
There is nothing in the world more difficult, I don't think, than watching someone you love grieve and suffer under the constant, oppressive pain of being rejected by their own child for no particular reason.
As I settle into my annual analysis paralysis regarding this travesty and what to do about it, I invariably draw a blank. I'm a typical guy who likes to "fix things," and to make things right. And yes, I'm well aware that "It's not about the nail!" for those who have seen that rather painfully accurate Facebook video. But I have no clue what to do about this. I'm out of my league here.
My wife and I have been married for 18 years now. And tonight, as I have every Mother's Day for the last 13-14 years, I sit here agonizing over how this could possibly be, and why a child could be that emotionally abusive to someone who doesn't deserve it, and who sacrificed everything for them. How can any rational person find nothing wrong with inflicting unspeakable pain on those who love them... just for spite?
Tomorrow, life will resume. We will bustle about, tending to our jobs and family, and life will go on. But for right now, in the quiet of the butt-crack of dawn, at O' Dark Thirty, my heart breaks again for my sweet wife and what she has been made to endure.
It's Mother's Day, 2015. And this may surprise you, but this isn't about my mother.
No, it's about another mother. The mother of my children. My sweet wife.
Later on this morning, while mothers the world over are being pampered, indulged, and showered with love and attention, my sweet wife has yet one more annual reminder of the mean-spiritedness and vindictiveness of her oldest two children... another opportunity to wipe tears from her eyes and pretend that her heart is not permanently broken. For reasons only known to the Almighty, my wife's oldest children have turned their backs on her and have shut her completely out of their lives. For over 14 years now.
It would be understandable if she were able to point to some huge fight, tragic event, or life-changing incident to explain how this could possibly be, but neither of us can. It is nothing more nor less than selfish vindictiveness, cruelty and spite. It is evil and Satanic. And utterly unforgivable. And every year, we unwillingly are forced to relive this particular train-wreck in all of its technicolor glory and emotional gore.
A little back-story might help.
When my wife and I married in March of 1997, she had five children by a previous marriage. The oldest daughter, Michele, was 14. A strong-willed, intelligent young woman, Michele had happily and eagerly settled into the role of quasi-parent after my wife divorced her then-husband, a mean-spirited and abusive husband and father, who would later commit suicide. My wife had just completed court reporting school, and Michele took on a significant amount of responsibility after her parents divorced.
And that's when it all started to go South.
When my wife and I married, all of a sudden Michele was no longer in the "inner circle" of parenting... and became deeply resentful and angry. This anger seethed under the surface until she left our home around 4 years later. Even though her anger smoldered over the next several years, my wife was still invited to be a part of her life. Then, almost out of the blue, Michele changed her mind about having a relationship with her mother. Apparently, she decided that her mother should be "punished" for replacing her as a quasi-parent with a real one. For no apparent reason, she shut her mother out of her life completely, and to this day refuses to speak to her, or to allow her mother to see or have any relationship with her grandchildren.
I've agonized over this over the years... a lot... trying to wrap my arms around how a grown child could be so cruel to their own flesh and blood for no other reason than to "get even" for a perceived slight this ridiculous. And I've failed. I just don't get it. It's beyond my comprehension and experience. It's foreign territory.
In my world, families stick together. They get mad, angry, bent out of shape, butt-hurt, whatever... but time heals all wounds, and the day invariably comes when things are made whole again... apologies are extended, forgiveness is granted, and feelings are mended. Not in this case, however.
There is nothing in the world more difficult, I don't think, than watching someone you love grieve and suffer under the constant, oppressive pain of being rejected by their own child for no particular reason.
As I settle into my annual analysis paralysis regarding this travesty and what to do about it, I invariably draw a blank. I'm a typical guy who likes to "fix things," and to make things right. And yes, I'm well aware that "It's not about the nail!" for those who have seen that rather painfully accurate Facebook video. But I have no clue what to do about this. I'm out of my league here.
My wife and I have been married for 18 years now. And tonight, as I have every Mother's Day for the last 13-14 years, I sit here agonizing over how this could possibly be, and why a child could be that emotionally abusive to someone who doesn't deserve it, and who sacrificed everything for them. How can any rational person find nothing wrong with inflicting unspeakable pain on those who love them... just for spite?
Tomorrow, life will resume. We will bustle about, tending to our jobs and family, and life will go on. But for right now, in the quiet of the butt-crack of dawn, at O' Dark Thirty, my heart breaks again for my sweet wife and what she has been made to endure.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Ruminations on Another Year Above Ground
Well, another year. And so far, I'm still drawing breath. Like the guy falling from the 110th floor said as he passed the 10th floor, "So far, so good."
I've finally passed the point where I'm not surprised to still be around... it dawned on me this morning that every day is a gift, especially since there have been so many times during the past 57 years that I could have cut this mortal journey short and taken the long dirt nap. Now I find that I'm pleasantly surprised to have survived another orbit around El Sol and to be able to eat my salads from the top down, instead of the bottom up.
I was born during the Eisenhower Administration. David O. McKay was the leader of my church. The only "Beatles" anyone knew of were nothing more than insects. The Cold War was hovering at sub-zero temperatures, and Baby Boomers were popping out like bunnies, basking in the affluent glow of post-war prosperity.
Times were simpler. We had heroes. We laughed at clean jokes. People cared about each other. You could leave your doors unlocked at night. Your kids could go play around the neighborhood without fear. And drive-by shootings only happened at the movies... by gangsters. Movies were "G" rated and actually had plot lines and character development. Our wives and daughters dressed modestly. We trusted the news to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There was no sub-culture. Profanity, "free sex" and drugs were almost unheard of. Divorce and pre-marital pregnancies were scandalous. Family time and sitting around the table playing board games was a thing. We got spanked. Even at school. Our mothers cut our hair, and made our clothes.
We talked on party lines, and wrote on manual typewriters. Neither computers nor the internet existed. We took walks, and knew who our neighbors were. We actually talked to each other. Teenaged boys regularly babysat to earn extra money without raised eyebrows. Teenaged girls didn't text... they sat by an old-fashioned phone on Friday nights, hoping that a boy would call. We had sleepovers. We made tent forts out of couch cushions and blankets. We explored. We didn't have McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendys. We had cherry phosphates at the drugstore. We had paper routes. We ate lunch at the lunch counter at Woolworth's. We shopped at "Five and Dimes." We bought penny candy that really was penny candy.
We had to suffer through the complexity and smells of mimeograph machines or the smudges of carbon paper if we wanted to make a copy. Photographers shot on actual film, actually had darkrooms, and had to get their images right... in the camera... the first time... not knowing until the film was developed if they "got the shot" or not.
We had mental hospitals and sanitariums. And they were full. There generally were no "ambulances." If you were in an accident and badly hurt, you were probably going to die. We had seat belts, but never used them. Our cars had bench seats. Neither CPR nor the Heimlich Maneuver existed. Children had polio, and lived in "iron lungs." Medicine had yet to enter the technological age, and lab tests were done by hand... with a microscope... in a doctor's office. By doctors who really made house calls. Fathers were not allowed in delivery rooms. We sent messages by Western Union.
I could go on and on. I miss those days. My heart aches that my children will never know them. I'm humbled and deeply grateful that I was blessed enough to experience them... to have THOSE days as my heritage... and the ones in which my character and values were molded and formed.
I'm grateful that I am still upright and able to watch the Final Act of this world unfold. I have no idea how many more I have left. But I will forever miss those innocent days.
I've finally passed the point where I'm not surprised to still be around... it dawned on me this morning that every day is a gift, especially since there have been so many times during the past 57 years that I could have cut this mortal journey short and taken the long dirt nap. Now I find that I'm pleasantly surprised to have survived another orbit around El Sol and to be able to eat my salads from the top down, instead of the bottom up.
I was born during the Eisenhower Administration. David O. McKay was the leader of my church. The only "Beatles" anyone knew of were nothing more than insects. The Cold War was hovering at sub-zero temperatures, and Baby Boomers were popping out like bunnies, basking in the affluent glow of post-war prosperity.
Times were simpler. We had heroes. We laughed at clean jokes. People cared about each other. You could leave your doors unlocked at night. Your kids could go play around the neighborhood without fear. And drive-by shootings only happened at the movies... by gangsters. Movies were "G" rated and actually had plot lines and character development. Our wives and daughters dressed modestly. We trusted the news to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There was no sub-culture. Profanity, "free sex" and drugs were almost unheard of. Divorce and pre-marital pregnancies were scandalous. Family time and sitting around the table playing board games was a thing. We got spanked. Even at school. Our mothers cut our hair, and made our clothes.
We talked on party lines, and wrote on manual typewriters. Neither computers nor the internet existed. We took walks, and knew who our neighbors were. We actually talked to each other. Teenaged boys regularly babysat to earn extra money without raised eyebrows. Teenaged girls didn't text... they sat by an old-fashioned phone on Friday nights, hoping that a boy would call. We had sleepovers. We made tent forts out of couch cushions and blankets. We explored. We didn't have McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendys. We had cherry phosphates at the drugstore. We had paper routes. We ate lunch at the lunch counter at Woolworth's. We shopped at "Five and Dimes." We bought penny candy that really was penny candy.
We had to suffer through the complexity and smells of mimeograph machines or the smudges of carbon paper if we wanted to make a copy. Photographers shot on actual film, actually had darkrooms, and had to get their images right... in the camera... the first time... not knowing until the film was developed if they "got the shot" or not.
We had mental hospitals and sanitariums. And they were full. There generally were no "ambulances." If you were in an accident and badly hurt, you were probably going to die. We had seat belts, but never used them. Our cars had bench seats. Neither CPR nor the Heimlich Maneuver existed. Children had polio, and lived in "iron lungs." Medicine had yet to enter the technological age, and lab tests were done by hand... with a microscope... in a doctor's office. By doctors who really made house calls. Fathers were not allowed in delivery rooms. We sent messages by Western Union.
I could go on and on. I miss those days. My heart aches that my children will never know them. I'm humbled and deeply grateful that I was blessed enough to experience them... to have THOSE days as my heritage... and the ones in which my character and values were molded and formed.
I'm grateful that I am still upright and able to watch the Final Act of this world unfold. I have no idea how many more I have left. But I will forever miss those innocent days.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
The Real Meaning of "Justice"
Apparently, we've all been misled.
Apparently, justice doesn't truly exist if it doesn't automatically line itself up along racial lines, regardless of the facts. In fact, it is literally impossible, I'm told, for a black man to be guilty when a white man is involved in any way. It simply is. The black man is "entitled" to do anything he wants, without consequence. The black man cannot be blamed. That is racist. The white man is keeping the black man down. To demand responsibility for the black man's behavior is bigotry and injustice. The black man must be free to do whatever he chooses, hurt whomever he chooses, and commit whatever crimes he chooses, without consequence, to be truly "free." He's "entitled." And he must not be required to face the consequences of his actions.
Black parents who raised a lawless thug with no respect for authority, no self control, and no respect for others are not to be blamed, either. That would be racist. They must not be held accountable. It's the white man's fault. After all, they lost their precious son at the hands of a white man. Their precious, innocent son was unarmed. What their son actually did doesn't matter. Nothing matters but "justice" for their sainted son. And nothing other than complete exoneration and vindication is "justice." Their son did nothing wrong in robbing that store and attacking that officer. He couldn't. It would be "racist" to imply that he did. He was simply a disenfranchised black youth... misguided, but simply not accountable for his actions. He was a product of his environment, after all... an environment completely engineered and controlled by the white man to keep him down. His own personal choices haven't mattered for... well... ever.
It is literally impossible, I'm told, that a white officer could act appropriately in defending himself against a huge black thug who viciously attacked him, trying to get his gun, and who then charged at him to attack him again, taunting him that he was "too much a coward to shoot." Because the black thug, high on dope, twice the size of the officer, was "unarmed." Because the white officer has the "propensity to be racist" built into his DNA. And, of course, that is indisputable and beyond argument. It simply "is." Therefore the white officer is guilty and must be forced to pay for this "injustice," regardless of the facts. Any other view is "racist."
This, folks, is the ridiculousness and absurdity that passes for "logic" in the Left. This is the stupidity that has infected the brains of many in our society... the stupidity which tears apart the fabric of their own community, their own citizens, their own businesses and economy, their own world.
This administration wants a race war. Desperately. It can't be seen instigating it itself so it works feverishly behind the scenes to make it happen... pitting blacks against whites. Criminalizing and demonizing any whites who dare defend themselves as "racists." Exonerating and releasing blacks from any accountability for their crimes. Drawing battle lines. Pouring gas on the flames of hatred and entitlement. "Kill Whitey. Kill the 1%," it whispers, "Here's a gun.... go get justice... we'll look the other way..."
Why? Because a nation in violence and turmoil is a critical pretext to establishing absolute power and control over the populace at large. It conveniently justifies blunt force trauma to the Constitution, to the last remaining tattered freedoms of our society. It justifies a "heavy hand to restore order." It justifies overreach. It justifies brutality. It justifies tyranny. "Restoring order from civil unrest" is the Guy Fawkes mask the government wears to conceal it's real intentions and agenda.
Of course, none of the violence is spontaneous. Every step has been carefully and meticulously choreographed in hushed tones in back rooms and back alleys all over America. The "response" must achieve the desired results if all is to move forward as planned. The end justifies the means, after all.
Of course the black man is nothing more than a pawn in a much larger game with much higher stakes than the fate of a 2-bit thug... and those that move him around the chess board of Ground Zero count on him being too stupid, too ignorant, and too self-absorbed and clueless to realize that he's being used and manipulated. He's "oppressed," after all. He's "entitled" to be angry. He deserves to rage. He's been "held back by Whitey." He deserves to "get his." The race baiters and back-room puppet masters smile. "Who needs an actual army when you can mobilize an entire race to do your bidding with the right incendiary nudge?"
This is not a "slippery slope" we're going down. We're already here. It's happening right now. And yet, all of us who are watching this play out, sitting impotently in the safety and comfort of our cozy little homes and the warmth of our local Starbucks, blink incredulously through the mental fog of passivity like dumb sheep in a paralyzing stupor, unable to comprehend the blaring klaxon and billboard-sized warnings being flashed across our communities in bright red neon. We've been intoxicated and seduced by complacency and apathy. Instead of alarm, we just shrug, try to ascertain which way the herd is moving, and then dutifully wander around looking for directions to the slaughterhouse.
Behold the new definition of "justice." It is racist to challenge it.
Apparently, justice doesn't truly exist if it doesn't automatically line itself up along racial lines, regardless of the facts. In fact, it is literally impossible, I'm told, for a black man to be guilty when a white man is involved in any way. It simply is. The black man is "entitled" to do anything he wants, without consequence. The black man cannot be blamed. That is racist. The white man is keeping the black man down. To demand responsibility for the black man's behavior is bigotry and injustice. The black man must be free to do whatever he chooses, hurt whomever he chooses, and commit whatever crimes he chooses, without consequence, to be truly "free." He's "entitled." And he must not be required to face the consequences of his actions.
Black parents who raised a lawless thug with no respect for authority, no self control, and no respect for others are not to be blamed, either. That would be racist. They must not be held accountable. It's the white man's fault. After all, they lost their precious son at the hands of a white man. Their precious, innocent son was unarmed. What their son actually did doesn't matter. Nothing matters but "justice" for their sainted son. And nothing other than complete exoneration and vindication is "justice." Their son did nothing wrong in robbing that store and attacking that officer. He couldn't. It would be "racist" to imply that he did. He was simply a disenfranchised black youth... misguided, but simply not accountable for his actions. He was a product of his environment, after all... an environment completely engineered and controlled by the white man to keep him down. His own personal choices haven't mattered for... well... ever.
It is literally impossible, I'm told, that a white officer could act appropriately in defending himself against a huge black thug who viciously attacked him, trying to get his gun, and who then charged at him to attack him again, taunting him that he was "too much a coward to shoot." Because the black thug, high on dope, twice the size of the officer, was "unarmed." Because the white officer has the "propensity to be racist" built into his DNA. And, of course, that is indisputable and beyond argument. It simply "is." Therefore the white officer is guilty and must be forced to pay for this "injustice," regardless of the facts. Any other view is "racist."
This, folks, is the ridiculousness and absurdity that passes for "logic" in the Left. This is the stupidity that has infected the brains of many in our society... the stupidity which tears apart the fabric of their own community, their own citizens, their own businesses and economy, their own world.
This administration wants a race war. Desperately. It can't be seen instigating it itself so it works feverishly behind the scenes to make it happen... pitting blacks against whites. Criminalizing and demonizing any whites who dare defend themselves as "racists." Exonerating and releasing blacks from any accountability for their crimes. Drawing battle lines. Pouring gas on the flames of hatred and entitlement. "Kill Whitey. Kill the 1%," it whispers, "Here's a gun.... go get justice... we'll look the other way..."
Why? Because a nation in violence and turmoil is a critical pretext to establishing absolute power and control over the populace at large. It conveniently justifies blunt force trauma to the Constitution, to the last remaining tattered freedoms of our society. It justifies a "heavy hand to restore order." It justifies overreach. It justifies brutality. It justifies tyranny. "Restoring order from civil unrest" is the Guy Fawkes mask the government wears to conceal it's real intentions and agenda.
Of course, none of the violence is spontaneous. Every step has been carefully and meticulously choreographed in hushed tones in back rooms and back alleys all over America. The "response" must achieve the desired results if all is to move forward as planned. The end justifies the means, after all.
Of course the black man is nothing more than a pawn in a much larger game with much higher stakes than the fate of a 2-bit thug... and those that move him around the chess board of Ground Zero count on him being too stupid, too ignorant, and too self-absorbed and clueless to realize that he's being used and manipulated. He's "oppressed," after all. He's "entitled" to be angry. He deserves to rage. He's been "held back by Whitey." He deserves to "get his." The race baiters and back-room puppet masters smile. "Who needs an actual army when you can mobilize an entire race to do your bidding with the right incendiary nudge?"
This is not a "slippery slope" we're going down. We're already here. It's happening right now. And yet, all of us who are watching this play out, sitting impotently in the safety and comfort of our cozy little homes and the warmth of our local Starbucks, blink incredulously through the mental fog of passivity like dumb sheep in a paralyzing stupor, unable to comprehend the blaring klaxon and billboard-sized warnings being flashed across our communities in bright red neon. We've been intoxicated and seduced by complacency and apathy. Instead of alarm, we just shrug, try to ascertain which way the herd is moving, and then dutifully wander around looking for directions to the slaughterhouse.
Behold the new definition of "justice." It is racist to challenge it.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
The One-Sided Leftist Agenda
My, but it's tragic how ignorant the red-headed faux erudites who walk the not-so-hallowed halls of Utah's borderline institutions of higher education have become.
Let's set the record straight, shall we? It's not this simple. I know, I know... the fact that reality is slightly (tremendously) different from the lockstep liberal leftist marching dirge may come as a shock, but them's the facts... and anyone who has any marginal knowledge of history should be hiding their ginger locks in abject shame at their ignorance of it.
During the Revolutionary War, the British derided the Americans for their "gorilla" tactics...hiding behind trees and all... instead of marching in straight lines in brightly colored uniforms. They were out to fight like "gentlemen." We were out to fight to win.
Enter the Vietnam War. Too early for the faux erudite red-headed arrogant Socialists to remember... long before their time... but not before mine.
The outcry from lefist Socialists in the 60's was tremendous, as the "armchair generals," groped for anything... everything... to advance their anti-American Socialist agenda. Our troops returning home from Vietnam were vilified, spit on, attacked, and scorned as "baby killers."
Why?
Because the North Vietnamese changed the rules of the game. Instead of having any sense of morality or decency, they strapped bombs to the tiny bodies of children, and sent them into crowds of innocent civilians and American and South Vietnamese military personnel. It got so bad that our troops never knew who they could trust.. the Vietcong had succeeded in so blurring the line between civilian and enemy combatant that it became impossible to tell. The danger was so real, and so consistent, that skittish troops because paranoid whenever a child ran towards them... and in some cases, took the child's life over concern that they may be carrying a bomb.
Now... anyone with even a high school education who has kept moderately up to date on current events should know that not only has extremist Islam done the same thing, they have turned it into an art form. Instead of fairly considering the mountain of eye-witness reports from journalists who have no dog in this fight, live video feeds whose veracity and accuracy are indisputable, and admissions from present and former operatives in Hamas, and arriving at what most would consider a common-sense conclusion, the faux erudite leftists simply refuse to deal with those realities, or they do their usual... simply laughingly scoff at them and brush them aside with an arrogant sneer. Truth simply doesn't fit into their Socialist narrative. Therefore, it must be marginalized at all costs, and denied whereever possible.
Hamas uses children as human shields, while continuing to bomb Israel. Hamas WANTS their civilians to be killed in the conflict, as 1) extremist Islamic ideology insists that all citizens are combatants... even children, 2) that all citizens are "expendable" in order to further the cause of Islamic conquest, and 3) civilian casualties are useful as PR tools to use against their enemies. None of these facts are in question. All are verified by mountains of incontrovertible evidence. And yet... Leftist Anti-American Socialists ignore them... because they don't "fit" into their anti-Israel narrative.
I've always found it interesting how "selective" the outrage of the anti-Israel crowd is. They seem to have no problem at all with Hamas putting their citizens in harms' way. None at all. We hear not a peep of righteous indignation for it, not one iota of outrage because of it, and not even one whisper of acknowledgement that that is really what is happening... regardless of how credible and overwhelming the evidence. For some mysterious reason, their vitriol and condemnation is reserved ONLY for Israel... who did not start this conflict, and only seeks to defend itself.
One must seriously wonder "Why?" What is it about placing your children in harms way that is "noble" or "commendable"? What is it about that brand of cowardice that Leftists find "righteous"? Why the reluctance to apply the same standard equally to all sides? It's very simple. That doesn't advance their anti-American agenda. Therefore, it must be marginalized, denied, and ignored.
Perhaps Leftists will be taken seriously one day when they actually learn how to pick up a history book, or read a newspaper, or actually study the events in motion around the world... instead of keeping their noses glued to exclusively leftist propaganda. Perhaps, and I know this is crazy talk, the leftists would be taken more seriously if they actually used some intellectual honesty for once. Just sayin'.
Let's set the record straight, shall we? It's not this simple. I know, I know... the fact that reality is slightly (tremendously) different from the lockstep liberal leftist marching dirge may come as a shock, but them's the facts... and anyone who has any marginal knowledge of history should be hiding their ginger locks in abject shame at their ignorance of it.
During the Revolutionary War, the British derided the Americans for their "gorilla" tactics...hiding behind trees and all... instead of marching in straight lines in brightly colored uniforms. They were out to fight like "gentlemen." We were out to fight to win.
Enter the Vietnam War. Too early for the faux erudite red-headed arrogant Socialists to remember... long before their time... but not before mine.
The outcry from lefist Socialists in the 60's was tremendous, as the "armchair generals," groped for anything... everything... to advance their anti-American Socialist agenda. Our troops returning home from Vietnam were vilified, spit on, attacked, and scorned as "baby killers."
Why?
Because the North Vietnamese changed the rules of the game. Instead of having any sense of morality or decency, they strapped bombs to the tiny bodies of children, and sent them into crowds of innocent civilians and American and South Vietnamese military personnel. It got so bad that our troops never knew who they could trust.. the Vietcong had succeeded in so blurring the line between civilian and enemy combatant that it became impossible to tell. The danger was so real, and so consistent, that skittish troops because paranoid whenever a child ran towards them... and in some cases, took the child's life over concern that they may be carrying a bomb.
Now... anyone with even a high school education who has kept moderately up to date on current events should know that not only has extremist Islam done the same thing, they have turned it into an art form. Instead of fairly considering the mountain of eye-witness reports from journalists who have no dog in this fight, live video feeds whose veracity and accuracy are indisputable, and admissions from present and former operatives in Hamas, and arriving at what most would consider a common-sense conclusion, the faux erudite leftists simply refuse to deal with those realities, or they do their usual... simply laughingly scoff at them and brush them aside with an arrogant sneer. Truth simply doesn't fit into their Socialist narrative. Therefore, it must be marginalized at all costs, and denied whereever possible.
Hamas uses children as human shields, while continuing to bomb Israel. Hamas WANTS their civilians to be killed in the conflict, as 1) extremist Islamic ideology insists that all citizens are combatants... even children, 2) that all citizens are "expendable" in order to further the cause of Islamic conquest, and 3) civilian casualties are useful as PR tools to use against their enemies. None of these facts are in question. All are verified by mountains of incontrovertible evidence. And yet... Leftist Anti-American Socialists ignore them... because they don't "fit" into their anti-Israel narrative.
I've always found it interesting how "selective" the outrage of the anti-Israel crowd is. They seem to have no problem at all with Hamas putting their citizens in harms' way. None at all. We hear not a peep of righteous indignation for it, not one iota of outrage because of it, and not even one whisper of acknowledgement that that is really what is happening... regardless of how credible and overwhelming the evidence. For some mysterious reason, their vitriol and condemnation is reserved ONLY for Israel... who did not start this conflict, and only seeks to defend itself.
One must seriously wonder "Why?" What is it about placing your children in harms way that is "noble" or "commendable"? What is it about that brand of cowardice that Leftists find "righteous"? Why the reluctance to apply the same standard equally to all sides? It's very simple. That doesn't advance their anti-American agenda. Therefore, it must be marginalized, denied, and ignored.
Perhaps Leftists will be taken seriously one day when they actually learn how to pick up a history book, or read a newspaper, or actually study the events in motion around the world... instead of keeping their noses glued to exclusively leftist propaganda. Perhaps, and I know this is crazy talk, the leftists would be taken more seriously if they actually used some intellectual honesty for once. Just sayin'.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Of Hatred, Delusion and Fantasy
Someone very close to me, and whom I love very much, recently challenged my patience and my good nature by not only proclaiming that he was a rabid anti-Zionist, but that he had bitten the holocaust denial fantasy hook, line, and sinker.
As all Holocaust deniers tend to be, he was influenced by someone he admired that advanced such views, and rather than being interested in the facts and in doing actual research, being exceptionally gullible, he simply bought it. And then, of course, arrogantly demanded that unless someone could "prove" to him that the denial fantasy narrative was wrong, that it was, in fact, true... in short, a raging case of confirmation bias intermixed with a healthy dose of observational selection.
Holocaust denial is certainly not new. Neo-Nazis still cling to it with religious zeal to justify their hatred and anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionists and anti-Semites also cling to the holocaust denial narrative to justify their hatred of Israel.
This person, who ordinarily is a researching machine, somehow failed to find the resources that I was able to find in about a 15 second search on Google. Such is not surprising, however, because regardless of their faux sincerity in claiming that if evidence is provided, they will "believe," the reality is that when documented evidence *IS* provided, they simply ignore it and move the goalposts to more favorable territory, or "flip-flop" to another argument. They simply aren't interested in the truth, no matter how strenuously they claim otherwise. And this is the very definition of "delusional..." a malady that many such individuals appear to suffer from. According to the dictionary, a delusion is a "belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary."
Denial of the holocaust is one such delusion.
I'm sure that there is a whole list of arguments against the holocaust, many of which were spawned by works by wingnuts such as Fred A. Leuchter and David Erving, both of whose claims were found to be flatly spurious in a court of law. Many of their chestnuts have been completely debunked by the Nizkor Project, a group opposed to Holocaust denial claims, who analyzes these claims for instances where the evidence used by Holocaust deniers has been altered or manufactured.
For the sake of brevity, I'm going to address the main point that this person brought up as the de facto proof that the holocaust never happened... "There is no proof that the Jews were ever gassed." I was assured that if I could provide such proof, that he would be convinced. Of course, I know that to be untrue. He will simply move the goalposts, reject the data, and stubbornly cling to his predetermined belief.
One of the main accusations brought forward in the argument denying the gas chambers was that there had been no autopsies conducted that showed that the Jews were gassed. Jean-Marie Le Minor, a noted pathologist and anatomist in his work "Morphological Sciences Medicales Strasbourg", pg 332 states,
Professor Harmon states:
For a detailed technical analysis that proves that Leuchter and Luftl were completely wrong, please refer to the complete article here.
Unfortunately for those delusional enough to buy into Leuchter's denial fantasy, in Feb of 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, redid the analysis. ("A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz & Birkenau Concentration Camps". Nizkor.org. Retrieved 2014-03-22.)
Note: I'm going to be quoting quite a bit from the paper I referenced above, as it addresses some of these precise claims, so bear with me.
"Markiewicz and his team used microdiffusion techniques to test for cyanide in samples from the suspected gas chambers, from delousing chambers, and from control areas elsewhere within Auschwitz. The control samples tested negative, while cyanide residue was found in high concentrations in the delousing chambers, and lower concentrations in the homicidal gas chambers. This is consistent with the amounts required to kill lice and humans. (ibid.)
"The search for cyanide in the bricks of buildings said to be gas chambers was important, because the pesticide Zyklon B would generate such a residue. This was the gas most often cited as the instrument of death for prisoners in the gas chambers, supported by both testimony and evidence collected of Nazi policy.
This study concluded that:
Testimony of Eye-Witnesses
Those who deny that gas chambers were used also disregard HUGE volumes of data and testimony... which they like to downplay as ONLY coming from "one person" who was "tortured for three days before testifying." Such accusations are, however, either outright lies, or are born in sheer ignorance of fact.
"There are voluminous amounts of testimony from thousands of survivors of the Holocaust, as well as the testimony of captured Nazi officers at the Nuremberg Trials and other times.
"Holocaust deniers discount the testimony of officers claiming that these witnesses were tortured, or that Rudolf Höess allegedly signed a confession written in a language he did not understand (English) or that the Nuremberg Trial did not follow proper judicial procedures.
"However, Höess's testimony did not consist of merely a signed confession; he also wrote two volumes of memoirs... ("Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz", by Rudolf Höess, Steven Paskuly, Foreword Primo Levi, Translated from German by Andrew Pollinger and "Commandant of Auschwitz : The Autobiography of Rudolf Höess" by Rudolf Höess, Constantine Fitzgibbon, Joachim Neugroschel, Introduction by Primo Levi) and gave extensive testimony outside of the Nuremberg proceedings. See, for instance, "How many People Died at Auschwitz", by Franciszek Piper, Article Review, Memorial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau, Note 24: Hoess testimony, March 11, 1947, The proceedings of the Supreme National Tribunal in Warsaw; also see "Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals", Volume VII, p. 11 Case 38. Trial of Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess. Supreme National Tribunal of Poland (11th-29th March, 1947).
Further, his testimony agrees with that of other contemporary written accounts by Auschwitz officials, such as Pery Broad, "KZ Auschwitz: Reminiscences of Pery Broad, SS man in the Auschwitz concentration camp", by Pery Broad]. See also "The Case for Auschwitz: evidence from the Irving trial" By Robert Jan Pelt, p. 224. and "People in Auschwitz" by Hermann Langbein, Henry Friedlander p. 59, 112," an SS man stationed at Auschwitz while Höess was the commandant and the diary kept by SS physician at Auschwitz Johann Kremer, as well as the testimony of hundreds of camp guards and victims. See "How Reliable are the Hoss Memoirs?" by John C. Zimmerman. Associate Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 11 February 1999.
In addition, former SS personnel have criticised Holocaust denial. SS-Oberscharführer Josef Klehr has said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be "crazy or on the wrong". See Demant, Ebbo (Hg.): Auschwitz — "Direkt von der Rampe weg..." Kaduk, Erber, Klehr: Drei Täter geben zu Protokoll, p. 114. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1979 ISBN 3-499-14438-7.
SS-Unterscharführer Oswald Kaduk has stated that he "does not consider those who maintain such a thing as normal people." See "Three German murderers. Records of the banality of evil, Germany 1998" (filmed in 1978). Directed by Ebbo Demant, produced by Southwest Broadcasting.
Hearing about Holocaust denial compelled former SS-Rottenführer Oskar Gröning to publicly speak about what he witnessed at Auschwitz, and denounce Holocaust deniers, (see Rees, Laurence. Auschwitz: The Nazis & The 'Final Solution, p. 300. London: BBC Books, 2005. ISBN 0-563-52117-1) stating:
In Summary
There are plenty of things in history to wonder about, speculate about, and research... but the Holocaust is an event which has been so extensively researched as to be undeniable by any normal, intelligent, sane person.
As all Holocaust deniers tend to be, he was influenced by someone he admired that advanced such views, and rather than being interested in the facts and in doing actual research, being exceptionally gullible, he simply bought it. And then, of course, arrogantly demanded that unless someone could "prove" to him that the denial fantasy narrative was wrong, that it was, in fact, true... in short, a raging case of confirmation bias intermixed with a healthy dose of observational selection.
Holocaust denial is certainly not new. Neo-Nazis still cling to it with religious zeal to justify their hatred and anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionists and anti-Semites also cling to the holocaust denial narrative to justify their hatred of Israel.
This person, who ordinarily is a researching machine, somehow failed to find the resources that I was able to find in about a 15 second search on Google. Such is not surprising, however, because regardless of their faux sincerity in claiming that if evidence is provided, they will "believe," the reality is that when documented evidence *IS* provided, they simply ignore it and move the goalposts to more favorable territory, or "flip-flop" to another argument. They simply aren't interested in the truth, no matter how strenuously they claim otherwise. And this is the very definition of "delusional..." a malady that many such individuals appear to suffer from. According to the dictionary, a delusion is a "belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary."
Denial of the holocaust is one such delusion.
I'm sure that there is a whole list of arguments against the holocaust, many of which were spawned by works by wingnuts such as Fred A. Leuchter and David Erving, both of whose claims were found to be flatly spurious in a court of law. Many of their chestnuts have been completely debunked by the Nizkor Project, a group opposed to Holocaust denial claims, who analyzes these claims for instances where the evidence used by Holocaust deniers has been altered or manufactured.
For the sake of brevity, I'm going to address the main point that this person brought up as the de facto proof that the holocaust never happened... "There is no proof that the Jews were ever gassed." I was assured that if I could provide such proof, that he would be convinced. Of course, I know that to be untrue. He will simply move the goalposts, reject the data, and stubbornly cling to his predetermined belief.
One of the main accusations brought forward in the argument denying the gas chambers was that there had been no autopsies conducted that showed that the Jews were gassed. Jean-Marie Le Minor, a noted pathologist and anatomist in his work "Morphological Sciences Medicales Strasbourg", pg 332 states,
"The voluminous reports of forensic examination of Prof. C. Simonin, Prof. Dr R. Piedelievre and Dr J. Fourcade meticulously described the autopsy of 17 whole and complete subjects and 166 body segments belonging to at least 64 people, all showing signs of death by inhalation of hydrogen cyanide."The actual accusation that Jews were not gassed based on technical criticisms that were originally advanced by Leuchter in particular, is soundly destroyed in the paper "TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE HOLOCAUST: Cyanide, Zyklon-B, and Mass Murder" by Brian Harmon, Ph.D. in molecular biology and microchemistry.
Professor Harmon states:
"Because many holocaust deniers find themselves unable to dismiss
the many volumes of historical information documenting the Holocaust,
they often turn to other methods. A very common tactic is to
claim that the Holocaust was "technically impossible", improperly
citing chemical and physical data as "proof". The most well
known example is the "Leuchter Report" where Fred Leuchter, a
self-proclaimed engineer, claimed that "no one was gassed at
Auschwitz", using a combination of poor chemical analysis and
technical difficulties as "proof".
"Another example, "The Luftl Report", written by the Austrian
Walter Luftl, erroneously claims that not enough people could
be crammed into the chambers, and that Zyklon was too
dangerous to use for extermination.
"Many of these documents are shrouded in pseudo-scholarly
terminology and methodology, and use confusing statements to
make their lies seem more tenable. The deniers hope to play
on the common individual's lack of knowledge in chemistry and
physiology to confuse and obfuscate the issue." (ibid.)
For a detailed technical analysis that proves that Leuchter and Luftl were completely wrong, please refer to the complete article here.
Wiki reports that "Another thoroughly debunked claim by Holocaust deniers is that the "gas chambers which mainstream historians believe were for the massacre of civilians never existed, but rather that the structures identified as gas chambers actually served other purposes. These other purposes include delousing and disinfection. A similar argument is sometimes used that claims gas was not used to murder Jews and other victims, and that many gas chambers were also built after the war just for show.
"A document advancing this theory is the Leuchter report by Fred A. Leuchter, a paper stating that only traces of cyanide were found when he examined samples taken from one of the Auschwitz gas chambers in 1988. This is often cited as evidence that gas was not used in the chambers, as no trace amounts remain."There is only one small problem with that. It turns out that not only was Leuchter lacking the education and technical skill to conduct such tests, but that the tests themselves were exceedingly sloppy and inconclusive.
Unfortunately for those delusional enough to buy into Leuchter's denial fantasy, in Feb of 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, redid the analysis. ("A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz & Birkenau Concentration Camps". Nizkor.org. Retrieved 2014-03-22.)
Note: I'm going to be quoting quite a bit from the paper I referenced above, as it addresses some of these precise claims, so bear with me.
"Markiewicz and his team used microdiffusion techniques to test for cyanide in samples from the suspected gas chambers, from delousing chambers, and from control areas elsewhere within Auschwitz. The control samples tested negative, while cyanide residue was found in high concentrations in the delousing chambers, and lower concentrations in the homicidal gas chambers. This is consistent with the amounts required to kill lice and humans. (ibid.)
"The search for cyanide in the bricks of buildings said to be gas chambers was important, because the pesticide Zyklon B would generate such a residue. This was the gas most often cited as the instrument of death for prisoners in the gas chambers, supported by both testimony and evidence collected of Nazi policy.
This study concluded that:
"The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers. The cyanide compounds occur in the building materials only locally, in the places where the conditions arose for their formation and persistence for such a long time.
"In his reasoning Leuchter claims that the vestigial amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after fumigations carried out in the Camp "once, long ago"(Item 14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative results of the examination of the control samples from living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a single gassing, and the fact that in the period of fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months later. ("A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz & Birkenau Concentration Camps",JAN MARKIEWICZ, WOJCIECH GUBALA, JERZY LABEDZ Institute of Forensic Research, Cracow, Z Zagadnien Sqdowych, z. XXX, 1994, 17-27
Received 8 March 1994; accepted 30 May 1994 )
Testimony of Eye-Witnesses
Those who deny that gas chambers were used also disregard HUGE volumes of data and testimony... which they like to downplay as ONLY coming from "one person" who was "tortured for three days before testifying." Such accusations are, however, either outright lies, or are born in sheer ignorance of fact.
"There are voluminous amounts of testimony from thousands of survivors of the Holocaust, as well as the testimony of captured Nazi officers at the Nuremberg Trials and other times.
"Holocaust deniers discount the testimony of officers claiming that these witnesses were tortured, or that Rudolf Höess allegedly signed a confession written in a language he did not understand (English) or that the Nuremberg Trial did not follow proper judicial procedures.
"However, Höess's testimony did not consist of merely a signed confession; he also wrote two volumes of memoirs... ("Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz", by Rudolf Höess, Steven Paskuly, Foreword Primo Levi, Translated from German by Andrew Pollinger and "Commandant of Auschwitz : The Autobiography of Rudolf Höess" by Rudolf Höess, Constantine Fitzgibbon, Joachim Neugroschel, Introduction by Primo Levi) and gave extensive testimony outside of the Nuremberg proceedings. See, for instance, "How many People Died at Auschwitz", by Franciszek Piper, Article Review, Memorial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau, Note 24: Hoess testimony, March 11, 1947, The proceedings of the Supreme National Tribunal in Warsaw; also see "Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals", Volume VII, p. 11 Case 38. Trial of Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess. Supreme National Tribunal of Poland (11th-29th March, 1947).
Further, his testimony agrees with that of other contemporary written accounts by Auschwitz officials, such as Pery Broad, "KZ Auschwitz: Reminiscences of Pery Broad, SS man in the Auschwitz concentration camp", by Pery Broad]. See also "The Case for Auschwitz: evidence from the Irving trial" By Robert Jan Pelt, p. 224. and "People in Auschwitz" by Hermann Langbein, Henry Friedlander p. 59, 112," an SS man stationed at Auschwitz while Höess was the commandant and the diary kept by SS physician at Auschwitz Johann Kremer, as well as the testimony of hundreds of camp guards and victims. See "How Reliable are the Hoss Memoirs?" by John C. Zimmerman. Associate Professor, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 11 February 1999.
In addition, former SS personnel have criticised Holocaust denial. SS-Oberscharführer Josef Klehr has said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be "crazy or on the wrong". See Demant, Ebbo (Hg.): Auschwitz — "Direkt von der Rampe weg..." Kaduk, Erber, Klehr: Drei Täter geben zu Protokoll, p. 114. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1979 ISBN 3-499-14438-7.
SS-Unterscharführer Oswald Kaduk has stated that he "does not consider those who maintain such a thing as normal people." See "Three German murderers. Records of the banality of evil, Germany 1998" (filmed in 1978). Directed by Ebbo Demant, produced by Southwest Broadcasting.
Hearing about Holocaust denial compelled former SS-Rottenführer Oskar Gröning to publicly speak about what he witnessed at Auschwitz, and denounce Holocaust deniers, (see Rees, Laurence. Auschwitz: The Nazis & The 'Final Solution, p. 300. London: BBC Books, 2005. ISBN 0-563-52117-1) stating:
"I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there." (ibid., pg 301)Sonderkommandos provide another key piece of testimony. There were Jewish prisoners who helped march Jews to the gas chambers, and later dragged the bodies to the crematoria. Since they witnessed the entire process, their testimony is vital in confirming that the gas chambers were used for murderous purposes and the scale to which they were used. (See "The Nizkor Project - Command staff". Nizkor.org. Retrieved 2014-03-22.)
In Summary
- Holocaust denial is nothing but either a particularly vicious and disgusting attempt to intentionally lie and deceive, or an example of textbook delusional behavior and ignorance. Either way, it is an extension of garden variety hate and anti-Semitism.
- Those who deny the Holocaust are rejecting literally warehouses full of physical evidence, millions of pages of testimony presented at the Nuremberg Trials and the eye-witness accounts of those who were not only there (Jews) who were directly involved in the operation of the gas chambers, but of the actual SS officers who not only directed the camp, but participated in these acts.
- Denial of the gas chambers specifically shows complete ignorance of the facts and the science at play, and suggests scenarios that have either been proven to be factually false, of which are literally impossible on a technological/scientific basis.
- The Nizkor Project as well as other scholarly projects, have completely decimated the false claims by holocaust denial theorists, to no valid rebuttal (to date) of their data.
There are plenty of things in history to wonder about, speculate about, and research... but the Holocaust is an event which has been so extensively researched as to be undeniable by any normal, intelligent, sane person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)