If there is one thing that puzzles the minds of the revisionist historians is why they have been forced to use the term Holocaust to refer to the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis. This because historians usually know what holocaust really means. Stuff for David Icke or Alex Jones? Maybe, I don’t know, but it is interesting the same to follow the story of the use of the term.
A revisionist historian who talked to a radio said quite irritatedly that he didn’t like to be treated like an outcast, as if he weren’t a “real” or a serious historian, and that in reality the term holocaust wasn’t used after the end of WWII, then for years one talked about genocide, massacre, many dead, then at a certain point abruptly in the seventies the term Holocaust was introduced and in the end imposed also to historians who didn’t see the connection, because differently than some ingenuous people think and they must stop, holocaust doesn’t mean “many many killed ones” a “holocaust” etc. in reality you can make a holocaust with only one dead, even an animal, and kill millions of people and not be making any; the characteristic of the holocaust is in fact not the number, the quantity of people killed, but the fact that the killing is done as a sacrifice to a divinity and with fire; if you kill many people, also 6 millions, but you don’t “offer” them to any divinity, you are not making any holocaust. After the introduction of this term till into the books of history and the absurd reprimand of the historians who wanted to go on using genocide or massacre, many people are inclined to think “it’s a holocaust because they were many”. No it wasn’t.
The question is. The people who introduced the term “holocaust” to mean the killing of the Jews by the Nazis did they know or not that the term implies a priest sacrificing the killed to a divinity? Yes, they did, but they imposed the use of the term without giving any justification and just getting angry – very angry – with the ones who didn’t want to use it saying: “it diminishes the importance of it” which doesn’t change that if there was no offer to a divinity it’s not a holocaust just the same.
Was it an offer to a divinity? Maybe. There are historians who claim they know that Hitler did human sacrifices to pagan gods/demons and even that he used the aztec ritual and that anyway he was deep inside the worse kind of esotericism. He might have offered all those dead ones, dead killed on purpose not people already dead, to his pagan gods, but the people who use/impose this term are not the nazis they are in fact the anti-nazis and without giving any explanation, again they wanted the opinion crime against the ones who contradicted them.
A passive society that has accepted the opinion crime maybe deserved to be punished, we should, we must revert to total freedom of speech and of thoughts, there are dark corners in the anti-fascism that were never explained, the dark corners of fascism were explained but in the end not so much and people like me, who ask too many questions, whether they be jews or not are a bit puzzled by the conspiracy of the silence. Which is always better than a bullet in the head anyway. I enjoy this website, but I wanted to do more than a blog.
What do you offer a holocaust for? Protection? Power? Hitler lost the war and that’s a good news, so if he did the “offer” it didn’t work, but there are too many holes in the history and with the opinion crime it is difficult to search, only the brave dare…and the brave will prevail.
Apropos Farage’s back, T. May doesn’t want to repatriate the power to decide about immigration to Westminster, she is there to lose time. I had told you, but that goes in another direction… it’s a news of today and… the brave must prevail.