| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology Forum » The Mufti and Martin Hohmann
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Kevin Alfred Strom |
 Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 12:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1040
The Mufti and Martin Hohmann
Opinion; Posted on: 2003-11-05 20:11:30 [ Printer friendly ]
by Irmin Vinson
The length of an encyclopedia article indicates roughly the
significance that the editors of the encyclopedia attach to the
article's subject. In every encyclopedia Britain therefore receives
more space than Bahrain. If you had never heard of either, you could
accurately determine that the former is considered much more
important than the latter simply by counting pages. The same
practical rule holds true in ‘Holocaust Studies,’ though in a
convoluted form.
The four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust is a standard work in
‘Holocaust Studies,’ consulted and cited by most scholars working in
this rapidly expanding field. It displays an unmistakable
fascination with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who receives more
attention within its pages than Goebbels, Goering, Eichmann,
Heydrich, and even Himmler; the article on the Mufti is over twice
as long as the article on Goebbels. Among the major personalities of
NS Germany, only Adolf Hitler surpasses (just barely) the Mufti. If
you knew little about World War II, you could be forgiven for
believing that the Mufti was a towering figure in wartime German
politics, never far from Hitler's side as they jointly plotted the
innumerable nefarious schemes commonly attributed to nazi Germany:
the burning of all non-Aryan books, the subjugation of the globe,
the industrialized extermination of every Jew from Alaska to Zaire,
and so forth.
There could be no more succinct example of how academic scholarship
can be shaped to serve a contemporary political agenda. The
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust devotes so many pages to the Mufti not
because its editors and contributors want to illuminate the life of
an intriguing figure in Mideast history, nor even because they want
to attack belatedly an old enemy from sixty years ago. The Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem receives a prominent role as a major perpetrator
of the Jewish 'Holocaust' because, in our time, Palestinian Arabs
are enemies of the Jews, and the Mufti, the Palestinian religious
leader Amin al-Husseini, conveniently supported Hitler.
The Mufti had escaped arrest by the British in mandatory Palestine
and later arrived in Berlin seeking an alliance with the Germans,
reasoning that his enemy's enemy should be his friend. He was a
minor figure, at best, in NS Germany, but he has become a major
figure for Jews today, his wartime activities regularly cited to
suggest the ongoing ‘nazi sympathies’ of modern Palestinians, and
there are even fanciful tales of his gloating tours of extermination
camps, where he would urge the nazis to run their gas chambers more
efficiently. All of this is transparently political. If Hindus were
fighting Jews today, Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian nationalist
leader who also arrived in Berlin seeking an alliance against a
common enemy, would have been cast in the same sinister role that
Amin al-Husseini now plays.
Jews have a powerful weapon, their ‘Holocaust,’ and they want to
deploy it against a current enemy, Palestinian Arabs. Jewish
‘Holocaust’ scholarship has therefore been shaped to meet a specific
political objective, contorting itself to make the Mufti into an
important actor in the nazi state, thereby tainting Palestinian
national aspirations and Palestinian resistance to Israeli
occupation. Holocaust scholars hope to transform modern Palestinians
into nazis, co-conspirators in the Jewish Holocaust, sharers in
German guilt, and in terms of their political intentions Amin
al-Husseini does genuinely become more significant than Eichmann and
Himmler. ‘Holocaust Studies’ are racially aggressive Jewish politics
conducted by scholarly means: The Palestinians are now an important
enemy, more so than ever before, and ‘Holocaust’ scholarship has
been shaped accordingly.
Which brings us to Martin Hohmann, who evidently suffers from an
incomplete understanding of the political character of the
‘Holocaust.’
Hohmann is the conservative German parliamentarian who aroused
Jewish rage by alluding to massive Jewish participation in Marxist
crimes in the former Soviet Union, and above all by drawing a
dangerous conclusion: "Jews were in large numbers at the [Bolshevik]
leadership level, as well as in Cheka execution squads. So one could
with some justification describe Jews as a nation of perpetrators.
That may sound frightening. But it would follow the same logic by
which one describes Germans as a nation of perpetrators."
If a merciful God presided over political debates, Hohmann's poorly
phrased argument would have worked, since it assumed a semitically
correct premise, the greatest of them all, the master premise that
governs the rest: Thou shalt not blame Jews. More formally, any
chain of reasoning that leads to an ‘anti-Semitic’ conclusion must
be false, because all such conclusions have been preemptively
declared illegitimate, ruled wrong ahead of time. That's an
unassailable, bedrock truth, acknowledged by all properly
domesticated Gentiles, and on that solid foundation Hohmann built
his argument. It would be wrong to blame Jews today for the amply
documented Marxist crimes that their forefathers committed decades
ago in Russia, and throughout much of Europe it would be a
frightening criminal offense to do so; therefore, Hohmann reasoned,
it should also be wrong to blame Germans today for crimes of the
nazi era. If Germans today are guilty of crimes in Germany's past,
then Jews today must likewise be guilty of crimes in their Soviet
past, a conclusion which would amount to prohibited anti-Semitism,
blaming Jews as a group for Judeo-Bolshevik mass murder. Hohmann, an
opponent of the Berlin Holocaust memorial, was in fact saying,
contrary to some press reports, that neither living Germans nor
living Jews should be held guilty for crimes that dead Germans and
dead Jews committed long ago. Neither Germans nor Jews should be
viewed as a perpetrator people. His reasoning, though badly
structured, was irrefutable, given its obligatory initial premise
and its naive assumption of equality between Jews and Germans.
But of course Hohmann's argument did not work, and it has provoked
outrage from Jews and even calls for a criminal investigation,
chiefly because he attempted to use a semitically correct premise
for an impermissible purpose, exculpating living Germans. He does
not want the Jewish Holocaust to remain forever a central part of
German identity, and he knows that no healthy nation would elevate a
crime into the defining event of its history. He thought he had
discovered a safe logical device, operating at the edges of the
rules that control discussions of the Holocaust, proving that
Germans should not permanently identify themselves as the world's
foremost perpetrator nation. He was obviously wrong.
Although revisionists question many of the events the fall under the
rubric "Holocaust," Hohmann was doing nothing of the sort. Yet his
argument was, despite his apparent naďveté, just as dangerous as
revisionism, perhaps more so, since it challenged the Jewish
‘Holocaust’ at the level of its political objectives, of which
historical facts are (as we have seen) merely the malleable vehicle,
subject to creative alteration whenever the need arises. Jews in
Germany saw Hohmann's argument for what it was: not merely an
irritating allusion to old Jewish crimes, but also an attack on the
power of their ‘Holocaust’ weapon. A ‘Holocaust’ weapon that no
longer inflicted perpetual German penance would be unholocaustal,
deprived of one of its desired effects. Jews want Germans to feel
weak and guilty; that's what ‘Holocaust’ commemoration in Germany is
really about. So Paul Spiegel, president of Germany's Central
Council of Jews, quickly convinced himself that Hohmann's
semitically correct argument amounted to "a reach into the lowest
drawer of disgusting anti-Semitism." Such angry denunciations, and
there were many, have a number of practical goals, but the most
important is surely the warning that they give to others: You can't
talk this way, and if you do, we'll work hard to punish you.
The ‘Holocaust’ is a contrived instrument of Jewish power, and if it
ceased to be an effective weapon that Jews can wield against their
enemies whenever they choose, it wouldn't, from their perspective,
be worth the trouble of writing all those ‘Holocaust’ books and
erecting all those ‘Holocaust’ temples that commemorate it. The main
purpose of the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ is to attack enemies of the Jews
in the present, and since Jews in the present still hate Germans,
they will vilify and punish any German who attempts to disarm their
favorite weapon, even a polite German who dutifully obeys their
rules.
Read more about the Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution:
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/tsar_1.htm
--
Kevin Alfred Strom.
News: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/
The Works of R. P. Oliver: http://www.revilo-oliver.com
Personal site: http://www.kevin-strom.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:15 am
|
|