Operation Culture Creation

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 9, 2009
Susan Westemeyer said:
It has been decided that a discussion of whether or not the Holocaust took place has been deemed not appropriate for this forum.

Thank you.
The problem with being the web's number one location for discussing doping in cycling is that along the way you do attract some absolute ****ing lunatics.
Waterloo Sunrise said:
The problem with being the web's number one location for discussing doping in cycling is that along the way you do attract some absolute ****ing lunatics.
Duunnnnoooooooo maaaan I am no not lunaatic and thiss post seems quitee offeencive. Better report iT.

#legalize #peace
Making posts that are topical and constructive will lead to an easier life here than ones that are demeaning and inappropriate, which is a good way to drive others away and have a bunch of mods ride your ass.

Just a suggestion for all.
Martin Peltier presenting his book "Shoah Story" (in French)

Many books have been written on the Holocaust, what is so special about yours?

The particularity is that it's not an attempt on the history of the holocaust but on the history of the history of the holocaust. Why? For 2 reasons. First it hasn’t been done yet. Second in order to avoid falling into some controversies, which lead to nowhere. You know that there’s a law in France – the Gayssot Law – which forbids any kind of properly historical research on that issue, since it’s considered closed. In that case, since an issue is by the law considered closed, it loses all intellectual interest. So only the history of the history of the holocaust is possible to make, which enables us to make interesting discoveries, in a roundabout way. Notably we realize that the telling of the holocaust has evolved. So what I did was in a way a history of the changes of the holocaust, based on the model by Bossuet who wrote a history of the changes of the Reform (“Histoire des variations des églises protestantes”). wanted to show some things, via this circumvolution, to highlight the strong contradictions of the story and to show its different stages, one example: the secret! You know that today’s mainstream story claims that everybody knew. About 30 years ago when the witnesses were still there - I’m thinking of witnesses such as Poliakov, Raymond Aron, André Frossard, no jokers – they would all say we did not know anything, actually we were waiting impatiently to go to the camps in order to avoid prison. This change in the story enabled people to make a great attack against Pope Pius XII: since everybody knew why didn’t this “bast*rd” Pius XII talk?


Which documents is the history of the Holocaust based upon? Was it easy to sort out?

It’s quite difficult. If you want to make the history of the Battle of Verdun, for example, you have operation plans that have been kept, numerous press articles, orders from the German High Command, from the French High Command, letters, ossuaries (the Ossuary of Douaumont, which is very impressive; hundreds of thousands of graves and bones), you have the field that had been so scorched that when I was young you only had cropped grass, not even a small tree, any kind of document. You also have memoirs but it’s only a small part of the matter.

With regards to the holocaust, the documents that are not memoirs, like orders, letters, etc don’t exist. There are no orders from Himmler or Hitler about the Holocaust. There no letters from prisoners, either. There are no administrative documents, either, [...]

So we have the quote by Arno Mayer (historian specialized in Europe, international diplomacy and the Holocaust, Professor of History at Princeton), who is a Luxembourgish Jew who migrated to the USA – who is a historian of the official version, not a revisionist -: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers at once rare and unreliable". You have some documents like Göbbels’ diary whose diplomatic value is very controversial. You’ve got one really exceptional document. That is the diary by an SS doctor named Johann Paul Kremer who was a doctor in Auschwitz in 1942. This diary is something almost in the Holocaust’s historiography. Everybody acknowledges it as absolutely genuine: the official historians and the revisionist historians [...].

This diary is so genuine that both sides consider it as a proof to back up their theories. However if you are looking at it – which I did carefully – you still realize that the least you could say is that he gives no evidence that where the witness was – I’m not going further – there had been gassing and massacres.

So, at the end of the day, the issue on the documentation of the holocaust is relatively easy to deal with. In the current state of affairs and subject to other discoveries – for example in the Nazi archives that are gathered as you know in Bad Arolsen, which so far haven’t given too much – there are not many probative documents from that time and there are mainly testimonies. The dominant history of the Holocaust is mostly, I would almost exclusively on testimonies and that is why it’s so important to do testimony criticism and to make criticism on the witnesses.

Has the denunciation of false witnesses only been the act of revisionists?

Not at all! [...] As Raul Hilberg – the Pope of Holocaust history – acknowledged it they were examples of the non-revisionists. Some non-revisionists did a great job. With regards to testimonies I’m thinking of a (female) historian: Olga Wormser who did the cleaning within the testimonies on the Holocaust. Some associations of sons and grandsons of deported showed in their publications that some claimed witnesses actually took for themselves a book by Hungarian Nyiszli that was published by the end of the war. There aren’t only liars, there’s also a whole madness. People assumed for themselves things that they have read, in a way. So such person who claimed to be – or perhaps really was, which is more serious – deported claimed to have seen things that he only had read in Nyiszli.


Could you tell us about the battle of numbers regarding the number of dead according to historians and in official documents?

The issue is that the official documents tell nothing with regards to the calculation of the dead.

You’ve got several methods to try to estimate - here in this case it’s about the Jews during the war – but in order to know how many people died in a lapse of time T, there are two solutions. Either you have numbers regarding every massacre – claimed or real – and you make the sum in the end, very difficult. For this you need documents on each shooting. That is something we don’t have. It’s the heart of the Nazi state secret, so of necessity, it does not exist.

So the official historians are doing wet-finger estimations which are based on testimonies. In such type of operations, we have often used Rudolph Höss’ testimony at the start. Höss was at one point, camp leader in Auschwitz. Nyiszli’s testimony has been used and then we’ve sounded out, a bit. It does not produce very reliable outcome for the good reason that words fly away and that testimonies vary. Notably Höss’ testimony can range from 1 to 3. This implies that you also have estimations that range from 1 to 4. I’ll only take Auschwitz’s case and I’m only talking about official historians. You have a memorial that estimate at 4 millions the number of dead in Auschwitz. It was taken off in 1990 and replaced by another memorial that estimated the number of dead at one and a half million. This means that 2,5 million people disappeared. Such is the debate among the official historians. This is due to the lack of document that we just discussed because if we had documents, if we had bones of dead people, for examples, we would have counted the bones. It’s a rather macabre method but it’s reliable and simple. We don’t have that system. So there are also the death books (Sterbebücher), which disappeared at the Liberation, which were kept in archive in Moscow by the USSR and which have come out since but these “Sterbebücher” only report a few dozens of thousands of dead in Auschwitz: those who were recorded by the Nazi bureaucracy of the camp. So then the revisionist are coming into play and claim that there might have been 200,000 dead or so in Auschwitz . That is their theory but it’s no part of the reasoning of the official historians who claim that it’s not the way we should see it. Indeed you had these “Sterbebücher” that reported dead (of disease, etc. whatever) but most of the dead did not die that way but they died right when they arrived without being recorded. All the unfit people were put aside and gassed.

So all this has started from an estimation based on testimonies. At the start we were rather on a 4 million basis. Some data were completely astounding, just like Nyiszli’s. I’m highlighting it. If you calculate from the raw data that he gives, you reached a number of 45 million dead during the war… These are sick jokes. That is what is surprising in the official history of the Holocaust: the poor taste. I happen not to be a Jew and I have no relations who were killed there but if I had I would be very harsh towards the official history, the false witnesses like Elie Wiesel. I would at least throw a pie at them and maybe more. It’s really indecent to reach such figures.

Now to come back to the controversy about figures, if you read more documented books from current historians, I think the last report came with Jean-Claude Pressac, who mopped up the negationists, according to the “exterminationists”/the official historians, reached ~638k or something like that. So it’s still less than one sixth. So you see that the general trend is going down, which does not mean that from time to time in the world a new historian comes up and the figure rises up again. It rose back to 3 or 4 millions. There is some sort of a number lottery. I think the general idea has for long been that the total number of dead attributed to the final solution was 6 million. Anyone knows that it’s a symbolical figure. It’s never been calculated nor estimated but so based upon discoveries and when you see that Auschwitz was cut from 4 million to 600k and a bit, other camps rise up. Belzec, Majdanek are going back up. The first estimation for one was ~50k and now it’s ~250k. Then you have the “Holocaust by bullets”. In order to keep a total of 6 million you make the variables vary. The “Holocaust by bullets” means the people who were shot on the Eastern Front is estimated at ~2 million while it was obviously not the case 30 years ago.

So that’s it. It’s a constant-sum game: 6 million!
Jan 27, 2013
The Course the Nations Run

Thus, in Vico’s scheme, each civilization passes through three broad and loosely defined ages in the course of its history. He borrowed a scheme from classical literature, and called these the Age of Gods, the Age of Heroes, and the Age of Men: gods, because religion is the dominant social force in the first age; heroes, because aristocracies that claim descent from heroic forebears are the dominant social force in the second age; men, because humanity in the mass becomes the dominant social force in the third age. The first age begins in what Vico calls “the barbarism of sense,” a state of cultural and mental chaos in which the concrete sensory images that fill consciousness haven’t yet been brought into a meaningful relationship to one another; the third age ends in what he calls “the barbarism of reflection,” a state of cultural and mental chaos in which the abstract intellectual concepts that fill consciousness are no longer brought into a meaningful relationship with one another. Put another way, the cycle of history as Vico understands it begins in brutality and ends in madness.

As noted above, though, the barbarism of reflection, the madness at the cycle’s end, has an ironic similarity to Barfield’s final participation. In the twilight of what Vico calls the Age of Men, the rising flood of abstraction makes it harder and harder for people to recognize that the world and its contents might have any meaning or value other than what certain human beings, on the basis of one abstract consideration or another, happen to want to assign them. This has certain predictably horrific results. When the barbarism of sense reigns, a band of warriors can slaughter the inhabitants of a village out of sheer raw bloodlust; when the cycle swings around to the barbarism of reflection, a village, an ethnic group, or the population of an entire country can be exterminated because a midlevel bureaucrat somewhere, without the least trace of passion or any sense that moral issues might be involved in the process, signs a directive that renders their continued existence null and void

Fun stuff.
Jan 27, 2013
Dark Age America: The Hour of the Knife

You might think that even an elite gone senile would have enough basic common sense left to notice that losing the loyalty of the people who keep the elite in power is a fatal error. In practice, though, the disconnection between the world of the dominant elite and the world of the internal proletariat quickly becomes total, and the former can be completely convinced that everything is fine when the latter know otherwise. As I write this, there’s a timely example unfolding at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, where hospital administrators have been insisting at the top of their lungs that every possible precaution was taken when the late Thomas Duncan was being treated there for Ebola. According to the nursing staff—two of whom have now come down with the disease—“every possible precaution” amounted to no training, inadequate protective gear, and work schedules that had nurses who treated Duncan go on to tend other patients immediately thereafter.
Jan 27, 2013
Great Man is Dead

Every human society has its own collective image of what human beings are like, which serves more or less the same role in that society as the ego or self-image does in the psychology of the individual. That image is always a polymorphous thing, subject to constant redefinition in the competing interests of subgroups within the society, and it’s also subject to changes driven by historical cycles as well as to something not far removed from genetic drift. Still, variants of the collective human image in any human society always have a close family resemblance with one another, and very often a set of common features that aren’t subject to change, no matter how much debate piles up around other aspects of the image.

The imaginary figure of Man, conqueror of Nature, parodied in last week’s post is exactly such an image. For the last few centuries, that has been the dominant image of humanity in Western industrial societies. As mentioned in an earlier post in this sequence, Man isn’t you, or me, or anyone else who ever lived or ever will live. He’s a fictional character who plays the central role in the grand mythological narrative at the core of the civil religion of progress, the mythic hero whose destiny it is to conquer Nature and march gloriously onward and upward to the stars.

To refer to the abstraction Man as the protagonist of a hero myth is not merely a figure of speech, by the way. In a brilliant book, Narratives of Human Evolution, paleoanthropologist Misia Landau showed that the stories that have been spun around “the ascent of Man”—think about that phrase for a bit—are in fact classic hero tales embracing all the conventions of that very distinctive genre, complete with all the standard motifs that are traced out in studies of the subject by Joseph Campbell and other scholars of mythology. She examines the classic nineteenth- and twentieth-century accounts of human evolution in detail, and shows how in every case, the facts unearthed by scientific research were hammered into shape to fit a far from scientific narrative.

It probably needs repeating that the narrative in question is not evolution. The evolution of species is one of the facts unearthed by scientific research; in the case of the hominids, in particular, the rambling family tree that led from East African forest apes to the author and readers of this blog has been worked out in ample detail, backed up by an assortment of fossils and artifacts impressive enough that the term “missing link” dropped out of use a long time ago. No, what’s happened is that the normal process by which a successful species adapted to challenging conditions and spread beyond its original ecosystem has been rewritten as the central myth of a civil religion and used to redefine the entire two million years or so of hominid existence in the image of the last three centuries of western history.