Satire at its finest

Ha! Call me a sell-out if you like, but I've decided to join with those who demand that history not be questioned. I now condemn all those who deny the Holocaust. And as a man not given to half measures I'm upping the ante. It is no longer good enough to condemn those who question the Holocaust. Since there were two Holocausts, both of them must be sacrosanct. Both of them demand that anyone who questions any aspect of either of them deserves to be jailed, broken, and have their life ruined. One is not good enough. It's both or nothing.

What two Holocausts you say? Fact is, there was a Holocaust in each of the World Wars. Before the Holocaust of WWII was the Holocaust of WWI. If you're wondering why you've never heard of it, you need merely look to the anti-Semitic media. As we all know, Jews never get an even break in the media. If only they had a voice! A means to tell us of their suffering!

Never fear, I shall be their voice!


To dwell on the Holocaust of WWII alone is not enough. Any right thinking person must also acknowledge the Holocaust of WWI. To not do so is to dishonour the memory of the victims of a Holocaust. Every aspect of German wickedness delivered upon the innocent Jewish victims was present in both events. Both had gas chambers. Both had soap rendered from human victims. Both had lampshades made from human skin. And crucially both had six million victims. 6,000,000! To not scream in shrill indignation over both of these events is the absolute height of moral depravity.

Consider the enormity of those who only discuss one of these two Holocausts. For mine, it's the moral equivalent of a Palestinian mother who had ten children shot by the Israelis but only wants to talk about the five that she liked. Admit the truth you dreadful woman! The Israelis shot all ten of your children and all that rubbish about choosing five is just embroidery to, a) slur the good name of the Israelis and, b) save you acknowledging the five children you never liked anyway. Honestly, was there ever a people more deserving of their genocide than the Palestinians? The media is right to perpetually paint them as villains. How dare they resist their righteous Jewish masters!? Bloody untermenschen!


Where was I? Oh yes - as in all topics deserving of shrill moral condemnation, silence equals complicity. I'll say it again - Silence Equals Complicity. Anyone who wants to pretend that the first Holocaust isn't the equal of the second may as well just lather up with human soap, settle down in bed next to a human-skin lamp, and read AJP Taylor's History Of The First World War. I read this hateful tome and it appallingly failed to contain a single mention of gas chambers or 6,000,000 Jewish victims. Taylor is a denier pure and simple, and if he isn't dead already, he certainly deserves to be.

And for those who want to start bleating about any other Holocausts, I spit in your face. I have no time for such piss weak 'moral equivalency' arguments. Fuck the massacre of the Armenians under the Donmeh Turks. Fuck the mass starvation of the Kulaks under the Bolsheviks. Were Jews involved in any of these? As victims, that is? NO. As we all know it's only genocides directed at Jews that are worthy of shrill condemnation. And since here we have two Jewish Holocausts with identical features it follows that the shrillness must be doubled. Subsequently those who deny that two Holocausts took place are twice as condemnable as those who only deny one. Don't argue, the logic is bullet proof.

It's always a beautiful thing to have the moral high ground. I am now one up on those who only ever seem to bang on about the Holocaust, as if there was only one of them. Their moral unimpeachability is now laid bare as a sham, a hollow thing of no substance. Anything they say in their defence, ie: it never happened; the numbers don't add up; there's no evidence etc etc, falls at the first hurdle. As they've said themselves in their one-Holocaust campaign, to argue the point is to be a denier - the Worst Thing In The World! Shrillness is all they deserve. Don't argue with them. Just scream '6,000,000 Victims!' How dare they dishonour Their memory! Sickening.

And besides, anyone who disputes this, instantly disappears up their own clacker. What does it mean if one Holocaust is true and the other isn't? That the Jews merely imagined the first one? That they just made it up? What mad inhuman creatures would do this? What possible reason could Jews have for marching around America telling people that they'd been victims of an unparalleled injustice? Why would they do that? I can't think of a single reason. To even suggest that such a thing is possible is a tremendous slur against Jews. A clear case of anti-Semitism. Me - I reject anti-Semitism, I reject Holocaust denial, I embrace all that I am meant to.


Anyone who objects to the 'facts' of the first Holocaust, whether they like it or not, legitimises the questioning of the 'facts' of the second one. Both Holocausts carry nearly identical features - both were conducted against the Jews by the Germans, both had six million victims, both involved the same monstrous atrocities of lampshades, soap, and gas chambers. Between the two alternatives: that Jews concocted two identical stories to paint themselves as the world's greatest victims; or that Germans are the world's greatest monsters who pull the same shit over and over, only one of these is permissible.

As anyone who's been to the cinema knows, Jews are always victims and Germans are always villains. We cannot flip this coin and reverse these descriptions. To do so would be to say that all those Holocaust movies were a load of shit. Perish the thought! Jews cannot be fraudulent villains who've tricked the world. Germans cannot be the victims of a colossal hoax. The very idea is monstrous. Thus we have no choice but to double the charges. Therefore Jewish victimhood climbs to ever greater Olympian heights (of the God-like variety not the sporting one) and German villainy doubles again, plunging to a whole new nadir.

Is Dante still alive? Someone should get in touch with him and tell him to rewrite his Inferno with an added 34th circle of hell reserved just for Germans. God knows they deserve it.So! I stake out my territory. I take the highest of high moral ground. I refuse, unlike all those other people who question unquestionable orthodoxies, to deny anything. It's all or nothing. Either both are true, or both are questionable. And I reject the latter. No fence sitting! Silence Equals Complicity. And so, I point my finger - J'Accuse! Acknowledge both Holocausts or be hoist on your own petard of Holocaust denial. Ignorance is no excuse! Anything other than accepting the truth of both Holocausts is no different to pushing that gas chamber button. Twice!

Burn in Hell you deniers of the Holocausts!

 

First of all i am not the author. Sum1 sent this to me. But isnt it obviously tongue in cheek? Try reading it again i dont understand how u could miss the theme

 

Um dude read it just one more time carefully. Then consult the thread title. He was actually spot on

 

Ha dont ever read camus or u will surely be befuddled

 

Reading comprehesion comes in handy eh bro haha? But come on dude i dont agree with it either but that doesnt mean u should close ur mind off like that. Knee jerk reactions r the antithesis to an adult discussion

 

I am starting to c ur point but i didnt write it

 

Ya u probably shoulda read it me thinks

 

O i c gotcha how very efficient of u haha

 

Ha im the same way i cant be bothered to put my full attention into sum stuff

 

Ha i dont even think thats neccessary as u said u already grasp the point of it all

 

Thats cuz there wasnt one during ww1. There i spelled it out 4 every1 haha

 

Never ever blame the weed dude haha how dare u.

Ha but seriously from wat i gather from it the author is highlighting wat he believes is the lack of credible evidence for the holocaust. Hes basically likening his claim of another holocaust to the initial claim of the 1st holcaust, that being it didnt happen but its social suicide to say that so nobody can argue it or even have a civil discussion.

So all in all ya the author is a denier. I personally am not but i thought he or she had an entertaining writing style and that it could open up discussion. Where that discussion leads to idk or care really as long as its mature ya feels me