Friday, October 30, 2015

Mandatory Lies

I am told that one "Gummo" over at Duncan Black's "brain trust" has called my post this morning "Nazi apologetics".  Which is, by any measure, libel.   I doubt the dolt has read what I wrote, relying on a passage taken out of context to be posted there.   Duncan Black doesn't mind being a venue of lying, which makes me wonder why anyone takes him seriously. 

There is something really perverted about the way in which one is required to lie about these things in the genteel world of the college educated pseudo-left and if you don't lie about it in just the right way you can be called a "Nazi apologist" even as you are citing the mass murders and crimes against humanity that the Nazis perpetrated.  

The fact is, by refusing to pretend that much of the entire range of mass murder committed by the Nazis is insignificant in order to assign unique and higher status to their crimes against Jews, is to say that they were more evil, not less evil.  

The motives behind that lie are a. to excuse the scientific basis on which the Nazis based their theories of the hygienic effect of mass murder and b. to exonerate the scientists and philosophers who Viktor Frankl identified as the origin of the death camps he was held in, which he escaped only because they didn't get round to killing him yet.  The reason for a lot of that  is c. atheists need to lie about those things for various reasons and d. the central role of the theory of natural selection in the Nazi's mass murders has to be covered up.   Well, as I said, it won't be because the evidence is absolutely conclusive on that count and it will be as long as the primary documentation exists.  

I, by the way, wouldn't have written that post unless one of Gummo's good buddies hadn't demanded that I supported what I'd said. I could write another whole series using material I haven't used yet which would support the same conclusions.  Which I did and could support with evidence and which the rump remnant of the Eschaton "brain trust" didn't. 


  1. It's pathetic that the comments at Eschaton have devolved into a discussion of what former regulars there are posting elsewhere.

    1. Could be a symptom that any of the former regulars with much to say have left the building. The 12-year-olds have driven out the adults, it seems to be a pattern whenever the 12-year-olds are allowed to dominate the discussion. When I went to see if the comment to me was accurate, I saw that Duncan's top item was titled How Did People Become Such Assholes. Well, I don't know if he'll give an answer but his blog contains masses of research material to study that question.

      Luckily, I've got to turn off this thing and go back to deal with some 14-year-olds who, in need of remedial work as they are, are still more grown up than Duncan's "brain trust".