The Holocaust Myth

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had a week to waste, so he sponsored a conference on the Holocaust, which is to say that he set up a week of noise to denounce historical fact in favor of his fantasy. It would be pointless here to rebut the lies and hypocrisy of that group, but it is necessary to consider the motive and goals of the new Fascism.

When I gave this essay the title of ‘The Holocaust Myth’, I was not referring to the well-documented genocide of Jews and other “undesirables” by the Nazis. Between General Eisenhower’s specific orders to film the camps and document the crimes he feared would be diminished in time or conveniently forgotten as Germany rebuilt, and the Nazi’s own ghastly obsession with documenting the efficiency of their “Final Solution”, there is no doubt – whatsoever – that the Nazis deliberately and systematically abused and dehumanized the Jews through laws and the camps, in the diabolical hope that they might exterminate a race of people. The focus I want to direct is on the other myths of the Holocaust. Myths like the notion that Israel’s existence is the cause of unrest in the Middle East, which requires the deaths of as many Jews as possible to resolve the matter. Myths like the notion that Iran deserves nuclear weapons, and is morally equal to the United States in its accountability and responsibility for such weapons. Myths like the notion that the United States has no business “interfering” in Muslim nations, even when specifically asked by the governments there, or to remove a tyrant who had committed clear acts of war against America. Myths like the notion that the Jihadists can produce anything, anywhere, but a bloodbath.

The Holocaust Conference in Iran therefore needs to be seen for what it is, a tactical propaganda move in a continuing war against Israel and the West. It demonstrates why it is so wrong for the Mainstream Media to declare themselves neutral, granting a moral equivalency between America and forces which murder Americans, and why it is wrong to attack the President in time of war, in hopes of political gains at home. In 2003, after the successful invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein, the Middle East understood that the United States had taken control of the initiative, and was dictating events, just as President Bush promised, at the times and manner chosen by the United States. Because of this, Moammar Qaddafi in Libya voluntarily surrendered his WMD programs, Syria backed down from the border of Iraq, correctly believing its own invasion was imminent, and even the mullahs in Iran toned down their rhetoric, hoping to not anger the United States into a war which seemed all too likely to destroy the Jihadists’ base. But because the Democrats in Congress refused to support the war for reasons which came completely from expediency issues, and because the media like CNN and CBS and the New York Times became actively opposed to the American government, the Jihadists found hope for their survival through the cowardice and cavil of vain and shallow men.

A clear example of such an abandonment of American ideals is the reaction to the ascension of Ahmadinejad to the Presidency of Iran. A member of the group which seized the U.S. Embassy in Teheran during the Carter Administration, it is very likely that as a young thug, Ahmadinejad held a gun to the head of captive American citizens, an act which all too well symbolizes the present desires and intentions of the Ahmadinejad regime today. Not one Democrat or Liberal has condemned Ahmadinejad, treating as reasonable his recent ultimatum to President Bush; indeed, the consensus from the Left has been to suggest that President Bush should meet with Ahmadinejad, negotiate on his terms, none of which would be palatable to a Western secular democratic republic. No leading Democrat has condemned the practice of Honor Killings, nor of the execution of a teenage girl in Iran this year, nor the training and funding of terrorists exported to Iraq to attack U.S. and Coalition forces, as well as Iraqi citizens. Because of this attitude, to allow Iran to say and do exactly as it pleases, the Left has betrayed the military forces in Iraq and undermined the valid doctrines established by the Bush Administration. And that has emboldened Iran’s vicious mullahs to the point where they can openly begin a campaign against Israel. We are not to the point of military action, of course, but that is waiting on two key conditions the Jihadists expect to see fulfilled in short order; the significant drawdown of American military forces in the region, especially Iraq, and the testing of a battlefield-ready nuclear weapon. The total lack of resistance and outrage to the Holocaust Conference has encouraged the Imams to plan for greater and bloodier goals.

There is abundant precedent for the upcoming campaign to wipe out Israel. The 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars all began their planning on the hope for a newer, Muslim-led ethnic cleansing. Because of Iraq, the Jihadists hope to keep the U.S. out. Because of Chechnya, the Jihadists hope to keep the Russians out. Because of commerce, the Jihadists hope to be well-armed with state-of-the-art weapons and C3I capability. Syria will grab Lebanon and Iran will control Iraq, by proxy more than outright invasion, but in a matter of months the region could devolve to utter chaos. Casualties will be high, especially civilians, and all because politics was too tempting for the Left to remember or care about American promises or commitments. And it all began last week, with the myth that Iran only wants peace and stability. A myth which will introduce a new, Muslim, holocaust.

Modern Education

It has been a long time since I disagreed with Hugh Hewitt, but Monday was such a day. Hugh had Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College on his radio show. Much of what Dr. Arnn said I agreed with, until at Hugh’s urging he produced his list of what he called “serious old-fashioned” schools. In short, Dr. Arnn divided schools into four groups by two qualities: Serious versus Unserious schools, and Old-fashioned versus Modern. Dr. Arnn went on to state that a school was “serious” only if it instilled character and values into a student, and that Old-fashioned meant holding, even defending traditional Christian values. Again, so far no problem. But from there Dr. Arnn turned into a blatant propagandist, claiming that only about ten schools would meet the standard for Serious Old-Fashioned school. I found serious problems with his arrogance on that point. The sheer fact that none of the military academies met Dr. Arnn’s cut should tell you how short-sighted his list was. Perhaps he was merely being polite, but Mr. Hewitt made no attempt at all to correct any of Dr. Arnn’s misstatements or omissions. I certainly noticed that Dr. Arnn favored schools on the east and west coasts, so it surprised me that Hewitt did not point out how much of the country Dr., Arnn was – however inadvertently – insulting. For example, here in Texas any serious college evaluation must include Baylor University in Waco, Texas A&M in College Station, and while Dr. Arnn mentioned the University of Dallas he somehow missed the University of Texas at Dallas, a fast rising star in many reviews. Dr. Arnn had not a word of mention about Houston Baptist University, or Lady of the Lake University, or Trinity College in San Antonio. And that is limiting the field to the Christian perspective, which would frown on things like coed dorms or an agnostic/atheistic worldview, which would exclude some otherwise fine universities.

The reader will note that I have not yet mentioned online studies, which I consider an equal if not superior option to the nominal experience for many students. So far as I know, Hillsdale does not offer even a single online course, so it is poor indeed on that matter of addressing student needs, but in the main it is obvious that many people who consider themselves experts simply prefer to promote the schools they know, which brings me to my question for the day:

In terms of building a young person into an intelligent and responsible adult, what three colleges or universities would you consider the best? Please share your reasons.

Lame TV Shows

Well, I should have known it would happen. I made the mistake of watching the season finale of “The Amazing Race”, but it was neither Amazing nor really much of a race. The show, in case you were wise than me and did not waste your time on it, works like this: Twelve teams of two start out and go from place to place, pretty much around the world, and gradually teams are eliminated until the last few survivors make a run for the prize – a million dollars for first place. There is no word on whether any of the other teams get money, although being first reach each of the twelve “pit stops” gets a prize of some kind, usually trip-related (someone wanna explain to me why someone who has been running around the world for literally tens of thousands of miles, would want to go on another trip anytime soon?). That general plan could actually work, except that the guys running the show have thoroughly mucked it up.

As an example, Sunday’s finale should have been the best run of all, with lots of challenges and wholly dependant on the players’ skill and daring. Instead, CBS’ finale was as stupid as Dan Rather’s ‘fake but credible’ forged documents. First, the players had to make their way from Barcelona to Paris; that part was interesting, especially to see Team Bama move from third to first by going to Lyon Airport instead of De Gaulle. But from there the race was a waste. In short, it came down to getting seats on an overbooked plane. I am not a racist, but it does strike me as a wee bit odd that the white people were able to get on the plane with “no seats”, but not the team of two black women. Considering what was at stake, the “Amazing Race” people totally blew that decision and managed to make the race a matter of chance. It comes down to who gets the plane to New York, then which cab has the EZ-tag. For crying out loud, the show goes around the world, and it’s decided by neither skill nor character? That’s CBS’ idea of a winner?

Maybe next year “The Amazing Race” should just have the contestants use scratch-off cards. It would be just as dramatic, but faster and cheaper.

TV is doing that a lot these days. I love the CSI shows, but not so much when they decide they need to use sex to sizzle up the show, which seems to happen more and more. And I can’t stand Letterman or Leno anymore; they pander to their NY and LA crowds like the rest of America doesn’t exist. And the news? Now that Tony Snow has come to Washington, improving the quality of White House Press Briefings, even Fox News sucks for the most part, and the “Big Three” (ABC, CBS, NBC) are a total loss. And CNN might as well be pulling paychecks from Ahmadinejad, and for all I know, they are.

Where are the good TV shows anymore?