The Closing of the Collective Mind
Stories We Tell Ourselves, or Stories We Are Ourselves, Part Four
Story is character. Character is story. But which comes first? There is no story without characters. But how can we know a character without a story?
If a tree falls. . . In the beginning was Logos. How could we ever know Christ, if Jesus never said or did anything; or if no one told us about it?
And yet: before story can shape character, character has to give rise to story. The egg cometh before the chicken.
Facts can take us to Truth (or at least help to banish untruth); but Truth has no reliance on mere fact. Facts come and go with points of view.
The Holocaust narrative—any narrative—matters because it has been used to build a compound around our consciousness. It compounds a form of belief, and a state of denial.
Truth-seeking may well begin with getting the facts straight about this or that story. Yet, as every truth-seeker knows, it ends with the impossibility that mere facts can ever encompass or represent Reality.
Facts only make sense, only have meaning, when they are arranged within the context of narrative. And narrative always misrepresents Reality, sooner or later. Since the primary function of narratives is to question and eventually replace previous narratives, all narratives have to submit to the same fate in the end.
Neti, neti: At the end of the last turtle, there is only infinite space.
Thesis question: Has the injunction-agenda behind the Holocaust narrative to “Never Forget” been more instrumental in preventing State crimes since WW2, or in facilitating them?
I guess that means it’s time for every revisionist historian’s most go-to quote:
“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” (George Orwell, 1984)
So far, feedback to last week’s post has been minimal, though not quite non-existent. What there has been (including a few private correspondences which I had before posting it) have confirmed that many other researchers and readers are (quietly) aware of anomalies within the Holocaust Narrative; but that they choose not to talk about them, for reasons both obvious and not so obvious.
One or two have expressed surprise at my willingness to talk about them, to wade into a radioactive swamp of disinfo, lies, and ideological convictions (of both sorts!), for reasons that remain unclear. Hopefully, these reasons are slowly revealing themselves as I proceed. To clarify and recap:
1) I am not interested in “denying” or “affirming” the Holocaust narrative. As stated last week, denial and affirmation only prop each other up, both being attempts to bolster belief by using (and/or suspending) disbelief.
2) My aim is subtler but also broader. Going after State-sanctioned (SS) narratives does mean, sooner or later, addressing (whether by conscious choice or simply “happenstance”) the biggest, baddest SS narrative of them all.
3) I say this without reservation, because the Holocaust narrative is still (so far) the only SS narrative that you can do time (in roughly twenty countries) for questioning. If the crime were called “Holocaust inquiry,” it would be both a more accurate description and more honest: i.e., more revealing of the agenda at work (as well as making clearer why it’s worth going out on a limb to bring people’s attention to it).
4) It seems self-evident to me that, where new laws are created to prevent the questioning of an official version of history: a) something is being covered up; b) powerful interests are at stake, interests that are independent of the quest for truth.
The real focus, then—and the reason for talking about the Holocaust™—relates to subtler questions, including two ideas raised last week, which I will now re-state for the record:
1) Any thesis requires an antithesis to be tested against, which potentially leads to synthesis. When an antithesis is denied, synthesis is no longer possible, and a thesis remains untested and unproven. It may then reign supreme, if supremely illegitimate, like a dictator who needs no consensus, having been empowered by a cryptocratic oligarchy.
2) Illegitimate State-sanctioned narratives are invariably hooked into State-sanctioned ideologies; one way or another, they are “weaponized,” i.e., used against the people by way of indoctrinating them.
3) Weaponization is often preceded by criminalization (think of LGBTQ). Every taboo is also a totem, created by the State to restructure the cognitive architecture of the collective, the better to colonize and weaponize it.
(I will return to the subject of totem and taboo to unpack it some more in a future post. Inch’Allah.)
A Silly Story
“The innocent were falsely accused of dishonesty . . . and were relentlessly pursued by a merciless, mendacious and malicious bureaucracy. It is the coldness that shocks most—the imperious arrogance and the mercilessness that capture institutions and cowards in authority, when a single narrative closes our collective minds to nuance, to experience and to the inconvenient truths.” —Andrew Bridgen, MP, “Excess Death Trends,” Westminster Hall, 16 January, 2024
Getting back to the devil in the details: the major departure from the surviving report of the Wannsee conference is the manner in which the film explicitly defines “the final solution to the Jewish question” (caps removed) as the mass-extermination of millions of Jews via gas chambers. The Conspiracy film repeatedly mentions that these gas chambers have already been tested, and even includes a moment of Nazi™ merriment at Eichmann’s description of Jewish bodies turning pink after being gassed.[1]
According to Dupont’s The Myth of the Wannsee Conference: A Study of the Wannsee Conference Minutes (which seems to stick closely to the minutes), “the Wannsee Conference was actually just an administrative meeting to facilitate shipping Jews out of Germany to the newly-occupied territories in Russia, and nothing more” (p. 6).
The minutes indicate that the Wannsee meeting:
Took an interest in saving Jewish lives by warning of the “dangers” of emigrating during wartime
ordered that Jews aged over 65 and German Jews decorated or wounded World War I veterans not be evacuated East
ordered that all Jews working in critical munitions and other factories not be evacuated East.
Only in one place do the minutes of the Wannsee meeting suggest (quote) “appropriate action” for a small number of Jews—but, given the context of the quote, the evidence is overwhelming that it was meant that these Jews were to be sterilized so that they could not reproduce (p. 7).
The first question we need to ask, then, is how “sincerely wrong” were the filmmakers involved with Conspiracy, and how much were they insincerely and intentionally distorting the facts?
Beyond doubt, the scriptwriter, Loring Mandell, and the director, Frank Pierson, would have studied the minutes closely (at least in English translation). The actors are less likely to have taken the time, or felt the need, to do so. But even they might have done a half hour’s research (this was 2000, so search engines did exist), at least enough to discover the following, from The Jewish Telegraph Agency, January 1992:
An Israeli Holocaust scholar has debunked the Wannsee Conference, at which top Nazi officials are said to have gathered at a villa in a Berlin suburb in 1942 to draw the blueprints of the “Final Solution.” According to Professor Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Wannsee was a meeting but “hardly a conference,” and “little of what was said there was executed in detail.” Bauer addressed the opening session of an international conference held here to mark the 50th anniversary of the decision to carry out the “Final Solution.” But it was not made at Wannsee, the Czech-born scholar said. “The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at. Wannsee was but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder,” he said.
Which only goes to show that even Israeli Holocaust scholars are denied airtime, when what they have to say goes against the myth being generated.
Where the Truth Lies
“As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.” —Andrew Bridgen on the mRNA “jab,” 2023 (Tweet quoted by the Guardian)
Did those involved in Conspiracy who did read the minutes for the Wannsee meeting believe that the report implicitly referred to the extermination of European Jews, and that any talk of it, and of gas chambers, had been stricken from the record? And did they then reason that they were justified, even obliged, in adding explicit references to these things for their dramatic embellishment, in the interests of Truth, with a big “T”?
Or did they simply decide to lie?
Oddly, it is not quite either/or. When all of History™ asserts, time and time again until we are blue in the face from hearing it, that six million Jews were systematically exterminated by the National Socialist regime; that death camps employing gas chambers (as well as mass shooting and starvation) were the means to this grisly end; and that “the Final Solution” (caps restored) was the euphemistic name given to this agenda; it becomes easy enough to see, or at least imagine, how such a lens would almost irresistibly frame any and all evidence, however vague or insubstantial, and transform it into confirmation of a pre-existing narrative, known as: “the Holocaust.”
“Casting a spell is very much to do with having certain key-words. It’s very extraordinary. That’s what a magician would have said in olden times. Words making the spell. Misusing the word ‘Semitic,’ for example. Obviously that refers to the Arab-Palestinian people and not to the White Ashkenazi Khazars who’ve come to Israel. That word has to be misued, it is always misused in our culture. And the word ‘holocaust’ has to be misused. That means fiery sacrifice. . . . These key terms get misused in the enchantment process that people are given.” —Nicholas Kollerstom, talking to Carolyn Yeager
The surviving Wannsee minutes do refer to a “final solution” (once, no caps in the English translation); they do refer to plans for “evacuation” and “sterilization” (including forced) of some (though far from all) Jews in Germany and the Nazi™-occupied neighboring countries. In the light of what (we are told) happened, might it seem reasonable, even necessary, for the filmmakers (as well as who knows how many other historians) to simply assume that this was what was “implied” at the Wannsee conference?
On the other hand, is there any slope slipperier, on the road of historical research, than that of assumption?
As if to make it easier for this assumption to pass for fact, Conspiracy includes a moment in which a young SS officer complains at the bureaucratic use of the term “evacuation.” Since he personally had thousands of Jews shot, he says, words should be used to say what they mean.
(Irony duly noted. An example of a bit of “revelation of method” on the part of the filmmakers? Or simply an unavoidable slip of the unconscious?)
There is nothing to be found in the Wannsee minutes suggesting that “evacuation” was being used as a euphemism for murder. All that leaves is artistic license, boldly taken with the kind of historical hindsight that is anything but 20-20 (but believes it is).
What we appear to have here is an exemplary case of a pre-existing narrative shaping the facts, rather than facts being allowed to shape a narrative.
(Over the Paywall, a detour into Davos’ # 1 threat in 2024 and Andrew Bridgen’s “excess deaths” report in the UK, and the possible connection to the mRNA injections, as a modern “holocaust narrative” that is anything but State-approved.)