My Photo

SWLiP's Blogroll

The Little SWLiPsters

  • 100_0603
    Pics of the SWLiP family and other stuff.

« Get Over Yourselves, Already | Main | More on Mel Gibson's Holocaust Statement »

January 31, 2004



That atrocities just "happened," and that some of the people killed in those atrocities just "happened" to be Jews?

This is a good point. Some people want to believe that no one murdered any Jews, they just died on their own.


You make a very good point worth expanding on.
That the intent was to annihilate a race of people from the earth.

Sasha, writing on a legal oriented blog, tells us that while manner of death - hanging etc..., may be more gruesome than say a death another death -

A serial killer may kill more grislily than someone who's in it for the money; a lynching may be more shocking, or may tell us more about deep political issues, or may be more socially harmful in some sense, than a random drive-by shooting; but all of the above are immoral because they snuff out an innocent life. The same right is violated in each case. Similarly, the reason it's immoral to kill 6 million Jews is because doing so involves 6 million acts of murder. Do I care any extra that they were killed because they were Jewish, or that their killing was systematic? Yes, in various senses, but not in the moral sense.

His bottom line point is that innocent life is snuffed out.

As a legal ""scholar"" then one has to ask why do we more severely punish people for 1rst degree premeditated or especially gruesome cruel murders than for 2nd degree heat of passion murder or for manslaughter like in a barfight, or for self defense murder, or for vehicular manslaughter (DWI), etc.....

In each case a life is snubbed out but (assuming OJ is guilty) it would seem that OJ's murder of his wife is a lot more brutal than a battered wife shooting her husband as he comes home drunk to beat the shit out of her?

The fact that Sasha is stating that on a LEGAL BLOG, and noone has called him on it yet is astounding. Its the most glaringly conspicous weak attempt at moral relevating I've seen.

His argument is that of a 3rd rate intellectual on an otherwise "Intellectual Blog". Which in my opinion shows evidence of something else, the embarrassment some people have when the Holocause is talked about and shown for what it is, while being fully integrated in America today, it acts to isolate us as a separate people and this cause some consternation. Thus, an "intellectual" on his couch can postulate on the horrors that took place, in my opinion trying to prove how much an "intellectual" he is by trying to show he can remove himself from the situation to "analyze it".... LOL...

However, it is true some people, the wrong people perhaps, sometimes talk about it too much, the people in Hollywood like Spielberg underplay the atrocity when they make movies about it.

A Survivor once told a good friend of mine that, "You should see what they really did, it makes that look like nothing"




I'm on your side, SWLiP. The intent and the machinery of Hitler were without precedent. I've stood on a lawn in Dachau near the crematorium, whose soil was composed entirely of ashes. And I was just in Bethlehem and Beit Jala last October, and saw all the posters of suicide bombers flying in the afternoon breeze.

I'm glad, too, that you're speaking up because silence is also an enemy. Just got an antisemitic comment on my own blog likening the Jews to the Nazis. I hope I didn't overreact. I hope I can eventually become rational enough to write sanely about it like you've done here.

Keep it going!


In your post you say that intent is a very important factor in determining the guilt of a crime. In many ways I agree with you, in many ways I don't. In Nazi Germany the intent to kill the jews certainly existed. They wanted to wipe them from Europe completely, and maybe even eventually the world. Does the fact that the victim was Jewish mean that their murder was any more severe? I'm not Jewish, and my "people" are not victims of attempted genocide. Does that mean that were I to be murdered it would be less of an atrocity than the murder of a jew in a concentration camp? My right to live would be infringed upon to the same degree as any one of them. The real immorality of the Holocaust was the sheer numbers of matter.
As far as Mr. Gibson's comment goes, I feel it is obvious from his comments that he readily accepts the holocaust as a tragedy. Don't assume feelings and intentions from such a small blurb. If he doesn't use the same strength of language that you would use, don't accuse him of immorality and lack of caring! Is a single thing he said not true? Atrocities do happen, this is true, war is horrible, this is true. What's wrong with him saying that? Would you want him to cry and blubber everytime the holocaust is mentioned? Some of us out here in the world have accepted what happened. It was horrible, and we should do everything in our power to keep it from happening again. EVERYTHING. Because people will try again. But the crimes against the Jews by the Nazis are on the same plane of "evilness" as any murder done in anger.
Don't label someone as "immoral" or "disturbing", simply because they don't talk about it using the same language as you do! That's a very egocentric view, as though others must talk about it like you do in order for their words and intents to be moral. Morality is a very subjective frame. Me personally, I don't like to talk about the holocaust very much. I went to the holocaust museum in DC and came out quite sobered. I know what happened, and i understand it as well as someone who hasn't been through it can. I am determined to do my part to make sure that never happens again, and I would say the same thing as r. Gibson. Would you say that I am immoral and undervalue the holocaust?




First, thanks for sharing. I think you should take a look at my latest post (entitled, "The Rant Heard 'Round the World") to get a clearer picture of what I'm saying.

Mel Gibson was asked a very direct question: Do you believe the Holocaust happened? He could have given a direct answer, which would have been a simple, "Yes, of course." Or just, "Yes." Instead, he chose to go into something along the lines of, Well, you know, a lot of bad things happened... war is hell... atrocities happened (sort of like the bumper sticker -- "Shit happens"). This strongly suggested that he was not only seeking to dodge the question, but that he was seeking to dilute the significance of the Holocaust in general.

Stalin was a terrible narcissist, like Saddam Hussein, who murdered people to keep himself in power and keep his enemies off-balance. Were those crimes? Yes, of course. Were those individual crimes equal in their immorality to each individual Jewish life snuffed out in the Holocaust? Perhaps. One has to take into account that some (albeit a small fraction) of Stalin's victims were political enemies who might have done the same thing had they been given the opportunity. It's sort of a "no honor among thieves" theory of Stalin's purges, but I admit that pursuing that line of thought would be a digression from the larger point.

What makes the Holocaust special as a crime against humanity is that the organs of a state set out to exterminate an ethnic group; to wipe it off the face of Europe. This was done regardless of political affiliation, economic status, etc. It is perhaps an intangible difference, but a difference nonetheless. That it was done in a particularly cruel and heinous fashion makes the distinction clear as day.

The law does recognize distinctions among murder offenses, even among murders that are committed with "malice aforethought" (first degree murder). Under the laws of most states that still carry the death penalty, imposing the death penalty often requires something a little more than just intent to kill; often, murders that are subject to the death penalty are particularly infamous crimes where the murderer inflicts death in a cruel and heinous manner. Murders that are committed intentionally but in a heat of passion are usually rated as second degree murder or first degree manslaughter, and they are generally not subject even to life imprisonment, so again there is another level of distinction between different types of intentional homicide.

So, your proposition that "crimes against the Jews by the Nazis are on the same plane of "evilness" as any murder done in anger" would be incorrect both from a legal standpoint and from a moral standpoint. The killing "in anger" of a political or military enemy may be evil (it depends on the circumstances -- it could be on the battlefield; it could be Hitler ordering the assassination of Ernst Rohm, who nobody missed; or it could be an assassin sticking an ice-pick in Trotsky, which was quite evil, but at the same time Trotsky knew the game he was playing from early on), but it does not even come close to the evil of grabbing a child from a boxcar, picking the child up by its ankles, and smashing its head against the boxcar, or throwing the child directly into a furnace because it saves money on bullets or gas, or making naked women and children stand in the cold until their feet are frozen to the ground and then slicing them in two when they can't move to the gas chamber (these things are documented at several concentration camps, but especially Treblinka), or packing thousands of people into boxcars and leaving them with no food or water for days, then unloading the survivors and sending them directly to their extermination, all because they were born into the wrong ethnic group.

Paul Davies

These recent events should only make you admire Mel more. It shows he’s one of the few men of principle left in Hollywood. Very few other people would have stood up to the amount of political pressure which he has been put under and hysteria from a public who have never read the objective facts about the holocaust.

As for holocaust denial why is that such a taboo subject?

If he had said that the Japanese didn’t murder millions of Chinese in the Second world war and that the numbers were more like tens of thousands what would you have said?
“What’s your evidence?”, “your opinion goes against the main stream opinion” or “you are clearly wrong”
Would you say it “is about as morally bankrupt as one can get”? I doubt it.

We live in an era when it is ok to depict Christ as having sex with a prostitute.
So why is it “morally bankrupt” when someone doesn’t believe the official version of historic events that are supposed to have happened 60 years ago?
Why does everybody get so shocked when anyone doubts the scale of the holocaust?
Because since we were born we have been bombarded with propaganda about how it was the worst thing that ever happened in history, that anyone who doubts it is the epitome of evil and that even if you read some revisionist material you should feel guilty (almost akin to reading depraved sex act). If you repeat something often enough people will believe you.

What possible purpose could this serve? After all if the revisionists are obviously liars then wouldn’t it be best to expose them?
Why are people made to feel guilty about reading arguments about facts that happened 60 years ago? All the better to stop you from accessing the facts and reaching your own conclusions.

Mike stated:
Thus, an "intellectual" on his couch can postulate on the horrors that took place, in my opinion trying to prove how much an "intellectual" he is by trying to show he can remove himself from the situation to "analyze it".... LOL...

Are you seriously suggesting that you cannot look back at historic events objectively to determine what actually happened?

The depiction of holocaust “deniers” in the media is very political. Their position is not depicted accurately in the media, they are often depicted as people who even deny the camps existed. However, the facts support their position much more strongly. Again this shows great courage from Mel, on a topic which most people would have shied away from, and should be supported by his fans at this time.

Many Jews were killed in the camps and individual people have horrific stories. However most of the mainstream sources themselves support that tens of thousands of Jews were killed certainly not millions. Many of the prison camp members died from typhus and old age. Disease and starvation took its tool in the camps just as it did in the whole of Germany and Poland.

The official figures for Auschwitz have dropped from 4 million to two million miraculously without any mention in the media. Obviously our media is not telling us everything. Again the official sites support that tens of thousands were murdered in Auschwitz non millions. This site below does a good job of explaining the many special interests groups would have in initiating and maintaining this lie.

I would urge you to compare the official and revisionist sites themselves.
By way of introduction please read the following Frequently asked questions?

The journey to truth is a fascinating and sometimes a little frightening. After all when you have seen that there is very little truth in the official holocaust story you will find it hard to be able to trust able to trust governments, official historical and media sources ever again.

Best Regards,


Enough about challenging whether or not the Holocaust happened and whether or not Hitler Killed not only 6 million jews but 12 million people, 6 million who helped the Jewish people during WWII.

Meanwhile, will everybody wake up PLEASE? The same ethnic cleansing has been going on in Darfur, in the Sudan, since February 2003. These posts are from February 2004.
Doesn't ANYBODY CARE ABOUT ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE 21ST CENTURY? The black people in Darfur have been run off their land, their husbands and sons killed, their daughters raped by ARAB MILITANTS (NOT AL QUEDA). I am appalled that the JEWISH COMMUNITY ALL OVER THE WORLD has said nothing regarding this. And yes, I am Jewish and am appalled by the lack of ANYBODY CARING ABOUT THE WOMEN AND KIDS IN DARFUR!!!!!!!!


And I believe MY people, the JEWISH people, should be standing up and SCREAMING AGAINST THIS BLACK ETHNIC CLEANSING GOING ON IN THE SUDAN.

And for the morons who know nothing about the Sudan - we are TALKING ABOUT AFRICA!!!

Signed by Someone who cares maybe too much about the condition of the WORLD!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.