Mark Oppenheimer And The Holocaust

 

Look At Me- I’m Beautiful

Mark Oppenheimer And The Holocaust

by

R.E. Prindle

 

Weber has a deep admiration for Jews- us powerful, cohesive,brilliant Jews- but it’s an admiration that could never survive actually knowing us.

-Mark Oppenheimer

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/7721/the-denial-twist-part-iv/

     I can’t imagine who would take the holocaust seriously and that means Jews as well as gentile ‘Holocaust deniers.’  I can’t imagine who would make a fetish of the number 6,000,000.  Who can actually prove such a precise figure?   I don’t have to imagine anymore:  I’ve got Mark Oppenheimer as a living avatar.

     Mark has taken time out from what I presume is a busy life to write a four part series about ‘the leading proponents of Holocaust revisionism- leading proponents?, what fantasy is this?- Bradley Smith and Mark Weber.  I’ve actually heard of the latter proponent but not the former.

     If  Brad and Mark are obsessed with anti-Judaism Mark Oppenheimer is definitely obsessed with being Jewish as the above quote demonstrates.  If it’s a question of being crazy, which Oppenheimer seems to believe, it’s not who’s crazy but who’s craziest.

     To quote Oppenheimer:  These people are not stupid or cynical…if they scale the wall that they’ve built for themselves and look around at the world outside the playground, they might even do some good.

     Good advice that Oppenheimer might paste to his own mirror.

     Speaking of Brad M.O. says: …he was not ashamed to have lived with and loved a Jew….  C’mon, M.O., hop that wall.  For us, on the other side of the wall, the most important question is not, are you a Jew?  That’s a Jewish obsession.  If you read Jewish magazines the big question is how does Judaiism stop intermarriage.  Horrors, Mark, I’m married to a Jew.  Are you?

     The nineteenth century mythologist  and quondam lawyer, J.J. Bachofen, was always amazed that two lawyers using the same laws and the same facts could come to diametrically opposed opinions.  What holds for law apparentely according to M.O. doesn’t hold for history.  In history there can be only one opinion- Mark’s.  He quotes ‘one professor of mine’ who had worked as a ‘public historian’, whatever that is, referring to Mark Weber:

     Beware the history buff.  the buff- as opposed to the scholar, or the curious peruser, or the diletante- eats up all this knowledge but can’t properly digest.  He (most buffs seem to be male) cannot keep facts in perspective; he fails at precisely the task the scholar is good at, figuring out which facts matter most, which piece of evidence to privilege,  what facts to weigh more than what.  So a particular truth- that there are a lot of Jewish executives in Hollywood, or African-Americans commit more crimes, per capita, than (W)hites- assumes an outsized importance.  With no ability to create proper contexts for facts, the buff is in danger of becoming a conspiracy theorist or a bigot, or both.

     When I was a ranker we had a word for this sort of solipsistic thinking.  I think the initials were BS but I’m not sure if I’m remembering correctly.  What sort of proper context does the ‘scholar’ create for the fact that a disproportionate by far number of executives in Hollywood are Jewish anyway?  There must be consequences.  What are they?  Can we agree on them?  Not very likely Mark.  Does our learned ‘public historian’ have a lock on creating proper contexts?  Obviously all contexts are not created equal so what makes the ‘public historian’  the judge-penitent on the issue.  Oh right, right, he has the good digestive tract that doesn’t produce you know what.

     I went to college where ‘a learned historian’ told me not to worry about the teaching which was all hokum anyway, the thing you’re here for is to learn method.  I took him at his word and went after the method, I could get the facts later.  Stupid old history buff me, hey?  Of course M. O.’s expert was probably a ‘powerful, cohesive, brilliant Jew.’  Hey, come to think about it, so was mine.  Cohen, Cohen…is that a Jewish name?

     M.O. has a PhD but he is still capable of interjecting crap like this into his essay:

One scholar (not buff mind you) of Holocaust denial told me, quoting a friend, that Holocaust deniers they “are like the shit you step on in the street- it has no relevance unless you fail to scrape it off before entering your house.”

     Oh, oh.  It wasn’t the Holocaust denial scholar who was so vulgar nor M.O., no, too much culture, he was quoting a friend and M.O. was quoting him.  Thrice removed and therefore pure.  Good technique, Mark.  ‘Look at me, I’m so beautiful.’

     If I had to choose between J.J. Bachofen and Mark Oppenheimer it would J.J. everytime.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s