revisionism

‘We Have Always Fought’: Challenging the 'Women, Cattle and Slaves’ Narrative

An incredible article about the myths of women’s role in history, our biases from patriarchal education and media, and how not addressing those biases creates a feedback loop in fiction that perpetuates sexism.

A must read!

We forget what the story’s about. We erase women in our stories who, in our own lives, are powerful, forthright, intelligent, terrifying people. Women stab and maim and kill and lead and manage and own and run. We know that. We experience it every day. We see it.

[T]he trouble is, it’s often hard to sort out what we actually experienced from what we’re told we experienced, or what we should have experienced. We’re social creatures, and fallible.

http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/

super-nerd-wants-to-fight reblogged your post swimminindaprivilege: finneydsd repli… and added:

I’m confused, isn’t revisionism a good thing in the historical field?

It’s honestly been reduced in popular culture to a buzzword to insult whoever you think is on the “other side” of the sociopolitical tug-of-war American educational “canon” has become.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good brief summary of what it actually means:

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.

Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.

History is constantly being revised and re-examined, I’m just trying to lend some transparency to the process and show how it serves the status quo, or alternately, can be used to undermine it.

As I’ve pointed out before, using 300 year old scholarship to teach in classrooms today is pretty in need of revision. Then again, what the extreme right did to make textbooks show “the sunny side of slavery” was also revision.

The problem with using “revision” as an insult it that it’s based on the false premise that something older is more true. Which as you might notice, is counter to the actual process of writing, creating, and learning history.

[T]he right has gotten almost everything about the March wrong, in a way that’s actually shocking, though I guess it shouldn’t be. Maybe we should be glad that they start from the premise that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is a great American hero, albeit one they think his commemorators are misrepresenting. Maybe it’s progress that a man once reviled as a Communist and thoroughly disrespected by the mainstream media – as evidenced by his hostile interrogation on “Meet the Press” the Sunday before the March – is now lauded by righties from Bill O’Reilly to Laura Ingraham to David Brooks as a beloved hero whose dream has been betrayed – but by the left, not by them.

These faux-devotees of the great MLK, these history-challenged concern trolls, remember only King’s admittedly inspiring line about wanting his children judged “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” They don’t remember that he was a radical, in fact, a socialist. That he was about to launch a multiracial Poor People’s Campaign that was unpopular even with some of his top lieutenants, who didn’t think the movement was ready to venture beyond black issues. They forget the New York Times editorialized against his joining the movement against the Vietnam War (a move that even some of his closest allies, including Bayard Rustin, second guessed). Their tributes never mention that he died supporting a strike by mostly African American sanitation workers in Memphis.
—  Joan Walsh, “The right’s outrageous MLK ignorance.”

anonymous asked:

You're obviously an incredibly intelligent person, wonderfully compassionate to the people and animals you love, highly creative, and stunningly beautiful woman. Yet your identification with the Third Reich puzzles me. While I don't agree with your views, I respect that everyone sees the world through a different lens. So, my intent is not to attack you or your views. Instead, I wonder if you could share your thoughts on the Final Solution (a.k.a., Holocaust).

Well, your seemingly simple question defies any equally simple answer. Why? Because, on one hand, there we have the ‘Final Solution’; the alleged ‘masterplan’ for exterminating Jewry that was said to be put into effect at the infamous Wannsee Conference in 1942 with the (unwritten) consent of Adolf Hitler. And then we have the ‘Holocaust’, or ‘Shoah’, that is believed to be the mass murder of six million Jews executed by Germans according to the plan of the ‘Final Solution’. Even though both events are said to be factual, and complementing eachother (no ‘Holocaust’ without a ‘Final Solution’, and vice versa), I believe they have to be considered as two different issues.
It’s certainly true that there was a Conference taking place at the Wannsee near Berlin, on January 20th, 1942. And I don’t debate the ‘Judenfrage’ was being discussed there, with the intent of coming to an agreement about what to do with the Jews living under German rule (especially those living in the recently conquered areas of the Soviet Union). In the final statement of this Conference, you can read about proposals for deportation and forced labor, you won’t find any reference to genocide, though. I am well aware of statements, be them from Hitler himself, or from Himmler or from Goebbels, talking about the extermination of Jewry in Europe (as a consequence of the World War). Whether or not they spoke about any physical extermination, remains an issue for debate ever since. However, even the most ardent Anti-German ‘historians’ of our day and age won’t tell us that the Jews lived under immediate threat of death once the NSDAP started to govern Germany in 1933. Hence it is questionable if the references to 'exterminating Jewry’ were meant to be literal or if they were a figure of speech. Be that as it may, I have no doubts the 'Final Solution’ for the ’Judenfrage’ was being contemplated among the top echelons of the Third Reich, and rightly so.
The ghastly influence of Judaism, in Europe and elsewhere, needs to be adressed by everyone who cares, and is concerned, for the welfare of his/her own people. From among the influential statesmen of the 20th century, nobody but Adolf Hitler dared to challenge world Jewry in an attempt to liberate the German nation from the stranglehold of plutocracy. When it comes to the ‘Holocaust’ though, I am much less convinced of its historic authenticity and plausibility. There are way too many question marks and loose ends attached to the ‘Holocaust’ to make this story add up convincingly. You can read quite a bit about it here, for instance: Institute for Historical Review, Friedrich Paul Berg, Ernst Zündel .
I don’t deny that Jews were being killed during World War 2. So were millions of combatants as well as civilians of many other nations, of Germany first and foremost. Considering that history books are written by the victors, I do remain way too sceptical to accept any ‘Holocaust’-story as ‘historic truth’ and a matter of fact. Jews being gassed to death at the concentration camp of Dachau that evidentially did not have any functioning gas chamber; then turned into soap and lamp shades at the concentration of Buchenwald which were proven to be a fake; just to have miraculously survived the death camp of Auschwitz so they may tell us of the ‘most singular crime against humanity’ ever since (for a fee, of course)…? I simply don’t buy it. Especially in light of the legislation in some countries in Europe, and Canada too, that actually outlaws ‘Holocaust denial’ under the penalty of paying a considerable fine or having to go to jail, actually. If the ‘Holocaust’ is true, then this truth can stand the test of any debate on its own and does not need to be made sacrosanct by law. As far as I know, the ‘Holocaust’ is the only ‘historic event’ that has to be accepted blindly and at face value in the immediate sense, because any independent and critical research of the ‘Holocaust’ is not only villified but penalized.
For as long as we have no critical or open debate of the ‘Holocaust’, not only among historians but in our society as well, I am inclined to doubt whatever story of a Jewish ‘survivor’ I see or hear. It doesn’t suffice to say, the ‘Holocaust’ is real because ‘everyone knows and says so’. It’s not everyone who says so.
Let’s not forget that only a few centuries ago, Galileo Galilei was deemed a heretic because he dared to question ‘what everyone knows and says so’. He was put on trial and convicted for his research on the motion of the planets; he was made to repent and to deny his own findings, but still: the Earth moves! Distant generations may look upon the ‘Holocaust’ as we look upon the geocentric model from the days of yore, and discard it in the dustbin of history accordingly.

There is no difference between a ‘Jewish’ person and a 'Greek’ person. None but name. They are all of the same “european” bloodline derived from a people once called Edomites now called Caucasians, the first of which being Esau written of in the bible Gen.25:25. What does antisemitism mean ? Seriously, what’s a Semite ?? There’s no such thing…
—  Shit People Respond With

anonymous asked:

has any socialist country ever at any point completely put an end to the exchange of labor-power or private property?

Nah.

I’ll address the issue of private property first, and would venture to say that no socialist country ever, to any extent, did away with private property.  Keep in mind that, in the Marxist framework, private property is not private because it is individually-owned, but because it entails the separation of labor from the means of production.  In the absence of conscious control of the means of production by the workers, it cannot be said that private property has been done away with (and thus the institutionalization of the rule of a party that ostensibly rules for the proletariat and embodies its interests does not nullify private property).

Since the question is concerned with the actual practice of the socialist countries, let’s take the USSR as an historical example to look at.  Even if we conceded the idea that a state run “for” but not by the working class resulted in the abolition of private property, Lenin was pretty adamant about the fact that such a precondition did not exist in the USSR.  

In December of 1922, Lenin spoke of the Soviet state as the “apparatus which…we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil”.

In March of 1923 Lenin stated the following,

The most harmful thing would be to rely on the assumption that we know at least something, or that we have any considerable number of elements necessary for the building of a really new state apparatus, one really worthy to be called socialist, Soviet, etc.”

Those are some pretty scathing critiques by Lenin, which are unfortunately often overlooked by many who wish to paint a perfectly rosy picture of the USSR.  The ML argument in defense of the USSR hinges on the idea that the Soviet state was one of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which equated to (indirect) political rule by the proletariat, and thus property under the control of the state could not rightly be considered “private.”  I find it very hard to believe however, that a state which, by Lenin’s own admission, was effectively the same one that was apparently overthrown, can simultaneously be a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat.  A lot of anti-revisionist critiques of the USSR involve the idea that something analogous to the Cultural Revolution was desperately needed in the immediate post-War period, but let’s be real, something like that would have been needed decades earlier.

Now, as for the issue of the exchange of labor power, I think this too was a reality for the entirety of the USSR’s history.  I’ve remarked a few times that competition for labor power existed and was evidenced by the proliferation of piece-rate wages in the USSR in the 30s.  But I get asked a lot though, if labor power was a commodity (under either Stalin, or Brezhnev, or both), then why was there no unemployment?  Raya Dunayevskaya wrote a number of papers on the USSR and concluded that “the unemployed army hides out in the countryside,” but was disguised by official Soviet pronouncements that declared unemployment non-existent.  Paresh Chattopadhyay also concludes that unemployment existed but was hidden,

“Anessential argument to prove the post-capitalist character of the Soviet economy is that, unlike capitalism, this economy provided job rights and full employment to the laborers.  Let us, first, take the Soviet definition of full-employment (as summarized by an American sovietologist) It is a situation where there is a job for everybody who wants it, where labor is allocated rationally across the economy, and where it is efficiently utilized at the work place (Bornstein 1978: 5).  It should be clear that the Soviet economy did not fulfill these conditions.  First of all, even job rights could not prevent the admitted existence of unemployment at a non-negligible level in the Soviet Union’s eastern republics.  For example, at the end of the 1970s, it was estimated that between a quarter and a fifth of the working age population was unemployed in Azerbaizhan and Armenia, and that in Tadzhikistan the percentage of working people without a job was two and a half times the national average.  For the economy as a whole there was no full employment; there was, particularly beginning with the 1970s, labor shortage accompanied by an unutilized or hoarded labor at the level of the production unit (Manevich, 1985a: 59-60). If full employment of labor would signify at least a balance of the demand for labor with the existing labor resources, that balance was never attained in the USSR, where the failure to reach full employment was seen in the “opposite feature [protivopolozhnaya cherta] – a systematic shortage of labor power” (Manevich, 1985b: 21; italics added).   On the other hand, this overall macroeconomic over-full employment went hand in hand with inefficient utilization of labor power in the economy.  Within the production units, fulfilling the plan at any cost, coupled with low labor productivity, resulted in surplus or hoarded labor, a kind of disguised unemployment where laborers’ earnings would really amount to unemployment benefits. 

It is indeed odd job security and full employment of the hired wage laborers should qualify as non-capitalist, if not socialist, by Marxists (For Marx post-capitalist labor cannot be hired (wage) labor, it can only be associated labor).  This would imply that in wartime capitalism, with (over) full employment of wage labor, there is an interruption in the process of extraction of surplus value, and that, to that extent, capital ceases to exist (at least for the war period). And not only in wartime capitalism.  In peacetime (national) “socialist” Germany, based on juridical private ownership in the means of production, there was over-full employment of labor beginning with 1937-1938, and labor being “a scarce commodity” (as in the USSR), “competition for workers led to firms making wage offers which ran counter to the basic Nazi economic policy” (Grunberger 1983: 245).” (Chattopadhyay, Paresh. “The “Non-Capitalist” Position And The Soviet Reality.” In The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience: Essay in the Critique of Political Economy. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994.)

My understanding of the other socialist countries is that they all either followed to a tee the economic layout of the USSR (much of the Eastern Bloc, Cuba, etc.) or did not even possess a requisite degree of economic centralization to rationally be considered “socialist” by shoddy ML standards (Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, etc.), so I must conclude that the socialist countries did not do away with unemployment or private property.

Britain’s empire was in reality built on genocide, vast ethnic cleansing, slavery, rigorously enforced racial hierarchy and merciless exploitation. As the Cambridge historian Richard Drayton puts it: “We hear a lot about the rule of law, incorruptible government and economic progress - the reality was tyranny, oppression, poverty and the unnecessary deaths of countless millions of human beings”.

Some empire apologists claim that, however brutal the first phase might have been, the 19th- and 20th-century story was one of liberty and economic progress. But this is nonsense. In late 19th-century and early 20th-century India up to 30 million died in famines, as British administrators insisted on the export of grain (as they had done during the Irish famine of the 1840s) and courts ordered 80,000 floggings a year. Four million died in the avoidable Bengal famine of 1943 - there have been no such famines since independence.

What is now Bangladesh was one of the richest parts of the world before the British arrived and deliberately destroyed its cotton industry. When India’s Andaman islands were devastated by December’s tsunami, who recalled that 80,000 political prisoners had been held in camps there in the early 20th-century, routinely experimented on by British army doctors? Perhaps it’s not surprising that Hitler was an enthusiast, describing the British empire as an “inestimable factor of value”, even if it had been acquired with “force and often brutality”.

thescienceofchictumbls asked:

For real though, thank you for all of the time and research you put into this blog. Up until recently, which is rather embarrassing to admit, I wasn't aware of the prevalence of PoC in Europe prior to that whole slave thing that certain parts of the US are now trying to erase from our history books.... yeahhh... I just wanted to drop a line and let you know how appreciated you are since I'm still trying to get rid of my white blindness.

Thanks!

There’s a lot to learn; the problem is the amount of effort that’s gone into obscuring it.

More on the American erasure of “that whole slave thing” as you so blithely put it…

Rewriting History: Erasing White Guilt from American Textbooks

Judge Upholds Law Banning “Ethnic Studies” Classes

More on Arizona’s “Ethnic Studies” Ban

Tennessee Tea Party Demands That References to Slavery be Removed from History Textbooks

Texas’s Revisionist Stranglehold on the American Public Education Curriculum

Texas Conservatives Win Battle Over Textbook Content

Texas School Board Rewrites US History with Lessons Promoting god and Guns

… I was on holiday once, and there was this little girl on the beach, little American kid. She says, “Hi, there. I’ve just been doing a Beatles appreciation class in school.” I said, “Wow, that’s great.” I think, “I know, I’ll be really cool here. I’ll tell her a little inside story.” So I go on about how something happened, and it was a fun story – and she looks at me, she says, “No, that’s not true. We covered that in the Beatles appreciation class.” I’m going, “Oh, fuck.” There’s no way out, man! They’re teaching this stuff now.
—  Paul McCartney (via Rolling Stone)
Norman Finkelstein Should Not Be Your Token Jew: Part 1

i’m going to be making a series of posts about Norman Finkelstein, everyone’s favorite token Jew used to deflect accusations of anti-Semitism. responses in the community have shown me that apparently everyone adores this man and believes that there is no potential way he could be a Holocaust denier or a revisionist, so i’m here to deconstruct at least some of those views. this is Part 1, covering some Holocaust denial, chapters 1 and 2 of The Holocaust Industry, some interviews, etc. to address some of my concerns with Finkelstein.

a quick disclaimer on this post: i agree with a lot of Finkelstein’s views, including the fact that Israel commonly exploits haShoah narratives in order to justify atrocities. i also agree with much of his anti-Israel statements (though i don’t endorse a two-state solution or complete condemnation of BDS). i am calling this out as a Jew calling out another Jew, not as a Zionist calling out an anti-Zionist or a pro-Israel calling out an anti-Israel. this exists outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much as Finkelstein himself exists outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Finkelstein fucks up way more often than i can count, so i’m likely to miss some major things in this. forgive me for not covering anything. i’ll organize these into sections like interviews, specific books, etc. and hopefully manage to cover the scope of his shitty liberal, revisionist world view. he’s not my ally in any way, and i don’t enjoy seeing pro-Palestinian goyim tokenize him as a Good Jew when in reality he is a revisionist who furthers anti-Semitism and promotes lies. 

The Holocaust Industry: Introduction, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2

Introduction

“…one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a "victim” state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status…“ 

here, Finkelstein alleges that Jews are the most successful ethnic group in the United States. remember that Finkelstein is a white-passing Ashkenazi Jew whose experiences are largely Eurocentric, considering that the majority of his influences in his youth come from opposition of the Vietnam war based on his mother’s left-wing tendencies. his influence also comes from Noam Chomsky, whose views on linguistics are outstanding but whose views on politics often fall short (and also who invokes the Holocaust to justify his views on U.S. foreign policy, but maintains that the U.S. is the ‘greatest country in the world,’ as is fairly typical of privileged American males). for him to make the claim that Jews are the most successful ethnic group is ignorant to the extreme.

i am going to give him the benefit of the death and assume that 'ethnic group’ means 'ethnic minority’ and therefore is meant solely to mean that ethnic Jews as a group surpass other ethnic minorities–which would be true. the fact that Jewish Americans represent a model minority is just as true as the fact that Asian Americans represent a model minority. 

this is problematic because it posits that model minorities–i.e., successful on the basis of economic success–do not face discrimination or oppression…coming from a white-passing Jew. to claim that since we are often financially successful (though not all of us are–i can guarantee that many of us are still very recent immigrants without proper credentials and are kept in poverty by racism and anti-Semitism) and therefore cannot be "victims” is ridiculous. read all of this and maybe you’ll get why people shouldn’t make claims that Jews are “too successful” to be victims. you can also read this page’s religious section (as i’ve seen this going around a lot in response to these statistics–this in no way makes Islamophobia a 'myth,’ so don’t even come at me acting like it does. Islamophobia is still a huge fucking problem and anti-Semitism does not undo that in the least and is a very fast-growing one; this is more due to the fact that Muslims did not get as much attention until more recent times than Muslims being more acceptable than Jews).

this is all from the first paragraph of Finkelstein’s introduction to his book. it isn’t even part of the book itself.

Chapter 1: Capitalizing

this entire chapter generally deals with blaming 'American Jews’ for the entirety of Americans ignoring the Holocaust. he’s right that it was a way to facilitate assimilation (and also absolve the U.S. of blame for any of its role in WWII), but to claim that this is evidence of haShoah not affecting Jews worldwide is ridiculous. Finkelstein himself exploits the fear of Jews and attempts to remain safe following haShoah to fit his own revisionist narrative, attributing it all to 'but Jews are the ones who did it to be mean to the evil Germans.’ he’s placing the blame of the United States’ ignorance/denial solely on the shoulders of a marginalized people who were coerced into assimilation. 

As anti-Semitic barriers quickly fell away after World War II…

here, he assumes that we live in a society that has largely progressed past anti-Semitism–at least, he assumes that American society has done so. the crime statistics have already shown that this is not even close to the case. you all possess the ability to Google further anti-Semitic hate crimes. those 'barriers’ are still very much so there.

Yet, among groups decrying their victimization, including Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, women, gays and lesbians, Jews alone are not disadvantaged in American society. In fact, identity politics and The Holocaust have taken hold among American Jews not because of victim status but because they are not victims.“ 

further proof that Finkelstein endorses the view that Jews are never oppressed solely on the basis of being Jewish. this belief clearly comes from an inherently privileged position in society, including white-passing privilege and relative economic security, and the strange ability to justify anti-Semitism with "but Israel does bad things.” that’s supposed in part by this quote: “It precluded the possibility that animus toward Jews might be grounded in a real conflict of interests…” when talking about the definition of anti-Semitism.

Chapter 2: Hoaxers, Hucksters and History

this entire chapter is basically Finkelstein trying to claim that goyim have never hated Jews except for a select few, despite our long history of oppression, persecution, attempted extermination/expulsion…all of that is effectively erased by Finkelstein because it fits his anti-Zionist narrative to imply that anti-Semitism has rational basis:

The historical evidence for a murderous Gentile impulse is nil.

If all the world wants the Jews dead, truly the wonder is that they are still alive — and, unlike much of humanity, not exactly starving.” [this statement is funny because of how many Jews starved to death during haShoah. ha ha.]

In the Holocaust framework, Gentile anti-Semitism is not only ineradicable but also always irrational.”

…anti-Semitism as "divorced from actual Jews,” “fundamentally not a response to any objective evaluation of Jewish action,” and “independent of Jews’ nature and actions”…“

By conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from legitimate censure.“ [in which Finkelstein asserts that Jews are partially to blame for their own oppression and persecution prior to haShoah]

Because Jews are better, or more successful, they suffered the ire of Gentiles, who then murdered them.“ [he makes this statement sarcastically, but it’s an eerie parallel to his constant references to how 'privileged’ Jews are in comparison to everybody else in society and how that negates any victim status]

“There were few sadists. Not more than five or ten percent.”“ [this is a quote of a quote, originally a claim made by Ella Lingens-Reiner, in an attempt to state that there were not very many sadistic Nazis in concentration camps, ignoring that he was attempting to counter claims of sadistic officers with a statement from a prisoner doctor that isn’t even contradictory. this is also his attempt to refute that they were necessarily anti-Semitic or violent.]

”...even in Switzerland — neutral Switzerland — all the Gentiles want to kill the Jews.“ [a claim that goyim cannot be anti-Semitic if their governments remain neutral in a war, as governments represent their people–which is at odds with the fact that he’s defending German civilians as not being anti-Semitic despite their own government’s actions. he was comfortable making said accusations simply because he knew ahead of time that Wilkomirski was a fraud. this is all used to justify Finkelstein’s view that all Holocaust survivors lie about their experiences…except for his own parents. they’re exempt because they fall into step with his view of the world.]

Incidentally, if the Mufti figured so centrally in Hitler’s Final Solution, the wonder is that Israel didn’t bring him to justice like Eichmann.“ [Finkelstein tries to sell this as proof that Arab nationalism has never been anti-Semitic in nature, citing Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s case as an ultimate example of Arab nationalism that targets Zionism rather than Jews. if that isn’t a smug assertion and tokenization typical of leftist men, then i’m really not sure what is.]

apologists desperately sought to tar the Arabs with Nazism…Michael Berenbaum of the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum generously allowed that “the stones thrown by Palestinian youths angered by Israel’s presence … are not synonymous with the Nazi assault against powerless Jewish civilians.”“ [yet this fails to address the fact that Aravim were not exempt from Nazism, nor was Arab nationalism in general exempt. Finkelstein seems to quickly forget the Arab nationalists who saw fit to murder almost 200 of my people in Baghdad in 1941 in an event coined the Farhud, leading to 80 percent of our population in Iraq leaving the country. this was born of Nazi propaganda reaching the Mashriq and therefore Arab nationalists; while Mizrahim in Iraq had previously been considered Aravim, Nazi propaganda led to Mizrahim being stripped of their Arab status and later their murder and persecution. in other words, they were targeted solely because they were Jewish–and because Arab nationalism is not free of anti-Semitism or Nazism. Finkelstein is unapologetic in his reductive outlook and ignorance of anybody but the richest Ashkenazim in the United States and Western Europe.]

The central thesis of Goldhagen’s book is standard Holocaust dogma: driven by pathological hatred, the German people leapt at the opportunity Hitler availed them to murder the Jews.“ [Finkelstein’s constant apologism for the Germans and attempts to separate them from Nazism and haShoah continues. really, this is the man you’re all heralding as a great ally to Palestina?]

“The Jews were murdered by people who, to a large degree, did not actually hate them…. The Germans did not have to hate the Jews in order to kill them.”“ [originally a quote from Yehuda Bauer, which Finkelstein only questions when it becomes apparent that Bauer later claims that Germans really did sign onto the anti-Semitism of the Third Reich, which he takes issues with. he refuses to engage in post-Holocaust debate that does not include, frankly, the extensive ass-kissing of the oppressors and exterminators.]

Yet not Jews but Communists were the first political victims, and not Jews but the handicapped were the first genocidal victims, of Nazism.“ [presented without commentary.]

[this quote i actually removed because it uses G*psies despite the word being an ethnic slur, but he basically said that the persecution of Rroma precludes the Holocaust being even a primarily Jewish phenomenon]

as you can see, this book is basically one huge collection of fuckery–so for now, i’ll move onto Holocaust denial.

Holocaust denial

yes, Norman Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier and a revisionist despite having Jewish Holocaust survivors for parents. that really won’t sit well with the tokenizers, but it’s…sort of obvious:

  • he casts doubt upon the six million figure, referring to the numbers in quotation marks because there are apparently too many survivors to sustain the numbers. his doubt is clearly based solely on personal testimony–e.g., "how could there be so many survivors if so many Jews died?”–rather than actual citation of statistics, and seems to have an emotional basis. he’s convinced that exploitation of haShoah must include falsification of statistics in all cases, leading to denial of the Holocaust and how many Jews it killed. he is more concerned with this than he is with whether his anti-Semitic friends can actually back up their falsified bullshit with regards to haShoah.
  • he is a revisionist and supports revisionists themselves, including David Irving (a known Holocaust denier who sympathizes with Nazis to the point of claiming that no gas chambers existed in Auschwitz, trying to redeem Hitler through biographies by stating that he was unaware of much of the Holocaust’s atrocities [not to mention the claim that Hitler was actually the 'biggest friend’ that Jews had], and spoke at actual neo-Nazi rallies), whom he referred to as contributing immense knowledge to the World War II dialogue.
  • he refers to U.S. enemies in World War II as 'fabricated,’ basically excusing the actions of all these governments and countries in favor of casting blame upon Jews for haShoah.
  • being correct on the exploitation of the Holocaust to justify Israeli atrocities is NOT the same as acting as if Jews exaggerate the Holocaust. exploitation≠exaggeration, and Finkelstein’s accusations of exaggeration are based on anti-Semitic and revisionist ideas. this is something i need all of you to actually try to comprehend: talking about the exploitation of haShoah is not the same as supporting and endorsing lies about haShoah or claiming that it is fabricated. 

General lack of knowledge about anything ever

  • “Jews invented the word chutzpah because of the Holocaust!” chutzpah is a word that entered Yiddish via Hebrew and has been used since the late 1800s. [this is from an interview with CounterPunch magazine and is not an exact quote; the exact quote is “…it is no accident that Jews invented the word ‘chutzpah.’”]
  • he says that the difference between Israel terrorism and Hamas terrorism is that Israel terrorism is 3 times more lethal, which to me signals that he doesn’t really have a grasp of how baseless much of Israel’s terrorism is or know much about Hamas. to me, this is a reductive view that more so harms the Palestinian cause than promotes it. it claims that Israel and Hamas somehow have the same view in mind, therefore positing them as 'equals,’ which doesn’t really represent the situation at all (this isn’t a call-out of anti-Semitism; i have no sympathy for Israel’s representation here.)
  • he views his parents as the only legitimate Holocaust survivors, and the reason for this is that they do not speak much on haShoah. the basic message here is “you are not a survivor unless you are silent and fall into step with my world view.” much as he criticizes American Jews for capitalizing on the Holocaust in a 'Holocaust industry,’ Finkelstein uses his parents’ experiences to defend himself from any criticism or accusation.
  • he feels it is his place, as a white-passing American Ashkenazi male, to claim that Palestinian Aravim and Israeli Aravim are worse off than black South Africans under apartheid. 
  • his criticisms of 'the Holocaust industry’ are ones he’s clearly guilty of–he is just as willing to exploit the experiences of his parents for his political agenda as American Jewry is to exploit the experiences of Holocaust survivors as a whole, and possibly even more willing. he is quick to cosign anyone who potentially fits his agenda–whether that be the pro-Palestinian agenda (while he does this with good intentions, he also ignores many factors, including whether the author is actually Palestinian or whether they are actually espousing anti-Semitism) or his Holocaust revisionist agenda. 
  • when called anti-Zionist, his response was “…I am opposed to any state with an ethnic character, not only to Israel.” yet he endorses a two-state solution. feel free to try to figure that one out.
  • “Were it not for the fact that my late parents passed through the Nazi holocaust, I myself would probably would be a skeptic by now.” he admits that he would not believe in the Holocaust if it weren’t for his parents. read: he would be a Holocaust denier if it weren’t for the fact that somebody personally close to him lived through it.
  • it’s notable that the historian who inspired The Holocaust Industry, Peter Novick, dismissed the book as being inaccurate and not grounded in historical fact. 

so no, my hatred of Norman Finkelstein is not 'using the same tactics’ that Dershowitz used to discredit him. Finkelstein discredits himself by being a huge fuck-up, a Holocaust revisionist/denier, and ignoring history to fit his own political ideals. his so-called rebuttals don’t mean shit when he refuses to revoke any of his idolization of Nazi sympathizers or denial of the Holocaust.

time for goyim to step off when they talk shit about him being a reeeeeal Jew (unlike me?). bye bye now.

‘Human Rights’ are contradictory to the rights of the people, because rights are based in man as a social product, not man as an abstract with innate rights. 'Human Rights’ are being used as a weapon by the revisionists to promote pacifism and class reconciliation, and used by the oppressing and exploiting classes to promote feudalism and imperialism. Never forget the right to rebel, the right to exercise all-round dictatorship over the former exploiting classes and the right of revolution.
— 

Communist Party of Peru - Sendero Luminoso (PCP) on International Human Rights Day (December 10)

Thanks to Thomas van Beersum