Conspiracy Junkies II

In this post I covered the topic of conspiracy junkies. In that entry I:
(1) showed how the claims of one Fred Leuchter regarding the Nazi's gas chambers were demolished;
(2) provided a reference to the solid science of a Popular Mechanics article demonstrating that the Twin Towers were brought down by airplanes;
(3) concluded with plausible explanations for why some people were inclined to pursue the chimera of conspiracy notions.

One reader of this blog wrote to say that "Firemen, military men, and others are not onboard with the official story of 911." No names or examples were provided. As phrased, the meaning of my critic's remark is that not a single fireman, military man, and other person is on board with the official story. Perhaps what was meant that some persons don't accept it? But how many? Who? Absent any examples or evidence comparable to what was provided by the other side of the discussion, the best response to a sweeping generalization is often a categorical denial. But I will add that the vast majority of firemen, military men, and others recognize that it was two airplanes that brought down the Twin Towers; the ones who think otherwise are few and far between, and their differing accounts can be readily explained by the chaos and confusion of the day.

My reader added, "As for what happened in Germany, well, let's just say we can't even question it so what are they hiding?" I'm reminded of a conversation I had some time ago with another Holocaust denier who said that what was needed was a thorough investigation of the matter. I pointed out that numerous reliable investigations had already been conducted, and that a thinking man would see that the findings were thorough, conclusive, and satisfied all reasonable doubts. The other chap said that we still needed more investigations. It seemed clear to me that facts were not the answer to such an attitude; about all one can do is tell them they're unreasonable and move along.

That is, unless they are in positions of influence and seek to publicize and win support for their calumny. In that case, I think lawsuits for defamation of character are entirely appropriate. After all, this is a matter of bearing false witness against the victims of Nazi atrocities, and a man is entitled to his good name.

At about this point my critics will sometimes talk about other atrocities that are given a free pass -- why do only the Jews get to complain about what was done to them?

For example, the Ottoman Turks inflicted genocide on the Armenian Christians, murdering upwards of a million innocent souls. Adolf Hitler, commenting on the silence surrounding this great crime, said that if nobody talked about the Armenians, nobody would talk about the Jews either. The Turks of today say that there was collateral damage inflicted on both sides during that time; world opinion has been slowly turning against them, but the denial of the genocide is still considered acceptable in many quarters.

Long-time readers will recall the numerous blog entries I've written about the 100+ million innocents murdered by the Soviet Russians, Maoist Chinese, and other Communists in the 20th century. Beware the useful idiots who say that socialism is a viable system and that certain tyrants just gave it a bad name! And the popular press has long looked the other way regarding the evidence of the outcome of what happens when the flawed notion of "separation of Church and state" is consistently applied. Secularists, not religionists, have caused the most suffering in human history, bar none -- another point where our "watchdog" media is a no-show.

And it was from Iraq that the neologism "genocide" was coined in 1943. The author was Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish lawyer from Poland. Lemkin was describing the systematic extermination of Assyrian Christians carried out in the 1930s by the Muslim governors of the new nation of Iraq that had been born after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Silence is the order of the day here as well. And yes, it is another injustice.

Should lawsuits be brought against all these entities? The answer, I think, is a prudential one: if you think you can win the case, then yes. Otherwise, you just have to walk away from it.

Just like you have to walk away from conspiracy junkies who won't permit themselves to be persuaded by credible evidence.