I previously mentioned my plans to stop scrutinizing the race addicts so closely, because debunking their arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, I need to write a quick response to one of the race addicts — a certain Abagond — because his latest blog post is so ludicrous that it cries out for debunking. More importantly, however, his post can serve as an object lesson in showing the absurd places to which the addiction to white racism can bring these commentators in their fevered imaginations.
Note: Abagond writes pretty well, in a somewhat academic style. He sometimes uses also a slightly prosecutorial style: making his points by asking questions, so as to seem reasonable, all the while following up with bullet points that, he thinks, inexorably walk the reader down the path to his conclusion. The problem with this style is the same problem of prosecutors everywhere: you should never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer up-front.
In his latest post Abagond poses the question: “Was Hitler evil?” His premise is that since other whites have done what Hitler did (Abagond’s opinion), is it really fair to characterize Hitler as evil, without making the very same characterization for others? He then lays out 12 points he thinks prove his point that Hitler was simply like any other mass murderer — or mass murdering race — in history.
I’ve copied Abagond’s post, and pasted it below in order to do our debunking in-line in red font in [square brackets], in the text itself. Note: we’d argue with Abagond on his blog if he weren’t censoring our replies to his posts. Censorship is standard operating procedure for the American political left — and for race addicts. They are, after all, so insecure — rightfully — about the strength of their arguments, that they set up echo chambers that allow only supporting viewpoints in.
– * – BEGINNING of ABAGOND’s POST – * –
Was Hitler evil?
Tue 13 Aug 2013 by abagond
Was Hitler evil?
Most White Americans will say yes: he killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust! [Otherwise stated: you would be very hard-pressed to find a white person anywhere in the world (as long as you don’t consider arabs “white”) who doesn’t say yes. Not to be forgotten is that Hitler’s genocidal machine wiped out many, many others, including Catholics — he was a virulent atheist — gypsies, gays, the handicapped, the “mentally defective,” and others whom Hitler or his minions deemed either defective or inferior for whatever reason.]
But to avoid any double standard we should apply the same moral reasoning White Americans apply to their own history: [But, there’s no risk whatsoever of double standard here anyway. No white person whatsoever pretends in any way that white people are free of blame for crimes against black people. More importantly, they never did so at anytime in my recollection, and I’ve been paying close attention to all this for more than 50 years. So, to “avoid any double standard,” we can simply continue as before to label Hitler as evil, while we continue as before to label white racism, slavery and any other crimes committed by white people against blacks as evil.]
- Everyone does it. Tribalism goes back to at least the invention of the spear. History is full of mass killing of civilians: Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Srebrenica, Hiroshima, Hanoi, Gaza, Dresden, Nanking, Tiananmen Square, Stalin, Tamerlane, Alexander the Great, the Khmer Rouge, Mongols, Assyrians, Iroquois, the killing of Armenians, Kurds, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, Tasmanians, Namibians and on and on. If Hitler killed more people than some others, it was because he had better technology. [Abagond has put together a mish-mash of acts perpetrated in a time of war simply to defeat an enemy — either in the context of self-defense or of conquest — (Hiroshima, Dresden, Alexander the Great, Iroquois, American Indians) and a time of “peace” (Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Kurds, Darfur); as well as acts perpetrated because of ethnic hatreds (Rwanda, Khmer Rouge, Armenians); and a combination of the three (Nanking, Rwanda, Namibians, Kurds, Khmer Rouge). He further says that Hitler killed more people only because technology made it possible. Wrong. Very wrong. Americans had much better — ie nuclear — technology, and used it only twice ever in Japan. If Americans had been set on the idea of eliminating any ethnicity whatsoever, they could have used that technology to do so. Yet, they imposed extremely generous surrender terms upon the Japanese and turned an implacable enemy into a strong friend. Further, Americans firebombed Dresden, Germany to help to end World War II in Europe, but then, again, imposed generous surrender terms on the Germans, and turned an enemy into a friend. Furthermore, the ferocity with which Americans attacked Germans proves pretty conclusively that Americans were not favorably disposed toward Germans because they are of the same race as the majority of Americans. Abagond’s list above proves the exact opposite of Abagond’s point. And, all the way back to Abagond’s original point. No, not everyone does it. No overtly Christian nation has ever tried actually to wipe a people off the face of the earth. They have imposed themselves and their values on non-Christian peoples, and in every case, any individuals who pronounced themselves converted were welcomed “into the fold.” It is only relatively recently — say in the last 50 years or so — that whites, and Christians, have condemned such a practice as wrong. But, they did. And unambiguously. Again, and read it well: White people are still the only identifiable group ever in history to undergo a thorough examination of their treatment of all other peoples, to have found themselves and their behaviors wanting, and to have made serious attempts (including trillions and trillions of dollars as well as favorable treatment of job and college and housing applicants, free food and other considerations) at some kind of restitution.]
- Technology made him do it. Anyone with Hitler’s technology would have done the same thing. [Nope. Americans had and still have superior technology. They used it only those two times — nearly 70 years ago — to bring World War II to a more rapid conclusion, then have spent all the subsequent years doing their level best to prevent any further use of nuclear arms by anyone.]
- Europeans kill each other all the time. What’s the big deal? [Never before the 20th Century had there been an idea of wiping an entire people from the face of the earth. Exiling entire peoples? Yes. Taking the land of entire peoples? Sure…that’s called conquest, and, yes, everyone did do it. No one has ever indicated, however, that this is a good thing. No one has ever used it to justify crimes against entire peoples either. Some may have justified it as “necessary,” a point with which many justifiably disagree, but none have ever pretended it was a good thing.]
- Jews are racist too. They have forced Palestinians off their land, apply separate laws to them and regularly massacre Palestinian civilians. [The “Jews have forced Palestinians off their land” myth is just that: a myth. The Arabs who are treated the best of any in the Middle East are all Arabs in Israel. The Jews simply returned to land from which they were forcibly removed years before. If Palestinians really want to have a good life, they need only to renounce their oft-stated desire to wipe Israel off the map, get rid of their hatred of the Jews, and cooperate with Israel.]
- Americans are no better. They have forced American Indians off their land, applied separate laws to them and regularly massacred American Indian civilians. [No one pretends that Americans are blameless in their treatment of Native Americans. However, again, in the case of Native Americans, there was never any attempt to exterminate them, as Hitler tried to do with the Jews. Did Americans mistreat American Indians? Sure thing. Have whites condemned that treatment as wrong? Yep. Have they tried to right that wrong in the past 50 years? Obviously. Guess what: in all of history, yes, Americans are better. The historical record is absolutely, positively, unambiguous in this regard. Hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid, along with a history in the 20th and 21st Centuries of liberating hundreds of millions of people. It’s a simple, undeniable fact of history: the three greatest things ever to “happen” to the planet are, in order of importance: (1) the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, (2) the Catholic Church, and (3) the United States of America.]
- Hitler is not uniquely evil. See above. [Perfectly irrelevant. Evil is evil, whether it’s “uniquely evil” or not.]
- Hitler’s intentions were good. He saw the Holocaust as doing the world a favour. [Again, perfectly irrelevant. Presumably many people doing evil — Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Manson, Mugabe, Amin, Bokassa, et al., for example — thought they were doing “good.” So what. People pretty universally condemn these dirtbags today.]
- It was the times! The West back then was nakedly racist. [Yep. And the west was coming out of it. As we mentioned here: states of mind are not static. They are always headed in some direction or other. The west was working its way out of its past racism. Whites basically outgrew and got past racism. Again, they are the only ethnic group to have made that voyage. That it didn’t happen overnight is at the crux of Abagond’s peevishness.] Racism had the backing of science. [Like much “science” today, this was, of course, junk science. There is plenty of junk science in every era. See, eg: “Climate Change.”] The book Hitler called his Bible was bought by millions of Americans: “The Passing of the Great Race” (1916) by Madison Grant, a rich New Yorker. The word genocide was not invented till 1943 and not properly defined till after the war – by the winners to condemn Hitler! [What’s the point here? Should the winners have said, “Oops! We were wrong. Hitler was right all along!” Of course not. So they didn’t. Abagond is taking the really strange tack of condemning the victors in World War II — presumably dominated by white people and white thinking — for condemning Hitler and his evil. Apparently, Abagond figures that white people are capable only of evil, so, in order to be true to themselves, should have embraced Hitler after routing him in the war. This is, of course, incoherent, nonsensical and paranoid.] We should not judge the past by current morals. [Maybe we shouldn’t, but, we do judge the past by current morals. We all hope that our current state of mind is superior to our past. That’s simply a human condition. If we are more clear-eyed today than yesterday — as we all hope we are — then there’s no reason to embrace evil in the past. Abagond has come upon a serious problem with his reasoning. He appears to be of the opinion that whites are irredeemable and must, in order to be honest at least with themselves, embrace Hitler and others who he thinks have acted like all other whites in history. To continue to hold this nonsensical narrative, Abagond is forced to ignore incontrovertible evidence of white progress in cleansing its thinking of racism, or of racial superiority, or of, really, prejudice of any kind! Up to and including prejudice against what is clearly bad and destructive! Bottom line: whites generations ago transformed themselves into likely the least racist ethnicity in the world! What’s astonishing about this, is that whites didn’t have to do this transformation. They were, by all accounts, the dominant ethnic group in the world following World War II.]
- We should be grateful. Germans invented the printing press, car, jet plane, rocket, etc. They gave us much of the modern medicine that allows most people to live past 40. Albert Schweitzer and other Germans have helped people in Africa. Condemning Hitler without pointing out all the good Germans have done is unbalanced and hypocritical. [Uhhh…again, what is the point here? I don’t think that anyone condemns Albert Schweitzer or Mozart or the great scientists in German history. But, no one tries to use these positive examples of German contributions to pretend that Hitler was just okay either! Abagond has gone all incoherent here. If he’s really trying to say that whites are trying to argue that Schweitzer justifies Hitler, then he is very wrong. No one anywhere even pretends to try to make that argument. Alright, alright, alright…my statement was an absolute. Presumably someone, somewhere has tried to make that argument. No one whom anyone takes seriously tries to make that argument.]
- Get over it! It took place a long time ago. My family did not take part in it. No one you know was affected by it. Why make such a big deal about it? The past is dead and gone. There are more important issues. [Again, whuuuh? The past is not dead and gone. Certain things are dead and gone. White racism for example, but no one tries to pretend that anyone should just forget about the past. Use the past to be sure that bad aspects of the past can never be repeated. ]
- It is racist to talk about racism. Talking about anti-Semitism keeps it alive. Condemning Hitler is divisive. [Abagond is just mailing it in here. No one tries to make any of these arguments. Everyone, in one of the few concepts just about everyone agrees with unconditionally, condemns Hitler(*).]
- You can dismiss what Americans say about Hitler: they were his enemies; many of their journalists and historians are Jewish; their schools teach patriotic lies. [Dismiss all you want what Americans say, Abagond, your list above contains the word Dresden in it. There can be no doubt about the sincerity of American opposition to Hitler. The principal condemnation of Hitler is not because of the Holocaust, but rather because his mass murders were racially-motivated. Yep. Americans, and all whites worldwide, have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of Hitler’s — a white guy’s — racism. ]
Every single one of these arguments, with the names changed, have been used on this blog to downplay American racism, slavery and genocide. [Not sure what Abagond is trying to say here. Presumably, he’s not trying to pretend that he is downplaying American racism, slavery or genocide. I’m assuming that Abagond means that others have tried to make these points in response to Abagond’s posts. It’s important to note that there are no examples in history of anything resembling “American genocide.”]
W.E.B. Du Bois:
there was no Nazi atrocity – concentration camps, wholesale maiming and murder, defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood – which the Christian civilization of Europe had not long been practicing against colored folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defense of a Superior Race born to rule the world. [W.E.B. DuBois was, of course, simply wrong here. Again, no white person, whom anyone takes seriously, has ever pretended that whites are blameless in their interactions with other ethnicities. Hence whites’ very long history of deep introspection concerning those interactions. Let’s try to express this another way: First, let’s stipulate to DuBois’ (who died in 1963) point. No one except the certifiably insane or the hopelessly paranoid would try to pretend that whites have behaved in the same manner DuBois describes in more than 50 years. Nor could anyone pretend that whites simply one day, as a whole, decided just to cut it out. Huge populations don’t act that way. Populations take time to overcome any widespread state of mind. At the very least a generation. Really, always significantly more. As I have shown many times, whites have been working on shedding any prejudice whatsoever for more than 150 years.]
– * – END of ABAGOND’s POST – * –
Summary — Abagond is doing, above, what race addicts everywhere do in the face of overwhelming evidence that white racism is pretty much dead and gone: twisting and contorting themselves in knots, to try to find white racism absolutely everywhere — even in white condemnations of white racism. They are reduced to this nonsensical extreme. Thank goodness, as more and more people start to see through these mental gymnastics, the more they are turning from them in disgust. It’s a simple truth that we’ve said in these pages numerous times: if a black person, any black person, (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, and (4) interacts well with others, then he or she will succeed in America. That simply could not be said of any actually racist country.
Abagond is doing nothing less, with his his ludicrous post, than attempting to equate all white people with Hitler. The problem is that white people are, and have always been, the most vociferous to condemn Hitler. Read this well: There is simply no possible way for Abagond to reconcile a supposedly racist white race with that same people’s nearly universal and visceral condemnation of Hitler; especially when, as the most powerful people on earth after World War II, it was under no obligation to do so.
Abagond and others will constantly be lost at sea, trying to justify the unjustifiable pathologies in the black community by frantically pointing in all directions at phantom white racism. However, you’ll never see or hear him address the following undeniable point: white people have demonstrably been embarked on a quest to banish any prejudice whatsoever from their thinking for more than 150 years. In a twist of irony there is only “gay marriage” today, because whites — the least prejudiced, least judgmental ethnic group in the world — are still the majority ethnicity in America today. If that last fact were not the case, there would be nothing even resembling “gay marriage” today.
If you’ve been following our posts for a while, then you know that we don’t approve of the eradication of all judgementalism from anyone’s thinking! 🙂
(*) In fact, whites condemn Hitler so completely automatically, that it prevents any ability to assess the Nazi era with any real objectivity. Wounds and passions from World War II are still sufficiently fresh that any attempt to find any good whatsoever in Nazi Germany meets with reflexive condemnation. Otherwise stated: Automatic condemnation is not conducive to writing and recording actual history, which ought to be as objective and scientific a study as possible. Presumably, when several more generations have passed, historians will be able to dig into the Nazi era with less emotional baggage impeding a clear-eyed evaluation.
Do not take this as a justification of any kind for Naziism. I take a back seat to no man in opposing socialism and big central, tyrannical government of any stripe! I simply don’t pretend that Nazi Germany was an unalloyed hellhole throughout its existence. Nor, do I think that was true of Soviet Russia, or even North Korea, Syria, Vietnam or Sudan…or any of the other hellholes in the world. People the world over do their level best to make the best of their circumstances. Some of them even succeed, more or less.
Nota Bene: It appears that Abagond is no longer censoring our replies to his posts. As a result, I would point you to his blog post — here — to see what others are saying as well.