Thank you, Hannover, for bringing this to our attention.
I would note that the essay is not primarily about the Holocaust as such, but (as I read it) is about White-Black and Jewish-White relations in the USA (and really only since the mid-20th century at that). Linh Dinh is a member of none of these three groups as the son of Vietnamese refugees who entered the USA in the 1970s.
That said, it seems clear that Linh Dinh is a Holocaust disbeliever. His courage to publish this is commendable.
_____________________
Of the essay's 2,900 words, the word 'Holocaust' appears only four times, and the term 'six million' once.
Here are the other Holocaust-related passages, for reference, in addition to the one Hannover cites, with my comments:
There is another race [in the USA besides Blacks] with a claimed historical grievance, but in this instance, it’s against all of Christendom, for Christians looked the other way, assisted or directly murdered six million Jews, it has been drilled into each Western head.
Interesting that he uses the term 'Christians' and not 'Germans,' I presume because the purpose of half his essay is Jewish-WhiteChristian relations in America. He is using 'Christian' in a kind of ethnic sense, as he surely does not mean to imply that the Nazis were fanatical religious-Christian zealots acting in the name of Jesus or the Church, which of course they were not.
In any case, if the Holocaust was the most shocking atrocity of World War II, why was there no mention of it for nearly 20 years after the war ended? And why did Anne Frank only die after six months in a “death camp”?
This is rather imprecise: There were plenty of 'mentions' of Nazi camps including the vague allegations that some of them were death/extermination camps; there were vague gassing allegations (most of which soon fell apart, as we know); there was also a somewhat disorganized, non-exclusive, and non-dominant narrative of Jewish persecution already during the war and immediately after it (which had faded to a great extent already by the late 1940s already with the receding of war propaganda, just as I am sure the WWI war-propaganda "German bayoneting of Belgian babies en masse" myth faded soon after 11/11/1918 in Britain and France).
What Linh Dinh means could be either or both of the following, I think:
(1) The interest in the fate of the Jews in WWII was relatively weak and the 'narrative' disorganized in the 1950s and 1960s, which contrasts with the obsessive and exclusive interest in the fate of the Jews by the later 1980s and 1990s;
(2) The rise of the intimidatingly-capitalized term 'Holocaust' did not occur until the late 1970s and 1980s; if so, his "nearly twenty years" should be "nearly thirty-five years." (As I think is well established, the Holocaust story as we now know it, Holocaust propaganda in earnest, begins with the hit TV miniseries of that name in 1978; the term was never capitalized before that, and appears in no encyclopedias, etc.; very occasionally the word 'holocaust' in lower-case appears but is meant to refer only to large-scale loss of life, as in Dresden or the like, or in a hypothetical inter-continental nuclear war as in "nuclear holocaust.")
In the very heart of Mexico City, just on the edge of beautiful Alameda Park, is El Museo Memoria y Tolerancia. Passing by, I noticed a cattle car, of the type that transferred Jews to the “death” camps. Inside, there’s the Holocaust and Tolerance Education Center. As many Mexicans as possible must be inducted into the Jews as greatest victims ever cult.
Like blacks with slavery, Jews use the Holocaust to silence all critics. Thus immuned, they can continue to slaughter Palestinians, wreck more Muslim countries, push refugees into Europe and fragment societies. If you push back, you’re a gas chamber loving Nazi.
Pinched by two eternally aggrieved forces, does the pale huperson even stand a Chinaman’s chance?
Linh Dinh’s latest books are Postcards from the End of America (non-fiction) and A Mere Rica (poetry). He maintains a regularly updated photo blog.
This is a polemical essay of a political nature and not "about" the Holocaust. Yet even from just a handful of mentions, it does look like
Linh Dinh is a full disbeliever, not just an agnostic. Nor is he politically or morally opposed of the 'use' of the Holocaust but accepting more-or-less of the standard story. He is a full-on Disbeliever (or "Opponent of the Holocaust," a term I proposed in the thread "
Levels of Holocaust Belief").
Note his use of quotation marks in this phrase:
of the type that transferred Jews to the “death” camps
Yes, it would seem that Linh Dinh is an opponent of the Holocaust Culture-Monster outright, enough to make a raid against the Monster rather than (as most do) lurking in the shadows on the question, or (worse) using it to advance some agenda despite knowing it is untrue (as CODOH-Forum member Deitrich
says is true of all Holocaust enforcers). Mr. Linh Dinh has done his part, here, to hack off one of the Holocaust Culture-Monster's small tentacles, even if to his modest Internet-based audience. Thank you for your courage and dedication to truth.
