Why so many Holocaust films now?

[kk]

Found via David Irving's website:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/25/arts/scott.php?page=1

"Why so many Holocaust films now, and for whose benefit?"

Winslet said as much on an episode of "Extras": "I've noticed that if you do a film about the Holocaust, you're guaranteed an Oscar." She was joking, of course, though her appearance in "The Reader" suggests that the joke is funny because it's often true. Why else do you suppose all the movies listed at the beginning of this article, including "The Reader," are coming out in November and December? Not because Hanukkah is coming.

Why do I have the feeling that she wasn't joking?

And the punchline:

For American audiences a Holocaust movie is now more or less equivalent to a western or a combat picture or a sword-and-sandals epic - part of a genre that has less to do with history than with the perceived expectations of moviegoers. This may be the only, or at least the most widely available, way of keeping the past alive in memory, but it is also a kind of forgetting.

Yes, forgetting the truth.

[Hannover]

kk said:

Yes, forgetting the truth.

I believe you mean allowing useful construction of fantasy to be perceived as 'history'.

I think they somehow think that all these movies can somehow refute the absolute trashing of the 'holocaust' story line that has occurred. The more lying nonsense they construct, the more they are forced to continue their lying. Painted into a corner to be sure.

You will notice a complete lack of any film which actually tries to present rational, scientific, logical proof for the laughable claims.

- Where is a film which shows all the alleged mass graves?

- Where is a film which shows all the alleged human remains?

- Where is a film which shows how the alleged and impossible 'gas chamber's supposedly worked.

- Where is a film which shows all the alleged massive cyanide residue in the alleged and impossible 'gas chambers' which would necessarily be present, if true?

Etc., etc.

Hannover

[ASMarques]

kk said:

Yes, forgetting the truth.

I believe you mean allowing useful construction of fantasy to be perceived as 'history'.

Here is the fact that, in my opinion, most revisionists -- and specially religiously-minded revisionists under the spell of their own mythic beliefs -- continue to miss: the "Holocaust" narrative no longer claims simple historicity in the usual, everyday, down-to-earth, sense. Or rather, it goes through the motions, but neither the priestly classes nor the faithful masses really care much about that order of concerns. At a deeper level, the cult now claims sacred historicity status. By this I mean the dark realm of alleged events claimed to have occurred in history but somehow to lie above and beyond the simplicity of the ontological notions of historical truth and historical falsehood. It's an odd irrational mental landscape that presides over practically all known religions and it explains a good deal of what is going on.

[Breker]

Here is the fact that, in my opinion, most revisionists -- and specially religiously-minded revisionists under the spell of their own mythic beliefs -- continue to miss: the "Holocaust" narrative no longer claims simple historicity in the usual, everyday, down-to-earth, sense. Or rather, it goes through the motions, but neither the priestly classes nor the faithful masses really care much about that order of concerns. At a deeper level, the cult now claims sacred historicity status. By this I mean the dark realm of alleged events claimed to have occurred in history but somehow to lie above and beyond the simplicity of the ontological notions of historical truth and historical falsehood. It's an odd irrational mental landscape that presides over practically all known religions and it explains a good deal of what is going on.

All that seems to ignore the social, media, and academic construction which dictates that the Jew is the one to be impersonated, the one to be obeyed, and ultimately, the one to be admired and worshipped.

All that seems to ignore the social, media, and academic construction which dictates that the 'Anglo-Saxon' is the one to be abhorred, the one to be ridiculed, and ultimately, the one to be attacked and spat upon.

Having said all that, let me state that the "Holocaust" is one of most bizarre legends the world has ever seen.
Breker

[ASMarques]

All that seems to ignore the social, media, and academic construction which dictates that the Jew is the one to be impersonated, the one to be obeyed, and ultimately, the one to be admired and worshipped.

Not at all. The construction you mention is simply the recognition by the non-Jewish faithful of the central Jewish role in the "Holocaust" global religion. In fact it's very much the same old Judaism (minus God, for where was he etc.: that's what I call the aggiornamento part of the recycling) adapted for the whole of mankind.

All that seems to ignore the social, media, and academic construction which dictates that the 'Anglo-Saxon' is the one to be abhorred, the one to be ridiculed, and ultimately, the one to be attacked and spat upon.

Yes, I would ignore those attitudes as relatively irrelevant to the main issue. However, as a side observation, it's true that, among non-Jews, and next to the Germans, the Anglo-Saxons have been the foremost promoters of the modern form of global Judaism. Perhaps they have absorbed the self-loathing attitude, or maybe it's simply the normal process of collective guilt inherent to the Christian heritage in this meeting of Jewish and Christian minds.

Having said all that, let me state that the "Holocaust" is one of most bizarre legends the world has ever seen.

Well, yes, but once you get the historical perspective, you realize how vast the field is.