allgood wrote:The Jesus Myth/Narrative is about an essentially divine (perfect) human being, living as a humble person making inspiring yet practical suggestions about how ALL humans can live better, then dying as a martyr on behalf of all humanity.
The 'Holocaust' Myth/Narrative is about a special category of human being treated by other categories of human beings (led by an incarnation of The Devil) in an exceptionally cruel way , being murdered en masse as martyrs and leaving other sections of humanity with permanent guilt that can be compensated, but never eradicated, by payment of material tribute etc.
The first story is universalistic and inclusive in essence. The latter is intrinsically partisan and exclusive.
The distinctions which you see are more like clay and can be and are molded in many ways by individuals. The hailing of an individual as essentially divine is not a good thing in general, as it imposes upon ordinary people impossible standards. When a ruling class of slave-holders is able to determine what those standards should be, as has in practice been the case through the entire body of human history thus far, it generally serves dastardly ends. The most consistent point which can be read in all of your comments is that you simply use a different yardstick of measurement for different things. When treating the subject of Christianity you've consistently focused on what you think the individual conscience should be able to derive from it, though this generally does not occur in practice. Most of the really bloodthirsty people I've known in the real world have usually been Christians of one type or another. If you could get a survey of all of the people in the USA who agree with the statement "Nook Iran!" I can guarantee you that both the numbers and percentages of Christians who answered affirmative with that would outrank the parallel numbers among either Jews specifically or non-believers in general. Yet it's not so important, because we can see how someone might be able to deduce a different type of moral message from Christianity (even if in practice they usually don't). But with regards to Holocaustianity, you ignore the real world record of what large numbers of people have in fact made of it and instead focus in with precision on the rendering which someone like Elie Wiesel gives to it. That's not a very productive approach.
If there's one thing which is worth underscoring about this here it is the fact that it illustrates quite well how and why people with some contact with the more serious revisionist literature repeatedly render it useless. It's easy for the ordinary person (e.g. someone like Rachel Corrie) to recognize the double-standards in favor of Christianity used by such a skewed argument, and conclude that the person has merely adopted Holocaust revisionism to mask Christian bigotry of some kind or other. Most ordinary people are not generally persuaded to accept the orthodox version of the Holocaust by someone like Elie Wiesel who preaches the line that the world owes Jews payment for the Holocaust. Having accepted the general view of the Holocaust, they may resign themselves to reluctantly accepting Wiesel's arguments as well. But in all of my experiences either as someone who once accepted the orthodox view or as someone exposed to a variety of activists of different types who accepted, I'd have to say that the decisive influence to accept that orthodox view never came from someone who tried to create a special category of human being. It always came from meeting people who showed an intense committment with a willingness to sacrifice for causes that could be considered very worthy, and along the way the person had some idea that what they were doing was showing that they understood the lessons of the Holocaust. You can accuse such people of being dupes if you like, because it's true that they are on this specific point. But don't get so immersed in your own ideological universe of Christianity that you so grossly mischaracterize what motivates such people by dressing them up as little clones of Elie Wiesel. Most of them are not anything remotely like that and they won't be won over by someone who mischaracterizes their beliefs and motives simply to better promote a brand of Christian preaching. There's been enough of that already.
Hi again Patrick.
FWIW, I am not, or at least don't consider myself to be, a Christian. I do acknowledge Christianity is a significant part of my cultural heritage - and that just as this long-lived religious tradition has influenced western culture as a whole, it has influenced me. But if that makes me a Christian, I'm also a Greek - which would come as a surprise to my family.
I do have a little anthropological training. My attempt to distill of the 'mythological essence' of Christianity and what's been called 'Holocaustianity' was more influenced by that that anything else.
Of course any such attempt is arguable and can be argued. I appreciate that many people may propose a much less benign summation of the 'essence of the Christian Myth'. You are likely one of them Patrick. You're quite entitled to that view.
Nevertheless, I stand by what I wrote before. I'll make once again the point that one could imagine a history in which instead of Christianity, a different type of religion - based on hero-worship of a 'Warrior-Messiah', for instance - had become prevalent. Would it have been so long-lived? Would the achievements of its civilizations been as great? Would it have been less war-prone?
I think the answer is no on all counts - but it's a matter of opinion, of course. No certainty is possible in historical 'what if?' type speculation.
I found your second paragraph rather hard to follow, but it seemed to include the claim that many people, motivated by the 'Holocaust' Myth, have done inspiring and positive things. That may be so, but I'm not aware of it from my own experience. The people I see motivated by the 'Holocaust' Myth are usually justifying more wars or arguing special privileges for Jewish people as a whole and/or the State of Israel in particular.
Perhaps one way to get some clarity about this is to look at what PR pros themselves do.
I consider most of the commentators/talking heads who appear regularly on our TV screens to rationalize further military aggression to be PR pros for the war industry. Forgive my un-Christian cynicism, but there it is. These people and their controllers use focus-groups and God knows what else to decide on the best arguments to use - and to repeat again and again - to help spin arguments their way.
So I ask... in the run up to the Iraq Invasion of 2003, for example, which 'myth' was repeatedly invoked to support invasion and occupation? Was it Christianity? Or Holocaustianity?
I haven't done quantitative analysis on this, but have the very clear impression - based on reviewing the media quite closely at the time - that Christianity was rarely used to support war; Holocaustianity, on the other hand, was invoked repeatedly.
The main part of the 'Holocaust' Myth used was the argument against 'Appeasement' and in favor of preemptive-war-to-prevent-ultimate-horror. References to the mythic official version of World War Two were incessant
. Saddam was repeatedly
compared with Hitler.
Had the pundits found it useful to use arguments grounded in Christian mythology in order to support war, they would surely have done so. The invasion could have been pitched as a 'War for Christianity'' or a 'War to expand the Realm of Jesus'. The very fact this sounds so silly (and clearly not the type of argument smooth PR operators would use) indicates to me that the 'Jesus Myth' is not nearly as useful to war-mongers as the 'Holocaust' Myth.
A similar set of 'Holocaust'-related arguments have been used in recent years to justify an attack on Iran. Why is this?
Why don't the War PR people pitch more directly at the traditional belief-set of western Christians?
They know why. They do what they do because it works.
It's true that George Bush made one reference to the Crusades around that time. It caused a storm and I don't believe he repeated it. Presumably 'the worm' dipped and the war-PR pundits took note. 'Holocaust' phobia sells wars. The Crusading spirit has lost any efficacy it may once have had (in a very different era).
There is more to this, of course ( our world is nothing if not complex). Much more. Here's one additional nuance that I think is worth mentioning.
Stirring up Christian passions is a double-edged sword for Zionists - and their strategists are well aware of this. Christians are doubtless useful when fighting against Zionism's other enemies. But dwelling too much on the Crusades may not be a good idea for those who want Palestine as an exclusive 'Jewish State'.
After all, the central purpose of the Crusades, as I recall, was the 'liberation' of the Holy Land - and Jerusalem in particular - by Christian warriors in the name of Christ.
The canny Zionists prefer to use a myth they created - which is hand-tailored to their current needs - than old myths that are more likely to have unintended consequences.