The Holocaust, a tragic event in history, is often viewed as a singular catastrophic event – the mass murder of 6 million Jews by Germans.
However, understanding it solely as an event overlooks its long and complex developmental process.
This process began in the 1930s when Jews faced discrimination and violence. It escalated dramatically after the 1942 Wannsee Conference, leading to the implementation of the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question.”
The methods evolved, from machine guns to portable gas chambers, culminating in concentration camps with fixed gas chambers and crematoria. The Holocaust also saw periods of acceleration and deceleration, influenced by various factors, including the realization of accountability.
This perspective on the Holocaust as a developmental process provides immunity against misleading arguments, like those proposed by David Irving, who questioned specific details of gas chambers. It emphasizes the importance of looking beyond the surface to truly understand historical events.
A developmental process is characterized by a trajectory that isn’t determined by its initial stages, and the course can be influenced by human nature, both individual and collective, as well as chance. This perspective reminds us that at any given moment, it’s hard to determine if we’re at the beginning, middle, or end of a process.
Drawing a parallel to the present, the “Vaccine Massacre,” a term coined to address concerns surrounding the COVID-19 vaccination, will take decades to unravel. The first phase of this potential crisis will conclude with the unfortunate deaths of vaccinated young individuals. The timeline and outcomes remain uncertain, dependent on various factors including individual, societal, and medical responses.
In a TalkTV discussion hosted by David Bull, a cancer survivor potentially linked to vaccination, a panel discusses instances of severe heart damage in individuals they know, possibly related to the vaccine. This candid discussion, supported by statistics and personal experiences, could mark a significant breakthrough in mainstream media coverage. The article suggests that silence in the face of such potential risks is akin to being complicit, emphasizing the importance of speaking out against potential dangers.