Holohuggers and holomongers are constantly pushing the Madison advertising style of bproduct identification using the term THE Holocaust, not the but thee, not holocaust but Holocaust. This is clearly sloganeering.

     Imagine Christians referring to THE Crucifixtion of Christ rather than the crucifixtion of Christ. How about THE Resurrection of Christ instead of the resurrection of Christ?

     Lets try a difference in approach. If you want to be dramatic, it is THE End of the World, never the end of the world. Even more simply, "THE End in near" rather than "the end is near."

     Note the difference in the terms? "The holocaust of the Jews" or "the jewish holocaust" just doesn't play in Peoria. Holocaust, burnt offering, consumed in fire. If they were consumed in fire, why are they still here?

     But the marketing creation of THE Holocaust as a singular event (as they like to call it) does not require "of the Jews" to be used. And that avoids the raising of embarrassing question of why are they still around.

     If you question this difference in usage, start paying attention to TV and radio commercials. Listen for the use of brand names. It is called product identification.

     THE Holocaust is treated as a product. In the marketing one does not need to add "of the Jews." There is clearly jealous protection of this name that can not be considered as other than a trademark although it can not be registered as have been Dianetics and Scientology.

     It is not different when establishing name brand recognition that manufacturers seek to create. If you have to ask which holocaust you do not have the message. If you have to ask whose holocaust museum? efforts have to be redoubled.

     Every so often there is a marketing survey, a poll, to see if the product identification has gotten across. A few years ago in Sweden and in the US there were such polls showing that product identification was only at the 80% level and the manufacturers went into hysterics. In the real world, 50% is what most manufacturers dream of achieving.

     Lets go on to the word holocaust. It means in the biblical sense a burnt offering to god, coming from the Greek. In the common sense it means consumed in flames as the Hindenberg Disaster was referred to as a holocaust in the headlines of the day.

     The origin of the usage applicable to what happened to Jews during WWII, what ever that was, was indirectly created by Elie Wiesel. Wiesel was a fanciful writer of WWII camp fiction. He created the image of Jews being thrown alive into sexually segregated flaming pits. With this image he used the word holocaust in the sense of burnt offering.

      Needless to say his imagery was as imaginary as his term for it. Everyone, revisionist and holohugger alike regards Wiesel as a creative storyteller at best. Revisionists usually go further identifying him as an opportunist and hatemonger and a liar but that is nother story.

     But there we have the name for it. Prior to that there was only a term in European usage, Shoah translating as disaster. Being a Hebrew word it was otherwise unknown in most European languages merely translating it would be even worse. "You think you had a disaster? Let me tell you about our disaster."

     So people were not burnt alive. Equally the biblical meaning of burnt offering makes no sense as even if cremated they were not an offering to Yahweh God as required by the bible. So from that point of view it is inapplicable unless the Nazis were sacrificing to the jewish god.

     What we are left with is a marketing term. A term, as with a product name such as Charmin, soft, strong, gentle, something that should not be squeezed, and even Hitler as the annoying Mr. Whipple.

     It is a term that has been used to name dozens of different things. When the term is used, each person has a different idea evoked.

     When revisionists point out that one thing is not true, another will say that something else is true. It is exactly the situation marketeers want. It is like a Ford owner talking to a bunch of Chevy owners. Point out one advantage of Ford and the Chevy owners will point out Chevy advantages.

     With that product identification with the term THE Holocaust, it becomes all things to all people. That is just what the Charmin folks want their toilet tissue to be. The last thing they want is comparisons between the armenian, rwandan and jewish and all the rest of the disasters. It has to be a singular The Holocaust.

     Hypothetically, one person in a group mentions hemerroids. Another says Charmin is the best to use. A free sales pitch for Charmin.

     Does anyone ever ask, what did you use to make a comparison with Charmin? No. Nor does anyone ever ask about THE Holocaust, compared to what? Well, revisionists do that but they are called neo-nazis for asking the obvious question.

     "I survived the holocaust." "Which holocaust?" "THE Holocaust." "The THE itself?!!" That is what a called product identification and name brand recognition.

     Now is it some "paranoid" delusion of mine or is it reasonable? From the time of Wiesel giving a name for his fanciful creation much as L. Frank Baum named his Oz, there was sporadic use of the word holocaust to describe it.

     Then came a made for TV series which was entitled, "Holocaust." Hollywood can spend more time choosing a title than in making a movie. It is considered one of the most important factors in promoting a movie. The title Holocaust was not chosen lightly.

     Now let us take a different approach. The hardest thing to do is come up with a fictional portrayal of real events. Reality is so complex that the screenwriter has to learn to ignore most of it to draw out a storyline.

     For decades they had done their WWII movies by transplanting cowboy imagery (which also has no relation to reality) to the war. Thus there was always the brave leader and the comical sidekick. Holocaust gave an imagery, knowing of the risk of death, bravery and courage in the face of an overwhelming enemy.

     With the imagery set there was a public relations problem. There is no bravery unless the secret is known. There is no courage in going willingly to death. But that has simply been added to the chinese menu style of argumentation.

     We have no burnt offerings here. We have no human sacrifices. We have no one giving up their life for others or for their beliefs. It is an odd scenario.

     The insistance upon the pure evil model as the evolutionary model of matters holocaustic is a quandary as to where to go from here. At least impure evil can make mistakes, pure evil can not.

     So we are left with THE Holocaust being a catchy phrase along the lines of "Please don't squeeze the Charmin." It was chosen as is every other Hollywood title for its marketing potential.

     If you do not accept that this was a created work then you have to accept that millions of people over a short period of time all the world independently started calling it THE Holocaust. Although the jewish community in this world tries its best to give that impression, it is clearly impossible.