Scratch the surface of the Fuentes inspired (highly plausible) narratives about Jewish influence, and you tend to find classic Jew hate up to and including holocaust denial - and we can expect this to be a new battleground in politics.
Yes, but........ the Political, Civil Service & Judicial classes have conspired to weaponise the ECHR, & its rulings have become directly detrimental to the best interests of the UK electorate. Departure is the only option for the UK
Rightly or wrongly the ECHR is a symbol of Starmer’s pet love - International Law. We must leave the ECHR to show everyone (including ourselves) that we really mean business.
I think you’re being a tad stubborn on the ECHR Pete. Problems with the GFA are a minor sideshow compared to the immigration invasion we’re facing.
In part some of the disintegration comes from the paradox of 'the lessons of WW2' - nationalism (extended to borders, shared culture, ethnic core of nations even if we allow slow amounts of immigration and integration) always bad and to be resisted (and leads to the gas chamber), but Israel as a home for the Jewish people and can be allowed to control its borders (aggressively) and immigration to ensure it continues as a Jewish nation. I don't agree with the first one as its framed in popular media, but I don't have a problem with Israel existing on terms it does. But this schizophrenic holding of these two principles is fraying now. To be fair the pink and blue haired 'Trans for Palestine' folk are a bit more consistent (no borders anywhere) than the political establishment that supports the existence of a Jewish state but doesn't support the notion of an English, Scottish or Welsh state built around the ethnos of those lands.
And in recent years the Holocaust has been reframed to be only about 'racism' rather than antisemitism - which is dangerous. Yes the Nazis were racist, yes they had a specific racial hierarchy and Hitlers plans for Europe were for Germans and Aryans to rule lesser people - but the task of extermination of the Jews was something grim and specific on top of that perverted Darwinism.
For example - recent dramatic works on the antebellum south have had slave holders exhibit the same kind of sadism that the Nazis inflicted on the Jews which is just dumb as well as ahistorical. Chattel slaves were valuable - nobody is going to go Amon Goethe on their own property and kill and maim randomly out of hatred for blacks. Sure whippings and punishments would abound, abuse of all kinds - but why having bought another human at a price for economic reasons would you dispose of it it such a casual manner?
Scapegoating Jews and holocaust denial are surely two completely different things and I feel you should qualify the difference and explain who exactly are the current holocaust deniers?
I do wonder what that is intended to accomplish. If 4 million were killed instead or 6 or whatever the figures are? Personally I think this is a Motte and Bailey attempt to move towards denying the existence of extermination camps. (Which I understand only ran for 2-3 years). What is it intended to accomplish? To prove what?
Well. That's for Steve Laws to elaborate on...or not, as the case may be.
I watched his interview with Liam Tuffs and his (Laws) views on AH were the only true red flag, for me. And yes, 'questioning the numbers' + 'Hitler was misunderstood' do together seem to *suggest* some problematic views *could* be held 'off camera'. But they weren't explicitly expressed and I don't want to start embellishing someone's words.
PN left Homeland because some problematic 'revisionist' views were becoming platformed, at least as I understand it. I'm not on X, so I'm no expert.
I mean is it to say that the soviets were as bad? Or the thing that seems to get put about now that the Jews only died of disease and hunger because the evil Churchill insisted on blockading the poor old Germans.
This has been prevalent with the so called 'freedom movement' who, whilst being pretty savvy regarding the covidian cult and the mandated medications nevertheless got caught up in a mindset that decided that nothing we in the West have ever been taught is true. You'll see hints of this with prominent outliers such as Dr Sam Bailey who promotes the writing of someone who is clearly anti Jewish in a publication about the Rothschilds which was cannibalised and distorted from Niall Ferguson's double volume on the banking family. Only one out of the two volumes mind, obviously too mean to stump up for both. I've written on this wider issue on my own Substack. It is the laziest and nastiest of unthinking.
Sweet baby Jesus - there are a lot of these “duh Churchill was the real baddy” fuckwits about these days. Being edgy or Hitler fangirls? Who knows, but bugger me with an Me109 the antisemitism lab leak that started with Corbyn seems to have hit the shallower end of the nationalist right gene pool.
When the Yad Vashem Centre officially reduces the number murdered or who died at Auschwitz by millions then we can legitimately and justifiably question the narrative in the post war years. Before anyone comes back and says, so only X amount of people died instead of Y, if you are going to lie about millions of deaths for over 45 years, you can lie about anything.
The first concentration camp was in 1933 and held almost exclusively Roman Catholic priests. We hear nothing of it.
Barbara Lerner Spectre is on record approx 2010/12 as saying that Europe is going to have to be multicultural and Jews will be at the forefront of that and because of this Jews will be resented. I believe but her open borders movement - Paidea/European Institution for Jewish Studies is still going. That’s a pernicious statement and one which her institute works towards.
Apart from my opinion about lying about millions dead, you’ll lie about anything - which I believe was the case - the other parts of my post are facts. That’s not vengeful denial.
"The first concentration camp was in 1933 and held almost exclusively Roman Catholic priests. We hear nothing of it" - what point are you trying to make with that exactly? Concentration camps were prisons as part of a penal system and in the early years of the third Reich people would be released from concentration camps. These are not the same thing as work camps or extermination camps that came after the war started. Perhaps some of the camps that were there early in the regime came to resemble the other types of camps by the wars end - but in 1933 I would say the experience of being in a concentration camp in Germany was very different from how it was in 1943-45.
When did they officially reduce the numbers? As I understand it a total of 6million Jews killed throughout the Holocaust and 1.1 million at Auschwitz are widely accepted as being the most likely. There was it seems an over estimate of the numbers killed in the years immediately after the war with up to 4 million at Auschwitz being mooted. That doesn't mean that the *total* number changed, just the mode and location of death.
So as I said - the figure for the holocaust in total is 6 million or so - the figure for *a specific camp* was hard to define because the archives for that camp were not accessible because of the cold war.
The Holocaust was not a single method of killing but a multi phase genocide:
• Bullets (1.5–2M) → face to face massacres in Eastern Europe.
• Camps (2.7–3M) → industrialized extermination in Poland.
• Other (1–1.5M) → ghettos, forced labor, starvation, marches.
Together, these add up to the 6 million Jewish victims, with millions of non Jewish victims also murdered under Nazi policies.
(deaths at individual extermination camps - of which Auschwitz was the largest and most infamous - but also part of a large complex of work camps: Auschwitz (~1.1 million Jews), Treblinka (~870,000), Belzec (~434,000), Sobibor (~170,000), Chelmno (~152,000), Majdanek (~78,000).)
WHATEVER WAY YOU SPIN IT OUT THE FACTS ARE THAT THE GERMAN STATE IN THE YEARS BETWEEN 1939 AND 1945 DELIBERATELY AND BY VARIOUS METHODS TARGETED 6 MILLION JEWISH PEOPLE FOR DEATH BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND.
Yes the Nazi state also targeted political prisoners (including resistant Catholics), the Polish people, gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled and mentally handicapped.
I do not understand unless it is motivated by hatred of the Jewish people (and a pathetic love of old Adolf?) why this is in contention? I mean we aren't arguing over the Armenian genocide, or that of the Pontic Greeks, or whatever. Why do you want to believe that this is contentious?
Yes because they are revising downwards the numbers murdered at one particular camp because when you read the article the source data was not available in the years immediately after the war. (Because the Germans went to great lengths when they were retreating from the territories that they had conquered and on which they committed these crimes were being overrun by the Soviets. After the war the Soviets wanted the narrative to be - see what Fascists do, they kill people and deliberately downplayed the specific antisemitic elements. The Soviets wanted to stand in opposition to the Fascist suppression of the 'Proletariat' - they didn't give a fig about the deliberate targeting of Jews. Antisemitism was stronger in the former East Germany because they just 'moved on' and never faced the crime in the way that the Federal Republic reluctantly did.) The fact is that the Germans killed 6 million Jews targeted deliberately for extermination as part of their bid to eradicate the Jewish people. Whether or not 1.1 million were killed at Auschwitz alone or 3 million is less important than the actual total killed by all means. To reiterate - Auschwitz was one of a half dozen extermination camps - but killings were also carried out by mass shootings, death marches, starvation disease and deliberate neglect at work camps an in ghettos.
Non that were conducted with the same degree of organisation and planning as the extermination camps. The shoah by bullets phase is not particularly unique- but it was very expansive. Work camps etc - Gulags do the same function. But the building of specific facilities to essentially process live humans into ashes - without extracting anything of value, and in fact at a cost to the organisers of manpower and opportunity costs of transport etc. that’s pretty exceptional I would say.
Yes, but........ the Political, Civil Service & Judicial classes have conspired to weaponise the ECHR, & its rulings have become directly detrimental to the best interests of the UK electorate. Departure is the only option for the UK
Why? It isn't binding on parliament.
C'mon man.
The UniParty denizens of the HoC have proved time & time again that they will do anything rather than address the ECHR elephant in the room.
Rightly or wrongly the ECHR is a symbol of Starmer’s pet love - International Law. We must leave the ECHR to show everyone (including ourselves) that we really mean business.
I think you’re being a tad stubborn on the ECHR Pete. Problems with the GFA are a minor sideshow compared to the immigration invasion we’re facing.
The Rules Based International order is discredited. It is basically the Double Standards based international order.
I suggest you find a new short hand.
Also china has attacked zero countries since 1979. Grok says America had engaged in combat in over 40 in the same period.
In part some of the disintegration comes from the paradox of 'the lessons of WW2' - nationalism (extended to borders, shared culture, ethnic core of nations even if we allow slow amounts of immigration and integration) always bad and to be resisted (and leads to the gas chamber), but Israel as a home for the Jewish people and can be allowed to control its borders (aggressively) and immigration to ensure it continues as a Jewish nation. I don't agree with the first one as its framed in popular media, but I don't have a problem with Israel existing on terms it does. But this schizophrenic holding of these two principles is fraying now. To be fair the pink and blue haired 'Trans for Palestine' folk are a bit more consistent (no borders anywhere) than the political establishment that supports the existence of a Jewish state but doesn't support the notion of an English, Scottish or Welsh state built around the ethnos of those lands.
And in recent years the Holocaust has been reframed to be only about 'racism' rather than antisemitism - which is dangerous. Yes the Nazis were racist, yes they had a specific racial hierarchy and Hitlers plans for Europe were for Germans and Aryans to rule lesser people - but the task of extermination of the Jews was something grim and specific on top of that perverted Darwinism.
For example - recent dramatic works on the antebellum south have had slave holders exhibit the same kind of sadism that the Nazis inflicted on the Jews which is just dumb as well as ahistorical. Chattel slaves were valuable - nobody is going to go Amon Goethe on their own property and kill and maim randomly out of hatred for blacks. Sure whippings and punishments would abound, abuse of all kinds - but why having bought another human at a price for economic reasons would you dispose of it it such a casual manner?
Scapegoating Jews and holocaust denial are surely two completely different things and I feel you should qualify the difference and explain who exactly are the current holocaust deniers?
This post needs the above explained for clarity.
Steve Laws drifts into Holocaust revisionism, but not outright denial (that I'm aware).
Pete says there those who are now denying the holocaust and I would like t know who he is thinking of.
Fair enough.
We can but guess...
Explain “revisionism” in this context?
Questioning the official numbers
I do wonder what that is intended to accomplish. If 4 million were killed instead or 6 or whatever the figures are? Personally I think this is a Motte and Bailey attempt to move towards denying the existence of extermination camps. (Which I understand only ran for 2-3 years). What is it intended to accomplish? To prove what?
Well. That's for Steve Laws to elaborate on...or not, as the case may be.
I watched his interview with Liam Tuffs and his (Laws) views on AH were the only true red flag, for me. And yes, 'questioning the numbers' + 'Hitler was misunderstood' do together seem to *suggest* some problematic views *could* be held 'off camera'. But they weren't explicitly expressed and I don't want to start embellishing someone's words.
PN left Homeland because some problematic 'revisionist' views were becoming platformed, at least as I understand it. I'm not on X, so I'm no expert.
I’ve seen those sorts of hints dropped by Steve Laws on X. I think he is a full on antisemite tbh.
I mean is it to say that the soviets were as bad? Or the thing that seems to get put about now that the Jews only died of disease and hunger because the evil Churchill insisted on blockading the poor old Germans.
This has been prevalent with the so called 'freedom movement' who, whilst being pretty savvy regarding the covidian cult and the mandated medications nevertheless got caught up in a mindset that decided that nothing we in the West have ever been taught is true. You'll see hints of this with prominent outliers such as Dr Sam Bailey who promotes the writing of someone who is clearly anti Jewish in a publication about the Rothschilds which was cannibalised and distorted from Niall Ferguson's double volume on the banking family. Only one out of the two volumes mind, obviously too mean to stump up for both. I've written on this wider issue on my own Substack. It is the laziest and nastiest of unthinking.
Thankfully those people can be very easily ignored. It seems no sensible person believes such rubbish.
Sweet baby Jesus - there are a lot of these “duh Churchill was the real baddy” fuckwits about these days. Being edgy or Hitler fangirls? Who knows, but bugger me with an Me109 the antisemitism lab leak that started with Corbyn seems to have hit the shallower end of the nationalist right gene pool.
Who are these new characters on the British right who deny the holocaust and agitate for isolationism?
More “edgy” bellends on X than anything else I hope.
When the Yad Vashem Centre officially reduces the number murdered or who died at Auschwitz by millions then we can legitimately and justifiably question the narrative in the post war years. Before anyone comes back and says, so only X amount of people died instead of Y, if you are going to lie about millions of deaths for over 45 years, you can lie about anything.
The first concentration camp was in 1933 and held almost exclusively Roman Catholic priests. We hear nothing of it.
Barbara Lerner Spectre is on record approx 2010/12 as saying that Europe is going to have to be multicultural and Jews will be at the forefront of that and because of this Jews will be resented. I believe but her open borders movement - Paidea/European Institution for Jewish Studies is still going. That’s a pernicious statement and one which her institute works towards.
Apart from my opinion about lying about millions dead, you’ll lie about anything - which I believe was the case - the other parts of my post are facts. That’s not vengeful denial.
"The first concentration camp was in 1933 and held almost exclusively Roman Catholic priests. We hear nothing of it" - what point are you trying to make with that exactly? Concentration camps were prisons as part of a penal system and in the early years of the third Reich people would be released from concentration camps. These are not the same thing as work camps or extermination camps that came after the war started. Perhaps some of the camps that were there early in the regime came to resemble the other types of camps by the wars end - but in 1933 I would say the experience of being in a concentration camp in Germany was very different from how it was in 1943-45.
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/stop-denial/number-of-auschwitz-victims/#:~:text=During%20the%20H%C3%B6ss%20trial%20in,was%20maintained%20for%20many%20years.
When did they officially reduce the numbers? As I understand it a total of 6million Jews killed throughout the Holocaust and 1.1 million at Auschwitz are widely accepted as being the most likely. There was it seems an over estimate of the numbers killed in the years immediately after the war with up to 4 million at Auschwitz being mooted. That doesn't mean that the *total* number changed, just the mode and location of death.
https://www.jta.org/archive/west-german-jews-protest-removal-of-auschwitz-plaque#:~:text=According%20to%20Rabbi%20Marvin%20Hier,as%20much%20as%20the%20Jews.
So as I said - the figure for the holocaust in total is 6 million or so - the figure for *a specific camp* was hard to define because the archives for that camp were not accessible because of the cold war.
The Holocaust was not a single method of killing but a multi phase genocide:
• Bullets (1.5–2M) → face to face massacres in Eastern Europe.
• Camps (2.7–3M) → industrialized extermination in Poland.
• Other (1–1.5M) → ghettos, forced labor, starvation, marches.
Together, these add up to the 6 million Jewish victims, with millions of non Jewish victims also murdered under Nazi policies.
(deaths at individual extermination camps - of which Auschwitz was the largest and most infamous - but also part of a large complex of work camps: Auschwitz (~1.1 million Jews), Treblinka (~870,000), Belzec (~434,000), Sobibor (~170,000), Chelmno (~152,000), Majdanek (~78,000).)
WHATEVER WAY YOU SPIN IT OUT THE FACTS ARE THAT THE GERMAN STATE IN THE YEARS BETWEEN 1939 AND 1945 DELIBERATELY AND BY VARIOUS METHODS TARGETED 6 MILLION JEWISH PEOPLE FOR DEATH BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND.
Yes the Nazi state also targeted political prisoners (including resistant Catholics), the Polish people, gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled and mentally handicapped.
I do not understand unless it is motivated by hatred of the Jewish people (and a pathetic love of old Adolf?) why this is in contention? I mean we aren't arguing over the Armenian genocide, or that of the Pontic Greeks, or whatever. Why do you want to believe that this is contentious?
Take it up with Auschwitz.org. They are citing it.
Yes because they are revising downwards the numbers murdered at one particular camp because when you read the article the source data was not available in the years immediately after the war. (Because the Germans went to great lengths when they were retreating from the territories that they had conquered and on which they committed these crimes were being overrun by the Soviets. After the war the Soviets wanted the narrative to be - see what Fascists do, they kill people and deliberately downplayed the specific antisemitic elements. The Soviets wanted to stand in opposition to the Fascist suppression of the 'Proletariat' - they didn't give a fig about the deliberate targeting of Jews. Antisemitism was stronger in the former East Germany because they just 'moved on' and never faced the crime in the way that the Federal Republic reluctantly did.) The fact is that the Germans killed 6 million Jews targeted deliberately for extermination as part of their bid to eradicate the Jewish people. Whether or not 1.1 million were killed at Auschwitz alone or 3 million is less important than the actual total killed by all means. To reiterate - Auschwitz was one of a half dozen extermination camps - but killings were also carried out by mass shootings, death marches, starvation disease and deliberate neglect at work camps an in ghettos.
The holocaust is not altogether unique. There are other hellhole prison systems and other genocides.
Non that were conducted with the same degree of organisation and planning as the extermination camps. The shoah by bullets phase is not particularly unique- but it was very expansive. Work camps etc - Gulags do the same function. But the building of specific facilities to essentially process live humans into ashes - without extracting anything of value, and in fact at a cost to the organisers of manpower and opportunity costs of transport etc. that’s pretty exceptional I would say.