Damn History and Statistics

In our March 2018 essay “History as Propaganda” 1 we discussed how almost everything we know about the past has been reconstructed to inform the present. It is what we want to believe in and this may, or may not, be influenced by facts. We illustrated this point with various examples; everything from Santa Clause to the 1915 execution of British Nurse Edith Cavell. Our conclusion was that we use the re-wrapping of history to insulate us from uncomfortable truths, and this is doing us a dis-service in our battle against the re-emergence of Fascism. As if to illustrate this point again Newsweek published an article in April 2018 entitled “One-Third of Americans Don’t Believe 6 Million Jews were Murdered During the Holocaust2.

The problem with the article is that it doesn’t quite say what you think it does. And that is problematic. The article re-emerged on social media in July 2018 when posted by several anti-fascist organisations that we follow. The implication of the headline was that, somehow, Americans had been convinced that the Jewish Holocaust was not such a big deal and, hence, anti-Semitism was on the march. However, I was intrigued. One thing you can be very sure of is the fact that the “6 Million” is a sacred number. Everyone knows it and everyone knows what it stands for. We seriously doubt whether one-third of Americans are seriously coming into contact with revisionist history. So where could such doubts come from?

The main premise of the article is thus:

“One-third of Americans think “substantially less” than 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, according to a new survey that highlights a worrying lack of basic knowledge about the World War II-era genocide.”

The Newsweek article thus contends that the “6 million” is “basic knowledge”. Everyone knows it. But what do we know?

Let’s start with another number: “65 million” – as in “65 million years ago”. What happened then? Many of us would say “the Dinosaurs became extinct”. Everyone know that. It is “basic knowledge”. Of course we say “65 million” but (as far as we know) it could be 70 or 60 million. In fact, regardless of the main extinction event (a large meteor impact) the dinosaurs are still around today. Those that survived are flying around our skies. They evolved.

So the headline number is merely totemic. It fails any attempt to analyse it to the point of “accuracy”. No, the dinosaurs didn’t become extinct 65 million years ago. However, our popular view of “dinosaurs” are of mega-fauna. It is the BIG dinosaur-as-large-monster that died off.

So when a headline writer tells us that people think less than six million died in the Holocaust we are MEANT to feel horror and shock. Yet we can say with 100% certainty that, no, exactly 6 million humans did NOT perish in the holocaust. Estimates vary. It could be as low as 500,000 or as high as 12 million. In truth we don’t know. We use the “6 million” to indicate the scale of the crime. The actual number is immaterial. Hence when the headline writer writes that one-in-three Americans don’t believe it is literally “6 million” this should not be remarkable. Any intelligent human being could tell you that it is not exactly 6 million any more that it is exactly 5,999,999. That would be absurd. The point here is that the survey indicates that one-in-three believe the number is “substantially less”. It would seem to be semantics but it is more than that as we will demonstrate.

So, does this actually mean that one-in-three Americans are virtual Holocaust deniers as is implied? Does it mean they are anti-semites? Are Jews under attack from blood-crazed and utterly heartless historical revisionists? Actually: no.

Few will read past the headline. The headline says what we want to believe (or rather what its authors wish to imply – that the Holocaust is under attack by Americans who wilfully seek to undermine history because of ignorance, or (heaven forbid) anti-Semitism3. In fact the headline tells us no such thing. To understand more then we must ask for WHOM the survey was conducted and why.

It was conducted by Schoen Consulting on behalf of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany. This is not exactly an organisation that would be neutral. The survey was commissioned to prove a point. The basis of their “claim against Germany” is founded in the orthodox understanding of history and a belief that the Holocaust had endless Jewish victims to whom Germany owes an endless debt. Any dilution of that concept would be a threat. If we blast past the Newsweek spin and go to the Claims Conference web site4 then we should take a note of the subtitle:

“Majority of Americans Polled Believe Something Like the Holocaust Could Happen Again”

Once again it does sound as if American adults seem quite well aware of the Holocaust and its implications. The “spin” here is that it hasn’t gone away and the Jews are still under threat. The Claims Council does go on to hammer home its message:

“…there are critical gaps both in awareness of basic facts as well as detailed knowledge of the Holocaust, and there is a broad-based consensus that schools must be responsible for providing comprehensive Holocaust education…”

…as opposed to the crimes of say Stalin or the British Empire. So they are articulating a fear that “fewer people care about the Holocaust today than they used to“. Yet the Holocaust is now 75 years old. It is hardly surprising that, 3 generations later, that anyone should care MORE. Equally unsurprising is the fact that the survey reveals:

  • More than nine out of ten respondents (93 percent) believe all students should learn about the Holocaust in school
  • Eight out of ten respondents (80 percent) say it is important to keep teaching about the Holocaust so it does not happen again

Hence the results are largely exactly what you would expect. They really are not that shocking. Everyone knows about the Holocaust, they know its significance and they know it is important for people to learn about it. The fact that almost half of Americans (45 percent) cannot name a single one of the estimated 40,000 concentration camps and ghettos (this percentage is even higher amongst Millennials) is utterly unsurprising. Most Americans cannot find Korea on a map of the world and less than half possess a Passport. Why should any significant number of them remember the name of places in Europe made infamous 75 years ago – let alone any Millennials? Americans do not study history in a way they do not study geography – yet they still understand the Holocaust.

Yet still, there is no information here about WHY one-in-three Americans believe that “substantially” less than six million died in the Holocaust. One thing to note here is that the survey was of only 1350 people. So, of that, around 300 make this claim. The second point to make here is that they used telephone polling5 which is traditionally known to skew results because many people do not wish to have their time wasted on the phone. If you really have time to wade through all 75 questions on the phone then you are the sort of person who likes sharing their opinion and you have a lot of time to spend doing it. (We are thinking of how the Daily Mail online is not representative of the UK population as an example.)

We drilled down into the survey results for answers6. The questionnaire bracketed the Holocaust in terms of Nazis and anti-semitism which closely defines it as a historic event disconnecting it from current events. We had to hunt through the questions to number 36 to find this:

“Which of the following statements comes closest to your views about the Holocaust in Europe during World War Two?”

To which the statement “The Holocaust happened, but the number of Jews who died in it has been greatly exaggerated” scored only 9%. That is less than one-in-ten. 83% agreed with the statement that “The Holocaust happened, and the number of Jews who died in it have been fairly described“. The number of self-confessed Holocaust deniers in the survey amounted to 1%. The “Not sure” were 7%.

When asked to drill down into reasons why people might deny the Holocaust the pollsters boiled the responses down to the following options: “Don’t want to believe“, “They are uneducated“, “Too brutal/unbelievable“, “Antisemitism” or “Stupidity“. 27% responded with “other” which is intriguing. It seems the number of people who may wish to offer alternative explanations, based upon contrary evidence, may have been insignificant or was significant and was buried in “Other”. “Reading a revisionist history book” doesn’t seem to feature as an option – or so it would seem. The other explanation is that the Claims Conference was reluctant to address the existence of revisionism. Far easier to brand it as “stupidity”. Which, of course, some of it is.

So Americans do NOT downplay the numbers who died in the Holocaust. The headline figure of “one-in-three” appears to be a lie. One-in-three Americans are not reading revisionist history and, hence, they are NOT reaching their own conclusions. So where did this headline come from?

The headline stems from a different question (19) when respondents are asked to identify how many died from a pre-defined list of numbers. See the screen-shot below. 49% chose “six million”. 31% then chose numbers less than six million. 6% chose a number bigger than six million. Lots of numbers were given LESS THAN six million. Only one option was given bigger than six million. Hence the respondents were deliberately misdirected to skew the response to be a number less than six million. All you get is a bell curve of responses around the middle value of an array of options presented by the Pollster. In short: it was fixed (or, at the very least, the result of stunning ignorance about human psychology and statistics). Schoen engineered a statistical anomaly either deliberately or through ignorance. Only someone familiar with such issues would spot it.

So the headline statistics of one-in-three simply reveals American ignorance of the number who died. In fact less than one-in-ten disputed the generally accepted number. These two facts are not mutually inconsistent. One-in-three did NOT say it was less that six million. In effect, they said they didn’t know. That is entirely different.

So the truth is that 100% of Americans are not experts in the Holocaust. No surprise. Only 9% consciously believe that the numbers were exaggerated. Similar to the 6% who thought it was more than six million.

Returning to the Newsweek story the journalist added this:

“The Nazis also murdered millions of Eastern European civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, disabled people, homosexuals and political prisoners. Estimates of the total death toll reach as high at 15 million to 20 million people.”

There is an important distinction that is not made by the journalist. The Claims Conference is bracketing the “Holocaust” in its orthodox setting as a UNIQUE crime against Jewish people. If it was simply the shooting and starvation of several different ethnic groups then these would simply be war crimes of which every party is guilty. The definition of the “Holocaust” is that it HAS to be unique. The gassing of an ethnic group has to be utterly unprecedented (before and since) for it to have any value. The fact that both the British and Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds is not allowed to dilute THE Holocaust. So the Claims Conference seeks not to compensate any Eastern European civilians, any Soviet prisoners of war, any disabled people, any homosexuals or any political prisoners. The “claim” is by Jews and upon Germany. This is what their web site says:

“…our mission has been to provide a measure of justice for Jewish Holocaust victims..” [emphasis added]

Now we mean no disrespect to the Claims Conference in their stated mission. It is just that their mission is bounded to a sub-grouping of all the innocents who died in World War Two. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly in creates two tiers of victims: the worthy and the unworthy. Secondly it gives the false impression that there is only one type of victim of Fascism: Jews. in reality we are all under threat. That’s the point!

It is a bold and contentious statement to make, but let’s say it. THIS positioning of the Jewish Holocaust as the only Nazi crime worthy of attention, belittles the appalling fate that befell ALL of Fascism’s victims. The six million is itself is a totem, an important one, a salutary lesson but also a distraction. It is as if the religion of the victim and the manner of their death is all that matters. The “6 million” is NOT just six million victims. It is 15 million or more. People of every colour, creed, ethnicity, age & gender. These other millions are not victims of “the Holocaust”. They are victims of a holocaust. The Jews, of course, represented the largest sub-grouping. But when hate starts it doesn’t confine itself. We should not think of the Nazis as being just about anti-semitism. Fascists hate everybody hence we can all become victims. This is personal.

We drilled down again into the “15 million”. It derives from a 2013 claim in The Daily Telegraph7 that actually diverges significantly from the orthodoxy subscribed to by the Claims Council. Firstly the Telegraph quite rightly conflates the 15 to 20 million with the “Nazi Holocaust”. Secondly, this:

“Up until now, the Holocaust is thought to have consumed between five and six million Jews, with an estimated further six million other people also murdered by the Nazi regime.”

Now here is am important point. We have a mainstream newspaper quite openly endorsing orthodox history in saying that the number of Jews dying in the Holocaust to be between 5 and 6 million. This is not controversial. Hence if one-in-three Americans truly did believe it was less than 6 million then they would share that view with most historians. Who knew they were so astute?8

It has always been known that the death toll was around 12 million of which around half can be attributed to the Jews dying in Gas Chambers in death camps. The new study has boosted that figure by 3 to 8 million victims – yet these are non-Jewish victims who did not die in gas chambers. The study was actually done by “Holocaust Historians” at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

“The research covered some 42,400 camps and ghettos across Europe, and also included forced-labour camps and Nazi “care” centres where pregnant women were forced to have an abortion or had their child killed right after giving birth. It also drew in camps, prisons and killing grounds used by Nazi puppet regimes in countries such as France and Romania.”

So here we are witness to a dichotomy between a version of the Holocaust as promoted by the Claims Council and that described by the Holocaust Memorial Museum. One wishes to use the Holocaust as the basis of a “claim” against Germany and defines it as a unique crime against Jews whilst the Holocaust Memorial Museum is defining it as a wider event effecting millions of non-Jews who died of starvation, firing squad, disease, over-work and maltreatment. Newsweek was wise to insert reference to the study although may have been oblivious to the deeper meaning & implications.

But does it matter? Actually, no. The point is that the memory of the 6 million can be continuously re-used for whatever contemporary cause you wish to promote. Each cause will emphasise some aspect that suits its message. In essence it is being manipulated. It has become propaganda. In all our reading, down through the years, concerning Fascism and its evolution, we have seen little that has not convinced us that the Nazis were not capable of such a crime. They had the motivation. They had the means at their disposal. They had the ideology. You do not need to exaggerate the crimes in order to make a case, yet clearly that is what is being done.

It really is worth reading around the topic of the Holocaust and the rise of the Nazis. Few readers would be willing to venture forth amongst the works published by Castle Hill as it would seem like a trip into the heart of darkness. Simply beyond the pale. Yet if you do wish to download one free PDF/Kindle edition of a book then we can recommend “Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 6” Don Heddesheimer’s “The First Holocaust—The Surprising Origin of the Six-Million Figure9. Why? Because it goes to the heart of the meaning of the “six million”. When you boil down a horrific historical event like the Holocaust into a single iconic number: “6 million” you probably should know its history.

The six million is a highly elastic factoid – a mirror in which we see whatever we wish to see. Heddesheimer shows, with plenty of documentary evidence, that a holocaust of six million Jews existed as propaganda in World War One and even predates the twentieth century. Hence we really should not get to attached to this number. It is not very reliable as a yardstick for anything and it certainly cannot be proven with accuracy. It is an estimate. People can believe it is more or less – that is their right – as long as they understand the history.

Yet understanding history is what so few of us really do. It is easier to assume we know what happened so we read every book by its cover. As we wrote about in “Books Don’t Hate10 Amazon UK was coerced into dropping all of the Holocaust Handbooks because campaigners convinced them they were anti-Semitic11. The truth is that, although we might not like the arguments discussed in such works, I have yet to read anything in these books that directly promotes Fascism or hatred of any kind. Sure, most of the authors are not exactly historians and sure, most have an axe to grind. Yet that axe is largely a result of their persecution for having unorthodox ideas. Few claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen nor to they claim that millions didn’t die of disease and starvation. Their crime has been to challenge orthodox history about specific technical issues.

Although “amateurs” from outside academia there is little doubting these folk have done their homework. It has been easy to defame such authors because they have been lauded by right-wing groups. This ignores the fact that they are not allowed to present their findings to anybody else. Nobody else wants to listen. To call these people “Holocaust deniers” is like labelling any group you dislike as “Terrorists”. You don’t need to prove the allegation. All you need to do is frame the issue in the right way. Hence matters of unorthodox history suddenly become “Holocaust denial” & “anti-Semitism” when largely they don’t deny the Holocaust nor do they victimise any Jew. These people are “dangerous” not only because they they lend credence to Nazi-apologists but also because they challenge the concept that the Holocaust was a unique crime. If you could actually prove there were no gas chambers then the Fascist crimes become commensurate with the RAF bombing of Dresden…

And none of us want to go THERE.

Hence the Holocaust is often a metaphorical warning from history even if few of us recognise it this way. Facts have little to do with it. We wish facts had a closer bearing upon our perception of history. Maybe they would if not for the way that revisionist historians undermine their case. Firstly some revisionists confuse the ‘absence of evidence’ with ‘evidence of absence’. Since most evidence for gas chambers is inconclusive they conclude that gas chambers are a fiction. Yet their own evidence does not prove this. They only prove that we find it hard to conclude anything about the fine details of history. That doesn’t mean the history didn’t happen. Secondly the revisionists often engage in quite unprofessional and childish name-calling battles with their detractors. (Something their detractors are equally capable of!)

The orthodox historians commit their own errors too, namely claiming a convergence of evidence amongst eye-witnesses when those same witnesses disagree about almost every aspect of their stories. Our fault is in failing to maintain the same high bar standard of evidence for BOTH sides. We accept any old story if it fits our pre-conceived ideas yet rubbish the work of anyone who dares challenge that status quo.

Probably their best ‘contribution’ to the continually evolving mainstream history of the camps has been to slowly wittle way at the absolute numbers of victims. Given everything we do know about the capacity and duration of operation of gas chambers and crematoria it is fair to say that the number murdered couldn’t possibly be the six million we have been told of. Yet still the Nazis gassed people.

The Holocaust is endlessly sophisticated. All this proves is that if you want to know how the world works then you need to be open minded. The Holocaust should be utterly beyond a number. It is a concept. The concept that man, any man, is capable of exterminating other men in large numbers. Until we get beyond the numbers and make this personal it will mean nothing. When it is our friends, our neighbours, our family, US, then it will mean something. We should stop asking “HOW MANY?” and start asking “WHY?”

We should accept less and question more.

Postscript

A week after we wrote this short study and old and rather worn copy of the Norman Finkelstein book “Beyond Chutzpah”12 arrived through our letterbox. Finkelstein is a well known and controversial critic of Israel. His contribution, as a Jewish academic and son of Concentration Camp survivors, has been to expose how the sacred memory of the Holocaust has been abused during contemporary remembrance for political reasons. Of course he has suffered the consequences.

In “Chutzpah” Finkelstein extends his study into the topic of the “new-anti-Semitism” – a concept drummed into use in the early 1970s by several academics in a period when traditional anti-semitism in (at least) US society, had all but disappeared. The community had become integrated and had slipped into the conservative mainstream abandoning its progressive Leftist roots13. The new definition of anti-semitism was created from the idea that Israel is THE Jewish nation and this is indivisible. All Jews were logically Israeli and Israel is the Jewish Nation. It was but a simple intellectual hop-skip-&-jump to extend this argument to claim that Israel is now the “Jew amongst nations”. Hence any criticism of Israel is the new-anti-semitism14.

This is a form of exceptionalism has poisoned political discourse to this very day and has been used a leverage for increasingly extremist positioning15. Finkelstein demonstrates how this subterfuge handicapped progressive policy makers of the left. Israel had now granted itself licence to be above the law. Anyone used to scrutinising the Human Rights record of nations will find plenty of beef with Israeli policy in the Palestinian Occupied Territories16. Yet if ANY criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic then how could Israel’s State policy towards the Palestinians be held to account with any objectivity?

Writes Finkelstein:

“The one constant is the totalitarian cast of mind, and attendant stigmatising of dissent as a disease that must be wiped out by the state.”17

“Beyond its repellent chauvinism, this intellectually hollow doctrine of uniqueness serves the useful ideological function of allowing Israel to claim unique moral dispensation: if Jewish suffering was unique, then Israel shouldn’t be bound by normal moral standards.”18

Despite the age of Finkelstein’s book [2005] it remains highly pertinent right up to today. Take as an excellent example the ongoing debacle about alleged anti-Semitism in the British Labour Party. This battle is actually quite old. It is purely political in nature. Much as the argument over Europe became totemic for the political Right, then debate of Israel and anti-semitism became red lines for various factions on the Left. It has reached quite absurd levels and, no doubt, MOST members of the public will completely fail to understand what it is about. Most would naively assume that it had to do we some kind of discrimination against individual Jews.

Take as an example an article by the BBC “Labour MP faces action after anti-Semitism code row19 on the 29th July 2018. The “code” was a set of guidelines into which the Labour Party attempted to define “anti-Semitism”. The BBC do not actually reprint the content of the code but you can be pretty sure that the Labour Party’s definition is probably fairly common-sense and would line up with most people’s definition. The BBC write this:

“The code does reproduce the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “working definition” (IHRA)20 of anti-Semitism and lists behaviours likely to be regarded as anti-Semitic.”

The argument concerns whether or not the code included “four working examples provided by the IHRA definition“. Now here is the critical paragraph:

“The IHRA examples of anti-Semitic behaviour include requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations and comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.”

Kenneth Stern, the US Attorney who drafted the IHRA wording, has spoken out about the misuse of the definition. It had:

“..originally been designed as a “working definition” for the purpose of trying to standardise data collection about the incidence of antisemitic hate crime in different countries. It had never been intended that it be used as legal or regulatory device to curb academic or political free speech. Yet that is how it has now come to be used.”21

The concept that the current Labour Party leadership (Jeremy Corbyn) is in any way racist is ridiculous. But, of course, this has nothing to do with racism. It is about accountability. All Nations feel they are hard done by in the eyes of the international community. All think that they are somehow misunderstood. Nationalists always appeal to concepts of “sovereignty” and “security” to justify their actions – and that nobody else understands. Israel is unique amongst the family of nations as being the only one that conflates criticism of its human rights record with racism.

It is a highly effective foil. It shuts down any meaningful debate. It is as highly effective as it is shameful. No nation has the power to to claim upon itself that it is above the law and unilaterally declare that any criticism of it is somehow expecting it to have “higher-standards” than other nations. The standards are applied by the United Nations. The UN is impartial and has also proclaimed that Holocaust Denial should be fought22. Those rules & resolutions are applied evenly even if individuals and Nations do not agree. Israeli is not an independent arbiter nor in any objective position to judge its own behaviour. It is simply putting up the cry of any bawling playground brat when they are cornered by a reality they feel powerless to change: “It isn’t fair” and “THEY started it”. (Sadly bizarrely common in international diplomacy.)

Likewise, as Finkelstein points out with many examples in “Chutzpah”, many Israel-supporting academics, writers and journalists have no objection whatsoever to naming their neighbours in the Arab world as “Nazis”23. In fact Israel has made a name for itself by crying “Nazi!” and pointing its finger at any critic who comes along24. The accusation that the Israeli State is behaving in a fashion consistent with the National Socialist State in Germany 1933 to 1945 is not simply a matter of name calling. It is more than an empty slur. It is based upon known behaviours and a variety of indicators that are usually agreed to be consistent with Fascism. If Israel wishes to the defend itself then it must desist in these behaviours.

Take for example the book “The Anatomy of Fascism” by Robert O. Paxton25 where the academic wrote

“By 2002, it was possible to hear language within the right wing of the Likud Party and some of the small religious parties that come close to a functional equivalent of fascism. The chosen people begins to sound like a Master Race that claim a unique “mission in the world,” demands its “vital space,” demonises an enemy that obstructs the realisation of the people’s destiny, and accepts the necessity of force to obtain these ends.”

By the standards required by critics of the British Labour Party, this academic and historian (Robert Paxton) is an anti-Semite. The logic being that no such comparison can be the result of objectivity – it can only be racism. Whilst this is designed to limit the freedom of speech of academics it also has a chilling effect up people everywhere and, ironically, Jews themselves.

In July 2018 over forty Jewish groups from around the world26 came together to denounce the misuse of anti-Semitism27. They signed a joint declaration denouncing

“..cynical and false accusations of antisemitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid.”

Their concern was, quite rightly, that very REAL Fascism and anti-semitism was being ignored in the interests of Israel. Cynical claims of ‘new anti-Semitism’ was leaving the door open to the rise of genuinely dangerous hate groups and individuals.

“At times like this, it is more important than ever to distinguish between the hostility to or prejudice against Jews on the one hand and legitimate critiques of Israeli policies and system of injustice on the other.”

The declaration goes on to explicitly criticise the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism28 because it “intentionally equate[s] legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former“. They went on

“We urge our governments, municipalities, universities and other institutions to reject the IHRA definition and instead take effective measures to defeat white supremacist nationalist hate and violence…”

One of the signatories was the British Jewish Voice For Labour. Clearly a group unconnected from Labour’s “Friends of Israel” group who have been identified as those being behind the anti-Semitism claims against the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

This now draws out another important point that both Finkelstein and the 40+ Jewish Groups are deeply concerned about. Israel is making anti-semitism worse. If anything it has aligned itself with increasingly right-wing groups who endorse Israel whilst, at the same time, being genuinely distrustful of Jews. The sad and ultimate destination for Israel seems to be an armed madhouse surrounded by high walls. Outside the walls an angry and vengeful mob29. Inside the walls every Jew of the world. Shaking in fear. Is that any way to build a Nation? A truly great Nation?

That isn’t a homeland. It’s dystopia.

  1. Our blog “History as Propaganda” http://www.post-carbon-living.com/blog/index.php/2018/03/14/history-propaganda/
  2. https://www.newsweek.com/one-third-americans-dont-believe-6-million-jews-were-murdered-during-holocaust-883513
  3. See Finkelstein 2008: Preface page xxxviii where the “alleged pervasiveness of Holocaust denial” is claimed to be part of the wide “new anti-Semitism” offensive
  4. http://www.claimscon.org/study
  5. http://cc-69bd.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Holocaust-Knowledge-and-Awareness-Study-%E2%80%93-Methodology.pdf
  6. http://cc-69bd.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Holocaust-Knowledge-and-Awareness-Study-%E2%80%93-Topline-Results-1-1.pdf
  7. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9906771/Nazis-may-have-killed-up-to-20m-claims-shocking-new-Holocaust-study.html
  8. See also Finkelstein 2008; he cites pro-Israeli academic Walter Lacqueur in his book on anti-Semitism “Changing Face” where that author is quoted as saying that “between 5.1 and 5.9 million” Jews died in the holocaust. The matter is NOT controversial amongst historians but is quickly weaponised against anyone worthy of the label “anti-semite” – and that can be almost anyone guilty of almost any perceived heresy (no matter how absurd) against the State of Israel.
  9. http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=6
  10. Our blog “Books Don’t Hatehttp://www.post-carbon-living.com/blog/index.php/2018/03/21/books-dont-hate/
  11. Amazon has been victim to this campaign for many years. See Finkelstein 2008 Preface page xiii – the ongoing claim that anti-Semitic works are freely available on the internet as evidence that anti-Semitism is widespread. Those who make this accusation largely preserve it upon themselves to dictate what is, and what is not, “anti-Semitic” thus acting as self-appointed gatekeepers of the public morals.
  12. Beyond Chutzpah – On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History” by Norman G Finkelstein, published by Verso in the UK 2005, this updated edition 2008, ISBN: 978-1-84467-149-6. This will be cited as “Finkelstein 2008” throughout this essay both before and after this point in the text.
  13. Finkelstein 2008: page 26/27
  14. …and we do mean ANY criticism – see the exaggerations cited in Finkelstein 2008: pages 38 thru 45
  15. See Finkelstein 2008: pages 46 thru 48 for a line of reasoning suggesting that all progress in humanitarian and human rights laws should be rolled back to suit Israel.
  16. Israel is hardly alone in breaking International Law in the Middle East with impunity, the 6th April 2018 article “When it comes to Middle East policy, the UK is nothing but a rogue state” in Middle East Eye http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-it-comes-middle-east-policy-uk-rogue-state-1677623456 claims that “Britain has been promoting at least seven foreign policies that can be strongly argued to be violating international law…” yet it would be hardly credible to label this as “anti-British” or “anti-christian”
  17. Finkelstein 2008: page 49
  18. Finkelstein 2008: page 62
  19. BBC News “Labour MP faces action after anti-Semitism code rowhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44997634
  20. https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
  21. As cited by Medialens http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018/876-israel-is-the-real-problem.html
  22. See United Nations, “Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on Holocaust denial” A/ RES/ 61/ 255, 26 January 2007; www.un.org/holocaustremembrance/docs/res61.shtml and “General Assembly adopts resolution condemning any denial of holocaust” 26 January 2007; www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/ga10569.doc.htm
  23. See Finkelstein 2008: Preface pages xxix thru xxi for a small sample of examples
  24. Finkelstein 2008: page 57 & 58
  25. ISBN 9780-141-01432-6. “The Anatomy of Fascism” by Robert O. Paxton was published by Penguin Books in 2004 http://www.post-carbon-living.com/blog/index.php/2014/11/08/the-anatomy-of-fascism-by-robert-o-paxton/ Paxton hails from Columbia University and has written several books about European history with a specific attention being paid to fascism.
  26. https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/first-ever-40-jewish-groups-worldwide-oppose-equating-antisemitism-with-criticism-of-israel/
  27. This was not the only such group effort. On 1st August 2018 650 British Jews signed a declaration denouncing newspaper editorials that claimed that the British Labour Party was institutionally racist. See https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/more-than-650-jews-sign-petition-against-united-we-stand-editorial/ The petitioners said “by conflating real anti-Semitism with what they call political anti-Semitism targeting Israel, they jeopardise prospects for a just and peaceful solution in the Middle East”
  28. https://www.state.gov/s/rga/resources/267538.htm
  29. Finkelstein 2008: page 58 “…in conflating Palestinians with Nazis, thereby dignifying the Nazis with real, rational grievances of the Palestinians, don’t these Holocaust-mongers come close to justifying, if not the Final Solution, at any rate Nazi hatred of Jews?

About post-carbon-man

A passionate advocate of a peaceful transition to a sustainable political-economy, Mark hails from a working class farming background. Today he is a Company Director and Chairman of the Low Carbon Chilterns Co-operative. Whilst at University (Engineering Masters) he was active in Conservative Student politics but has had no affiliation since. He has travelled widely on business covering the USA, Europe, Middle East and Central Asian Republics. In 2007 Mark founded Post-Carbon-Living and a year later co-founded Transition Town High Wycombe. He lives with is wife & daughter in a home they retrofitted to be carbon-neutral. Today he blogs about surviving politics on a shrinking planet and is passionate in his rejection of Nationalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Figure this out for access! * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.