rigorousintuition.ca

jakell » Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:17 am wrote:Can't see anything in the above about confronting holocaust denial. Can anyone else?

Andrew Brons

A man with a long nazi pedigree, in 2009 Andrew Brons was elected as MEP for Yorkshire and The Humber when the BNP polled 9.8%.

Born on 3 June 1947, Brons started his nazi career in the National Socialist Movement, an organisation that founded on Hitler's birthday by British nazi leader Colin Jordan.

Among other activities, NSM members were responsible for an arson campaign against Jewish property and synagogues in the 1960s.

Brons appears to have approved of the arson attacks. In a letter to Jordan's wife, Brons reported meeting an NSM member who "mentioned such activities as bombing synagogues". He declared: "On this subject I have a dual view, in that I realise that he is well intentioned, I feel that our public image may suffer considerable damage as a result of these activities. I am however open to correction on this point."

He also sent Mrs Jordan money to buy a swastika badge and other Nazi material, explaining he was about the undertake a "crash programme" of publicity for the NSM in Yorkshire by deluging areas with Nazi stickers, posters and slogans.



Andrew Brons (left) August 1981 in Fulham, campaigning with the National Front and BNP leader Nick Griffin
(photo David Hoffman http://archive.hoffmanphotos.com/)

Brons was a prominent member of the National Front, notorious for its extreme racism and violence, from its early days and was voted onto its national directorate in 1974. Later as the NF's education officer he hosted seminars on racial nationalism and tried to give its racism a more "scientific" basis.

After the departure of John Tyndall from the NF in March 1980 Brons was promoted to NF chairman. One of his allies during this period was Richard Verrall, the author of Did Six Million Really Die?, with whom he edited the NF journal New Nation. In 1982 Brons led an NF march through Northfield on which marchers chanted: "we've got to get rid of the blacks".

In June 1984 Brons was convicted of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace following his arrest in Leeds while selling racist newspapers in a shopping centre.

He and another NF member were heard shouting slogans such as "Death to Jews", "White Power" and "National Front". When approached by PC John Raj, Brons stated: "inferior beings like yourself probably do not understand the principle of free speech".

brainpanhandler » Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:45 pm wrote:

jakell » Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:17 am wrote:Can't see anything in the above about confronting holocaust denial. Can anyone else?

No. Not particularly, but the thread title is: How to Understand And Confront Holocaust Denial and it seems to me that if we want to understand holocaust denial than we will want to understand the people that promulgate it and what they are currently up to. AD's last post in this thread seems aimed at doing that.

And why is it really your concern whether AD adheres strictly to the topic of his own thread?

jakell » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:48 am wrote:My previous forum is now open for membership again, you will still have to register to view the contents though. I offer up this thread in particular as a magnificent example of this thread topic:

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=89723

It's a long one, but one that I may archive as it's full of great examples. For tireless researchers, the first 95 pages consist of the deniers on one hand versus regular forum members on the other, some of whom do a fairly good job.

The real deal though comes with the arrival of a new poster at post #949, who is a fecking Superman in this business. He doesn't chime in again till post #1023, but he then goes on to utterly destroy and dismay the deniers with his depth and breadth of knowledge. It's beautiful.

DID NICK GRIFFIN AND ANDREW BRONS WANT TO GAS RACIAL MINORITIES IN THE ’70S?
June 12, 2012



A now available on DVD “World in Action” documentary, reveals that when BNP MEP’s Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons were National Front leaders in the 1970′s, their party had privately decided to gas Britain’s racial minorities at concentration camps whose future locations had already been chosen.

**UPDATE** See full documentary here

As some BNP members have decided that their party is no longer hardline enough, and have apparently as a result joined the National Front, it is important for anti-fascists to make the public aware that when the BNP’s 2 MEP’s, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, were NF leaders, that party privately favoured killing Britain’s racial minorities and Jews in gas chambers, at concentration camps whose future locations had already been chosen, instead of deporting them, partly because deporting people would have been more expensive than gassing them, and partly because NF members thought that gassing racial minorities and Jews would have been “fun”, as the 1978 “World in Action” documentary “The Nazi Party”, which was based on testimony from NF and ex-NF members, and a sworn statement by an unpaid Special Branch spy in the NF revealed.

That documentary is on the 3rd volume of the 3 compilations of old “World in Action” programmes which have been released so far:

http://www.networkdvd.net/product_info. ... ts_id=1494

Of course, there ought to be a special effort to explain to people in the North West, and Yorkshire and Humber regions, which Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons represent in the European Parliament, that if they vote BNP in the 2014 European election, they will be voting for men who were previously leaders of a party which privately wanted to gas British racial minorities and Jews for fun.

That policy was of course not revealed to the public, as its then leader, John Tyndall, told an American fascist, in a letter which “World in Action” obtained, that he wanted the NF to pose as a moderate party, while neo-Nazis controlled it from behind the scenes. It goes without saying, that telling the public that the party planned to gas huge numbers of people for fun, would not have been a big vote winner.

John Tyndall published a pro-gas chambers article in the February 1965 issue of his “Spearhead” magazine, which “World in Action” quoted from, so the NF’s gas chambers at future concentration camps plans were hardly surprising:

At the time when the NF was privately planning to gas people, its Yorkshire chairman was Andrew Brons, and the national organiser of its Young National Front Students organisation was Nick Griffin, so did they have no problem with being leaders of a pro-gas chambers party, and, in the case of Brons, with the violent crime convictions of Yorkshire NF members (including the 1976 terrorism conviction for possessing bombs of Leeds NF member Richard Craven, who told police that he was waiting for a chance to assassinate a public figure), which were a major focus of the “World in Action” documentary?

The Special Branch spy alleged that the NF’s national and local leadership knew about the violence of NF members (which helped the NF, by increasing racial tensions), but did nothing to stop it, so if that allegation was correct, not only Andrew Brons, but also Nick Griffin was aware that they were leaders of a very violent organisation, whose members clearly had far more convictions per person for violent crime offences, than members of non-fascist parties.


Reproduced via - http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/496980.html

jakell » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:10 pm wrote: Yes it's all about 'seeming'.

Want to take a look?.

American Dream » Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:55 pm wrote:

...Leeds NF member Richard Craven...

brainpanhandler » Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:28 am wrote:

jakell » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:10 pm wrote: Yes it's all about 'seeming'.

Actually, when I wrote, "... and it seems to me that if we want to understand holocaust denial then we will want to understand the people that promulgate it and what they are currently up to.", I was really just being a dick, in a polite sort of way.

Want to take a look?.

Yes, but I don't really care to register.

jakell » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:48 am wrote:My previous forum is now open for membership again, you will still have to register to view the contents though. I offer up this thread in particular as a magnificent example of this thread topic:

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=89723

It's a long one, but one that I may archive as it's full of great examples. For tireless researchers, the first 95 pages consist of the deniers on one hand versus regular forum members on the other, some of whom do a fairly good job.

The real deal though comes with the arrival of a new poster at post #949, who is a fecking Superman in this business. He doesn't chime in again till post #1023, but he then goes on to utterly destroy and dismay the deniers with his depth and breadth of knowledge. It's beautiful.

“There is a pattern of behaviour here. [Tommy] Robinson is doing what leaders of far-right movements have always done and continue to do. Like shyster businessmen, they set up one firm that serves their goals, then declare it insolvent and set up another one with a different name – each time creaming the profit of press coverage and a small shift of the political landscape.
…
This is exactly the modus operandi of such factions. From the British Union of Fascists to the British People’s party, the Action party, the National Front, the Flag Group, the New National Front, the BNP and the EDL, the far-right throbs and expands, blooms, then folds into itself and subdivides like an amorphous but sentient blob from a 1950s B movie. It reinvents itself constantly until it finds the marketable packaging, charismatic personnel, economic conditions and public mood within which it can thrive. In the process it creates new and unusual vacant spaces in our political consciousness that existing or newly formed parties scramble to fill. The entire manoeuvre is designed to inexorably drag the Overton window to the right, making the intolerable, accepted and the intolerant, acceptable.”

-Alex Andreou- Don’t be fooled by Tommy Robinson’s political sleight-of-hand

Good heavens, what a tedious thread. More than a decade and a half old, this how-to list is as applicable as it was the day it was first posted.

How To Be A Revisionist Scholar
Author: Michael Philips. First-Published: January 3, 1996 in the Usenet group, alt.revisionism


Hey lurkers! After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for awhile, you may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's easy. For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out there takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil forces of some undefined, implausible conspiracy.

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce-- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose-- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof.

3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert-- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.

4. And I'm a Chemist too!-- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it.

Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

5. Sticks and Stones-- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.

6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One-- Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity-- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?"

Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

8. Now You See It, Now You Don't-- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.

9. Kafka Was Here-- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed because . . .

10. Fun With Math-- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax.

The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

11. The Great Leap-- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic-- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.

13. Grab Bag of Idiocy-- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an imbecile: a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense; b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into question; c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII; d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.

14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.

15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it.

16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).

American Dream » Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:55 pm wrote:Brons and company are clearly a great people for jakell to link us to:

http://liveraf.wordpress.com/2012/06/12 ... n-the-70s/

DID NICK GRIFFIN AND ANDREW BRONS WANT TO GAS RACIAL MINORITIES IN THE ’70S?
June 12, 2012

No functionalist explanation of the Holocaust and no scapegoat theory of anti-Semitism can even begin to explain why, in the last years of the war, when the German forces were being crushed by the Red Army, a significant proportion of vehicles was deflected from logistical support and used to transport Jews to the gas chambers. Once the qualitative specificity of the extermination of European Jewry is recognized, it becomes clear that attempts at an explanation dealing with capitalism, racism, bureaucracy, sexual repression, or the authoritarian personality, remain far too general. The specificity of the Holocaust requires a much more determinate mediation in order even to approach its understanding.

The extermination of European Jewry is, of course, related to anti-Semitism. The specificity of the former must be related to that of the latter. Moreover, modern anti-Semitism must be understood with reference to Nazism as a movement—a movement which, in terms of its own self-understanding, represented a revolt. Modern anti-Semitism, which should not be confused with everyday anti-Jewish prejudice, is an ideology, a form of thought, that emerged in Europe in the late nineteenth century. Its emergence presupposed earlier forms of anti-Semitism, which had for centuries been an integral part of Christian Western civilization. What is common to all forms of anti-Semitism is the degree of power attributed to the Jews: the power to kill God, to unleash the Bubonic Plague, and, more recently, to introduce capitalism and socialism. Anti-Semitic thought is strongly Manichaean, with the Jews playing the role of the children of darkness. It is not only the degree, but also the quality of power attributed to the Jews that distinguishes anti-Semitism from other forms of racism. Probably all forms of racism attribute potential power to the Other. This power, however, is usually concrete, material, or sexual. It is the potential power of the oppressed (as repressed), of the “Untermenschen.” The power attributed to the Jews is much greater and is perceived as actual rather than as potential. Moreover, It is a different sort of power, one not necessarily concrete.

What characterizes the power imputed to, the Jews in modern anti-Semitism is that it is mysteriously intangible, abstract, and universal. It is considered to be a form of power that does not manifest itself directly, but must find another mode of expression. It seeks a concrete carrier, whether political, social, or cultural, through which it can work. Because the power of the Jews, as conceived by the modern anti-Semitic imagination, is not bound concretely, is not “rooted,” it is presumed to be of staggering immensity and extremely difficult to check. It is considered to stand behind phenomena, but not to be identical with them. Its source is therefore deemed hidden—conspiratorial. The Jews represent an immensely powerful, intangible, international conspiracy. A graphic example of this vision is provided by a Nazi poster depicting Germany—represented as a strong, honest worker—threatened in the West by a fat, plutocratic John Bull and in the East by a brutal, barbaric Bolshevic Commissar. Yet, these two hostile forces are mere puppets. Peering over the edge of the globe, with the puppet strings firmly in his hands, is the Jew. Such a vision was by no means a monopoly of the Nazis. It is characteristic of modern anti-Semitism that the Jews are considered to be the force behind those “apparent” opposites: plutocratic capitalism and socialism. “International Jewry” is, moreover, perceived to be centered in the “asphalt jungles” of the newly emergent urban megalopoli, to be behind “vulgar, materialist, modern culture” and, in general, all forces contributing to the decline of traditional social groupings, values, and institutions. The Jews represent a foreign, dangerous, destructive force undermining the social “health” of the nation.

Modern anti-Semitism involves a biologization of capitalism—which itself is only understood in terms of its manifest abstract dimension—as International Jewry.

According to this interpretation, the Jews were identified not merely with money, with the sphere of circulation, but with capitalism itself. However, because of its fetishized form, capitalism did not appear to include industry and technology. Capitalism appeared to be only its manifest abstract dimension which, in turn, was responsible for the whole range of concrete social and cultural changes associated with the rapid development of modern industrial capitalism.

The Jews were not seen merely as representatives of capital (in which case anti-Semitic attacks would have been much more class-specific). They became the personifications of the intangible, destructive, immensely powerful, and international domination of capital as an alienated social form.

Certain forms of anticapitalist discontent became directed against the manifest abstract dimension of capital personified in the form of the Jews, not because the Jews were consciously identified with the value dimension, but because, given the antinomy of the abstract and concrete dimensions, capitalism appeared that way. The “anticapitalist” revolt was, consequently, also the revolt against the Jews. The overcoming of capitalism and its negative social effects became associated with the overcoming of the Jews.

Although the immanent connection between the sort of “anticapitalism” that informed National Socialism and modern anti-Semitism has been indicated, the question remains why the biological interpretation of the abstract dimension of capitalism found its focus in the Jews. This “choice” was, within the European context, by no means fortuitous. The Jews could not have been replaced by any other group. The reasons for this are manifold.

The long history of anti-Semitism in Europe and the related association of Jews with money are well known. The period of the rapid expansion of industrial capital in the last third of the nineteenth century coincided with the political and civil emancipation of the Jews in central Europe. There was a veritable explosion of Jews in the universities, the liberal professions, journalism, the arts, retail. The Jews rapidly became visible in civil society, particularly in spheres and professions that were expanding and which were associated with the newer form society was taking. One could mention many other factors, but there is one that I wish to emphasize.

Just as the commodity, understood as a social form, expresses its “double character” in the externalized opposition between the abstract (money) and the concrete (the commodity), so is bourgeois society characterized by the split between the state and civil society. For the individual, the split is expressed as that between the individual as citizen and as person. As a citizen, the individual is abstract as is expressed, for example, in the notion of equality before the (abstract) law, or in the principle of one person, one vote. As a person, the individual is concrete, embedded in real class relations that are considered to be “private,” that is, pertaining to civil society, and which do not find political expression.

In Europe, however, the notion of the nation as a purely political entity, abstracted from the substantiality of civil society, was never fully realized. The nation was not only a political entity, it was also concrete, determined by a common language, history, traditions, and religion. In this sense, the only group in Europe that fulfilled the determination of citizenship as a pure political abstraction was the Jews following their political emancipation. They were German or French citizens, but not really Germans or Frenchmen. They were of the nation abstractly, but rarely concretely. They were, in addition, citizens of most European countries.

The quality of abstractness, characteristic not only of the value dimension in its immediacy, but also, mediately, of the bourgeois state and law, became closely identified with the Jews. In a period when the concrete became glorified against the abstract, against “capitalism” and the bourgeois state, this became a fatal association. The Jews were rootless, international, and abstract. Modern anti-Semitism, then, is a particularly pernicious fetish form. Its power and danger result from its comprehensive worldview which explains and gives form to certain modes of anticapitalist discontent in a manner that leaves capitalism intact, by attacking the personifications of that social form.

Anti-Semitism so understood allows one to grasp an essential moment of Nazism as a foreshortened anticapitalist movement, one characterized by a hatred of the abstract, a hypostatization of the existing concrete and by a single-minded, ruthless—but not necessarily hate-filled—mission: to rid the world of the source of all evil.

The extermination of European Jewry is the indication that it is far too simple to deal with Nazism as a mass movement with anticapitalist overtones which shed that husk in 1934 (”Roehm Putsch”) at the latest, once it had served its purpose and state power had been seized. In the first place, ideological forms of thought are not simply conscious manipulations. In the second place, this view misunderstands the nature of Nazi “anticapitalism”—the extent to which it was intrinsically bound to the anti-Semitic worldview. Auschwitz indicates that connection.

It is true that the somewhat too concrete and plebeian “anticapitalism” of the SA was dispensed with by 1934; not, however, the anti-Semitism thrust—the “knowledge” that the source of evil is the abstract, the Jew.

A capitalist factory is a place where value is produced, which “unfortunately” has to take the form of the production of goods, of use-values. The concrete is produced as the necessary carrier of the abstract. The extermination camps were not a terrible version of such a factory but, rather, should be seen as its grotesque, Aryan, “anticapitalist” negation. Auschwitz was a factory to “destroy value,” that is, to destroy the personifications of the abstract. Its organization was that of a fiendish industrial process, the aim of which was to “liberate” the concrete from the abstract. The first step was to dehumanize, that is, to rip away the “mask” of humanity, of qualitative specificity, and reveal the Jews for what “they really are”—shadows, ciphers, numbered abstractions. The second step was to then eradicate that abstractness, to transform it into smoke, trying in the process to wrest away the last remnants of the concrete material “use-value”: clothes, gold, hair, soap.

Auschwitz, not the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, was the real “German Revolution,” the attempted “overthrow,” not merely of a political order, but of the existing social formation. By this one deed the world was to be made safe from the tyranny of the abstract. In the process, the Nazis “liberated” themselves from humanity. The Nazis lost the war against the Soviet Union, America, and Britain. They won their war, their “revolution,” against the European Jews.

They not only succeeded in murdering six million Jewish children, women, and men. They succeeded in destroying a culture—a very old culture—that of European Jewry. It was a culture characterized by a tradition incorporating a complicated tension of particularity and universality. This internal tension was duplicated as an external one, characterizing the relation of the Jews with their Christian surroundings. The Jews were never fully a part of the larger societies in which they lived nor were they ever fully apart from those societies. The results were frequently disastrous for the Jews. Sometimes they were very fruitful. That field of tension became sedimented in most individual Jews following the emancipation. The ultimate resolution of this tension between the particular and the universal is, in the Jewish tradition, a function of time, of history—the coming of the Messiah. Perhaps, however, in the face of secularization and assimilation, European Jewry would have given up that tension. Perhaps that culture would have gradually disappeared as a living tradition, before the resolution of the particular and the universal had been realized. This question will never be answered.

Standing on Farage’s right there in the white waistcoat is UKIP candidate for east Sussex council, Mrs Anna-Marie Crampton.

Here are some of her opinions:

The Second World Wide War was engineered by the Zionist jews and financed by the banksters to make the general public all over the world to feel so guilty and outraged by the Holocaust that a treaty would be signed to create the State of Israel as we know it today.

uhm

The Rothschilds are Zionists..there is a difference between Jews and Zionists. These Psychopaths hide behind and use the Jews… It was thanks to them that 6 million Jews were murdered in the War (along with 26 million Russians!)

It’s like they have a little checklist - white supremacists, check… homophobes, check… misogynists, check… wait, have we had an anti-semite yet? Let’s put one up for election!

UKIP, the party that will take you to court for calling them fascists who also just happen to be holocaust deniers.