What rape, sexual harassment and holocaust denial have in common

In our contemporary degenerate debating culture it is apparently all too seductive to lash out at your opponent with the strongest ad hominem you can find. Argue for law and order, and people on the left will readily call you a Nazi, for instance. Point out that maintaining a generous welfare state while allowing unlimited migration of unskilled savages is a contradiction, and you’re Hitler Jr.

We have seen the same kind of argument from feminists. Sexual harassment used to refer to unwanted physical advances. It’s a rather powerful accusation to make and can, justifiably so, ruin a man’s social standing in society. However, feminists then extended the applicability of this term. These days, it’s also sexual harassment if a guy asks a girl out who just doesn’t find him attractive.

Rape is even more interesting. Sure, rape is a horrible crime. However, feminists, in their misguided belief that they would wield an immensely powerful club, misappropriated the term. We now have “auditory rape” or “mansplaining”, which is when a man makes an effort to explain to a feminist woman why she is stupid, which she does not want to hear. We also have “mini rapes” nowadays. For instance, if a Western whore walks around in a mini skirt in order to get attention, and she only finds 1 of the 10 guys who ogle her attractive, then she got “mini-raped” nine times. Imagine that! That poor little girl went to work and got raped nine times! It’s almost like New Year’s Eve 2016 in Cologne, Germany.

Lastly, there is holocaust denial. The joos thought they would be oh-so smart by trying to shut down all critical questions, so they labelled any kind of criticism of the mainstream presentation of the holocaust as “denial”. For instance, the gas chamber they show to tourists in Auschwitz was rebuilt after the war (!), which did not keep our tour guide from claiming that a gajillion joos found their tragic death in there. So, there is a big difference between denying that the holocaust has taken place and questioning whether the public narrative is accurate. Nowadays, even Jewish media openly criticize the oft-peddled number of “six million Jews”, but our Auschwitz tour guide nonetheless claimed that the Nazis killed “at least” that many.

The consequence of all this is simply desensitization. People don’t take feminist wailing about sexual harassment or even rape all that seriously anymore. It’s like the story of the boy who cried wolf. You certainly get attention for shouting “Rape!” or “Sexual harassment!” the first few times, but when it then turns out that it’s just about some Western whore who didn’t like that Jose the Bricklayer gave her a leery look, aka. committed a “mini-rape”, or that Betty the slutty-looking secretary didn’t like that some lowly intern asked her out on a date and now claims “sexual harassment” just makes people care less and less. The same seems to be happening to the holocaust. My infinite sympathies for the joos certainly took a big hit when I learnt that, for instance, the claim that six million of them died in the holocaust is based on a made up “number without any scholarly basis (…) that was intended to increase sympathy for Jewish suffering”, to quote from the article linked to above.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below, but keep the comment policy in mind.
Please support my work with a donation; your contribution is greatly appreciated! If you need further advice, then get my books or arrange a Skype or email consultation.

29 thoughts on “What rape, sexual harassment and holocaust denial have in common

  1. I guess people love playing the victim game, which is a quite powerful position to be in, because you can claim stuff now.

  2. On reading the linked article it appears that the number in dispute is the number of non-jews that died, instead of what you indicate as the number of jews that died.

    1. You are right. I re-read the article. The passage I referred to is poorly written. Anyway, the bigger point stands, though. For instance, here is a source from leftist rag New York Times from the early nineties that states that the Auschwitz death toll has officially been reduced from 4 million to 1.5 million:
      http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/world/poland-agrees-to-change-auschwitz-tablets.html
      “It was previously thought that four million died at the camps. More recent research has revealed the figure to be closer to 1.5 million.”
      Of course, you were a “holocaust denier” if you questioned the higher number before that revision. There are other reputable sources that use much lower numbers, by the way.

  3. About the Holocaust, some people forget that a tragedy is not necessarily less powerful by having affected a limited or even unitary number of victims. There’s a reason why the Lindbergh baby is still remembered after almost 90 years.

    If it was found out that the number of jews victimized was actually 6,000 rather than 600,000, that wouldn’t prevent it from being an attrocity.

    1. The point is that tragedies can be manipulated to achieve political goals. Ever heard of the Srebrenica massacre? It’s always used to remind the world how those “ebul slav nazi serbs” tried to ethnic cleanse Bosnia and eliminate one gazillion Bosnian babbys.
      …except that all the bodies on Srebrenica are men. That all of them were soldiers. That those were the men of Naser Oric (a true piece of work that guy, google it). That Srebrenica was a demilitarized area, yet Bosnian soldiers keep using it as an outpost to keep raiding serb towns.
      The most interesting part is that the serbs have never denied the existence of atrocities made by them on the Bosnian War. What makes them REALLY FUCKING MAD is the fact that no one acknowledges the war crimes made by croats and bosnians. No, only serbs killed and burned towns, yet the mujahedeen and the Ustashe dindu nuffin.

  4. They blame the germans for not questioning the nazi’s. At the same time they call everyone who questions the government approved version off the story a nazi. Make up your mind. Do you think it’s a good thing to question power or not?

  5. I do not subscribe to labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a fascist or a Nazi. I also support debate about history. Saying the death toll at Auschwitz-Birkenau was 4 million or that the total death toll was 11 million is a distortion.

    In the case in your blog, Ben claimed there were no gas chambers, the Nazi regime saved Germany in the 1930s, and the second world war was principally due to the aggression of the western powers. That is not questioning power as much as adopting an unsupported revisionist narrative for historical events that certainly paints the Nazis in a much more favorable light. One would require a lot of evidence to argue this, and he does not have any. I have had these sorts of the conversations in the past, and it is exceedingly rare that these sort of attitudes are not paired to beliefs in an ongoing world Zionist conspiracy.

    1. For me the burden of proof is with the accuser. If i look at the evidence the accuser brings i’m not convinced. Even worse they seem to fool with the evidence and intimidate people to go along with their story. Do i no everything for sure? NO. But when people start to intimidate me it doesn’t inspire a lot of trust. They say i have to proof that they the accusers are rong. First of all that would be very hard to proof that something did not happened. Thats wy the burden of proof is with the accuser in the lawsystem. Second i do not bow down for intimidation. We see the same thing happening with the feminist rape hysteria. They want to make it that a man has to proof he’s innocent instead of the accuser having to proof he’s guilty. Without cross-examination even being a possibility. How can you proof something didn’t happen if you’re not allowed to question anything in the first place?

    2. Personally i dont care that much if people were gassed, or shot, or bombed, or burned alive in their homes. They were killed anyway. Does it really matter that much in what way they were murdered? Is gas really worse than let’s say firebombing people? And wy is the death of a group of jews getting so much more attention than all those other people that died. Isn’t their death equally tragic. Many women were rapped to death. I think many of those women had preferred the gas over being rapped to death. I would. Burning alive in a firestorm doesn’t sound like a nice way to go nor your bodyparts being blown off. but somehow we all have to focus on the gas story. Gas or no gas it was hell on earth anyway. They died anyway.

    3. I think the main reason the suffering of the Jews has been so prominently discussed is due to their influence in the media.

    4. If i look at something like the horten 229 i see a masterpiece of engineering. I find it hard to believe the people who build it were stupid. The V2 was a weapon that caused horrible suffering. It was also something that inspired the start of the spaceage. Yet the story always tells us that the germans were stupid and crazy. And everyone who says that they achieved anything must be a nazi. They did achieve things. That doesn’t take away the tragedy of the war. Nor does it make them more or less moral than the other nation’s involved in that war.

    5. The Nazi engineers were absolutely incredible, which is why the US and USSR were so eager to recruit them or to re-engineer their inventions. Just look up Operation Paperclip/Osoviakhim/Lusty. For something concrete, the history of NASA is a good start. The guy who created the V2, Wernher von Braun, also created NASA’s Saturn V.

    6. Aaron Sleazy. Yes i know, they used the german engineers and research to boost their own science and technology. I know about operation paperclip. I have thousands of hours study time in this part of history. The more i learn the more i realise there is still so much more that we will probably never hear about. The nazi experiments didn’t stop at the end of ww2. They just moved to the USA and the USSR. That includes the types of experiments that people find horrific and monstrous. They always like to tell how horrible the nazi experiments were. The part they dont tell is how they did the same type of experiments. And how they kept doing them after ww2. Screaming somebody else is bad doesn’t make them good. More and more documents are declassified. Most off the stuff that points at themselves is destroyed. Bur sometimes you’ll find breadcrumbs.

  6. “Argue for law and order, and people on the left will readily call you a Nazi, for instance. ”
    Or a fascist, or a government shill on some cases, even if you actually aren’t happy with it.
    Yeah, it has happened to me a lot of times. Livin’ on the Third World is suffering.

  7. Aaron Sleazy (I think the main reason the suffering of the Jews has been so prominently discussed is due to their influence in the media.) Yes probably. I also see it been used to give them a free pass. Everytime a jew does something bad or wants something. They say the word holocaust and they get what they want. The same with blacks and slavery. Patriarchy for feminist etc. The only group that doesn’t get a pass ever is white men. All evil is claimed to be the fault of white men these days. It’s the only group you can bash all you want.

  8. I believe you misread the article, Aaron. The “number without any scholarly basis” that the article refers to is the 5 million non-Jews, not the 6 million Jews killed. I am not aware of any serious scholarship questioning the 6 million Jewish death tally.

  9. As an interesting piece of trivia, more people (slave labor) died making V 2 rockets than died in V2 strikes. From a strategic point of view, the Allies were probably better off with the Germans building more V2s and less aircraft. Anyhow, the V2 became operational in September 1944, so it is hard to envision how it would have altered the overall situation that much.

    However, I think you can make a pretty solid case that the Nazis were less moral than the Western Allies at least. You might have a better shot arguing about moral equivalency with Stalinist Russia.

    1. They all killed millions of people. They all did human experiments. Who do you like better. Killer 1,2 or 3? To me it’s just proof that there’s a killer lurking in all men. Men are moral when it benefits them. They turn into monsters when it benefits them. Men fight for territory, resources, women and everything else. It’s in our nature. The oldest human skeletons had speartips in them. Or show other signs of violence. It’s just how humans are. The Western Allies used nuclear weapons and firebombed city’s to ash. How is this more or less moral than anything the nazi’s did or the USSR? The entire war was a unnecessary tragedy. And it doesn’t seems that people will ever learn. History wil repeat it self over and over again. Human nature doesn’t change. They always find new reasons and new ways to kill eachother. And new ways to justify it and sell it to the masses.

  10. Wasn’t it the Russians that took the biggest hit in the war and effectively stopped the Nazis? You’ll never hear them getting any praise or sympathy, but rather that they’re always up to no good, like rigging elections and instigating WW3.

    1. Without the USSR Germany would have won. Germany lost most of his most valuable units in Russia. Praise or sympathy would be hard to do because the USSR didn’t play ball after the war. They claimed all territory for them selfs directly. This is not what the Western Allies wanted. Some Western Allies generals even thought they fought the rong enemy. The role of the USSR is hardly ever discussed. One question they never ask. If GB and France declared war on Germany because they wanted to ensure the independence of Poland. Then wy didn’t they declare war on the USSR that invaded Poland at the same time from the other side? In the end they were all just serving their own interest. If you’re interested in finding reasons for ww2 you have to go back to ww1 and even before that. The Western Allies had their own plans for Europe. So did Germany and the USSR. They were all just serving their own agenda. It was never a war for liberation. All sides claimed to be liberators. They always do.

  11. One very interesting part of history would be Prussia. What happened to Prussia and the Prussian people? Before, during and after the war.

  12. > Betty the slutty-looking secretary didn’t like that some lowly intern asked her out on a date and now claims “sexual harassment”

    This topic always reminds me of this hilarious clip:

    > I think the main reason the suffering of the Jews has been so prominently discussed is due to their influence in the media.

    Having some Jewish ancestry myself, I can say that one of the most distasteful qualities of many who are born into the culture is an attitude of extreme snobbery in the sense of Jewish chauvinism. I wonder if this plays a part as well. I have given up pointing out to friends and acquaintances that while the phenomenon of ashkenazic IQ is real, we speak English in a world led by America with roots in ancient Greece and Rome.

    > The Nazi engineers were absolutely incredible, which is why the US and USSR were so eager to recruit them or to re-engineer their inventions. Just look up Operation Paperclip/Osoviakhim/Lusty. For something concrete, the history of NASA is a good start. The guy who created the V2, Wernher von Braun, also created NASA’s Saturn V.

    There is no doubt about this. Stealth aircraft technology apparently also has some roots in technology acquired from the Nazi era. For a fascinating first-hand account of the period, see Heisenberg’s memoir Physics and Beyond.

    What intrigues and perplexes me the most is how it was possible for a culture that was at the time arguably the best the world on so many fronts (art, science, industry; in the early years of the 20th century, the German-speaking area of Europe was the place to be) to allow what followed. “All war, says Voltaire, is a matter of robbery; and the Germans should take that as a warning” (Schopenhauer, https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/counsels/chapter3.html). What were they thinking?

    Closer to home at the moment, one must take the rise of Trump with a grain of salt as well. A probably very worthwhile book, unfortunately still on my list as unread, is It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis. Written in 1935, one wonders how obvious the unfolding geopolitical developments really must have been from the perspective of the time.

    1. The Horten 229 was the worlds first stealth fighter bomber. It’s not clear it was designed to be stealth but tests on a replica showed it had a 20% radar reflection reduction. If you combine this with the higher speed the aircraft could reach it would have made Englands radar basically useless as a warning system. It’s performance was incredible. The H 229 V2 outperformed the Me 262 in a simulated dogfight during testing. The Ho 229 V3 would probably have outperformed the 2 version. Upgrades were already planed with the replacement of the Jumo 004B engines for 004C engines. This would have given the plane a 10% trust increase. No Allied plane would have had a chance to catch it. They also had designs for the Horten 18 bomber that would have been capable of reaching the US. German engineering was incredible.

    2. Stealth technology didn’t just have it’s roots in nazi Germany. They already had stealth aircraft flying in German sky’s. Incredible!

  13. Engineers of the Northrop-Grumman Corporation had long been interested in the Ho 229, and several of them visited the Smithsonian Museum’s facility in Silver Hill, Maryland in the early 1980s to study the V3 airframe, in the context of developing the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit.

Leave a Reply

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