• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Fortean Holocaust Deniers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
1,820
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Who among Forteans were/are clearly Holocaust deniers? It seems that a community with a tendency towards anti-science and contrarianism would produce some figures with appallingly unethical positions. I'm wondering how common this is and would like to know more.

For example, Jim Brandon/ William Grimstad was the author of Weird America, a classic Fortean volume and also the writer of Rebirth of Pan. He was a revisionist historian and Nazi sympathizer, gaining recent interest because of the Hellier documentary. He still is praised as a "synchromystic" (whatever shit that is) by Loren Coleman who seems to think there is nothing unseemly about him worth mentioning. I understand that we should not logically discredit work in one area because of personal beliefs. Yet, there is a case to be made that someone who denies the Holocaust is not a credible source for anything. Nor are they worthy of promotion and praise.
 
Who among Forteans were/are clearly Holocaust deniers? It seems that a community with a tendency towards anti-science and contrarianism would produce some figures with appallingly unethical positions. I'm wondering how common this is and would like to know more.

For example, Jim Brandon/ William Grimstad was the author of Weird America, a classic Fortean volume and also the writer of Rebirth of Pan. He was a revisionist historian and Nazi sympathizer, gaining recent interest because of the Hellier documentary. He still is praised as a "synchromystic" (whatever shit that is) by Loren Coleman who seems to think there is nothing unseemly about him worth mentioning. I understand that we should not logically discredit work in one area because of personal beliefs. Yet, there is a case to be made that someone who denies the Holocaust is not a credible source for anything. Nor are they worthy of promotion and praise.
I wouldn’t specifically call David Icke a Fortean but has espoused Holocaust denialism at times.
 
I wouldn’t specifically call David Icke a Fortean but has espoused Holocaust denialism at times.
Ickeism has a very strong Holocaust denial thread as part of its overall anti-Semitic, Elders of Zion-believing claptrap.

I have met a number of people who are interested in Forteanism - Conspiracy Theorists especially - who are dubious about the Holocaust simply because it's "official history", and therefore deeply suspect in their eyes . As we all know, CT psychology can make some doubt everything to an unhealthy degree, to the point that even absolutely plain, undeniable and (nearly) universally accepted facts are clearly 'what they want us to think'.
 
Who among Forteans were/are clearly Holocaust deniers? It seems that a community with a tendency towards anti-science and contrarianism would produce some figures with appallingly unethical positions. I'm wondering how common this is and would like to know more.

For example, Jim Brandon/ William Grimstad was the author of Weird America, a classic Fortean volume and also the writer of Rebirth of Pan. He was a revisionist historian and Nazi sympathizer, gaining recent interest because of the Hellier documentary. He still is praised as a "synchromystic" (whatever shit that is) by Loren Coleman who seems to think there is nothing unseemly about him worth mentioning. I understand that we should not logically discredit work in one area because of personal beliefs. Yet, there is a case to be made that someone who denies the Holocaust is not a credible source for anything. Nor are they worthy of promotion and praise.

I wonder why you are asking? I think there is a clear difference between Forteans and some conspiracy nutjobs. If anything, since conspiracy theory has left the Fortean umbrella, to go mainstream, it seems to have gone more rightwing than ever.

I've not read a lot of Coleman, as I've only a passing interest in cryptozoology, but I've listened to him interviewed a fair few times. He's never come across as anti-semitic or a denier. Before suggesting Coleman may have sympathies with this sort of crap. Do we actually know he does?

It's possible that people don't know Grimstad/Brandon was a nazi-sympathizer as his books are hardly bestsellers.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a clear difference between Forteans and some conspiracy nutjobs. If anything, since conspiracy theory has left the Fortean umbrella, to go mainstream, it seems to have gone more rightwing than ever.
There has always been an overlap on the Venn diagram. Most Forteans have a very balanced view of most things, but as you say there has long been a strong right-wing element in CTs and in US Ufology in particular, and closer to home there's a very curious vergence between British bigfoot hunting groups (not all, I should add) and people paranoid about the Deep State.
 
Confession - I used to grumble a bit because the emphasis on the Jewish aspects of the Holocaust seemed to me to obscure the destruction among other groups - the mentally ill, Gypsies, etc. etc.

However, the Holocaust has become better defined as specifically only referring to the Jewish Holocaust, and that has given others affected by the Nazi extermination programs the chance to raise their own separate voices if they wish.

I still get a bit edgy though when people forget that concentration camps didn't only contain Jews. On the other hand I get very annoyed about certain countries and organisations who still pretend they had nothing to do with it.
 
If we could limit this discussion to the topic of possible links between Forteans and Fortean-adjacent researchers and Holocaust-Denialism, that would be great.

That last post is definitely off-topic, this being General Forteana.
 
One would think that the unparalleled horror of The Holocaust would have drawn a line under anti-Semitism, following the demise in 1945 of National Socialism.
The recent navel-gazing by a major UK political party and discussions I've had with one member of my cricket team, who believes most of the world's ills can be traced to "Zionist plots", is sad testimony to the fact that the world's oldest prejudice is still with us.
My cricketing colleague also holds communist sympathies but, as far as I know, has no interest whatsoever in Forteana.
 
If we could limit this discussion to the topic of possible links between Forteans and Fortean-adjacent researchers and Holocaust-Denialism, that would be great.

That last post is definitely off-topic, this being General Forteana.
The point I was trying to make is that the definition of the Holocaust has somewhat changed and become more precise over the years, so that some criticisms made by Forteans from maybe 40 years ago shouldn't necessarily be condemned as denial. I shouldn't have added personal detail, sorry. I was just trying to explain why I was aware.
 
Last edited:
There has always been an overlap on the Venn diagram. Most Forteans have a very balanced view of most things, but as you say there has long been a strong right-wing element in CTs and in US Ufology in particular, and closer to home there's a very curious vergence between British bigfoot hunting groups (not all, I should add) and people paranoid about the Deep State.
One thing that conspiracy nuts and other assorted paranoid dingbats don't seem to have a grip on is where the line is between healthy questioning of received wisdom, and crackpot nonsense. It's not a fine distinction at all, but some of them don't even seem to be aware that they are not the same thing. It's childish and stupid.

In early 2009, the amazing spectacle of Captain Sully landing on the Hudson was a turning point for me in my study of and participation in discussions of the paranormal. That near-miraculous "water landing" came along just as the country needed a good positive story that went beyond politics, sort of like the US hockey team kicking ass in 1980. Some of the forums I was a regular at, unfortunately, were full of idiots claiming it was all staged. For political reasons, of course. It really brought home the fact that I was spending too much time in the shallow end of the pool. I deleted many bookmarks from my browser, and closed or abandoned several accounts. It was long overdue.

Coleman has done some excellent work, and he's gone into some territory no one else seems to even notice, but he seems a bit eccentric and he does some odd things. Of course, being a bit eccentric is hardly surprising in this realm.

I wouldn't call Icke a Fortean. I frequently call him a moron.
 
One thing that conspiracy nuts and other assorted paranoid dingbats don't seem to have a grip on is where the line is between healthy questioning of received wisdom, and crackpot nonsense. It's not a fine distinction at all, but some of them don't even seem to be aware that they are not the same thing. It's childish and stupid.

In early 2009, the amazing spectacle of Captain Sully landing on the Hudson was a turning point for me in my study of and participation in discussions of the paranormal. That near-miraculous "water landing" came along just as the country needed a good positive story that went beyond politics, sort of like the US hockey team kicking ass in 1980. Some of the forums I was a regular at, unfortunately, were full of idiots claiming it was all staged. For political reasons, of course. It really brought home the fact that I was spending too much time in the shallow end of the pool. I deleted many bookmarks from my browser, and closed or abandoned several accounts. It was long overdue.

Coleman has done some excellent work, and he's gone into some territory no one else seems to even notice, but he seems a bit eccentric and he does some odd things. Of course, being a bit eccentric is hardly surprising in this realm.

I wouldn't call Icke a Fortean. I frequently call him a moron.

But, by definition, aren't we all Forteans here?
I have a profound interest in all elements of Forteana, but that doesn't mean I necessarily believe them to be true.
Sceptics can be Forteans too.
 
I wouldn't call Icke a Fortean. I frequently call him a moron.
Icke himself isn't a Fortean, but he and his merry band of followers are very much of Fortean interest.

A reminder- as Yithian has already said, we're in serious danger of straying politics-wards, and we don't want that (I may be sat with four kilos of Quality Street and a nice pot of coffee, but my general good disposition to all can erode rapidly.) Stick to the topic, please.
 
I guess, broadly speaking, the sort of mind that gets sucked into internecine conspiracy theories is also the sort of mind that would love Holocaust denial, so there is, inevitably, going to be overlap? Must admit I'd stop reading the moment I hit on the denial stuff so consequently don't know the ins and outs. I'd think of Icke as the organism under the Fortean microscope - to look at such people, isn't to give them credence. And the fact you're looking at the bacteria in a dispassionate way doesn't mean you want to be the bacteria, kinda thing. But I'll admit I'd nope out pretty quickly with certain organisms of interest.

That said, I'd imagine say Alastair Crowley had some very dodgy opinions on all things unrelated to prancing around in pentagrams at night with naked ladies. And those aspects of personality - aside from the arcane stuff - are undeniably very interesting to discover.
 
Thanks for starting this thread, Sharon. This is a topic that needs to be discussed out in the open. It's a bit like calling out sexual predators; it isn't pretty or fun, but it's necessary.

Some members here will be familiar with the town of Crestone, Colorado or at least have heard about it. We own a cabin over there. While I was building it years ago, I got to know a lot more about the local population and it was startling at times. In the 70s it was a haven for hippies who built domes out of car hoods, mud bricks, cast off junk of every sort. Now it's full of people who defy categorization and the population is much more diverse than I ever suspected, even though we started going over there to camp and hike 20 years ago. The whole political spectrum is represented there, but you can't make any generalizations about who believes what. There are wannabe yogis who buy into some of the most absurd conspiracy nonsense, but the same beliefs can be found in the more right wing part of the population. FEMA camps, for example. One guy who was helping me put the roof on our cabin told me there were 3500 FEMA camps in the US. I said, That's seventy per state on average, or one for every two counties or so. Where are these camps? He mumbled something about one over by Pueblo, and started right in on some other nutball fantasy. There is no reasoning with them.

The Crestone area has some old ranch families whose ancestors homesteaded there when it was mainly a Spanish land grant. There are many spiritual retreats, loads of people from Boulder, earnest young people who might describe themselves as "manifesters" or children of the light or whatever. Trustafarians might live next to hard bitten old miners who moved there in the 60s. The really remarkable thing is they have figured out how to get along in a harsh but amazingly beautiful environment. From what I can tell, they have accomplished this through mutual respect. Too bad the internet can't be like that.
 
Im just curious as why Sharon cited Coleman as possibly being ok with supporting antisemitic views. There's nothing in his interviews or a quick glance at twitter that suggests this - quite the opposite.

Its not the first time she has gone after him so why not just ask him on twitter?

Also there's an implied accusation in the post. I'm sure there are there are antisemits in all sorts of walks of life. Not just foo foo forteans who of course believe everything.:rolleyes:

I'm a Fortean and I'm certainly not anti-science at all quite the opposite. The vast majority of people on here are the same. I just hold the belief that a) dismissing everything Fortean as delusional is lazy and b) it's as much about a person's perceptions of an event rather than just the event itself.

Forteans are interested. In the boundaries of science but don't dismiss it.

Still why stand in the way of another opportunity to have another sneer at the Forteans.
 
Last edited:
... It seems that a community with a tendency towards anti-science and contrarianism would produce some figures with appallingly unethical positions. I'm wondering how common this is and would like to know more. ...

In characterizing the Fortean community (however one defines it) it represents a categorical error to paint that community as inherently "anti-science." It's more accurate to construe Fort and Forteans as skeptical about "science" wielding an unquestionable authority whose state of understanding at any given point is necessarily sound enough to justify dogmatism. It would be more apt to think of Fort and Forteanism as conceding room for different interpretations of scientific results and novel foci for scientific and / or pseudoscientific inquiry (i.e., "alternative science").

Both aspects of such "alternative science" activities were evident in the Holocaust. The development of industrialized death camps was as "scientific" a project as a moon shot, albeit ultimately motivated by pseudoscientific "race science" that was prioritized by, but not unique to, Nazi Germany.

Having said that ...

The far more relevant theme here is "contrarianism" - in the case of Holocaust denial a contrarian history. All retrospective conspiracy theories can be construed as contrarian histories if and when they diverge from mainstream / canonical narratives. Other areas of classical Fortean interest (e.g., UFOs and cryptozoology) can be seen as contrarian narratives based on "alternative facts", and hence lend themselves to conspiratorial angles or addenda. As such, any intersection between Forteans and Holocaust denial / revisionism is most likely to be found among the conspiracy theory crowd. Unfortunately, one could argue there's a latent conspiracy angle in almost all Fortean subject areas.
 
In characterizing the Fortean community (however one defines it) it represents a categorical error to paint that community as inherently "anti-science." It's more accurate to construe Fort and Forteans as skeptical about "science" wielding an unquestionable authority whose state of understanding at any given point is necessarily sound enough to justify dogmatism. It would be more apt to think of Fort and Forteanism as conceding room for different interpretations of scientific results and novel foci for scientific and / or pseudoscientific inquiry (i.e., "alternative science").

I'm at least partly Fortean and I'm so pro-science that I'd like to see it expand its ambit into a host of new fields that scientists can be chary to visit for reasons more to do with the norms of established scientific communities than with ontology, epistemology or methodology.
 
In characterizing the Fortean community (however one defines it) it represents a categorical error to paint that community as inherently "anti-science." It's more accurate to construe Fort and Forteans as skeptical about "science" wielding an unquestionable authority whose state of understanding at any given point is necessarily sound enough to justify dogmatism. It would be more apt to think of Fort and Forteanism as conceding room for different interpretations of scientific results and novel foci for scientific and / or pseudoscientific inquiry (i.e., "alternative science").

Both aspects of such "alternative science" activities were evident in the Holocaust. The development of industrialized death camps was as "scientific" a project as a moon shot, albeit ultimately motivated by pseudoscientific "race science" that was prioritized by, but not unique to, Nazi Germany.

Having said that ...

The far more relevant theme here is "contrarianism" - in the case of Holocaust denial a contrarian history. All retrospective conspiracy theories can be construed as contrarian histories if and when they diverge from mainstream / canonical narratives. Other areas of classical Fortean interest (e.g., UFOs and cryptozoology) can be seen as contrarian narratives based on "alternative facts", and hence lend themselves to conspiratorial angles or addenda. As such, any intersection between Forteans and Holocaust denial / revisionism is most likely to be found among the conspiracy theory crowd. Unfortunately, one could argue there's a latent conspiracy angle in almost all Fortean subject areas.
Thanks that really helps actualize a thought process for me. I've been feeling vaguely guilty because I am unwilling to consider lines of argument that are completely off the wall. But if I can consider them to be "contrarian" as opposed to logic- or fact-based I can proceed more easily. Of course one does have to have some faith in facts, which I still do although cautious about where they come from.
 
In characterizing the Fortean community (however one defines it) it represents a categorical error to paint that community as inherently "anti-science." It's more accurate to construe Fort and Forteans as skeptical about "science" wielding an unquestionable authority whose state of understanding at any given point is necessarily sound enough to justify dogmatism. It would be more apt to think of Fort and Forteanism as conceding room for different interpretations of scientific results and novel foci for scientific and / or pseudoscientific inquiry (i.e., "alternative science").

Both aspects of such "alternative science" activities were evident in the Holocaust. The development of industrialized death camps was as "scientific" a project as a moon shot, albeit ultimately motivated by pseudoscientific "race science" that was prioritized by, but not unique to, Nazi Germany.

Having said that ...

The far more relevant theme here is "contrarianism" - in the case of Holocaust denial a contrarian history. All retrospective conspiracy theories can be construed as contrarian histories if and when they diverge from mainstream / canonical narratives. Other areas of classical Fortean interest (e.g., UFOs and cryptozoology) can be seen as contrarian narratives based on "alternative facts", and hence lend themselves to conspiratorial angles or addenda. As such, any intersection between Forteans and Holocaust denial / revisionism is most likely to be found among the conspiracy theory crowd. Unfortunately, one could argue there's a latent conspiracy angle in almost all Fortean subject areas.

I didn't intend to "paint the community" since that's obviously erroneous. I do, however, consider Fort to have been anti-science. I guess one could argue nuance but I defined science (in my previous work) as a process, a community, and a body of knowledge. Fort was hostile towards 2 out of 3 of those aspects, at least in his tone.

As you suggest, contrarianism goes against the mainstream (science) which has been established through the preponderance of sound evidence at any time. This applies to belief in UFOs as alien craft, Bigfoot as a creature or thought form, or a conspiratorial explanation for events in history. Edit: though contrarians seem to take the opposite view for arbitrary reasons too.

What I notice is that including people under a definition of "Fortean" is probably the most problematic thing. I am thinking more of people who follow the subject areas instead of those who subscribe to any person or thought process.
 
Last edited:
Do you think there will be historians 100 years from now, or will the concept of facts and history have become so open to question that everyone will just make everything up as they go along?
 
I once heard this attributed as an old Irish saying: the winners write the history, the losers write the songs. Each side in an historical even has its own perspective on what happened, and on the causes, the merits, and the injustices.

Fake news and rewriting of history for propaganda purposes or personal advantage is nothing new. It has often led to the fake version being more widely accepted than the historically accurate version. For example, Shakespeare's Richard III has given the world a distorted view of the real Richard III.

Applying these ideas to the holocaust, it would be reasonable to expect a range different perspectives and narratives within a broad consensus of agreement of the core facts.

Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other groups all suffered. Some members of each community may feel that their own group either suffered uniquely, or that their suffering has been overlooked or marginalised by history. Patriotic Germans who are deeply ashamed of what happened may be inclined to revise the narrative in some way to shift the emphasis of blame.

There are legitimate questions about how much individuals, groups, governments and nations knew or suspected. There may be legitimate questions about exact numbers, proportions, dates, and other details.

It is likely that some of what we believe we know about the holocaust is factually inaccurate. It is likely that our understanding of the holocaust will change in the light of new research. It is likely that our perception of some aspects of the holocaust will develop as revisionist interpretations gain traction.

There is nothing wrong in a Fortean, or anyone else, questioning the details, challenging aspects of the narrative, and speculating about who knew what and who turned a blind eye.

However, there can be no doubt that the holocaust happened, and that the main facts such as key dates, main locations, and approximate numbers, are broadly accurate. There was a holocaust, it was unimaginably evil, millions died, and thousands were culpable.

Anyone who simply denies that the holocaust happened, or who seeks to mitigate it is not behaving as a Fortean in this respect — whatever their opinion on Bigfoot or UFOs.
 
I have direct, anecdotal evidence that it not only happened and on the scale and scope most accept as true, but also that it was if anything even more horrific than most can imagine.

I've written before, here, that my own grandfather (a Colonel in the Tank Regiment) was part of the Allied team that had to liberate and then document Dachau, and then gave evidence at Nuremberg.

He never spoke of it at home, ever. The only time I saw him genuinely angered, however, was when someone appeared on TV (I would have been around nine or ten) and suggested the scale was vastly exaggerated, if indeed it happened at all. My grandad used words I'd never heard him use before, and never would again, with a quiet fury in his voice.
 
Do you think there will be historians 100 years from now, or will the concept of facts and history have become so open to question that everyone will just make everything up as they go along?
I think what Mikefule says applies to broader history as well, and to the 'soft' sciences. There is a core that is pretty much unquestionable - the succession of British monarchs since Alfred the Great, for example. Those who do deny fundamentals like that (and there are some) have gone off base just like Holocaust deniers.

However there are lots of points of detail that can be questioned and different angles from which to assess those facts that are generally accepted, so history will always be open to some degree of interpretation.
 
However there are lots of points of detail that can be questioned and different angles from which to assess those facts that are generally accepted.
Further, there's a pervasive impression that this is less likely in the modern era owing to multiplicity of sources and contemporary reports, but in many cases this just means greater volume of equally biased reporting. A former colleague of mine grew up in (then) Soviet Leningrad, emigrating to the UK in her mid teens post-Glasnost, and regularly remarked how even fifteen years on she would still learn that so much of what she'd been taught and told as a child was either distorted heavily or completely untrue.

You can say the same for most societies to a greater or lesser extent. However available facts may be, there will always be a preferred nuance. Let's leave that there, though, eh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top