• 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.
Cochise said:
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...

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.
Click to expand...

*Thank you.

There is history: the study of what we think really happened, based on the best evidence.

There is historiography, which is the study of our changing understandings of, and attitude towards, the historical narrative. Historiography is "the history of history."

An historian is interested in getting to the factual truth about the holocaust: exact dates, places, numbers, chains of command, who knew, etc.

An historiographer is interested in comparing what historians have believed and said about the holocaust at different times over the last 75 or so years: the evolving narrative as new evidence comes to light and different voices are heard.

For example, attitudes to the imprisonment and extermination of homosexuals have changed. At the start of the period, homosexuality was widely viewed as being deviant, wicked, illegal, or a symptom of mental illness. (This is absolutely not my own view) In the middle of the period, homosexuality became legal, but was still widely viewed as marginal to society and, by some, immoral. Now, it is generally acknowledged as just another way of being normal. Society's changing attitude to a group of people will inevitable affect society's changing attitude to an injustice perpetrated on that group.

There are revisionist historians who have an agenda: they seek to interpret the facts in a way that promotes one particular world view. This may be benign (a gypsy historian wanting to ensure the gypsy story is heard) or malign — someone with a neo-Nazi agenda. In either case, there is bias which needs to be taken into account when considering the revisionist historian's arguments and conclusions.

A step far beyond revisionism is the fantasy realm of holocaust denial and conspiracy theory.

The denier is just a particular type of conspiracy theorist. They believe that there is a conspiracy to make us believe that something happened when it didn't. In the case of holocaust denial, arguing against it will never convince the denier, and it carries the risk of conferring a spurious legitimacy to their claims. "If they're so keen to refute us, we must be onto something."

If someone wants to believe something that is obviously false (there was no holocaust, the world is flat, the Queen is a shape-changing lizard, Elvis is alive and rehearsing in a rowing boat in the English Channel for a come back tour with Glenn Miller) nothing will convince them otherwise. Everything that contradicts their belief is designated part of the conspiracy. By fighting against it, we strengthen it.
[Minor edit for clarity.]
 
Last edited:
Mikefule said:
Everything that contradicts their belief is designated part of the conspiracy. By fighting against it, we strengthen it.
Click to expand...
Quite so, I've often said that Conspiracy is unique among Fortean disciplines as for its adherents the less evidence there is the more they are convinced it's a cover-up (and no evidence whatsoever means it's a very big, very important cover-up.)

Conspiracy Theorists and the Fundamentally Religious have much in common in that respect. All possible replies are wired to confirm their own beliefs.
 
Jeff Rense had a good website with a lot of fortean news in the time up to 2000 and a few years after, but it became less about fortean and more about holocaust denial and radical right wing stuff. I almost stopped visiting his site in the late 2000. Now I only visit his site a few times each year. He even gives David Duke his own column on his website.

Edit: checked out his site now. David Duke is no longer on his site, but he is listed on his Radio archive website.
 
Last edited:
The disturbing spectrum from UFO belief -> Conspiracies -> revisionist history-> lizard people is coming into view.
 
Vardoger said:
Jeff Rense had a good website with a lot of fortean news in the time up to 2000 and a few years after, but it become less about fortean and more about holocaust denial and radical right wing stuff. I almost stopped visiting his site in the late 2000. Now I only visit his site a few times each year. He even gives David Duke his own column on his website.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reminding me of why I stopped looking at Rense a long time ago. He went off in a weird direction.
 
Naughty_Felid said:
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.
Click to expand...
I didn't say Loren is anti-Semitic and I don't believe that he is. But he CLEARLY knows the history here AND continues to praise and promote Brandon/Grimstad. Loren has posted stuff re Grimstad in the past and tried to steer around the "politics" and his reputation. It's ghoulish, especially when Coleman writes about "hidden" and "twilight" stuff and patternicity. Like I said, I don't see an issue with acknowledging someone's work in a subject area but to promote an association with that person when their primary effort is to endorse clearly awful things feels indefensible.

I understand this is controversial but I would like it out in the open so people can decide what they think about it.
 
stu neville said:
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.
Click to expand...
I should go look this up, but I prefer to stay out of that rabbit hole just now. I don't recall which site it was, but the Allied officer in charge of dealing with one of those horrific places sent troops into the nearby town and had every last German citizen marched out to the camp to view the grisly scene in person. He knew the townspeople had to be in denial about what went on there, and was not about to give them an opportunity to pretend it never happened. That man, along with your grandfather and those like him, has earned my undying respect.

Jeff Rense has earned my contempt, when I'm feeling generous. Once I learned of the despicable bullshit on his site, I never went back.
 
Sharon Hill said:
I didn't say Loren is anti-Semitic and I don't believe that he is. But he CLEARLY knows the history here AND continues to praise and promote Brandon/Grimstad. Loren has posted stuff re Grimstad in the past and tried to steer around the "politics" and his reputation. It's ghoulish, especially when Coleman writes about "hidden" and "twilight" stuff and patternicity. Like I said, I don't see an issue with acknowledging someone's work in a subject area but to promote an association with that person when their primary effort is to endorse clearly awful things feels indefensible.

I understand this is controversial but I would like it out in the open so people can decide what they think about it.
Click to expand...
So whats the next installment? Which Forteans are homophobic? Is this going to come out in an Usbourne-type book series?
 
I'm not familiar with this part of Coleman's work and don't intend to become so, but I followed his web postings for several years and I like a lot of what he has done. If he is actually putting effort into "smoothing over" something so uncouth, then he deserves criticism for it. I do know a bit about how he deals with criticism, and it's not pretty at times. He sometimes has a short fuse, not a really good trait, especially in someone who does not shy away from criticizing others.

I think it's a bit like criticizing, say, Bill Cosby's manager or whatever. Those close to him had to know what he was really like, and should be held accountable for enabling the myth that Bill was as cool as we all thought he was.
 
Sharon Hill said:
I didn't say Loren is anti-Semitic and I don't believe that he is. But he CLEARLY knows the history here AND continues to praise and promote Brandon/Grimstad. Loren has posted stuff re Grimstad in the past and tried to steer around the "politics" and his reputation. It's ghoulish, especially when Coleman writes about "hidden" and "twilight" stuff and patternicity. Like I said, I don't see an issue with acknowledging someone's work in a subject area but to promote an association with that person when their primary effort is to endorse clearly awful things feels indefensible.

I understand this is controversial but I would like it out in the open so people can decide what they think about it.
Click to expand...

So take him on then, he has a twitter account.
 
I agree that this isn't an appropriate arena to conduct this aspect of the discussion, not least as Loren hasn't been a live member on here for some years and is thus unable to answer. The general topic however is fully permissible.
 
rev_dino said:
I first saw this discussion on the Twitter thread this morning:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1344511821454192640

I think Hayley Stevens makes a few good points too:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1344651450027225093
Click to expand...

First off I've no idea if he is or isn't but now Coleman is a Nazi apparently.

Jeez, that's classy, good job - well-done skeptics.

The wife who is on both platforms reckons twitter is as vicious as Face book.

Sharon - I'm glad we have mods on this forum. Nice Twitter post love the objectivity.
 
Last edited:
The trouble is people start flinging around assumptions. Holocaust Denier is not necessarily equal to Nazi. There are plenty of people in other alignments who have reason to pretend the Jews did not suffer as they did. I'm going to blow the politics whistle myself now before anyone else does.
 
Naughty_Felid said:
First off I've no idea if he is or isn't but now Coleman is a Nazi apparently.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone claim that. People are just discussing the wisdom of using holocaust deniers and nazis as sources and not being open about their politics. I think that's a reasonable discussion.

I'll agree with you on Twitter and FB being the same in terms of viciousness. I often find myself thinking "who is this anyway and why do I care?".

Isn't this a lovely NYE thread? :D
 
Naughty_Felid said:
So take him on then, he has a twitter account.
Click to expand...
He's made his views known about Grimstad publically. It's not secret. But, yes, this has erupted on Twitter. Instead of acknowledging that Grimstad's professional antics are reprehensible, some chose to double down instead. Not cool. And not good for one's reputation at all.

I am concerned when such blatant racism and atrocious claims of white supremacy can be brushed aside, even excused. That's what got me wondering if it may be more prevalent. I seem to recall the HP Lovecraft article in FT didn't shirk from mentioning his sordid views. We may feel "icky" about it, but still reasonably reference the body of work that is unrelated to that. It's really quite simple, and ethical, to acknowledge the bad things. Maybe those things won't matter. Or perhaps they reflect upon a larger problem. I started this thread to try to figure that out.
 
Sharon Hill said:
He's made his views known about Grimstad publically. It's not secret. But, yes, this has erupted on Twitter. Instead of acknowledging that Grimstad's professional antics are reprehensible, some chose to double down instead. Not cool. And not good for one's reputation at all.

I am concerned when such blatant racism and atrocious claims of white supremacy can be brushed aside, even excused. That's what got me wondering if it may be more prevalent. I seem to recall the HP Lovecraft article in FT didn't shirk from mentioning his sordid views. We may feel "icky" about it, but still reasonably reference the body of work that is unrelated to that. It's really quite simple, and ethical, to acknowledge the bad things. Maybe those things won't matter. Or perhaps they reflect upon a larger problem. I started this thread to try to figure that out.
Click to expand...

Totally understand where you are coming from, ( My lot fought the nazi's and I'm very proud of that and my dad saw the camps first hand after the war), but you are supposed to be fairly objective and professional - on your twitter you've just come across as one one of the crazies.
 
Cochise said:
The trouble is people start flinging around assumptions. Holocaust Denier is not necessarily equal to Nazi. There are plenty of people in other alignments who have reason to pretend the Jews did not suffer as they did. I'm going to blow the politics whistle myself now before anyone else does.
Click to expand...


Hmm, they pretty much are. Really, they are.
 
stu neville said:
Borderline. Play on, just leave the personalities out of it. As I said before, Loren Coleman is no longer an active member on here so is not placed to defend himself.
Click to expand...
Stu... I don't know anything about Loren Coleman, so I don't know what you're on about.
 
wow, minefield.... so treading carefully. I'm thinking that with regard to the Holocaust and the way it's perceived and interpreted, we are currently heading into dangerous territory in more ways than one. On the basis of longevity of WW1 vets, and a quick bit of research, the last living British person with direct (adult) personal experience of that war died in 2012, 94 years after 1918. (She was 110). There may still be centenarians alive now who were children in 1914-18, but they'd have long-ago early childhood memories of those war years. On the same back-of-the-envelope calculation (and I haven't looked at countries other than Britain for data), 94 years after 1945 takes us to 2039. Over approximately the next 20 years, people with direct personal experience of WW2 are inevitably going to die out; the process has already begun. After that, 1939 - 45 ceases completely to be living history, as WW1 has ceased to be living history. People trying to make sense of it will, like anyone approaching History, be completely reliant on second-hand sources - such primary material as they can access together with other people's interpretations of it.

But who is going to do the interpreting and whose reading of history will be most accessible? With no Holocaust survivors alive to testify -"This happened. And it was not exaggerated or falsified" - what will people believe? Especially since the erosion of objectivity is already here, the whole "fake news" thing, a collapse of trust in existing news authorities and media outlets, a general distrust of "experts"....

I could say more about manipulation of information, who manipulates and what they seek to gain from it, but best I stop here - hopefully the above makes a point without introducing anything contentious or out of place here!
 
Naughty_Felid said:
Hmm, they pretty much are. Really, they are.
Click to expand...
You see, that's why I blew the whistle. There are all sorts of organisations I could list who are anti-Semitic and try to diminish if not totally deny the holocaust. Left wing, right wing, religious. All extreme, of course.

But I'm not going to get in to discussing them on here. I really think it's time to stop this - it's been useful up to a point, but we will eventually get into particular cases and then everything will go pear-shaped.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Stu... I don't know anything about Loren Coleman, so I don't know what you're on about.
Click to expand...

He posted on here back in the day - when you were baby Yoda.

He's a famous Bigfoot guy.

He cites a bloke that is a holocaust denier, who also wrote some mumbo-jumbo about mystical stuff.

He's been leapt upon, by the internet horde because he still goes on about this bloke.

However, lots of the sceptics have gone mental because a) they want to bring down Coleman and b) they want to further push the idea that Forteana is part of the deep state/QAnon bullshit - which it isn't and c) I dunno- there are thousands or everyday shitstorms rather than a misguided bigfoot hunter that people should be focusing on.
 
Naughty_Felid said:
However, lots of the sceptics have gone mental because a) they want to bring down Coleman and b) they want to further push the idea that Forteana is part of the deepstate/QAnon bullshit - which it isn't.
Click to expand...
OMG! That's just ludicrous.
So... because they want to savage Coleman... we're 'collateral damage'?
 
Naughty_Felid said:
However, lots of the sceptics have gone mental because a) they want to bring down Coleman and b) they want to further push the idea that Forteana is part of the deep state/QAnon bullshit - which it isn't and c) I dunno- there are thousands or everyday shitstorms rather than a misguided bigfoot hunter that people should be focusing on.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this garbage from? Seriously, it does not reflect well upon you to make up nonsense and to demonize "sceptics". I used Loren as an example because this has come up very recently with regards to Grimstad's mention in the Hellier docu.
 
For the name of...

Right. It's New Year's Eve, I've got better things to do, so I'm closing this for the night. Come back in the morning.

Go and enjoy yourselves. Go on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top