"The Holocaust isn't about race" Whoopi Goldberg on the View

[vegetariantaxidermy]

However, if “Goldberg” is a “Jewish name”, would it surprise anyone if Whoopi thought that blacks, and by extension people of any race, could be Jewish?

From her comments, you can tell exactly what she thinks. She bluntly said, on Stephen Colbert, when trying to excuse her earlier words, that Jews are white, and Germans are white, so the Holocaust was white-on-white, an in-group fight, and hence, "not racist."

Not much of an apology, really. More like, "I'm sorry you people are so offended, but you wouldn't be, if you were smarter." A funny sort of position for somebody to take when supposedly retracting. Sort of a "whoopsi," Ms. Goldberg.

The bottom line is that she doesn't thinks Jews can be blacks, or blacks Jews; she thinks that Jews are "whitey." And whitey can't experience racism.

No wonder the new name for Critical Social Justice is "Neo-Racism." It's a much better label, actually.

Back in those days when this was being written adult human beings would use and say words but NEVER actually KNOWING what they ACTUALLY meant NOR referred to, EXACTLY. As will be PROVED True here ONCE AGAIN.

What are "blacks", and what are "jews", EXACTLY, "immanuel can"?

'Blacks' are people with black skin, and ''Jews'' are people who have Jewish roots. It's quite simple really. Of course, if you want to be really 'scientific' about it, then we are all just molecules swirling around in a vacuum, but then again, you get into a kerfuffle because those molecules are given MEANING by US, so yes, there are black people because humans have decided that there are black people. Phew...

[Age]

If she had said the holocaust was not "JUST "about race then she would have been spot on.

Jews have turned the holocaust into a personal fetish and for decades the many other vicitms of the holocaust have been forgotten in Israel's attempt to OWN the holocaust for their own political advantage.
The "apartheid" * government of Israel is under continual pressue to find justification for it persecution of Palestinians and to cover up its own massacres and oppression.

But there is along list of voiceless victms; Homosexuals including lesbians;

How could so-called "lesbians" not be included under the label "homosexuals", to you?

other "sexual deviants";

Is being a "homosexual", to you, a "sexual deviant"?

And, could a "heterosexual" be a "sexual deviant" as well?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Mentally handicapped people;

Do you know of ANY one who does not have some sort of 'mental handicap'?

If yes, then who are they, exactly?

Physically handicapped people;

If ANY sees a human being as having a so-called "physical handicap", then do they also consider that that body that they are in is ALSO "physically handicapped"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Surely, that two armed body WOULD BE "physically handicapped" to a four or six armed human body, correct?

Or, does their OWN VERY NARROWED thinking NOT ALLOW them to SEE 'things' how they ACTUALLY ARE?

Gypsies;

WHY are human beings who just choose to travel around a bit more than other human beings choose to do are being called and labelled "victims" or "voiceless victims" here, EXACTLY?

Black and Brown people;

Besides the Fact that there has NEVER existed ANY so-called "black" NOR "brown" human being, using the phrase, name, and label "black and brown people" is even MORE of a MISNOMER. And, to use such terms is just ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL to the VERY EXTREME.

Slavic people;

Again, learn and understand FULLY what 'you' 'people' ARE, EXACTLY', then one can very quickly SEE there is NO such 'thing' as "slavic people".

Communist and Socialist party activists;

How, exactly, are those human beings who actively 'argue' or 'fight' for a particular 'way of living' "victims"?

Freemasons;

What is a "freemason", EXACTLY?

Spanish Republicans.

Is there a difference between a so-called 'spanish republican" and ANY other "type" of "republican"?

If yes, then what EXACTLY is the difference?

But it does not end there. Aside from the usually quoted six million, there were also the same number of Russian non-jewish civilians, and 1.2 million POWs.

I was yet again horrified that the BBC, as fucking usual failed to mention ANYONE other than Jews.
It is my view that Goldberg has been attacked because a largely jewish/Israel oriented press is obsessed with the slightest chance to call anyone they can an antisemite.

What is a so-called "antisemite" 'anti', or 'against', exactly?

And the fascistic wokies here have rushed in to do the same.

"fascistic wokies". Wow 'you', human beings, REALLY do 'try' and SEPARATE "your" OWN 'selves' into continually more and more DIFFERENT and SEPARATE 'groups'.

But, how many have 'you' EVER ACTUALLY NOTICED that ANY time 'you' TRY and do this 'you' FAIL completely?

For example, ANY one of just TRY and define an "american", and let us SEE just how much ACTUAL AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE that one gets.

* The Israeli state has been recently, called an "apartheid" state by Amnesty International, and also by the United Nations some time ago.

[Age]

The fashionable wokie always hates Israel, and more often than not buys into all the conspiracy theories surrounding Jews--that they 'own' all the banks and generally rule the world (the surname 'Rothschild' frequently comes up), so it's no surprise that a wokie would make the claim that Whoopi did. The implication is that the Nazis slaughtered Jews because he didn't like them 'controlling everything there is to control in the world' (not that he was a short-sighted, shallow fool who believed illogical and nonsensical crap like the 'protocols of zion' etc..).

Ironically hilarious that a wokie (you know, those people who call everyone and everything 'racist' as a way of showing the world what a 'good' person they are and to silence anyone who disagrees with them) would be saying that something that is the very definition of racist, isn't racist. Good grief.

Could claiming, " wokies are those people who call EVERY one and EVERY thing 'racist' ", be similar to claiming, " jews are those people that own ALL the banks and generally rule the (WHOLE) world "?

Could BOTH be OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect, or, is one REALLY True, Right, and/or Correct?

By the way, what is the VERY DEFINITION of 'racist'?

And, is there an adult human being who is NOT 'racist', to you?

If yes, then who is that, EXACTLY?

In spite of all that, what happened to the 'land of the free'? The first amendment? Why would she suspended for saying something in the 'land of the free'?

But that WAS the 'land of the free', just like ALL 'lands' WERE.

However, since a species evolved were they were CONTROLLING each other, the 'lands of the free' are NO more.

Interesting that the anti-free speech mob have come up with the 'cute' little adage, 'Yes, you can say what you like, but there are also CONSEQUENCES to what you say'. That's like saying that Stalinism and Nazism had free speech; you could say what you like, but if you said anything they didn't like you would be killed.

Just to add more (controversial?) 'food for thought' here:

'Do 'you', human beings, have the right to believe whatever you like, if your beliefs involve the abuse of others'?

[Age]

I so sick of all these pathetic faux apologies and all the fuckwits who pretend to be offended all the time.

I'm getting fed up too. I just found out that Whoopie was 'suspended' (I thought 'fired' at first). Even if you disagree with her, who doesn't know that she has sincere intentions against hate against anyone, including the Jews. I thought she argued fair too given she WAS just making a point about how Jewish people tend to be mostly white and you cannot normally distinguish these in a crowd.

I do NOT know how ANY one of 'you', adult, human beings, can distinguish thee ACTUAL views and beliefs, religious or not, of 'people' in a crowd AT ALL, let alone "normally".

But maybe one day one of you will let us KNOW how 'you' can do that?

As such, she was saying that others are more abusively discriminated against based on obvious external appearances.

The Holocaust also killed other minorities too. Just because these others may not have been targetted the worst BY NUMBERS, they should not be trivialized simply by the contrast. Note that unlike the U.S. at present, many of the British Commonwealth countries legally separate Jews from Caucasians (Whites) yet they predominate in an UNREPRESENTATIVE number of those who represent ''white" people in many movies.

What are these so-called "white people" 'things' and HOW to 'you' DISTINGUISH "them" from so-called "other people"?

[How many of those "Christmas" movies, for instance, use NON-Jews in the major roles?] Given much of the entertainment influences AND reflects our culture, could it not be true that Jewish people themselves are ALSO just as racist?

What is 'our culture' EXACTLY?

And, who EXACTLY are 'included', and who EXACTLY are 'excluded', in this 'our'?

I would say that the arrogant defence of ONE people when fighting against racist causes actually ENHANCES racism against them too.

Just using the TOTALLY INCORRECT term and phrase "one people" as though there is ANOTHER "type of people" is EXACTLY WHY 'racism' ACTUALLY EXISTS.

There is NOT, and I will REPEAT NOT, ANOTHER 'type of person'.

There is ONLY One 'type of person' and 'it' IS that 'one', which resides within a human body. There are, however, as MANY DIFFERENT 'people' as there have been breathing and blood pumping human bodies. (But if ANY one wants to argue that before a human body has left the womb, and started breathing, there is already a 'person' within, then I am NOT going to disagree NOR argue against).

'Racism', itself, only exists because 'you', adult human beings, have evolved to VIEW and SEE DIFFERENCES, and so have come to SEPARATE "yourselves" through a created SEPARATED "race" perspective, which is what a LOT of 'you' then USE to provide a 'self-superiority' over "another", in order to help 'you', individually, "feel better" about "yourselves". With the lack of 'self-esteem' is just coming from NOT KNOWING thy 'self' and from doing what is instinctively KNOWN as being Wrong, like for example, being a 'racist' towards PERCEIVED "others".

Which is ALL just one vicious ABUSE cycle.

IF one is sincerely wanting to stop racism, those organs that define themselves in a 'advocacy' SPECIFICALLY against their own (any 'minority' advocacy) are being the major contributors to the social rise in hate because when one makes some WHOLE CLASS of people 'innocent' by virtue of being a MEMBER of a race, ethnicity, or other minority.

If one just SERIOUSLY WANTS to STOP being a 'racist', "them" 'self', and thus help in STOPPING 'racism', itself, then they will just STOP viewing and seeing 'you', human beings, in ANY other way than just 'that', that is; A human being, or just One group of 'human beings' separated from ALL other 'animals' ONLY by having the ability that NO other animal has. ALL of 'you', human beings, by the way, EQUALLY have 'this' ABILITY.

HATE is a a product of strong LOVE which makes those defending SPECIFIC biases in unrepresentative percentages sincerely RACIST! Why is it assumed alright for one to have legitimacy to COUNTER_HATE based specifically upon the LOVE OF ONLY their OWN?

Find out WHY 'you', adult human beings, have HATE, then 'you' will be able to PREVENT "yourselves" from HATE ever RETURNING back to 'you', human beings.

I'm getting fed up. I am Left of center as many here now. But I feared that regardless of where one is at, they are all ignorant of how FAVORING one's own with extreme IS THEE cause of the racism.

Just VIEWING or SEEING that there is "one's own" is just WHAT causes 'racism', itself'. End of story.

STOP the ABSURD 'notion' that there is 'one's own' and 'racism' will CEASE to exist COMPLETELY and ALL TOGETHER.

When any society suffers, pluralities will ALWAYS be able to point to unrepresentative fairness of being the ones impoverished unfairly. Why are we not allowed to look at the other end of the spectra? [No wonder the Socialist countrie look at us as being so fucking arrogant and HYPOCRITICAL.]

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The fashionable wokie always hates Israel, and more often than not buys into all the conspiracy theories surrounding Jews--that they 'own' all the banks and generally rule the world (the surname 'Rothschild' frequently comes up), so it's no surprise that a wokie would make the claim that Whoopi did. The implication is that the Nazis slaughtered Jews because he didn't like them 'controlling everything there is to control in the world' (not that he was a short-sighted, shallow fool who believed illogical and nonsensical crap like the 'protocols of zion' etc..).

Ironically hilarious that a wokie (you know, those people who call everyone and everything 'racist' as a way of showing the world what a 'good' person they are and to silence anyone who disagrees with them) would be saying that something that is the very definition of racist, isn't racist. Good grief.

Could claiming, " wokies are those people who call EVERY one and EVERY thing 'racist' ", be similar to claiming, " jews are those people that own ALL the banks and generally rule the (WHOLE) world "?

Could BOTH be OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect, or, is one REALLY True, Right, and/or Correct?

By the way, what is the VERY DEFINITION of 'racist'?

And, is there an adult human being who is NOT 'racist', to you?

If yes, then who is that, EXACTLY?

In spite of all that, what happened to the 'land of the free'? The first amendment? Why would she suspended for saying something in the 'land of the free'?

But that WAS the 'land of the free', just like ALL 'lands' WERE.

However, since a species evolved were they were CONTROLLING each other, the 'lands of the free' are NO more.

Interesting that the anti-free speech mob have come up with the 'cute' little adage, 'Yes, you can say what you like, but there are also CONSEQUENCES to what you say'. That's like saying that Stalinism and Nazism had free speech; you could say what you like, but if you said anything they didn't like you would be killed.

Just to add more (controversial?) 'food for thought' here:

'Do 'you', human beings, have the right to believe whatever you like, if your beliefs involve the abuse of others'?

[Age]

I just saw on CNN that Whoopi apologized for a comment on the View saying that the "Holocaust isn't about race". Now I happen to agree in part with this because the more general fact about the Holocaust was that it involved ANYONE whom was EITHER thought inferior or to those who have some desire to annihilate those who seemed to be in direct competition to the Germanic version of what they thought the community of the Jews represented to them.

Well, the Nazis spent a lot of time aiming hatred at what they considered a race, the Jews. That they were racist against Roma, doesn't take away from their racism against what they considered a race, the Jews. That they hated Communists and jailed and concentration camped communists doesn't take away from their racists tracts, books, speeches, radio programs, race laws that justified kiling this person but not that one based on how much they belonged to or had genes of a race. That they killed developmentally disabled people does not take away from their racism. They were racist against Jews and spent more time focused on this racism - in terms of propaganda - than they spend on other races and groups. But, sure they hated other people also. If i hate black people and also want to euthanize people who have cleft palates or men who wear their hair long, this doesn't take away from my racism. Nor does the Nazi hatred and killing of other groups mean that the Holocaust, which is a term focusing on the killing based on race which was primarily focused on Jews, but yes also got aimed at Roma, Poles. But the term, which was actually first used in relation to Armenians by the Ottomans (sabout race) and later got focused on the genocidal project aimed at the Jews. It wasn't coincidental at so many Jews were killed. They were chosen due to race, even if they were good at chess and being a doctor and were anti.communist.

The term was specifically used to refer to genocidal race based killing, that is on a broad scale. That is what the term meant. It did not mean, the killing done by the Nazis on any grounds. It was focused primarily on the Jews because this was the most ambitious facet of the racial killing I would guess also that since Roma, for example, were killed in smaller numbers, had little lobbying power in countries like the US - which is where the term arose - and even whose deaths might not have been noticed so well internationally during the war when the term was first used to describe, yes, the genocidal racist killing of Jews.

That's what the term was intended to be used for.

The term, "Holocaust" itself is a reference to genocide and intentionally ignores the general CRIME here.

What you and many other are not aware of (or don't want to be for many) is that the National Socialists and Facists BASED their ideal on the assumption that the Jew were themselves a 'fascist' group considering they close off their community and aim to FAVOR their own (as would be expected of most people in such groups). They are ALL 'cults' to me given I don't think religion itself is anything rational except for a means to manipulate.

When you use the 'manipulate' word what do you mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

See, what some people seem to forget or have not yet understood is that 'to manipulate' can mean and refer to just 'handling skillfully for the good or betterment of 'things'.

So, 'manipulating' 'you', human beings, could ACTUALLY be for your OWN benefit, 'in the long run', as some say.

So the fact that the JEWS themselves interpreted themselves as a 'race' is NOT merely from the Nazis but a reflection of their own "supremacy"!! Israel IS just such a clearly FACIST state.

Do you interpret or identify "yourself" as being of some 'race'?

If yes, then what is that a reflection of, EXACTLY?

Is there ANY form of 'supremacy' among ANY of the "members" of your OWN "race"?

If this keeps up, I don't wonder why their is a rise of fascism from the non-Jewish whites: I would be more surprised that we DON'T have them. The SOLUTION should be to RESPECT the fact that "hate"-isms can ONLY come about from (1) a concentration of wealth and power to some EXCLUSIVE subset of people who pass on INHERITANCE to their OWN ONLY, and (2) the opposing concentration of another subset of people(s) getting too big on the IMPOVERISHED side of the population. The hate cannot occur WITHOUT a belief in ISOLATING FAVOR to one's own genetic supremacy

I suggest do NOT have a "us" and "them" attitude at ALL, then this WILL help TREMENDOUSLY is reducing 'hate', itself.

And, when 'you' learn and understand FULLY WHY ALL of 'you', human beings, just NATURALLY have DIFFERENT views and opinions, then 'you' WILL NOT be judgment AT ALL, and with this UNDERSTANDING there is also NO 'hate' AT ALL either.

[Age]

What are you on about? Are you drunk?

What, you don't like it that I am agreeing with you here?

I think you may be not be reading me correctly for maybe finding my vocabulary too hard for you to follow. I should have not have responded to you in particular given your past 'hateful' responses of most comments you make here in this forum. [I don't know if you actual 'hate', but often speak up with the kind of behavior that is easy to INTERPRET as 'angry' retorts.]

I assure you that I do not agree with the actual 'white supremacist' kind of anger that only stereotypically gets reflected as 'hate'; I am arguing here WHY it is unfair to presume 'white supremacists' exists as the dominating threat. If you are some 'supremacist' yourself, I also disapprove of you given it ADDS the fuel to the fire of those you hate.

Perhaps if you had more skill with your language then you wouldn't get 'misinterpreted'.

It is, obviously, very True that if one had more skill with the language they use they would NOT get 'misinterpreted', as much or as often as they do. But does ANY one have enough skill in a language that they NEVER get 'misinterpreted'?

Have you NEVER been 'misinterpreted' "vegetariantaxidermy"?

And, if you have, then was that because you do not have enough skill in a language to not be 'misinterpreted' or do you get 'misinterpreted' because it is ALWAYS the listener or reader who is not skilled enough in 'interpreting' what you say or write?

[Age]

It's more than that. Non Jewish Russian non compatants is more than the 6 million estimated Jews.
Have you noticed, as I have that the other classes of people rarely if ever get mentioned?

Yes. And I initially heard that there were 12 million deaths and only the Jews were mentioned.

I always thought that even one death was sufficient to argue against some system that encouraged it. But when you start speaking numbers, you FEED into the hands of those charging one is 'denying the Holocaust' because then the argument transfers to an unending fight about facts.

It should be enough to know that not only Jews were harmed in the Holocaust and that when trying to STOP any such abuses in the future, it has to respect all victims.

Who were the 'victims'?

'you', human beings.

Who were the 'perpertrators'?

'you', adult human beings.

As I already mentioned, the National Socialists were basing the likelihood of success on the Jews own success throughout time for embracing their culture THROUGH genetic favoritism. They argued that if the Jew can prove their success through facism as it exists in the MEANING behind the term, the German people who were suffering a loss of their own economic power TOO can 'borrow' those traits. Thus, the adaption of trying to rile up a 'culture' of what it means to be Germanic was about trying to EMBRACE the ideals of the Jew.

As for politics, while it is horrendous to opt for genetic annihilation, in contrast, this was done by all people in all times, ...including the Jews* themselves.

Well considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that ALL human beings evolved from the EXACT SAME genetic make up, ANY human beings 'trying for' 'genetic annihilation' of the human being, itself, is about as "logical" as believing, "We, human beings, need money to live".

BOTH are as ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL as EACH OTHER.

[Note *"Jew" is itself a misnomer for some specific people given it likely only reference ANY 'transients' during a time when people begun making land claims. The "lord" as a reference in Biblical scripture referred to those who commanded land ownership rights that made it more and more difficult for those wanderers to be respected. Oddly, some don't recognize when the use of the word, "Lord" in scripture was not always about God's 'lordship' of nature but as an insult or violation of those travelling to a from various places.]

Do you have ANY examples of when the word 'Lord', in scripture, was "an insult or violation or those, human beings, travelling to, or from, various places".

If yes, then will you provide those examples?

[Age]

I read it back and I still can't tell what you are 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with.

You're right. I don't agree with you now. Thanks for the clarity.

You are welcome. Now, brush up on those reading comprehension skills

[Age]

From her comments, you can tell exactly what she thinks. She bluntly said, on Stephen Colbert, when trying to excuse her earlier words, that Jews are white, and Germans are white, so the Holocaust was white-on-white, an in-group fight, and hence, "not racist."

Not much of an apology, really. More like, "I'm sorry you people are so offended, but you wouldn't be, if you were smarter." A funny sort of position for somebody to take when supposedly retracting. Sort of a "whoopsi," Ms. Goldberg.

The bottom line is that she doesn't thinks Jews can be blacks, or blacks Jews; she thinks that Jews are "whitey." And whitey can't experience racism.

No wonder the new name for Critical Social Justice is "Neo-Racism." It's a much better label, actually.

Back in those days when this was being written adult human beings would use and say words but NEVER actually KNOWING what they ACTUALLY meant NOR referred to, EXACTLY. As will be PROVED True here ONCE AGAIN.

What are "blacks", and what are "jews", EXACTLY, "immanuel can"?

'Blacks' are people with black skin, and ''Jews'' are people who have Jewish roots.

So, now, to PROVE True what I CLAIMED above, when do you DECIDE what is so-called "black skin" from ANY other so-called "color of skin", like "white skin" for example.

Also, this one has just PROVED IRREFUTABLY True that they are YET to LEARN and FULLY UNDERSTAND what the word 'people' or 'person' means or refers to, EXACTLY?

What they have said here ACTUALLY means that if a human body is missing an arm or leg, then then one is LESS of 'a person' than another one is. And besides the Fact that this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, if they go around LOOKING AT and JUDGING "others" in this way, then they REALLY are STILL VERY LOST and CONFUSED. But, do NOT feel alone, as, so to were EVERY other one of 'you', adult human beings, VERY LOST and CONFUSED, in the days when this was being written.

It's quite simple really.

When you put it the way you did, WITHOUT EVER even thinking NOR considering what you are ACTUALLY MEANING and referring to EXACTLY, then it does APPEAR to be "quite simple really". BUT, your INABILITY to CLARIFY my VERY SIMPLE and EASY clarifying questions here, and from now on, will PROVE absolutely and irrefutably True what I CLAIMED above here.

Of course, if you want to be really 'scientific' about it, then we are all just molecules swirling around in a vacuum, but then again, you get into a kerfuffle because those molecules are given MEANING by US,

But I am CERTAINLY NOT in ANY so-called "kerfuffle" here AT ALL.

Now, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what is called "black and white thinking", (which could be seen as being VERY APPROPRIATE considering the actual subject here), but anyway, this one JUMPS from LOOKING AT ' there are "black people" ' or if not, then ' there are just molecules ', WITHOUT even considering the long line of causes and effects, which has allowed molecules to form into the shape of human beings, with the ability to create 'meaning' and view and seeing 'things' DIFFERENTLY.

so yes, there are black people because humans have decided that there are black people. Phew...

'you', "vegatariantaxidermy", and some other human beings may have decided that there are "black people", BUT do ANY of 'you' have the COURAGE to continue on with this discussion where 'you' can get to explain and define FULLY what an actual 'black person' is, EXACTLY?

If yes, then we AWAIT for that explanation and definition from 'you', people.

Saying, " "blacks" are people with black skin " does NOT explain how one can ACCURATELY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN so-called "white people" from "black people".

Also, what ARE "jewish roots" EXACTLY?

Furthermore, are you ABLE to TELL us what "type of person" 'you' ARE, and what 'your' 'roots' ARE, EXACTLY?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I refuse to 'quote' that long-winded load of bollocks. Blah blah ''age''

So, if you were at home and someone broke in and attacked you, you would only describe that 'person' to the police as a collection of 'person-shaped atoms'? If the person was Asian you wouldn't be able to see that? You wouldn't be capable of telling the police if the person was black or white, because there's no such thing? Wow. You would be a terrific witness

[Sculptor]

Not to excuse her, but I wonder if the numbers in Wikipedia are why Whoopi said the Holocaust was not about racism. Roughly half of the people slaughtered by the Nazi’s were not Jewish.

It's more than that. Non Jewish Russian non compatants is more than the 6 million estimated Jews.
Have you noticed, as I have that the other classes of people rarely if ever get mentioned?

Yes. And I initially heard that there were 12 million deaths and only the Jews were mentioned.

WHy are the other groups ignored?

[Sculptor]

If she had said the holocaust was not "JUST "about race then she would have been spot on.

Jews have turned the holocaust into a personal fetish and for decades the many other vicitms of the holocaust have been forgotten in Israel's attempt to OWN the holocaust for their own political advantage.
The "apartheid" * government of Israel is under continual pressue to find justification for it persecution of Palestinians and to cover up its own massacres and oppression.

But there is along list of voiceless victms; Homosexuals including lesbians;

How could so-called "lesbians" not be included under the label "homosexuals", to you?

Because amongst others there is a long held misconception that "homo" means "man", which in fact is does in Latin. This has meant that people have misunderstood the world "homosexual" as relating to men, which is does not. Homo in this context means "same" and comes from Greek.

other "sexual deviants";

Is being a "homosexual", to you, a "sexual deviant"?

No. We are talking about Nazis and their categories. For what it is worth I do not readily accept the concept "race" either.

And, could a "heterosexual" be a "sexual deviant" as well?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I do not accept the concept of sexual deviancy. There are categories of sexual practice that are no acceptible to society such as pedophilia, but the term "deviant" is not useful.

Mentally handicapped people;

Do you know of ANY one who does not have some sort of 'mental handicap'?

If yes, then who are they, exactly?

I do not think this needs its own answer - These are categories of Nazis.

Physically handicapped people;

If ANY sees a human being as having a so-called "physical handicap", then do they also consider that that body that they are in is ALSO "physically handicapped"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I do not think this needs its own answer - These are categories of Nazis.

Surely, that two armed body WOULD BE "physically handicapped" to a four or six armed human body, correct?

Or, does their OWN VERY NARROWED thinking NOT ALLOW them to SEE 'things' how they ACTUALLY ARE?

I do not think this needs its own answer - These are categories of Nazis.

Gypsies;

WHY are human beings who just choose to travel around a bit more than other human beings choose to do are being called and labelled "victims" or "voiceless victims" here, EXACTLY?

Black and Brown people;

Besides the Fact that there has NEVER existed ANY so-called "black" NOR "brown" human being, using the phrase, name, and label "black and brown people" is even MORE of a MISNOMER. And, to use such terms is just ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL to the VERY EXTREME.

I do not think this needs its own answer - These are categories of Nazis.

Slavic people;

Again, learn and understand FULLY what 'you' 'people' ARE, EXACTLY', then one can very quickly SEE there is NO such 'thing' as "slavic people".

Communist and Socialist party activists;

How, exactly, are those human beings who actively 'argue' or 'fight' for a particular 'way of living' "victims"?

Freemasons;

What is a "freemason", EXACTLY?

Spanish Republicans.

Is there a difference between a so-called 'spanish republican" and ANY other "type" of "republican"?

If yes, then what EXACTLY is the difference?

PLONK

[Veganman]

Racism is just an excuse to dominate and to feel superior for one purpose or another. So yes, the Holocaust was about racism, but the fact that they were Jews is irrelevant in my opinion, they could have been any race, creed or religion. I think that what's currently going on in China proves that the persecution and annihilation of a particular people is done for domination, the fact that these people are different in some way only helps to serve the purpose. The same could be said for what we do to other creatures, which is called speciesism.

[commonsense]

It's more than that. Non Jewish Russian non compatants is more than the 6 million estimated Jews.
Have you noticed, as I have that the other classes of people rarely if ever get mentioned?

Yes. And I initially heard that there were 12 million deaths and only the Jews were mentioned.

I always thought that even one death was sufficient to argue against some system that encouraged it. But when you start speaking numbers, you FEED into the hands of those charging one is 'denying the Holocaust' because then the argument transfers to an unending fight about facts.

It should be enough to know that not only Jews were harmed in the Holocaust and that when trying to STOP any such abuses in the future, it has to respect all victims. As I already mentioned, the National Socialists were basing the likelihood of success on the Jews own success throughout time for embracing their culture THROUGH genetic favoritism. They argued that if the Jew can prove their success through facism as it exists in the MEANING behind the term, the German people who were suffering a loss of their own economic power TOO can 'borrow' those traits. Thus, the adaption of trying to rile up a 'culture' of what it means to be Germanic was about trying to EMBRACE the ideals of the Jew.

As for politics, while it is horrendous to opt for genetic annihilation, in contrast, this was done by all people in all times, ...including the Jews* themselves.

[Note *"Jew" is itself a misnomer for some specific people given it likely only reference ANY 'transients' during a time when people begun making land claims. The "lord" as a reference in Biblical scripture referred to those who commanded land ownership rights that made it more and more difficult for those wanderers to be respected. Oddly, some don't recognize when the use of the word, "Lord" in scripture was not always about God's 'lordship' of nature but as an insult or violation of those travelling to a from various places.]

Huh?

Genetic cleansing so that National Socialists could be like successful Jews? “Jews” meant “transients” rather than persons of Jewish dissent or Jewish blood?

And who argues about numbers other than holocaust deniers and those who the deniers engage?

Explain, please, any part of what you wrote above. I think you are of sound mind. I just don’t envision the holocaust as you do.