I have seen zero credible sources for this specific claim of Holocaust denial. The closest I’ve found is that she argued that trans people weren’t the first group targeted by the Nazis. (Not denying that they were targeted. Just disputing that they were first.) That’s not the same as “Holocaust denial.”
I already know she’s a bad person who uses her celebrity to spread hate and spends her time and money trying to further oppress some of the most marginalized people in the world. We can dislike her for those very real reasons without spreading false stories about her.
What are you doing on blahaj zone, mate? That’s the trans instance. She denied the genocide of trans people during the holocaust. She denied the book burnings of the research by the institute of sex and gender research.
claims that trans people were ‘the first targets’ of the Nazis – a claim I refuted on X, and which led to these accusations
- JK “Just Kidding” Rowling
But that’s a lie. Because she wasn’t accused for saying that. She was accused for saying this:
Rowling had to lie about what she said, because she knows that what she said is incorrect and also holocaust denial.
She has gone on to tell the same lie about why she’s being attacked multiple times, despite having been fact checked on it and arguing back against the fact checking. Because she’s a lying bigot.
And it’s not surprising that Jewish News UK printed these lies excusing holocaust denial, because they’re lying fascists. They have a track record of supporting Israel’s genocide. They like genocide, they’re fascists who print lies!
It isn’t Holocaust denial. This is what Holocaust means (from Wikipedia):
The Holocaust, known in Hebrew as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.
She would only be denying certain actions of the Nazis. It still doesn’t count.
Edit: On your last paragraph, I know. Rowling is a Nat-Z as well. That’s why I found it extremely unlikely that she’s a Holocaust denier, and why I used a Jewish supremacist source as they would never let that slide.
the term Holocaust is sometimes used to include the murder and persecution of non-Jewish groups, such as the Romani and Soviet POWs.
And I disagree, because it’s not sometimes. It’s most of the time.
Encyclopedia Brittanica: Holocaust, the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany
History.com: The Holocaust was the state-sponsored persecution and mass murder of millions of European Jews, Romani people, the intellectually disabled, political dissidents and homosexuals by the German Nazi
See, I think it’s really irresponsible to do as Rowling does and make the Holocaust solely about Jewish people and not the other groups.
First, the etymological argument. Holocaust means whole-burning. Not Jew-burning. It’s not called the Loudaicaust, is it? Indeed, according to Wikipedia, people used to say “The Jewish holocaust” up until special importance was assigned to the Jewish persecution and people began to conflate the two.
Second and more importantly, the ethical argument. When we assign special importance to the persecution of Jewish people, we forget the historical oppression of other groups. Which is exactly what Hitler, Rowling, and Netanyahu want us to forget. All three are aligned as fascists who want to tear down history and forget the suffering of those they deem subhuman. Anti-semitism does not exist in a vacuum. It always operates as part of a broader ideology we call fascism. The ideology of all three of these people. The Holocaust is what the fascists did. They did it to many different people. Never forget.
And finally, you moved the goalposts. When you cited Jewish News UK, your position was that she didn’t deny the persecution of trans people, because that’s what Jewish News said. You’ve already lost the argument, and now you’re trying to save face for Rowling by quibbling over technicalities.
And I agree with you, Holocaust shouldn’t just mean the Jewish victims. I’m not a Jewish exceptionalist. But it is largely what it means today, and Rowling still has not denied the genocide of other persecuted groups. Only the raid of The Institute of Sexology and trans people being the first victims, which still doesn’t count.
Anti-semitism does not exist in a vacuum. It always operates as part of a broader ideology we call fascism.
I would go as far as to say that antisemitism just doesn’t exist today (mandatory Norman Finkelstein, who is Jewish himself and whose parents are Holocaust survivors). It is in no way a mainstream political current. What is far more threatening today is Jewish supremacism and exceptionalism. That is what’s causing the Gaza genocide right now. Modern fascists are not antisemites, they’re the opposite.
(…)your position was that she didn’t deny the persecution of trans people(…)
That’s not what I said. She probably does, it still doesn’t count. Even if she did deny that trans people were killed (which as far as I can see she hasn’t) and we used a more encompassing definition of the Holocaust, that just makes her a Holocaust revisionist, not a denier.
Nat-Z stands for National Zionist. And I’m not a Jewish supremacist.
What I meant by that was that any kind of rhetoric that would harm the Zio victim narrative in any way would get a huge hit piece from them, not defense.
She is however a holocaust denier
Source?
I have seen zero credible sources for this specific claim of Holocaust denial. The closest I’ve found is that she argued that trans people weren’t the first group targeted by the Nazis. (Not denying that they were targeted. Just disputing that they were first.) That’s not the same as “Holocaust denial.”
I already know she’s a bad person who uses her celebrity to spread hate and spends her time and money trying to further oppress some of the most marginalized people in the world. We can dislike her for those very real reasons without spreading false stories about her.
She isn’t one.
What are you doing on blahaj zone, mate? That’s the trans instance. She denied the genocide of trans people during the holocaust. She denied the book burnings of the research by the institute of sex and gender research.
I’m not a Rowling stan, it’s just false. Don’t hate on her for falsehoods, hate on her for what she is.
I read your article, and I found this:
- JK “Just Kidding” Rowling
But that’s a lie. Because she wasn’t accused for saying that. She was accused for saying this:
Rowling had to lie about what she said, because she knows that what she said is incorrect and also holocaust denial.
She has gone on to tell the same lie about why she’s being attacked multiple times, despite having been fact checked on it and arguing back against the fact checking. Because she’s a lying bigot.
And it’s not surprising that Jewish News UK printed these lies excusing holocaust denial, because they’re lying fascists. They have a track record of supporting Israel’s genocide. They like genocide, they’re fascists who print lies!
It isn’t Holocaust denial. This is what Holocaust means (from Wikipedia):
She would only be denying certain actions of the Nazis. It still doesn’t count.
Edit: On your last paragraph, I know. Rowling is a Nat-Z as well. That’s why I found it extremely unlikely that she’s a Holocaust denier, and why I used a Jewish supremacist source as they would never let that slide.
The Wikipedia also says
And I disagree, because it’s not sometimes. It’s most of the time.
Encyclopedia Brittanica: Holocaust, the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany
History.com: The Holocaust was the state-sponsored persecution and mass murder of millions of European Jews, Romani people, the intellectually disabled, political dissidents and homosexuals by the German Nazi
See, I think it’s really irresponsible to do as Rowling does and make the Holocaust solely about Jewish people and not the other groups.
First, the etymological argument. Holocaust means whole-burning. Not Jew-burning. It’s not called the Loudaicaust, is it? Indeed, according to Wikipedia, people used to say “The Jewish holocaust” up until special importance was assigned to the Jewish persecution and people began to conflate the two.
Second and more importantly, the ethical argument. When we assign special importance to the persecution of Jewish people, we forget the historical oppression of other groups. Which is exactly what Hitler, Rowling, and Netanyahu want us to forget. All three are aligned as fascists who want to tear down history and forget the suffering of those they deem subhuman. Anti-semitism does not exist in a vacuum. It always operates as part of a broader ideology we call fascism. The ideology of all three of these people. The Holocaust is what the fascists did. They did it to many different people. Never forget.
And finally, you moved the goalposts. When you cited Jewish News UK, your position was that she didn’t deny the persecution of trans people, because that’s what Jewish News said. You’ve already lost the argument, and now you’re trying to save face for Rowling by quibbling over technicalities.
You mean history.com as in the History Channel?
And I agree with you, Holocaust shouldn’t just mean the Jewish victims. I’m not a Jewish exceptionalist. But it is largely what it means today, and Rowling still has not denied the genocide of other persecuted groups. Only the raid of The Institute of Sexology and trans people being the first victims, which still doesn’t count.
I would go as far as to say that antisemitism just doesn’t exist today (mandatory Norman Finkelstein, who is Jewish himself and whose parents are Holocaust survivors). It is in no way a mainstream political current. What is far more threatening today is Jewish supremacism and exceptionalism. That is what’s causing the Gaza genocide right now. Modern fascists are not antisemites, they’re the opposite.
That’s not what I said. She probably does, it still doesn’t count. Even if she did deny that trans people were killed (which as far as I can see she hasn’t) and we used a more encompassing definition of the Holocaust, that just makes her a Holocaust revisionist, not a denier.
What do you mean by this? Aren’t most Nazis denying the Holocaust?
I’d argue the opposite. Supremacists of any kind don’t care about facts and only care about “their side”
Nat-Z stands for National Zionist. And I’m not a Jewish supremacist.
What I meant by that was that any kind of rhetoric that would harm the Zio victim narrative in any way would get a huge hit piece from them, not defense.
Ah, I didn’t know that. Thanks!