Effect of alleged holocaust on the perception of race

[weffdsv1231]

Did the alleged holocaust make racism unacceptable? Nowadays, its impossible to make any public statement about the races being unequal without being socially ostracized. Before WW2 was it generally accepted that the races weren't equal?

[Wahrheitssucher]

Did the alleged holocaust make racism unacceptable?
Nowadays, its impossible to make any public statement about the races being unequal without being socially ostracized. Before WW2 was it generally accepted that the races weren't equal?

Yes!
And also no!

Before WW2 and HolyH mythology: ‘white’ races were regarded by themselves as superior! And this could be openly and officially stated by politicians. Plus the basic human rights of other races could be trampled upon with impunity.

After: only white-jooze were to be regarded as superior, and now this must only be silently recognised and acknowledged, not openly stated. Now only they (and their lackeys) are permitted to disregard the basic human rights of other races.

EXAMPLES:
Before WW2 the consensus view amongst ‘white’ intelligentsia was that the elite of the ‘white’ European race was superior to all other non-white races. Superior in terms of intelligence, culture, manners, art, scientific advancement, social-interaction, civilisation, etc.
This is clearly false as the Europeans were still living in mud-huts and painting themselves blue while for many centuries before the ‘non-white’ peoples of Egypt, India, Greece, etc., were building highly sophisticated cultures and architectural marvels requiring advanced understanding of engineering, mathematics and geometry. Yet that was the common view in the century leading up to WW2, even amongst the ‘white’ working classes.
This view of ‘white’ superiority was paradoxically (i.e. in contradiction) held by all ‘whites’, despite it being simultaneously accepted that the working classes of all ethnicities (including the ‘white’ working classes) were vastly inferior to this supposed ‘white’ elite.

E.g. my own ancestor the aristocrat, General, Prime Minister and Duke of England Arthur Wellesley (better known as the Duke of Wellington) famously described his own ‘white’ British soldiers as “the scum of the earth”. This is the regard and respect he had for them. And he had spent his early career in India serving the East India Company in a military capacity, so he had experience of other civilisations and populations of other ethnicities.
On the 2nd of July 1813, shortly after the Battle of Vitoria, at Huarte in Spain, Arthur wrote the following to Earl Henry Bathurst, who was Secretary of State for War and the Colonies:

“It is quite impossible for me or any other man to command a British army under the existing system. We have in the service the scum of the earth as common soldiers; and of late years we have been doing every thing in our power, both by law and by publications, to relax the discipline by which alone such men can be kept in order.”

E.g. In the 1930s Winston Churchill described the indigenous people of North America and Australia as ‘lower-grade races’ who had no right to their homelands once his own “higher-grade race” decided they wanted it.
He said this to the Peel Commission (1937) regarding the illegal creation of a Jooish State in the territory occupied by the Palestinians. His implication was that the Palestinians were also a ‘lower-grade’ race who therefore had no claim to basic human-rights once ‘white’, Europeans self-identifying as jooish (ashkenazis) decided they wanted a territory for joo-only lebensraum in the Levant:

I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right.
I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
~ Winston Churchill

E.g. The war-pimp, jooish-supremacist and German-emigrant Samuel Untermeyer also believed all races and ethnicities other than his own were inferior beings similar to animals (“beasts”). His own ‘race’ he self-deludedly believed was ‘jooish’, but in reality he was a victim of the European delusion owned by an abstract tribalism who consider themselves ‘ashkenazis’:

When the tale is told …the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities will pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people [he means ashkenazis] a people who love and have shed their blood for their Fatherland, and to whom Germany owes in large part its prosperity and its great scientists, educators, lawyers, physicians, poets, musicians, diplomats and philosophers, who are the backbone of its past cultural life.
But why dwell longer upon this revolting picture of the ravages wrought by these ingrates and beasts of prey, animated by the loathsome motives of race hatred, bigotry and envy. For the Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived.
~ Samuel Untermyer.
US Radio broadcast, Sunday 6th August 1933, after his return from a Jewish World Council meeting held in Europe.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Did the alleged holocaust make racism unacceptable? Nowadays, its impossible to make any public statement about the races being unequal without being socially ostracized. Before WW2 was it generally accepted that the races weren't equal?

Yes, it did. Undeniably. In the 1942 pamphlet that kickstarted the Holohoax, the British Zionist politician Lord Wedgwood wrote a foreword in which he called Nazism "the religion of race." In 1945, when the victorious Allies were pontificating about the alleged need to denazify the Germans with horror pics of typhus victims mislabelled as mass murder victims, they argued that "the Nazi racial superiority complex" justified that policy. And in 1946, as soon as the big Nuremberg show trial ended, the U.S. prosecutor Thomas Dodd explained that the alleged Holocaust justified an anti-racist "re-education" of the Americans too.




https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=894

[Eye of Zyclone]

The Political Exploitation of the "Holocaust"

[Gonzalo]

No. The Holocaust’s influence on perceptions of race was actually minimal.

The Holocaust only became a popular topic among the masses in the late 1970s, and by the late 1970s, civil rights legislation had already been passed and racism was beginning to be frowned upon. Nor is the Holocaust part of “white guilt” because, when it comes down to it, the Nazis murdered white-looking Ashkenazi Jews [according to genetic analyses, Ashkenazis are up to 50% white, with a disproportionately high percentage of white ancestry on the maternal side]. I believe Americans have always considered Jews to be white, whether they are or not. So the Holocaust, at most, influenced the level of support for Israel. What influenced the shift in racial perception was generational change and the worldview of younger generations. Baby boomers, who grew up in safe environments with all their material needs met, were more progressive and open-minded than previous generations, who had difficult lives and more negative experiences with non-white people. There’s even a specific theory about this in sociology; I’ve attached a summary generated by AI:

Ronald Inglehart’s **Cultural Change Theory** (or Theory of Cultural Modernization) posits that economic development reshapes social values and attitudes once a society secures its basic material survival.

---

## Core Mechanisms of the Theory

Inglehart's framework relies on two primary hypotheses and a model of intergenerational shift:

### 1. The Scarcity Hypothesis

People assign the highest priority to whatever is in short supply. In contexts of economic or physical insecurity, collective priorities revolve around survival, order, financial stability, and national security (materialist values). Once these basic needs are consistently guaranteed, attention shifts toward individual freedom, self-expression, gender equality, and environmental protection (post-materialist or progressive values).

### 2. The Socialization Hypothesis

A person’s core values do not adapt instantly to short-term economic fluctuations. Instead, they are largely set during formative years (childhood and adolescence) and remain relatively stable throughout adulthood.

### 3. Generational Replacement

Because core values solidify in youth, macro-level cultural shifts occur gradually through generational replacement: newer cohorts—raised during periods of greater abundance and security—replace older generations who grew up under conditions of scarcity or conflict.

---

## The Two Dimensions of the Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map

Drawing from data provided by the *World Values Survey*, Inglehart and Christian Welzel mapped cultural evolution across two main axes:

| Axis of Transition | From (Traditional / Industrial) | To (Post-Industrial) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Traditional vs. Secular-Rational** | Heavy emphasis on religion, absolute authority, traditional family structures, and national pride. | Decreased emphasis on religious dogma, acceptance of technical/legal authority, and greater tolerance for divorce or euthanasia. |
| **Survival vs. Self-Expression** | Priority on economic security, social order, conformity, and skepticism toward diversity or minorities. | Priority on individual rights, multicultural tolerance, LGBTQ+ rights, environmentalism, and active political engagement. |

---

## Nuances and Exceptions

* **Backlash Effects:** Prolonged periods of economic distress or severe insecurity (e.g., deep recessions, warfare, or instability) can trigger a temporary reversion toward authoritarian or survival-oriented values.
* **Cultural Inertia:** Historical and religious legacies (e.g., Protestant, Catholic, Confucian, or Orthodox traditions) leave lasting imprints that shape each country's specific trajectory, preventing economic development from producing a single, uniform global culture.

[Eye of Zyclone]

No. The Holocaust’s influence on perceptions of race was actually minimal.

Wrong. Equating racism with absolute evil for propaganda purposes, like the Allies did in 1945 with miscaptioned horror pics of a big health disaster and rehashed atrocity stories of a giant racist massacre in order to sell their good war myth and absolve themselves of any guilt, of course disqualified it in the eyes of the populace. The post-WW2 demonization of racism didn't pop up out of nowhere. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous and patently false.

[Gonzalo]

Wrong. Equating racism with absolute evil for propaganda purposes, like the Allies did in 1945 with miscaptioned horror pics of a big health disaster and rehashed atrocity stories of a giant racist massacre in order to sell their good war myth and absolve themselves of any guilt, of course disqualified it in the eyes of the populace. The post-WW2 demonization of racism didn't pop up out of nowhere. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous and patently false.

Churchill was a racist and advocated for white supremacy in America and Australia. In the 1950s, he told the Conservative Party, “Keep England white.”

Roosevelt was extremely indifferent to the problems of minorities, and to make matters worse, the U.S. military remained segregated until 1948. The war against Japan was also experienced as a racial war against a non-white enemy; proof of this is the intense discrimination against Japanese and even Chinese people in the United States during the 1940s.

The only one with an anti-racist vision was Stalin, and with him, the Soviet Union; however, despite this, the Soviet Union kept the Eastern Bloc relatively white and homogeneous until 1991.

Meanwhile, the Axis was led by Germany and Japan. The Germans fought to subjugate and enslave the Slavs at any cost, and the Japanese were the white world’s number one open enemy. Within the Axis was Ante Pavelić’s Croatia, which killed hundreds of thousands of white Serbs for no reason.

If you think about it, the Allies did more for the white race than the Axis powers, which caused millions of white deaths.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Churchill was a racist and advocated for white supremacy in America and Australia. In the 1950s, he told the Conservative Party, “Keep England white.”

Roosevelt was extremely indifferent to the problems of minorities, and to make matters worse, the U.S. military remained segregated until 1948. The war against Japan was also experienced as a racial war against a non-white enemy; proof of this is the intense discrimination against Japanese and even Chinese people in the United States during the 1940s.

Roosevelt and Churchill were only 2 men and they were dinosaurs from the 19th century. Their worldviews are off topic regarding the postwar demonization of racialism.

If you think about it, the Allies did more for the white race than the Axis powers, which caused millions of white deaths.

WW2 was caused by the Allies. Their war, their deaths.

And anyway, the White race is not dying of its WW2 casualties. It's dying of its anti-White postwar policies. In other words, the White race is going extinct because the Jew-owned Zio-Globalist Allies won WW2 (and thus shaped the postwar world), not because WW2 happened.