I presume you got this from:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lived.htmlJust bear in mind that reactions to the Holocaust allegations are part and parcel of the plan in this. The Holocaust industry thrives on occasional comments to their claims, portraying this as example of 'virulent anti-semitism'. And it works. Jews can play the victim even more, when that happens, insisting that (Western) governments have to spend more money on "Holocaust Education". It's the same with sloppy arguments. They can handle them, even use them in their favor. Taking the 'moral high ground' was never that easy. Especially, when it is compensated lavishly. From a cost-benefit ration I'd say working for some Holocaust institution is more than lukrative. You do artistic work and work with people that mostly adore you. And get paid a major middle class salary for this. Given the political clout, your job is secure. The offices and work environment are better designed, maintained than with a High Tech corporation and you probably have some major social standing in the community by this. If you get rebuked, blame it on envy from those vile anti-semite invoking all the cliches, they've instituted over time.
What they can't handle is well-formulated, well-argued, well-founded critique of what they are asserting or doing. But this comes from a tiny minority. Most academics either avoid the subject intuitively or realize quite well that they will get problems in their career, when they do. So, it's rare. The Holocaust promotors of course realize this. And even if the wind-direction would be turning, it would take time before this takes effect. And they could simply change with this. Instead of heavy Holocausting, they could become a 'center for tolerance' or something like that. They've also shown that they are flexible on matters. They dropped several of the outlandish claims, maintaining the appearance of seriousness and the myth at the same time. The details are fading away, which can be seen that they aren't as pushy on the gas chambers anymore. Shifted the Holo to the East and it's now "Holocaust by Bullets". Father Patrick Desbois, a French Priest, was so kind to help with that. The Catholics never really realized that the whole affair was also directed against their institution and willingly cooperated in this. Even added some saints to it... With really heart-breaking stories to tell about. The protestants aren't exactly smarter in this. Although there is some that realized what is actually going on there. Richard Williamson and E Michael Jones being catholic examples, Pastor Steven Anderson being a evangelical Protestant/Baptist example. Would of course be better more realized the swindle and the religion replacement the Holocaust is. And I think they could do with the later analyzing the what role the Holocaust plays within Western Societies at present and over the past 70 decades. It's a thought terminating cliché and it is a Myth. By Myth I don't mean that it is false, but that it is religious in nature and having power over the minds, attitudes and action of people within a social context. It's cultural capital for some, but a liability to many. It attacks the precepts of Western civilization and it discredits Christianity as well. And this is not just something I say. A large number of theologians (Christians in the broader sense) does actually say that explicitly. And implicitly it does intimidate many others that try to adapt their held and expressed views in accordance with it. It's useful for any 'progressive' trend, since it can be used to discredit the 'old order' and traditional 'world views' of people of European Descent. By that it influences policies, how they are made and how they are received by the broader public.
As for the mainline churches, but also political movements prior to World War Two they were integrated into the National Cultures of the time. That changed after world war two, although 'internationalist' movements were already active prior to this. Communism/Socialism being the prime examples in politics. But the ecumenical movement is an example of this in the religious field.
That's why I'm looking into Willem Adolph Visser't Hooft at the moment. He was a leader in the ecumenical movement. And well, he was an Allied Agent during World War Two as well. Had also contacts with Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who both are rather bizarre figures as well. Their motivations may have differed a bit. Visser't Hooft being an internationalist and ecumenical, Barth being a Marxist sympathizer and rather slick 'dialectical theologian', while Bonhoeffer being a bit more silent on politics, but slick and twisting with his theologizing as well. One never can really catch those people on what they actually believe, since they change and twist the meanings of words and phrases on a frequent basis. If you nail them on what their statements actually imply, they simply claim that they had been misunderstood. Well, perhaps it's those that think that this is 'christian faith' who are the ones misunderstanding. Those folks are up to something completely different. Using the Christian mask to teach something rather different in terms of a philosophy that lacks tangibility. Bonhoeffer was working for the 'Abwehr'. He should have known about the Holocaust, if that was real. But one doesn't find anything on this in his writing, not even remotely. He was of course aware of NS-measures towards Jews and the attitudes of the NS-government at the time and highly disagreeing with those. Not sure what Barth and Visser't Hooft said explicitly after WW2, but they were riding on the Zeitgeist with this of course. Barth had explicitly called for war against Germany prior to WW2.
On Highsmith, wiki lets us in:
Highsmith was a resolute atheist.[62] Although she considered herself a liberal, and in her school years had gotten along with black students,[63] in later years she believed that black people were responsible for the welfare crisis in America.[64]: 19 She disliked Koreans because "they ate dogs".[56]
Highsmith was an avowed antisemite; she described herself as a "Jew hater" and described The Holocaust as "the semicaust".[65] When she was living in Switzerland in the 1980s, she used nearly 40 aliases when writing to government bodies and newspapers deploring the state of Israel and the "influence" of the Jews.[66] Highsmith was an active supporter of Palestinian rights, a stance which, according to Carol screenwriter Phyllis Nagy, "often teetered into outright antisemitism."[67]
How they knew she used 40 aliases is of course above me. Well, it appears she had unconventional views and was perhaps a bit more honest than others about them.
