Huppenthal, Holocaust Denial, and White Supremacy: Uncomfortable Overlaps?


Jim Nintzel of the Tucson Weekly reported on Friday that Huppenthal’s Perverted Worldview “Borders on Holocaust Denial” Based entirely on the analysis of  Sam Kleiner, a third-generation Arizonan and a fellow at the Yale Law and Information Society Project, the post explains why Huppenthal’s now infamous comments attributing the Holocaust to Charles Darwin and Margaret Sanger are so deeply offensive to Jews:

In Huppenthal’s perverted worldview, Hitler was not uniquely evil. Huppenthal said, “It was Darwin, not Hitler, who named the Germans the master race” and started the push towards elimination of Jews.


Professor Robert Richards has noted, “ it can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis.” Huppenthal is grossly ignorant of the horrible history of anti-Semitism in Europe that allowed Hitler to rise to power and for ordinary Germans to join in his campaign against the Jews.

Kleiner explains further that Huppenthal’s “attempt to link Sanger and Hitler exists in the darkest corners of the right-wing internet and it is utterly offensive to Jews.” [emphasis mine]

When Kleiner says Huppenthal’s remarks “border on holocaust denial” he is saying, correctly, that Huppenthal’s theories regarding Darwin and Sanger, at a minimum, straddle the border separating rational thinkers on one side from Holocaust deniers and White Supremacists on the other.

Picking up on this and perhaps on Kleiner’s reference to the right-wing internet, a commenter suggests that “[s]ome of Huppenthal’s material might have come directly from, for those who don’t know, is the leading White Supremacy website.

Is the commenter’s suggestion correct? I have no idea, but the Darwin and Sanger references are all over the Stormfront website. It took me fewer than five minutes to this reference to Darwin and this reference to Sanger.

This much, however, is clear: It’s highly likely Huppenthal visited the website. Why? Because Huppenthal’s obsessive commenting was fueled by raw narcissism. The common thread running through the numerous websites on which Huppenthal  commented is that the sites mentioned HIM. Whether through a Google alert or some other mechanism, if Huppenthal was mentioned on the internet, he checked it out.

And the Stormfront site has at least 8 mentions of Huppenthal. You can find them here, here [comment #3], here [comment #1], here [comment #1], here [comment #16], here [comment #1], here [comment #2] and here [comment #2].

I am not suggesting that Huppenthal is a White Supremacist. We’ll likely never know the answer to that question. Whether he is or not, he’ll deny it.

But we don’t really need to answer that question.

The question we do need to answer is whether the overlap between Huppenthal’s offensive statements and those of Holocaust deniers and White Supremacists is too uncomfortable for him to remain in office. Seems like it is.


  1. Why is it all about the women– those sluts? Those 45 million dead fetuses were fathered– some forcibly– by ~45 million men who didn’t keep their pants zipped and didn’t use condoms. Why aren’t we trying to control men’s bodies and behaviors? It takes 2 to tango.

    • I am against abortion, but I would NEVER in a million years think of the women who got them as sluts. I prefer to think that most of them thought it through carefully before going ahead. Perhaps that makes me a Polyanna but demonizing women who go through the procedure is not productive.

      As to controlling the men’s bodies, why would you want to control the men any more than you would want to control the women? Those who are pro-choice seek autonomous decision making power for individuals. Why shouldn’t it go both ways.

      Because I am Pro-Life, I believe the men SHOULD be held accountable for the children they help create. At the very least they should be held financially responsible, if not made part of the child’s life.

      Have some compassion, Pamela. Nothing in this arena is simple.

  2. It is silly to compare Margaret Sanger to the unique evil that was Hitler and his cabal. The people who espouse such a comparison fail to understand the difference between genuine dark horrifying evil from a softer, gentler more socially acceptable activity that some consider evil. In doing so they make themselves look like unreasoned fanatics who can then be marginalized and ignored as too extreme to be part of the debate.

    But even though a comparison of Margaret Sanger to Adolph Hitler is ridiculous, Sanger should never be given a pass on what she preached and wanted to do. She made it clear that she wanted to reduce the Black population in our country through the free and easy use of abortion. She found thousands of supporters and plenty of money to assist her in her goals. Only later did her organization tone down the rhetoric and expand the scope of the provision of abortions.

    Her legacy has been prodigious. Approximately 1,500,000 per year; an estimated 45,000,000 since 1973. I think even Margaret would be surprised at how successful her program has been. Surely even the most ardent pro-abortion person has to pause and wonder what might have been. How many Doctors, Scientists, Teachers, Mothers, Fathers, Home Buyer, Taxpayers, Poets, Authors, Musicians, Farm Workers, McDonald’s Workers, Priests, Soldiers, and limitless other creations could have emerged from the 45,000,000 dead. If you are religious, what happened to their souls? And what do we pay, both now and in the afterlife, for allowing abortions on demand today? Is there a collective “moral penalty” we all carry? I have often heard liberals state that you tell about a culture by how it treats its children. I guess we only count the ones we allow to live, hmm?

Comments are closed.