There have been some suggestions that Elon Musk has ordered Grok to be primed to produce pro-Israel and pro-IDF propaganda if anyone asks about the genocide in Gaza. So I've been asking Grok one or two deliberately loaded questions, that take the existence of the genocide as read, to see how hard it pushes back against that premise. And interestingly it hasn't really pushed back at all. I asked a few minutes ago about potential timelines for denial of the genocide in Gaza to be criminalised, and Grok actually informed me that acceptance of the genocide as an established fact has come quicker with Gaza than it did with the Holocaust.
Grok, given the precedent of Holocaust denial becoming illegal in certain countries such as Germany, how long is it likely to be before denial of the genocide in Gaza is criminalised in some countries?
Grok's answer:
"*Historical Precedent: Holocaust Denial Laws*
Holocaust denial laws emerged primarily in Europe as a response to the resurgence of neo-Nazism and antisemitism in the post-World War II era. The Holocaust (1941–1945) was universally recognized as genocide almost immediately after the war, with the Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946) establishing it as a crime against humanity. However, criminalizing denial took much longer due to debates over free speech, the need to consolidate historical consensus, and rising far-right movements in the 1970s–1980s.
Key timeline of enactment:
1940s–1950s: No specific denial laws; prosecutions occurred under general hate speech or defamation statutes.
1960: Germany enacts the first explicit Holocaust denial law (Section 130 of the Criminal Code), banning incitement to hatred including denial, amid fears of Nazi revival.
1980s: Momentum builds with high-profile trials (e.g., Ernst Zündel in Canada, 1985; Klaus Barbie in France, 1987). France passes the Gayssot Act in 1990, explicitly criminalizing denial of Nazi crimes.
1990s–2000s: Expansion across Europe. Austria (1992), Belgium (1995), and others follow. The EU's 2008 Framework Decision encourages member states to criminalize denial of genocides, including the Holocaust.
By 2025: 17 European countries, plus Canada, Israel, and Russia, have such laws.
The lag (15–45 years post-genocide) reflects time for evidence compilation, societal trauma processing, and political will against denialism, often triggered by denial campaigns (e.g., by figures like David Irving).
*Current Status: Recognition of Events in Gaza as Genocide*
The conflict escalated on October 7, 2023, with Hamas attacks killing ~1,200 Israelis and taking hostages. Israel's response has caused over 66,000 Palestinian deaths (as of October 2025, per Gaza Health Ministry), widespread destruction (84% of health centers damaged), and famine conditions affecting 100% of Gaza's population.
International recognition as genocide has accelerated compared to the Holocaust era:
UN Bodies: ICJ's January 2024 ruling found South Africa's genocide case "plausible," issuing provisional measures to prevent acts (reaffirmed March and May 2024). A UN Commission of Inquiry (September 2025) concluded Israel committed four of five genocidal acts (killing, serious harm, destructive conditions, preventing births). A UN Special Committee (November 2024) deemed warfare methods "consistent with genocide."
Human Rights Organizations: Amnesty International (December 2024) and Human Rights Watch (2024) concluded genocide based on intent and acts like starvation as a weapon.
Scholars and Experts: By mid-2025, consensus among genocide studies scholars (e.g., International Association of Genocide Scholars, June 2024 resolution) labels it genocide. A Brookings survey (2025) showed majority of Middle East scholars agreeing.
States: South Africa leads ICJ case (joined by 14 countries by December 2024). The African Union (2024) and OIC (2024) condemned it as genocide. Sanctions against Israel (e.g., by Bolivia, Cuba, others in July 2025) cite complicity in genocide. No full ICJ merits ruling yet (expected 2026+), but provisional findings provide legal momentum.
Denial exists (e.g., Israel calls it "self-defense"; some Western governments avoid the term), but it's increasingly marginalized amid evidence.
*Likelihood and Timeline for Criminalizing Denial*
Criminalizing denial of the Gaza genocide would likely follow a similar path to Holocaust laws: starting in countries with strong human rights frameworks, expanding via regional bodies (e.g., EU, AU), and targeting hate speech that undermines victim dignity. However, the Gaza case differs:
Faster Recognition: Digital evidence (videos, real-time reporting) and global scrutiny (e.g., ICC warrants for Netanyahu/Gallant, November 2024) have built consensus in ~2 years, vs. decades for the Holocaust.
Existing Frameworks: Many countries' laws already ban general genocide denial (e.g., Spain, Czech Republic) or extend to "crimes against humanity." EU's 2008 decision could encompass Gaza if recognized as genocide.
Political Hurdles: Strong U.S./EU support for Israel delays action in the West. Proposals are more likely in Global South (e.g., South Africa, where genocide education is emphasized) or Europe amid rising antisemitism/Islamophobia debates.
Current Proposals: No enacted laws by October 2025, but discussions tie into broader hate speech reforms. E.g., UN experts (2024) urge states to prevent "denialism" as complicity; academic calls (2025) link it to Holocaust distortion laws. In July 2025, 12 countries (e.g., South Africa, Malaysia) announced sanctions and "renewed legal action" against genocide enablers, potentially including denial.
Estimated Timeline:
Short-Term (1–3 years, by 2026–2028): Initial laws in 2–5 countries, likely South Africa (expanding its hate speech laws) or Ireland/Belgium (active ICJ supporters). Triggered by ICJ final ruling or ICC convictions.
Medium-Term (5–10 years, by 2030–2035): 10+ countries if EU updates its framework (possible post-2028). Parallels Holocaust laws' spread after 1990s trials.
Longer if Delayed: 15+ years if geopolitical ties (e.g., U.S. vetoes) persist, similar to Holocaust's 1960 start.
This is speculative; it depends on ICJ outcomes, public opinion (47% of U.S. adults see genocide, August 2025), and activism. Such laws aim to protect memory and prevent recurrence, but critics argue they risk stifling debate—balancing free speech remains key."
*. *. *
Catch up with my new video about the full-scale Scottish poll from Find Out Now -
Today's video is about three subjects - the new full-scale Scottish poll from Find Out Now showing the SNP with a handsome lead on the constituency ballot, the defections of a number of councillors and parliamentary candidates from the Scottish Greens to the new Jeremy Corbyn / Zarah Sultana party, and the Irish presidential election count which is taking place today.
Today's video is about three subjects - the new full-scale Scottish poll from Find Out Now showing the SNP with a handsome lead on the constituency ballot, the defections of a number of councillors and parliamentary candidates from the Scottish Greens to the new Jeremy Corbyn / Zarah Sultana party, and the Irish presidential election count which is taking place today.
Well are they not just utterly petrified of Zohran Mamdani? There is probably no politician in the US who has currently got more powerful forces lined up against them and who is facing more money being spent to prevent them getting elected. Yet it still looks like he is going to become Mayor of New York.
His opponents are flummoxed. They have been certain they have identified his giant glaring weakness, ones that will make him unelectable, and they have gone after those remorselessly. You will be familiar – he’s an antisemite for opposing Israel’s genocide. He’s an inexperienced amateur no-one should trust. (His response was brilliant; "What I don't have in experience, I make up for in integrity. And what Andrew Cuomo lacks in integrity, he could never make up for with experience").
He will cause an exodus of wealth (yawn). And of course he has crazy policies which are not for grown-ups. Except all this is bouncing off him and his opponents are flummoxed that their usual attack lines aren’t working. There was one policy issue they were convinced was a winner – Mamdani’s plan to create public grocery stores.
Mad, they say, mad. Absolute communism. No-one will accept that madness. And then they checked – 66 per cent support among New Yorkers. They literally don’t know what to attack next.
Do you remember that earlier in the year I argued that our current food system is unreformable? I argued that I first needed to explain in detail why tweaks can’t work (basically it is a system of addiction and you can’t tweak addiction). I argued that once you realise that it can’t be reformed using usual methods, you need to look at unusual methods.
What I’m asking you to look at in this article is the role of monopoly and the gap between what political insiders think is possible and what the public is ready to support to understand the only possible means of reform I can see. We need to socialise the distribution of food.
The political and media classes reflexively saw Mamdani's socialisation of the distribution of food as breaking the natural order of free markets. Before considering the policy or its merits, they dismiss it as ridiculous because it breaks the rules they operate by. They believe the public operates by those rules too. And the public does – if they think the rules are working for them.
Currently the public thinks no such thing. They’re absolutely sick of being ripped off and are the victims of utterly outrageous food price inflation. In fact it is food price inflation and rising housing costs which are creating a really unsettling phenomenon in the US – all the economic indicators are looking pretty positive, but the public appears to believe they are in a deep recession.
This article explains why – there are two economies in the US (in fact almost certainly more) and the politicos only measure one of them. The majority of Americans inhabit the other and it really probably is effectively in recession. Food prices, housing and interest payments are rising much faster than wages, even now.
This gap, this vulnerability, is really, really important. It is a giant, uncolonised space where it is possible for social reformers to actually build a different political offer. It is a tool to achieve big things, if politicians have the courage to do big things and are able to recognise this space.
Now can I encourage you to see this through the lens of ‘the danger of monopoly’. In the case of Mamdani, he is responding to monopoly-based price gouging. If you’re not in the US you may not completely understand this. We had/have the cost of living crisis, they got it twice over. I don’t have space to explain it here but there was monopoly-driven price gouging at every layer in the US economy. If you want to understand this more, I’m afraid you’re going to have to get into the weird economics of chicken genetics. The US is a nest of monopolies, worse even than Britain.
The key players in our food system are no longer food producers but food distributors
But what I’m trying to get you to focus on is that price is not the only abuse that comes from monopoly. Quality is a victim too, and so are labour rights and economic development. Monopoly always wants to sell more for as much money as it can while paying the least possible for the thing it is selling and paying the least possible in wages for those doing the work.
So while Mamdani is focussed on the cost of food, I’m initially focussed on the impact on health of the food system we have. Mamdani wants to fight rip-off eggs, I want to fight Industrially Produced Edible Substances (you think of it as ready meals). Go look at graph of the week this week…
Yet these are the same fight. They are the fight against monopoly. The key players in our food system are no longer food producers but food distributors. They haven’t monopolised food production, they’ve monopolised (and monopsonised) the ability of anyone in the public to get food. They decide what food producers get paid, and they decide how much you then pay for that food.
They have achieved this through what for you might be completely obscure means; they have vertically integrated distribution. It used to be that there was a distribution industry (people you phoned to move cargo around). Anyone could get their produce to market if their business was viable.
But once the supermarkets reached a certain scale, they created their own internal distribution networks, available only to them. It has made it almost impossible for independent producers to get their products to market. The supermarkets don’t charge you for food (that’s the producers), they charge you and producers for access to their distribution networks.
This is a very specific category in traditional economics; it is known as rent-seeking. Rent seeking is treated with a very specific kind of contempt by classical economists (Adam Smith hated it above most things). Rent seeking is "gaining personal wealth without contributing to societal wealth, often by manipulating political systems".
The old model used to be simply using your existing wealth to purchase an asset others need and then making them pay over the odds to access it (rent). Now, rent seeking has been expanded to mean all the many ways people make themselves wealthy without creating wealth.
There are two forms you will now be very familiar with, even if not by name – ‘economic termites’ and ‘infrastructure dominance’. The former is the process of inserting a new entity between the consumer and the producer to extract maximum wealth from both. Think Uber in between you and your taxi, Google in between you and the newspaper you want to read, those shitbags at Ticketmaster in between you and culture…
Infrastructure dominance just means investing heavily in critical infrastructure until others can no longer compete – think Amazon and retail delivery, Amazon Web Services and web servers, those shitbags at Ticketmaster again and the fact that their parent company has bought half the world’s music venues and will no longer sell tickets to anyone else’s venues.
We can't make an addiction problem go away by regulating it, and we can't tweak a monopoly to stop it being a monopoly
In both instances what they are doing is following the evil Peter Thiel playbook – "competition is for losers". The goal with all these initiatives is to make sure that you cannot cannot, cannot escape, that there is no alternative, that you are trapped. And then they exploit you ruthlessly.
If you don’t know the ways that Amazon is utterly, utterly screwing your then you’ll feel really silly when you find out. Amazon is categorically not saving you money any more… I know you won’t believe me so read this.
The big supermarket chains are effectively termites now. They sit between you and groceries and manipulate you as to what products you buy, what version of a product you buy, therefore what you eat and how much you end up spending. It is a form of social control of which the Chinese Communist Party must be jealous.
This is the second aspect of why our food system is unreformable – because it absolutely has been reformed, and reformed radically. In the wrong direction. In food the way the supermarkets maximised the value of their distribution monopoly was to replace food with food substitutes.
As I explained in the last article, supermarkets realised that they could sell animal food to humans (literally) if they processed it enough, if they put enough additives in. This achieved three crucial things; reduced the cost of nutritional inputs (by dispensing with them), increasing exponentially the shelf life of food (because it’s not really food), and they got you addicted to it.
Corry Doctrow explains this process as having three phases. First, be nice to your customers by being horrible to your investors (in the sense of running at a loss on their money). Then, when you’ve trapped the customer base, be horrible to your customers and investors so you can be really nice to your suppliers. Then, when you’ve got them trapped, be horrible to your customers and your suppliers and be incredibly nice to your investors. That is the end state.
And it is shit. It has broken the rules of capitalism. It is not competing with others on the basis of price or quality or innovation but monopoly rent. Mamdani is fighting the cost implications, here I’m fighting the health implications. It’s the same fight.
Now you must have realised by this point that I haven’t actually explained how to fix the food system (again). It is for the same reason I didn’t fix it in the last article – there is so, so much you need to understand before you’re going to accept what I am proposing.
What I am proposing is one of my pet concepts – what I’ve called ‘Platform Socialism’. I do not believe it makes sense (on the whole) to try and nationalise the means of production other than in natural monopolies like energy.
Rather what I think we should do is nationalise the means of distribution. Basically we don’t have a productive economy any more so trying to socialise production just doesn’t make much sense. What we have is almost wholly a rent-seeking economy, and that we can socialise.
If we created a genuinely competitive market in food production based on quality and price, then we could regulate a food system in a way that makes it work for us. But we can’t make an addiction problem go away by regulating it, and we can’t tweak a monopoly to stop it being a monopoly. Those things are impossible. Even standard theory recognises you can’t regulate addiction or stop monopolies acting like monopolies.
You have to understand this and accept it before you can solve this particular problem. It is only when you understand this space between political orthodoxy and public will and you understand the moving parts of this dysfunctional system that you can redesign it.
Which I promise I will actually, finally do in a forthcoming article…
You know that old joke about the hunter hunting for a bear which outfoxes him, sneaks up behind and sexually abuses him? The one where the hunter keeps coming back for revenge and the bear keeps outfoxing him, sneaking up and sexually abusing him, until on the fourth time round the bear whispers in his ear ‘you’re not really here for the hunting, are you?’.
Well Labour isn’t really here for the socialism, is it? Racism isn’t a reluctant tactic necessary to give it the chance to implement socialist policies, is it? I can show you quite simply that that doesn’t tally with any of the facts. Racism is the point, is it not? To my amazement and despite its many remaining anti-racist members, Labour is now a racist party for racists, right?
Let me show you what real racism looks like. You’re a Zionist Supremacist. You have a well-established hierarchy of racism in which racism for you is really a tool to suppress Muslims in favour of Jews. You know, like the independent Barrister who was invited to look at antisemitism in the Labour Party concluded (the Forde Report).
You have gone way past dog-whistling racist sentiment and you’re now making speeches about ‘islands of strangers‘ and your staff are referring to Muslims as ‘the fleas‘ without consequence. Inspired by Trump, you video yourself on immigration raids and watch on delighted as desperate young men are cuffed on camera to titillate the anti-immigration brigade.
And your immigration policy is now one lengthy One Minute Hate process in which your goal is to humiliate people with brown skin while your Scottish representative (Joani Reid) is decrying the idea that Glasgow should be a sanctuary for asylum seekers (away and check ‘sanctuary’ and ‘asylum’ in the dictionary will you Ms Reid).
Given all that, what would you imagine happens when the whole sordid, racist lot of them hear that a team from their beloved Israel is being prevented from bringing fans to Birmingham for a match based on warnings of danger from the police? What do you imagine Team Starmer does?
Just for context, they got vague, unspecified advice from security services and moved with alacrity to ban a non-violence pro-Palestine protest group. So they’re going to take the police advice, right? Nope. Before even talking to the police – or anyone – they’re on the warpath to overturn a decision they didn’t understand.
Real, ideological racism isn’t so much about what you say but about how you see
To get why this happened, you need to understand racism. When you hear a young man saying some lazy racist statement, you would do well not to assume that he’s definitely a racist, just that he said something racist. We all work from what are known as ‘social cues’, things we think we’re meant to say, things we think we’re not meant to say.
There is a difference between holding an ideologically racist world view and saying racist things. The latter may be the result of permissive social cues pushing the idea that what you are saying isn’t racist at all. It may not mean you hate people of a different skin colour.
Real, ideological racism isn’t so much about what you say but about how you see. It is an ideology. It defines how you categorise the world, how you actually think human relations should work. A true racist may not say racist things that much, they just act consistently as if people with darker skin are of less value.
It is about what you see when you see a picture. If you see someone with blood on their face and there is a crowd and there is one black person in the photo – if you find yourself assuming that it must have been the black person who is responsible for the assault, you are trapped in a racist frame. You didn’t calculate your racism, you just saw the world that way.
So when Starmer said ‘this is outrageous antisemitism and we’re going to prevent this happening’, what we know is that he couldn’t see any alternative configuration of the facts. He saw this plainly and clearly as an issue of needing to protect Jews from Muslim hate. There was no other possible configuration of the facts that could be taken into consideration.
There is a very clear alternative configuration of the facts that could have been considered. It could be that this advice wasn’t about protecting Jews from Muslims but protecting Muslims from Jews. Birmingham has Britain’s largest Muslim population. It is a very Muslim city by British standards. Those are Keir Starmer’s constituents, not Israelis. I need actually to explain that here, which tells you a lot.
The Jews in question are not here representing Judaism (they’re not some sort of faith group or church group or something), they are football fans with a long track record of violence at home and away. It just so happens their team is in a Jewish country. And there is copious evidence of extreme racist behaviour and violence.
No-one but no-one is disputing that this is a group of people who have walked through heavily Muslim areas chanting ‘Death to Arabs’ en masse. That is only one of 77 racist chants the team’s supporters are recorded as having engaged in last year, all anti-Muslim.
And yet it gets worse; there is a track record of violent attacks on Muslims and Muslim-owned businesses across Europe. Amsterdam, Athens, Cyprus – assaults (some really brutal) on Muslims are common when they travel abroad. They were fined by Uefa for anti-Muslim racism in 2013. (All info in links above.)
Starmer doesn’t take ten seconds to even ask Muslim community groups whether they feel fear about aggressive, violent anti-Muslims coming to their community – because they don’t count
Right, so let’s loop back – knowing this, there is a pretty good chance that the police have a pretty solid reason not to enable these fans to come to the city with Britain’s largest Muslim population. This is routine behaviour – violent football fans are regularly banned from places they might be predicted to incite violence.
Now I do not have access to the police intelligence, so perhaps the evidential basis for this ban is weak (though, really?). My point is that if you are a concerned politician you’d ask, and if the evidence is not solid then you might challenge. But if you are a racist then it will never have occurred to you that it was Muslims who were being protected in the first place.
Because if you’re a racist then you probably buy into the idea that Muslims are violent and not properly civilised whereas Israeli Jews are. And so you wouldn’t pause to look at the picture and not assume that the antagonists are the ones with the dark skin. You would certainly do so without speaking first to local community groups representing the British people concerned.
Reverse this; the supporters of a football team have been chanting ‘Death to Jews’ and attacking Jewish people and property wherever they go. The police call them to be banned from a heavily Jewish area of London. What does Starmer do? Give me an answer to that question which does not lead inexorably to the only possible interpretation that Starmer is an out and out racist.
For him, if a Jewish community group expresses ‘fear’ then he thinks that domestic anti-war protestors should be banned. But he doesn’t take ten seconds to even ask Muslim community groups whether they feel fear about aggressive, violent anti-Muslims coming to their community. Because They Don’t Count. They aren’t Proper People.
Anyway, as our bear ravishes our hunter for the fourth time, how can he not at that point conclude that the hunter is doing this for reasons other than that he thinks he’s actually going to win this time. The evidence says otherwise.
Likewise, the more racist Starmer becomes, the deeper he falls into the category of ‘least popular Prime Minister in recorded history‘. I could link you to mountains of evidence that shows socialist parties which tack right to triangulate racists get eviscerated at the polls. If you know anything (I read about political strategy every day of the week) you know the evidence on that has been conclusive for some time.
But you don’t need to believe me. At the moment the Labour Party will cease to exist as a significant parliamentary force in the next three or four years unless something changes. Starmer is killing Labour dead. It is over. He’s finished them. Don’t bother remembering their names because in a couple of years you will never have to. Joani Reid? Was she something to do with Enoch Powell?
That’s what I spent my Friday thinking. I nearly thought ‘the bastards, they’re back at their racism again’. And then I thought ‘hold on Robin, this is fucking magic – they lost another five per cent of their vote again today and will never be elected in Birmingham again’.
Whatever it is Starmer, McSweeny, Mahmoud and the rest of the race hate team are up to, it ain’t the hunting. The outcome for them will be similar (metaphorically) to that of our poor, bedraggled hunter. I can’t wait.
Page created in 0.019 seconds with 13 queries.