Dealing with the Holocaust

Greg Johnson


1. White Nationalists need to deal with the Holocaust just as we need to deal with the Jewish Question in general.

It is futile to focus on White advocacy alone and ignore the Jews. Quite simply, the Jews will not return the favor. You might not pick Jews as the enemy, but they will pick you. You might wish to see Jews as Whites, but Jews see themselves as a distinct people. Thus they see any nationalism but their own as a threat.

2. It is futile for White Nationalists to ignore the Holocaust, for the Holocaust is one of the principal tools by which Jews seek to stigmatize White ethnic pride and self-assertion. As soon as a White person expresses the barest inkling of nationalism or racial consciousness, he will be asked “What about the Holocaust? You’re not defending genocide, are you?”

The Holocaust is specifically a weapon of moral intimidation. It is routinely put forward as the worst thing that has ever happened, the world’s supreme evil. Anybody who would defend it, or anything connected to it, is therefore evil by association. The Holocaust is evoked to cast uppity Whites into the world’s deepest moral pit, from which they will have to extricate themselves before they can say another word. And that word had better be an apology. To borrow a turn of phrase from Jonathan Bowden, the Holocaust is a moral “cloud” over the heads of Whites.

So how can White Nationalists dispel that cloud? We need an answer to the Holocaust question. As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” We believe that this idea can become hegemonic through the transformation of culture and consciousness. We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers. Thus we retain the values, aims, and intellectual framework of the Old Right. Where we differ is that we reject Old Right party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

The idea of ethnonationalism is true and good, regardless of the real and imagined crimes, mistakes, and misfortunes of the Old Right. Thus we feel no need to “deny,” minimize, or revise the Holocaust, just as the New Left felt no need to tie its projects to “Gulag revisionism.”

Advertisement

3. What is the Holocaust? I understand the Holocaust to mean the claim that up to six million European Jews were put to death during World War II by the Third Reich and its allies as part of a policy of systematic and intentional genocide, i.e., the extermination of a whole people or group.

What is revisionism? History is what really happened. Historiography is the record and interpretation of history created by finite and fallible human beings. As we discover new historical facts and the lies, errors, and biases of past historians, we must accordingly revise historiography. Historical revisionism is simply the process of criticizing historical narratives to bring them in line with historical facts.

Historical revisionism is, in principle, an infinite task, for every historian interprets limited data within particular frameworks. But data can always change, and interpretations can always be questioned. Revisionism is, therefore, a necessary and permanent feature of the pursuit of historical truth.

Holocaust revisionism primarily challenges the facts of the Holocaust narrative, usually focusing on death totals and techniques of extermination. Holocaust revisionism is a completely legitimate field of historical inquiry, simply because all historical narratives are subject to revision.

Beyond that, revisionism about wartime atrocities is necessary because wars always generate propaganda, and much of war propaganda is untrue. In the case of the Holocaust, for instance, the old stories about human soap and lampshades have now been recognized as false even by mainstream historians, including Jewish historians. And so many Holocaust memoirs have been unmasked as false that they constitute a whole new literary genre.

Holocaust revisionism is not the same thing as revisionism about the Third Reich or the causes, conduct, and consequences of World War II. Nor does it constitute Holocaust revisionism to compare the Holocaust to other genocides or discuss its overall meaning.

For instance, Irmin Vinson’s Some Thoughts on Hitler, deals with the role of the Holocaust in stigmatizing and suppressing White racial consciousness today. But it is not a revisionist account of the actual events of the Holocaust. Similarly, the events of World War II are irrelevant to Kevin MacDonald’s point about the preeminent role of the Holocaust in contemporary Western culture: “Central to the new culture is the elevation of Jewish experiences of suffering during World War II, collectively referred to as ‘the Holocaust’, to the level of the pivotal historico-cultural icon in Western societies. … The Holocaust has thus become an instrument of Jewish ethnic interests not only as a symbol intended to create moral revulsion at violence directed at minority ethnic groups —prototypically the Jews, but also as an instrument to silence opponents of high levels of multi-ethnic immigration into Western societies” (see here, p. 44, 45).

Just so we are clear: I believe that Holocaust revisionism is a legitimate field of historical research, because all forms of historical revisionism are legitimate, due to the necessarily partial, finite, and therefore revisable nature of historiography. I believe that all laws that penalize Holocaust revisionism should be scrapped as anti-intellectual, quasi-religious obscurantism. I believe that all revisionists should be released from jail. I have met many leading revisionists, and with only a couple of exceptions, I think they are honest and honorable people. I wish them well in their endeavors.

I am not arguing that we should avoid Holocaust revisionism because it will garner bad press. I don’t worry about such things, because we will always have bad press—until we control the press.

I simply wish to argue that Holocaust revisionism is not a necessary component of our intellectual project. We don’t need it. Which is not the same thing as saying that it is a hindrance, or that it cannot help under any circumstances, although I will argue that it is often a distraction.

Personally speaking, since becoming involved with the White Nationalist scene, I have never been all that interested in Holocaust revisionism, simply because my main concern is with the genocide being committed against our own people today, not the real or imagined crimes committed by our people in the past. And the Holocaust strikes me as having little to do with the deep causes of our racial plight and even less to do with the solutions.

4. There is a weak sense in which Holocaust revisionism is not necessarily connected to White Nationalism, namely they have very different aims which makes them very different endeavors. The proper aim of Holocaust revisionism is historical truth. The aim of White Nationalism is the creation of White homelands. Although the ranks of revisionists and White Nationalists overlap, there is no necessary connection between these two aims. Which is not to say that they necessarily conflict.

For instance, there are Holocaust revisionists who are not White Nationalists, such as Bradley Smith, Robert Faurisson, and Roger Garaudy. And there are White Nationalists who are not Holocaust revisionists. Indeed, there are some who hope that the revisionists are wrong.

Others, like me, simply hold that revisionism, whether true or false, is simply not necessary to the White Nationalist project. The standard account of the Holocaust could be completely true, and it would still not imply that there is anything wrong with White Nationalism and the goal of breaking Jewish power over our destiny and physically separating Whites and Jews.

Of course for German and Austrian nationalists, particularly those who want to rehabilitate old-style National Socialism, there seems to be an inextricable connection between Holocaust revisionism and their practical political aims. But I wish to argue that even in this case, Holocaust revisionism is not necessary for German and Austrian nationalism to reemerge from the flames.

Nothing prevents German or Austrian nationalists from saying:

“If the lessons of the Holocaust are that genocide is evil and the best defense against genocide is to have one’s own state, then we think this lesson applies to us too. We will cease to exist as a people if we do not have control over our own borders and destinies. It is time for a new nationalism. We simply refuse to tie our destiny to what happened in the Second World War. We’re over it. We’ve moved on. Jews are no longer being subjected to active, ongoing genocide, but we are.”

So if one’s goal is historical truth about the Holocaust, to rehabilitate National Socialism and the Third Reich, or to cleanse the German people of blood libels, then Holocaust revisionism makes perfect sense. Nothing else will really do. But if one’s aim is White Nationalism, Holocaust revisionism is not necessary.

5. Those who argue that Holocaust revisionism is a necessary component of White Nationalism usually claim that the Holocaust is the foundation of the post-World War II regime of anti-White genocide.

The Holocaust really is the principal source of White guilt, the principal tool to stigmatize White national and ethnic consciousness.

What are the “lessons” of the Holocaust? The Holocaust is used, simultaneously, to justify Jewish racism, Jewish nationalism, and Jewish self-assertion and to stigmatize White racism, nationalism, and self-assertion.

Thus, some White Nationalists reason, if the principal claims about the Holocaust could be refuted — if the death toll could be lowered, if the homicidal gas chambers could be exposed as a myth, etc. — then the whole racket of anti-White guilt and extortion would crumble.

But is this true?

Revisionists have been chipping away at Holocaust claims since 1945. The shrunken heads, human soap, and human lampshades have been quietly withdrawn. The homicidal gas chambers have migrated from Germany and Austria to Poland. Death tolls at individual sites have been revised downward. Scores of fake memoirs and testimonies have been unmasked. And all of these findings have been accepted by mainstream historians.

Yet has this decreased the cultural power of the Holocaust over Whites? Maybe it has slowed the juggernaut down a bit, but it is still rolling over us. Furthermore, I see no effect on broader Jewish cultural and political hegemony, which has never been stronger.

Of course if the revisionists could score a major hit — if, for instance, they are right about the gas chambers at Auschwitz — there is no question that the Jewish establishment would suffer considerable embarrassment and loss of credibility and prestige in the eyes of Whites. That certainly couldn’t hurt White Nationalism. But would it really constitute a decisive blow against Jewish power?

I think not, for the following reasons.

  • First, as Mark Weber has pointed out, the cultural and political power of the Holocaust is not the foundation of Jewish power, it is an expression of pre-existing Jewish power. Before World War II, Jews already had an enormous amount of power in the United States (see here, p. 9ff): enough power to deliver the United States into two World Wars, for instance. Jewish power was based on over-representation in banking, business, law, politics, academia, and the news and entertainment media.
  • Second, if the Holocaust suddenly lost its potency as a tool of moral intimidation, Jews surely have the talent, money, power, and ill-will to foist a new one on us. Whites will never be free until we identify and defeat the real sources of Jewish power. And from that point of view, focusing too much on the Holocaust is superficial and can function as a distraction. The Holocaust is like the toreador’s red cape. We bulls need to stop charging the cape and start focusing on the man who wields it.
  • Third, Holocaust death totals are never going to be revised to zero. In a war in which countless innocent people of all nations died, countless innocent Jews surely died as well, and ultimately that’s all the Holocaust needs to survive. The gas chambers, the genocidal intent, and the rest of it could be dropped, but poor little Anne Frank and many others like her would still be dead.
  • Fourth, the pity for innocent Jewish victims that our people feel will not be altered even if they are convinced that many Holocaust survivors and the Allied powers exploited their deaths for political and financial gain and embellished them with outrageous blood libels against the German people. The victims told no lies about the Holocaust (soap, lampshades, etc.). The survivors did. The Allied governments did. The Jewish leadership did. But dead men tell no tales.
  • Fifth, if many key Holocaust claims were proven false, Holocaust survivors could still present themselves as victims, this time of the Allied powers that fabricated German atrocities to retroactively justify their own war crimes. Jews who were duped into thinking that their entire families had been exterminated might well have lost the opportunity to find their loved ones because they believed them to be dead.
    • This would actually be a political windfall for Jews, because Jews have worked very hard to make all Whites feel a spurious guilt for the Holocaust, even the citizens of the Allied powers that brought the Holocaust to the end. If, however, the Allies fabricated key elements of the Holocaust narrative, then they really would be guilty of a great crime against the Jews, opening up vast new prospects for reparations.
  • Sixth, the Holocaust may be the anti-White guilt trip most useful to Jews — since it simultaneously supports their nationalism and undermines ours — but it is certainly not the only one. There are all too many Whites who are happily abasing and immolating themselves for such historic crimes as Negro slavery, the conquest and dispossession of indigenous peoples around the globe, even the extermination of countless animal species. Some Whites seem almost eager to believe that our ancestors exterminated the Neanderthal, so they can feel guilty about that as well. Of course it would be nice to set the historical record straight on all these issues, but the real problem here is moral.

6. It is our own people’s grandiose propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement that is the ultimate source of the Holocaust’s power over us. No amount of Jewish propaganda could sell us the “lessons” of the Holocaust if we were not willing to buy them. The real problem of the Holocaust is moral and psychological, and historical revisionism simply does not address it. It is a problem that can only be addressed by moral and psychological means. Unless we deal with the real root of the problem, Whites will be just as willing to abase and ruin themselves over 600,000 dead Jews as over six million.

The fact that the ultimate problem lies in ourselves does not, however, absolve the organized Jewish community of guilt for exploiting it to serve evil ends.

Just to be clear, I am not objecting to feeling sympathy with the victims of injustice. Nor am I objecting to feeling shame for one’s own misbehavior or the misbehavior of others, especially those who act in one’s name. These are signs of moral health.

What I object to is collective guilt and collective atonement: the idea that Whites today are collectively guilty for what Whites have done in the past and must collectively atone for those crimes. I believe there are collective goods and evils. I am all for collective pride and collective shame. But I do not believe in collective guilt. Individuals are only guilty of the things that they do, even when individuals act in groups. It is perfectly reasonable to feel pity and shame for the extinction of the dodo or great auk. But I am not guilty of actions taken by others long before I was born.

One of the most disgusting but least harmful manifestations of collective guilt and atonement is the issuing of collective apologies for past wrongs. The King of Spain, for instance, was asked to apologize for the Reconquista, i.e., the reversal of the Moorish conquest of Spain. A healthy people would have responded to such insolence with laughter (and tossed whoever suggested it down a well, for good measure). After all, where is the Moorish apology for the Conquista?

March of the Abolitionists

Then there is the group of White Christians who marched around wearing chains and yokes in the custody of blacks to apologize for the slave trade. Of course, Muslims, Jews, and African blacks felt no need to apologize for their people’s roles in the slave trade.

It is this mentality that has allowed Jews to fashion the Holocaust into a kind of moral fetish from which Whites shrink like vampires from the cross.

The moral and psychological effect of collective guilt is collective demoralization and self-hatred, which leads to a loss of a collective destiny. We no longer think that the world is a better place because of our people, that we have something good to contribute to the universe.

A whole book could be written about the consequences of White demoralization. I believe it is a factor in everything from lower birthrates to miscegenation to our willingness to subject ourselves to annoying music.

But the most important consequence of White demoralization is our unwillingness to take our own side in ethnic conflicts with every other group on the planet. And, as Michael Polignano has argued so cogently, refusing to take one’s own side in an ethnic conflict is the path to collective dispossession and extinction. (This is why our enemies promote such attitudes in the first place.)

Our morality has made us sick, rotten, weak, and contemptible, and only a moral revolution—what Nietzsche called a transvaluation of values—will save us. This is not the place to fully explore that transvaluation. But I will touch on how it relates to the Holocaust question.

7. Not only does Holocaust revisionism fail to deal with the moral roots of the problem, it actually subtly strengthens them. Both Holocaust promoters and revisionists share a common premise: If White ethnocentrism, self-assertion, etc. led to the Holocaust, the slave trade, Jim Crow, etc., then they are evil. Revisionists do not challenge the moral part of this premise, they simply dispute the facts.

But the most fundamental response is to deny the moral premise: There is nothing wrong with White racial nationalism, self-assertion and White concerns about the future of their race. These do not necessarily conflict with the legitimate interests of other peoples, and in cases when our interests conflict with theirs, it is perfectly correct to take our own side. Attacking the moral dimension of the problem is like hacking at the trunk of a tree, whereas revisionism is akin to merely trimming the branches.

8. There is a sense in which the past simply does not matter to a people of sufficient vitality and destiny. Yes, we should honor our heritage. Yes, we should learn from history. But no healthy people should allow the past to turn into a dead weight impeding them from pursuing a better future.

From the point of view of a vital organism, memory should be as selective as the digestive process, which separates nutrients from poisons and dross, absorbing the nutrients and excreting— i.e., forgetting—the rest as swiftly as possible.

Individuals who have a long memory for negative things, like people with slow bowels, are sickened by retaining wastes that should be excreted. The same is true for whole peoples.  Great men and great peoples need to have a capacity to forget the negative so they can get on with life.

The bigger the memory, the smaller the man—the longer the memory for slights, the pettier and sicklier the soul. The bigger the past, the smaller the future. The more tied to the past one is—especially past negatives—the less vitality one has, the less ability to project a future.

And, to extend the analogy one step further, people who constantly harp on past negatives are trying to make you eat the psychic equivalent of excrement. They are trying to poison you. They do not have your best interests at heart.

Sure, it is good to set the historical record straight. But from the point of view of the existential, practical project of securing the existence of our people, it is not necessary. Because mere historical facts — no matter what they are — should never deter us.

9. Part of the power of the Holocaust is the idea that it is history’s greatest crime, the worst thing that ever happened. This is a factual claim, which can be easily refuted. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao each killed more than six million people. (As many as 15 million people died in the USSR under Lenin’s leadership, during the revolution and civil war, before Stalin came to power.)

Tinkering with Holocaust death totals is obviously relevant to where the Holocaust fits into the hierarchy of human atrocities. Does it come before or after the millions of German civilians killed during and after World War II by the Allied powers? How does it relate to the 1.5 to 4 million people who died in the Bengal famine of 1943, caused by the British? How does it compare to the some two million Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, and Greeks who were killed by the Turks between 1915 and 1920, or the 1.7 million Cambodians were killed by Pol Pot from 1975 to 1979?

But from a Jewish point of view, such tinkering is irrelevant, because whether the death toll is six million or 600,000, the Holocaust is still the worst thing that ever happened to Jews.

The problem is that Jews have gotten the rest of us to accept the Jewish view of the Holocaust as the only view, the view of “humanity,” which for a Jew means only Jews, but for Whites means everyone. Whites need to develop our own perspective on the Holocaust.

From a general human point of view, Holocaust numbers are irrelevant as well, because even if 16 million Jews perished in the Second World War, it is certainly not the worst thing that ever happened to the human race. That would be Communism.

From a White point of view, Holocaust numbers are irrelevant too, because the worst thing that has ever happened to our race has also claimed far more than six million lives. That would be the rise of Jewish power over Whites, whenever and wherever it has occurred, including Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the delivery of the United States into the First World War, playing a major role in fomenting World War II, and playing a leading role in establishing the post-war system in which low White birthrates and the immigration of fast-breeding non-Whites threaten White peoples the world over with political dispossession, cultural obliteration, and, if present trends continue, biological extinction.

But even if the Holocaust were the worst thing that ever happened, (a) it is not our fault and (b) we have our own, slow, ongoing genocide to worry about. So, in the end, do the numbers really matter to a people with the will to have a future?

10. The most urgently touted lesson of the Holocaust is that Whites had better not contemplate separating themselves from Jews ever again, lest it lead to “another Holocaust.” But this doesn’t really follow.

  • First, if it really were a matter of “us or them,” any healthy people would take its own side.
  • Second, Jews have been expelled many times from White lands, and not all of these expulsions resulted in massacres. Some of them probably prevented massacres.
  •  Third, Jews now have some place to go: a homeland that will not refuse them refuge.
  • Fourth, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons which will effectively deter any future massacre of Jews.

11. From a practical, political point of view, Holocaust revisionism is a rather clumsy way of dealing with the Holocaust question.

Imagine you are protesting some evil done by Jews and you are told that Jews have a right to do x because of the Holocaust. Do you splutter that the Holocaust is a “hoax” and then start disputing the numbers? Or do you simply say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?

Imagine that you are passing out anti-immigration literature and somebody comes up to you and tells you “What you’re doing is just like what led to the Holocaust.” Do you bring up the Leuchter Report? Or do you simply say, “Unless we don’t stop immigration, White people have no future in this country, and that’s genocide too. We’re fighting against our own ‘Holocaust’”?

The first response is moral. The second can be characterized as political. As a general rule, moral and political arguments are more convincing than historical or scientific arguments, because the latter require specialized knowledge and lengthy explanations, whereas the former can be pithily formulated and draw upon common moral and political intuitions—and generally people’s moral intuitions are healthier than the toxic moral swill ladled out by the churches, schools, and mass media.

12. Generally the “lesson” of the Holocaust boils down to: Jewish racism, nationalism, and self-assertion are good; White racism, nationalism, and self-assertion are evil. The flaw in this position has nothing to do with historical facts. It is simply the glaring moral double standard, which is the essence of Jewish tribal morality. The position is perfectly consistent with Jewish live and let die morals, since both sides of the double standard benefit the Jews.

The White answer should be, for starters, to point out the double standard. But one cannot stop there, simply adopting a posture of naïve, aggrieved universalism. One should also point out that Jews are quite aware of such double standards and quite pleased with them: they are essential to the Jewish moral outlook. Jews are morally different people, and we need to recognize this.

But the answer is not to adopt our own version of Jewish ethics—preaching universalism for them while practicing ethnocentrism for us—for at least six reasons.

  • First, Jews aren’t as naive as Whites, so they would never buy it.
  • Second, Jews can afford to maintain moral double standards because they have the power to make them work for them. Whites do not have that kind of power, so there is nothing to gain by sacrificing our consistency.
  • Third, our fellow Whites have a strong predisposition toward universalism, and flouting it makes our task that much harder.
  • Fourth, Whites tend to be outraged at violations of universality and reciprocity. Why not channel all of that outrage toward our enemies rather than share in it ourselves?
  • Fifth, philosophically speaking, ethnocentrism, ethnonationalism, and ethnic self-assertion are completely universalizable principles. They can be accepted by all peoples. The New Right stands for ethnonationalism for everybody.
  • Finally, Jews have invested a great deal in genocide education and awareness. Why not make that work for us, for a change?

If the lesson of the Holocaust is that peoples need their own states, ethnic pride, and ethnic separation in order to preserve themselves from genocide, then Whites need to demand that this principle be applied to us as well, for although Jews have never been more secure—with their ethnostate sitting on a mountain of nuclear weapons—Whites in all nations are faced with declining birthrates and teeming populations of non-White invaders, trends incompatible with our long term survival. That is genocide too, as defined by the United Nations. White Nationalism is all about resisting White genocide.

Followers of Bob Whitaker’s mantra have made an important contribution to White Nationalism by injecting the White genocide meme far and wide into the culture. Clearly they understand that they will have a greater impact by building upon genocide awareness rather than trying to nibble away at its edges with Holocaust revisionism. And one can do this in all earnestness, because, after all, genocide really is evil.

13. Holocaust revisionism is illegal in 17 countries and counting.  In France, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Roger Garaudy, Jean Plantin, and Robert Faurisson have been imprisoned and/or fined for Holocaust revisionism. In Germany, Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Sylvia Stolz, Horst Mahler, Dirk Zimmerman, and Bishop Richard Williamson have been imprisoned and/or fined. Zündel and Mahler were sentenced to five years. In Switzerland, Jürgen Graf, Gerhard Förster, and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz have been imprisoned and/or fined. In Austria, David Irving and Wolfgang Fröhlich have been imprisoned, the latter for six years. Others have been forced into exile.

One might argue that no one bans what he does not fear. Thus if Holocaust revisionism is banned, it must be feared by our rulers. One could make the same argument about the criminal assaults, bombs, arson, loss of employment, professional harassment, and social ostracism to which Holocaust revisionists have also been subjected.

But the fact that Holocaust revisionism is persecuted still does not imply that it is a necessary or effective component of White Nationalism.

Moreover, Holocaust revisionists who have no ties to White Nationalism have also been persecuted. Furthermore, fear is not the only motive for persecution. Hatred probably plays a bigger role. The Holocaust is a highly emotional topic among Jews. Thus Revisionism would probably be persecuted even if it bore no connection to any particular political agenda and threatened no political powers.

Finally, if White Nationalists who do not link themselves to Holocaust revisionism become more effective (as I think they will), then they might have even worse persecutions in store.

14. To sum up, I have argued that White Nationalists need to deal with the problem of the Holocaust. I have argued that the root of the problem is our people’s willingness to accept unearned guilt and punish ourselves for it. The problem, in short, is psychological and moral, not historical. Thus Holocaust revisionism is not the answer. It is not necessary for White Nationalism. At best, it can supplement an essentially moral argument for White Nationalism. At worst, it distracts us from dealing with the deeper roots of Jewish power and White weakness.

I wish to end with a few words from Jonathan Bowden, who has been a major inspiration for what I have written here. When an exponent of White revival is asked, “Well what’s your view of the Shoah then?” Bowden recommends simply saying: “We’ve stepped over that.” Meaning that we have overcome it, that we are moving forward, that the future calls, and we are a people who wish to have a future again. We recognize that the Holocaust is being used to abort that future.

To the retort, “What do you mean you’ve ‘stepped over’ that? Are you minimizing its importance to humanity?” Bowden counsels the reply, “We are minimizing its importance to our form of humanity!”

I wish I could have asked Bowden what he means by “our form of humanity” prior to his untimely death. Obviously he is referring to White people. But, whether he knew it or not, I think he is referring to only a subset of Whites.

Today Whites, as a whole, are a race without a future. White Nationalists wish to save our people, but the sad truth is that we can’t save all of them. We are too few, the rot is too deep, and the hour is too late.

Thus, ultimately, we are not so much saving our people as becoming a new people. Hence “our form of humanity” consists specifically of Whites who have, through a Nietzschean revolution in values, overcome Jewish power and White weakness at their roots, thus becoming Whites who, once again, have a future.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

750 Comments to "Dealing with the Holocaust"

  1. Phil's Gravatar Phil
    July 27, 2012 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

    @John hearns:

    “An easy rule of thumb would be that any person whom the zio controlled media has made to be evil in the public mind is/was most likely an effective enemy to the self chosen and therefore is/was a good guy.
    And yes this includes poor old Adolf (who did not kill ‘em with bug spray)”

    Yesiree…that has been my observation. With all the lies, half-truths and partial facts that have been told and presented to us, you can’t go wrong taking a contrarian position in response to what the Jewish-owned mass media and ZOG (aka JOG) is telling us or promoting, e.g., “diversity is our greatest strength” (except in Israel), “there is no such thing as race” (then how could there be racism?), etc.

    Phil

  2. Gregor's Gravatar Gregor
    July 27, 2012 - 8:11 pm | Permalink

    @Helvena: Regarding the particular line you quoted …

    You do realize that Confucius went around telling the various Princes the “best way to govern”, and that most of them wanted nothing to do with his advice, right?

    I assume you are confusing his advice with “democracy”, but I may be wrong. The Confucian idea of governance was based on what’s GOOD for the people, but had absolutely zero tolerance for letting them have a SAY in the process.

    Confucius knew human nature, and didn’t fall into the “democracy” trap …

    Another good one, by “Lao Zi”, in the Book of the Way, was “Rule a large country like you’d fry a small fish”. Nobody knows about that stuff any more.

  3. Gregor's Gravatar Gregor
    July 27, 2012 - 8:03 pm | Permalink

    @Helvena: Thanks for the link.

    I have Pound’s translations of Confucius on my bookshelf.

    I have also read much of the original … in Chinese.

    Pound & Fenellosa’s work on the Chinese Character and it’s way of translating meaning leaves much to be desired. No Chinese speaker I know thinks about their language the way Pound thought they did. Pound’s “creativity” was showing, but I have no problem with that!

    Pound’s attention to the DA XUE (Ta Hio is archaic romanization, Meaning: Great Learning or Study) is important because in his inimitable manner he puts the thing into words and structures that make SENSE to English-speakers.

    My favorite line is from the Analects, 5:9 …

    “Tsai Yu was sleeping in daytime. Confucius said: Rotten wood cannot be carved; a wall of dung cannot hold plaster, what’s the use of reproving him?”

  4. Skadhi_the_Raverner's Gravatar Skadhi_the_Raverner
    July 27, 2012 - 7:41 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: I’ve just had a look and read this.

    “West-Coast White Nationalism is my term for the blending of white racial consciousness with liberal or Left-wing positions on such issues as capitalism, environmentalism, zoning, abortion, drug legalization, homosexuality, and religious pluralism. West-Coast White Nationalism is not, of course, confined to the West Coast, but such attitudes are more prevalent here. Furthermore, not every White Nationalist on the West Coast fits this description.”

    So in other words you’re trying to appeal to the same people as Cultural Marxists, but you don’t understand it’ll fail because there’s a reason why people with ‘West Coast’ positions are usually attracted to anti-racism not to becoming WNs, its about people’s psychological differences. The best you’ll do is show them we’re not evil like they’ve been told, and that’s good but their spending time round any WN site will show people that.

    You’re obviously trying to present white nationalism in ways that appeal to the modern left, because the old trade union left were fine with social conservatism, and what you call the ‘West Coast’ positions were virtually invented by the same people who destroyed the labour movement like they’re destroying European nationalism right now – entryists with agendas redirected an entire movement off its course, kicked anyone out who objected, and slammed the door.

    I asked a lesbian leftist what she thought about Greek homosexuality and she said it was about patriarchy instead of love, so printing one or two rightist homosexuals won’t appeal to leftist gays and their straight advocates, who’d find the mannerbund against their West Coast sensibilities. It might change how straights are conditioned to see homosexuality as feminine faggotry, but anything by rightist homosexuals will appeal to rightist ‘homophobes’ more than the West Coast homosexuals!

    And how do you plan to reconcile the liberal position on abortion with white people’s genetic interests? By saying to allow abortions only for ethnic minorities? You must realise the sort of people who support abortion based on ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ will find that disgusting as much as it alienates pro-lifers.

    On other issues there’s more ground for what you’re trying to actually work, but you’re still misunderstanding people – do you really think stoners want drug legalisation so the state can come and tax it?

    And the proof you’re wrong is that most of you’re writers and the people who leave comments aren’t West Coast WNs! And I’m sure none of the classic writers mentioned on the site like Julius Evola and Savitri Devi would have approved of your own definition of West Coast white nationalism either.

    And I don’t really care one way or another about things like soft drugs, homosexuality or religion unless they’re harmful to whites. There might be something in the old leftist writers, and in the labor movement, but what you call West Coast is just another word for ‘culture destroying’ and, unless its done really carefully, it just opens the door to entryists. Look at France and Holland…

  5. Gregor's Gravatar Gregor
    July 27, 2012 - 7:40 pm | Permalink

    @Lew:

    Lew, there’s a possibility that he might do just that: shut down this thread.

    But isn’t that like closing the pasture gate after the cows all got out?

    I think it has crossed Dr. MacDonald’s mind that this sort of “takeover” of his site is not in his best interests, and that he may just stop commenting altogether. After all, he has more important things to do than watch this sort of nasty cat fight.

    Of course, the “troublemakers” (you know who you are) could forestall that possibility. You know, use a little self-discipline and start acting White.

  6. Gregor's Gravatar Gregor
    July 27, 2012 - 7:35 pm | Permalink

    @TyronRobertParsons:

    Tyron, thanks but no thanks. I appreciate the thought, but had something entirely different in mind than going back in time. I want to look forward, and not be connected with any re-tribalization which is derived from old books which are someone else’s history.

    But again, thanks for the thoughts!

  7. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 27, 2012 - 7:32 pm | Permalink

    @Gregor: “This thread is a grand example of how White Europeans, due to factors Dr. MacDonald has discussed elsewhere, are susceptible to “Altruistic Self-Punishment” …”

    I often wonder why Dr. KMD doesn’t just shut down comments at TOO. This site is private property. No one has any right to free speech here, and the disruptive commenters are taking advantage of Dr. KMDs tolerance to get a far bigger audience than they deserve. I’d venture a guess 1/3 to 1/2 the comments here are from trolls hostile to Dr. KMDs work with the remaining comments reflecting the standard WNist polyglot. Maybe Dr. KMD keeps comments open to watch his theory on White altrusitic self-punishment vindicated on a daily basis.

  8. July 27, 2012 - 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Gregor, read Ta Hio:
    The Ho-Kiang says: the fortune of the prince depends upon heaven, and the will of heaven exists in the people.
    http://helvena.wordpress.com/tag/ta-hio/

  9. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 27, 2012 - 7:01 pm | Permalink

    @Gregor:

    You said

    I often read so-called “WN” saying “We need to re-tribalize.” To make sense of the thing called “tribalizing” we must ask some questions about what that MEANS.

    Answer

    Since we are the REAL Israel (those who accept Christ from the European/white nations) and because the so called Jews Gog and Magog) are guility of identity theft (them admittedly being Ashkenaz and Esau) we must figure out which one of these TRIBES we are.

    REUBEN – SIMEON – LEVI – JUDAH

    DAN – NAPHTALI * GAD – ASHER

    ISSACHAR – ZEBULUN – JOSEPH – BENJAMIN

    The time is fast approaching when this will happen Rev 7:4-8

    2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

    3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

    4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

    6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

    7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

    8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

  10. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 27, 2012 - 6:48 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew Joyce:

    I would like to point out in love to all of other European/white brothers and sisters that our people(s) are full of sins. There is not an exception among us. Some worse, some better off. Your duty to your brother is to lead them out of their sin- homosexuality or any other Jew promoted sickness. This is how we love our people. This is how we strengthen our shattered bonds and none of this can happen- not one of us have even a hope of being stored completely without the aid of our kinsman and King- Jesus Christ.

    Lets not condem eachother. Lets rebuke and restore one another in love for eachother. Remember, this is why Christ is the ultimate enemy of the “Jews”- because they know he is their undoing-forever.

  11. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    July 27, 2012 - 6:48 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager:
    You are quite right that I do not know the intricacies of the Holocaust. So what? Are we all expert in everything? What I do know I learned first hand from a GI who liberated one of the camps. That was all I needed to know to make a valid judgement that those were not nice people. Not uniquely evil, but evil enough.
    None of which has impaired, in any way, my ability to perceive reality, here and now, in my life.

    I never suggested that the truth should not be pursued, skepticism expressed, nor scholars free to search for the truth. Nor do I accept the burden placed upon us by you and Michael Colhaze .

    How can we ever leave the Holocaust unconsidered? It is one of their most effective weapons, and to obliterate it with irrefutable historical facts is an obligation for every decent human being.

    It may be the duty of historians who specialize in the area, but history is filled with lies, we would never do anything else if we all sought truth on every one. The truth will come out.

    The point that I agree with is that it is not in the best interests of whites to make this our banner. If people can judge by the company you keep – we are all in trouble. This sorry spectacle demonstrates that we are hell bent on living up to every crackpot image of white nationalists. It has been a lovely tour through everyone’s pet hobby, including but not limited to, parapsychology, hollow – earth theory, homosexuality and its intersection with Nazism and National Socialism, German blood libels, Christophobia and those nameless people who really are driven far more by their hatred of Jews than by their love of white folks. We have been treated to petty swipes, character slurs and the usual dirty linen. A few authors hopped on board to promote their books and websites. All are welcome to their own favorite, to promote any of them above the welfare of whites is suspect. Once again, the crazy people take up all the air in the room.

  12. Gregor's Gravatar Gregor
    July 27, 2012 - 6:28 pm | Permalink

    I often read so-called “WN” saying “We need to re-tribalize.” To make sense of the thing called “tribalizing” we must ask some questions about what that MEANS.

    Tribes are a network of actors, held together by a “glue” which is based in a primordial identity, consciously held by the actors. That identity must TRUMP ideological concerns, and where ideological concerns come up, there must be a collective mechanism in place to SHUT DOWN any destructuring of the “glue” that holds the tribe together. This means that under certain circumstances, “Freedom of Opinion” is idiotic. Those circumstances are where “ideology” threatens to break down/up the cohesiveness which forms the “protective unit”, the group that protects the survival of the individual member of the actor-network.

    This thread is a grand example of how White Europeans, due to factors Dr. MacDonald has discussed elsewhere, are susceptible to “Altruistic Self-Punishment” … with the “self” being the group entity, and the altruistic “stuff” being our tendency to punish based on “transgression” of abstract, universal “principles”, rather than defection from the tribe (actor network) based on WHAT WE ARE.

    We’ve got to STOP THIS CRAP!

    To the extent that ANYONE is allowed “freedom” to stir up shiite that disrupts and destroys incipient unifying memes, for the mere sake of “Freedom of Speech”, they are doing damage to the group as a whole.

    Of course, we have the problem of : “Who gets to decide?”.

    Those historians here know what that requires. And it certainly isn’t “freedom of speech” for it’s own sake, when it becomes an extension of the “Culture of Critique”, aimed at our own bodies, by our own people.

  13. July 27, 2012 - 6:18 pm | Permalink

    @ Mob, LOL. What’s a matter Mob are you peturbed that the rank and file aren’t buying the drivel you’re selling?. Perhaps it’s time you crawl back under your rock?

  14. Gregor's Gravatar Gregor
    July 27, 2012 - 6:07 pm | Permalink

    @MOB: I’ll drink to that. It’s way past time for the thread-wrecking fanatics to crawl back into their own holes, and stop undermining civil discourse with ad hominem and slurs.

  15. Richard's Gravatar Richard
    July 27, 2012 - 6:03 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    I’m pretty sure Hadding is Hadding Scott.

    Most of the time he uses his full (real) name, here and elsewhere.

  16. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    July 27, 2012 - 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Why isn’t the Carolyn and Hadding Dog and Pony Show© over at their own website preaching holocaust inclusion to their own audience, instead of jamming it (really themselves) down the throats of TOO visitors. They’ve made their pitch here – no sign of an implementation plan, just a lot of character assassination by two bullies and their camp followers.

  17. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 27, 2012 - 4:38 pm | Permalink

    @sylvie:

    It’s not just on this thread sylvie. It’s a pattern. And it isn’t just the heat of bashing out important issues. Typically it involves hadding slating the actual efforts of WN’s who actually give up a lot of their lives, and provide their real names, in running organizations and strategies aimed at trying to make a dent in the situation.
    People aren’t talking about trying different approaches because of a love of strategic diversity. It’s because nothing is working and our whole future is at stake.
    Who is hadding? Why does he attack everything that other people try without even giving his real name. If he’s so passionate about his idea why hasn’t he done more than comment? If he’s so close to the coal face why doesn’t he encourage the people who are making the greatest sacrifices?

  18. Mother Trucker's Gravatar Mother Trucker
    July 27, 2012 - 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Stuck in the BS filter.

  19. July 27, 2012 - 2:24 pm | Permalink

    A comment of mine, or rather a long quotation, was stuck once more in the filter.

  20. July 27, 2012 - 2:20 pm | Permalink

    From Amazon Books’ “Most Helpful Customer Review” as to date on Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides.

    Quote:

    As a skeptic of both sides of the Holocaust debate I’ve long hoped for a book that would shed light where there was only heat. Debating the Holocaust comes as close as I can hope for, and it is a remarkable accomplishment.

    Rather than writing a review longer than the book itself, I’ll just first note that with Thomas Dalton’s book, the biggest single problem has finally been addressed: That It Has Been Impossible To Grasp The Big Picture Of The Holocaust Because Of The Incoherence Of The Story.

    The goals of Nazi policy, the means by which it was ordered and carried out, major events and where they happened (nobody really knows where the burial and cremation grounds of Chelmno are), the technical challenges that would come with a mass extermination effort, even something as basic as the death totals; nothing about the Holocaust story is consistent from one source to another. Over the decades figures, testimonies and documents have been exaggerated, reduced, misrepresented, changed or even disappeared, and in many cases with the obvious goal of keeping certain details a mystery so that awkward questions don’t come up (Saul Friedländer: I’m talking to you!). When Dalton writes that he found “a Holocaust story in tatters” he simply states the truth, and it is easy to see why two important historians, Michel De Bouard and Jean-Claude Pressac, remarked that the historical record of the Holocaust is “rotten”.

    To deal with this, Dalton introduces a remarkable (and easy!) analytic tool which he calls the death matrix, a technique that combines various tables into a single analytic field that clearly demonstrates the properties of any account of the six alleged extermination camps. It can be done by anybody who has a spreadsheet option on their computer. Not unique to Dalton, it’s a common tool in several technical fields, and you have to wonder why anti-revisionist John Zimmerman, who is a professor of accounting and has to use similar tools in transaction analysis, never used it in his various refutations.

    For the reader, this means a book where you have to take pen to paper and do some homework of your own, but that is a refreshing change to Holocaust books which don’t just ask but demand that you swallow whatever they say without question.

    Dalton’s results when he applies his death matrix are clear, transparent and easily understood, but Dalton clearly states that certain data rests on questionable assumptions and that his use of the tool is preliminary and needs refinement (I could already suggest a revision where Dalton credits Krema II at Auschwitz with cremating 11,000 bodies at a time when it was out of service, the six weeks from the beginning of May through June 12 of 1943). It’s a terrific tool, something that becomes clear when the tables reveal that the combined work of exhumations and cremations at Belzec had no choice but to run at a rate of 92,000 per month. That’s better than 3,000 per day, 125 per hour, a corpse dug out of the ground and thawed and burned to fragments and ground to powder every 30 seconds; and on wooden pyres in the dead of a Polish winter when weather conditions would have frozen the ground rock-solid and rendered many days impossible for work.

    That account is ridiculous; whatever the truth is, it’s something else. Why didn’t somebody think of this technique before?

    Avoiding the dreary name-calling, Dalton divides the two camps into “traditionalists” and “revisionists”, and then divides the revisionists into the “agitators” and “academics”. Another good idea where ideas are sorely needed; when it comes to the revisionists Dalton intelligently ignores the “agitators” and concentrates on the solid arguments of the academics. Revisionists who have made it some sort of holy crusade to challenge the Holocaust will not be happy with this book. Dalton clearly states that the Holocaust cannot be dismissed as a hoax, a fraud or a conspiracy (the financial exploitation of it and the loathsome criminalization of challenging it are another matter). Something awful happened, but exactly what it was, and how it fits into the even bigger picture of the Second World War is impossible to determine with the history that we have.

    As accessible as a book that addresses technical issues can be, Debating the Holocaust would make an excellent high school textbook, teaching young people about the story while challenging them to accept nothing until they’ve applied their own brains to it. Certainly a better choice than The Diary of Anne Frank, a book which has nothing in it about the Holocaust but nevertheless is required (forced?) reading on the subject.

    While my review lists five stars, I’m actually giving it four and a half, with half a star taken off for listing a large percentage of the deaths at Majdanek as “natural causes” in one of the tables. This is insensitive to say the least. In their 2003 book on the camp (one of only two studies ever made!) revisionists Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf, no defenders of the Holocaust, are themselves aghast at the way some 40,000 people died slow deaths of exposure standing in the open, sewage soaked fields. These are not “natural causes”. As a police worker I know that “Official Indifference” is a crime that American police, fire and rescue workers can be charged with, so even if the Nazis didn’t intend to kill these people they are responsible, at the very least, for mass manslaughter.

    With that unfortunate beauty mark addressed, I can finish with a preview of Dalton’s epilogue, which is depressing. Dalton points out that there is an appreciable amount of common ground between traditionalists and revisionists; no academic revisionist has ever denied that tragic atrocities happened, and the best (and bravest) traditionalists have themselves noted that there is something terribly wrong with the history, which suggests that a combined effort between the two camps holds an excellent possibility of finally bringing to light a clear and coherent picture of what the events of the 1940’s really were.

    But it ain’t gonna happen. As B’nai Brith director Ian Kadegan ominously crows, “The memory of the Holocaust is central to The New World Order”, and goes on to obscenely call it “Western Civilization’s greatest failure” (that would actually be the Congo Corvée, something that only die-hard Mark Twain fans have heard about). The traditional story of the Holocaust is a multi-billion dollar cash cow that enriches some of the most corrupt institutions on Earth, and has truly become an idolatrous religion that too many people are staked in. If the traditional story falls, not only reputations and livelihoods but power will be lost, for the traditional Holocaust story is used as a club to dictate what morality is by people who have no authority to do so, and to intimidate them not to question that authority.

    Which means reading this book may actually qualify as a revolutionary act. The enemies of free speech can exact a price, but they can’t stop you. That’s why the right is called unalienable. Not even God can take it away. Thanks for the book Thomas.

    / End quote

  21. sylvie's Gravatar sylvie
    July 27, 2012 - 1:34 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    How come wherever you are there is fracturing disunity, old wounds not being allowed to heal, accusations, promotions of unsaleable strategies guaranteed to keep the movement sidelined.
    Let’s look at deeds and these are yours. You talk hadding, talk talk talk, about getting out there and attracting the minority of thinking whites. But you don’t do it. All you do is try undermine the morale of other WN’s who are trying to do more than talk.

    I rarely jump into frays of personal smears, but accusing Hadding to promote disunity is preposterous.

    As you have noticed, Haddings opinions regarding Gregs “(not) dealing with the Holocaust” are shared by a large majority of commenters. The mere fact that we approach 800 comments proves that this is an extremely important subject.

    And even if it were not, this site is about errors of our past and strategies for our present and future, not about making friendships, creating fan clubs or imparting English lessons. Controversive discussions must not only be allowed but should be encouraged.

    Personally, I learn much more from a well reasoned dissent than from insipid approuvals cluttering up the comment sections.

  22. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 27, 2012 - 1:23 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    Maybe. Relative to our enemy along the spectrum of the sort of power that is relevant they are at one extreme and we are at the other.

  23. July 27, 2012 - 1:18 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    Why didn’t you answer my question?

    How come wherever you are there is fracturing disunity….

    This is like a mantra for Mickey Meadows, which he uses from time to time, when somebody is doing violence to the truth and I call that person on it.

    On this thread and elsewhere, Mickey Meadows, you have argued in favor of manipulative dishonesty. I think that’s what causes disunity. Your argument that Hadding causes disunity by not letting people get away with bullsh-t is a little one-sided, don’tcha think?

  24. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    July 27, 2012 - 12:49 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:
    It is not grammatically but logically incorrect.
    “Extreme” refers to both ends of a spectrum, not to somewhere in between.
    Take for example temperature, you can say : this water is extreme cold, or extreme hot, but you cannot say : this water is extreme lukewarm.
    The term “relative” here doesn’t mean : “in relation to” ( that would be redundant, as all qualities are in relation to something ), but : “rather”, which is a notion of “mildness”, just like the “lukewarmness”in the example above. So, you were in fact talking about “extreme mild weakness” which is as illogical as “extreme lukewarm water”.

  25. Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
    July 27, 2012 - 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Note the fixation on genitals and genital mutilation evident in nearly every one of the homosexual Frederick Rhodes’ comments. His attachment to using his “chromosomes” as the reason for his perversion is also evident. These damaged, demented individuals offer nothing of value to this movement.

    • Frederick Rhodes's Gravatar Frederick Rhodes
      July 27, 2012 - 1:16 pm | Permalink

      And notice how Andrew Joyce’s fixation on bashing anything and everything that shows her/his paranoid delusions are based on religious superstition/creation science fiction.

  26. July 27, 2012 - 12:35 pm | Permalink

    @Lew: So we are required to take everything that Greg Johnson says at face-value and not take account of inconsistencies?

  27. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 27, 2012 - 12:18 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    Can you explain your grammatical correction Franklin? It looks ok to characterize something as ‘an extreme of relative weakness’

  28. Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
    July 27, 2012 - 12:12 pm | Permalink

    @ Frederick Rhodes

    Just as you seem to be having a difficult time understanding my comment, so too is your grasp of science, evolution and biology laughable. And a homosexual is no more my “WN brother” than a white serial killer, or master criminal.

  29. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 27, 2012 - 11:42 am | Permalink

    @Sandy

    You’re Welcome :)

  30. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    July 27, 2012 - 10:51 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    “…from a position of extreme relative weakness”.

    The combination of the terms “extreme” with “relative” contains a contradiction.

    For the rest I agree that Marcy Fleming is right. If she wants to join us again, that’s fine by me. I only hope she will henceforth refrain from narcissistic behaviour that got her booted out in the first place.

  31. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 27, 2012 - 10:22 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    You concede the substance of my point. Thanks. I said Hadding argues against that which is NOT stated; you said you respond based on “inferences,” that is, nothing GJ actually wrote but what rather what your mind “infers” that he means.

    Are you going to spam TOO with the announcement that I don’t respond point by point to everything that Greg P says?

    If you’re referring to the fact that I made the same point twice about your lying and arguing against that which is NOT stated, it was because of a comment glitch. My comment didn’t appear the first time, so I typed it again, and then both comments later appeared.

  32. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 27, 2012 - 9:27 am | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:

    LOL – Our Jewish friend Marcy Fleming gives her full backing to the strategy of WN’s attempting to take on the Holocaust from a position of extreme relative weakness.
    No need to create power and strength first…just go flying in. Marcy wants what is best for us.

  33. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 27, 2012 - 9:13 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Why didn’t you answer my question?

    How come wherever you are there is fracturing disunity, old wounds not being allowed to heal, accusations, promotions of unsaleable strategies guaranteed to keep the movement sidelined.
    Let’s look at deeds and these are yours. You talk hadding, talk talk talk, about getting out there and attracting the minority of thinking whites. But you don’t do it. All you do is try undermine the morale of other WN’s who are trying to do more than talk.

  34. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    July 27, 2012 - 9:09 am | Permalink

    Some anti-race-replacement organizations worry they may lose potential recruits if they denounce the holocaust lies. I think it’s all right if some organizations denounce the lies, while others avoid the subject. But actually, holocaust revisionism seems a good way to win more recruits.

    There is the same debate over the holocaust lies as over the Jewish problem. Some people think the holocaust lies should not be denounced. Others think the Jewish responsibility in the race-replacement crisis should not be mentioned.

    • Jewish activism in favor of our race-replacement must be denounced because it plays a central role. Western countries are run by Jews, not by Blacks, not by liberals, not by third-world immigrants. When the power levers are hold by Jews, denouncing left-wing ideology becomes largely irrelevant.

    Technically – We need to know who the enemy is and where the attacks are coming from. We must help people understand why we need our own non-Jewish media and institutions. At the moment, most people think that we are under attack by “the liberals”, by “big business”, and by a strange anti-White ideology that is naturally floating in the air.

    Psychologically – If White people start to perceive the Jewish racial hostility against them, it will cause righteous indignation that can be tapped to develop the anti-replacement movement.

    Denouncing the hijacking of Western institutions by anti-White Jews is easy to do. Keeping White people in ignorance of the Jewish problem takes constant brainwashing and almost complete control of the media. By contrast, one book or one blog site is enough to make normal people more or less impervious to Jewish propaganda. It is especially important to give the information to White Nationalists who are already fighting race-replacement.

    • I think the holocaust lies must be denounced mostly for psychological reasons. Of course, telling the truth is good in itself, as well as rejecting the idea that White people are evil. But on a practical level, the holocaust lies are mostly a good illustration of Jewish racial hostility against White people. It is the same people who do the propaganda about “the holocaust” and about how race-replacement is wonderful for White people. It is very easy to show that they are playing us for fools and that their holocaust story is hogwash. Most of the demonstration can be done in five minutes and will cancel a lifetime of brainwashing. Once again, telling the truth will help us tap into White people’s feelings of righteous indignation. If will help overcome “our unwillingness to take our own side in ethnic conflicts”.

    I read in an article by Kevin MacDonald that people like Walt and Mearsheimer find it more prudent to limit their criticism of Jewish activism to one narrow field. For example, they will criticize the role of the neocons in shaping the American foreign policy. They keep it technical, based on facts. They avoid drawing any parallel with Jewish behavior in other areas and other periods like WW2. They are trying to protect themselves. At the same time, they sound more credible focusing on a particular field than if they started blasting Jews in all directions like William Pierce. I think it’s all right. The work of Walt and Mearsheimer is very useful to White people.

    But this article is a joke. Greg Johnson isn’t coherent at all. If he won’t denounce the holocaust lies, it doesn’t make sense that he would publish articles about Hitler on his own blog by Irmin Vinson and by himself. It seems like an empty intellectual exercice. I think he is making fun of us. It will be interesting to see if he keeps publishing Vinson-like articles, or if this blog post at the Occidental Observer really announces a change of policy.

    This phony article doesn’t even explain what’s the downside of denouncing the holocaust lies. It’s surprising that someone who disapproves of holocaust revisionism would speak favorably of creating “peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers”, including for Jews. I don’t think they will agree.

    GJ: “It is our own people’s grandiose propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement that is the ultimate source of the Holocaust’s power over us. No amount of Jewish propaganda could sell us the “lessons” of the Holocaust if we were not willing to buy them.”

    That line of arguments is usually used to discourage criticism of the Jews, not just of holocaust revisionism. It goes like this: “White people shouldn’t blame Jews, they should blame other White people for being afraid to blame Jews”. It doesn’t make any sense. I agree with Svigor’s view on the subject: Even though old people become naive and easy preys for crooks, we should still blame the crooks, not their elderly victims.

    GJ: “13. Holocaust revisionism is illegal in 17 countries and counting.”

    All the more reason to denounce the holocaust lies in America.

    GJ: “Imagine you are protesting some evil done by Jews and you are told that Jews have a right to do x because of the Holocaust. Do you splutter that the Holocaust is a “hoax” and then start disputing the numbers? Or do you simply say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?”

    The best place to denounce the holocaust lies is on the internet. There is no need to argue at all with holocaust “believers” in real life. It’s all right to tell the truth to a sympathetic audience, but it’s useless to engage in a heated debate with holocaust “believers”.

    The idea that we are being “genocided” also works best on the internet. According to Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word, and to the United Nations, who officialized it, genocide means the destruction of a people, for example, by forceful assimilation. It doesn’t mean that anyone gets killed. But today’s dictionaries follow the Jewish guidelines. According to them, genocide is the “Systematic killing of a racial or cultural group”. It means killing people. In real life, it’s better to talk about race-replacement than to use the word genocide, which sounds like a shrill exaggeration.

  35. Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
    July 27, 2012 - 7:48 am | Permalink

    For those that do not wish to upset people with the truth about the holocaust perhaps you should consider what Finkelstein had to say:
    In light of Smith’s invidious analogy, it’s worth recalling what Norman Finkelstein said to Yoav Shamir in Defamation, the Israeli film-maker’s brilliant 2009 documentary on anti-Semitism. Finkelstein tells Shamir:

    The irony is that the Nazi Holocaust has now become the main ideological weapon for launching wars of aggression. Every time you want to launch a war of aggression, drag in the Nazi Holocaust.
    Should we allow 6+++ more million to die?

  36. Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
    July 27, 2012 - 6:20 am | Permalink

    Unsure, of how long moderation of my last comment will take, I attempt a re-post with the (probably guilty) word appropriately adapted. In addition to my above comment, for anyone in doubt as to the fact that there is an alliance between Jew and homosexual (reciprocal or not), please cast your eye over the following analysis of the spending habits of a member of the Jewish financial elite:
    The British-based Sigrid Rausing Trust (http://www.sigrid-rausing-trust.org/About-SR-Trust) is funded by one Sigrid Rausing, a Swede. Rausing’s family left Sweden in the early 40s following suspicions they were Jewish (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jun/14/society). In addition, the Guardian notes that “both Sigrid’s husbands have been Jewish; when she married the first, South African art dealer Dennis Hotz, the father of her eight-year-old son, she converted to Judaism.” Her family fortune (the Guardian describes them as the richest family in England) has been accumulated and enhanced through tax fraud. The Guardian proved some years ago that “her father was in receipt, in one year at least, of more from the UK Treasury in grants and rebates than he paid in taxes.” So what does Rausing do with this wealth? She works to destroy western civilization. From the published records of the Sigrid Rausing Trust (http://www.sigrid-rausing-trust.org/Grantees) we know that she has pumped millions into: The Co-Existence Trust (over $100,000, a UK organisation devoted to combatting “Islamophobia and anti-Semitism on university campuses”, Coming Out (£40,000, the largest LGBT organisation in Russia), European Council on Refugees and Migrants (over $500,000, an organisation for “the protection of asylum-seekers, refugees and displaced persons (IDPs) by working for a generous European asylum policy,” Gender-Doc Moldova (LGBT organisation in Moldova), The Helen Bamber Foundation (£400,000, an organisation for aiding asylum-seekers and migrants), International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (£225,000, United States-based), the Minority Rights Group (UK), Organisation for Refuge, Asylum, and Migration (over $100,000, US based organisation, and “the only international migrant rights organisation focusing exclusively on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex refugees,” The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (£225,000, an organisation devoted to helping “5 to 8 million undocumented migrants in Europe.”). In addition, Rausing has pumped almost $1 million into “H010co$st education” (http://www.sigrid-rausing-trust.org/Grantees/Jewish-Museum). I can’t spare much more time, but take a look at what the Soros foundation puts its cash into – much the same pattern. Not a cent for your standard white family, but if its an immigrant, a pervert, or a former wearer of striped pyjamas, you can be damn sure that Jewish cash, and a lot of it, is flowing in that direction

  37. Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
    July 27, 2012 - 6:14 am | Permalink

    In addition to my above comment, for anyone in doubt as to the fact that there is an alliance between Jew and homosexual (reciprocal or not), please cast your eye over the following analysis of the spending habits of a member of the Jewish financial elite:
    The British-based Sigrid Rausing Trust (http://www.sigrid-rausing-trust.org/About-SR-Trust) is funded by one Sigrid Rausing, a Swede. Rausing’s family left Sweden in the early 40s following suspicions they were Jewish (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jun/14/society). In addition, the Guardian notes that “both Sigrid’s husbands have been Jewish; when she married the first, South African art dealer Dennis Hotz, the father of her eight-year-old son, she converted to Judaism.” Her family fortune (the Guardian describes them as the richest family in England) has been accumulated and enhanced through tax fraud. The Guardian proved some years ago that “her father was in receipt, in one year at least, of more from the UK Treasury in grants and rebates than he paid in taxes.” So what does Rausing do with this wealth? She works to destroy western civilization. From the published records of the Sigrid Rausing Trust (http://www.sigrid-rausing-trust.org/Grantees) we know that she has pumped millions into: The Co-Existence Trust (over $100,000, a UK organisation devoted to combatting “Islamophobia and anti-Semitism on university campuses”, Coming Out (£40,000, the largest LGBT organisation in Russia), European Council on Refugees and Migrants (over $500,000, an organisation for “the protection of asylum-seekers, refugees and displaced persons (IDPs) by working for a generous European asylum policy,” Gender-Doc Moldova (LGBT organisation in Moldova), The Helen Bamber Foundation (£400,000, an organisation for aiding asylum-seekers and migrants), International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (£225,000, United States-based), the Minority Rights Group (UK), Organisation for Refuge, Asylum, and Migration (over $100,000, US based organisation, and “the only international migrant rights organisation focusing exclusively on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex refugees,” The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (£225,000, an organisation devoted to helping “5 to 8 million undocumented migrants in Europe.”). In addition, Rausing has pumped almost $1 million into “Holocaust education” (http://www.sigrid-rausing-trust.org/Grantees/Jewish-Museum). I can’t spare much more time, but take a look at what the Soros foundation puts its cash into – much the same pattern. Not a cent for your standard white family, but if its an immigrant, a pervert, or a former wearer of striped pyjamas, you can be damn sure that Jewish cash, and a lot of it, is flowing in that direction.

  38. Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
    July 27, 2012 - 5:27 am | Permalink

    @WardKendall: @Donar van Holland: I take issue with the alleged pervert Van Holland’s claims that prohibitions on homosexuality emerged solely from Judaic-Christian sources. I draw attention in particular to the great Roman historian Tacitus’ “Germania”, chapter 12, in which it is written that the Celtic-Germanic tribes stretching from around the Rhine to northern Scotland punished those in their communities thus: “”The mode of execution varies according to the offence.Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers, and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog. This distinction is based on the idea that offenders against the state should be made a public example of, whereas deeds of shame should be buried out of men’s sight.” Similarly, adulterous women had their heads shaved and were also submerged in bogs and swamps. Also, look at the “Meditations” of the great Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius – certainly no friend to the Christians. In Book 1 Paragraph 16 of this work, Marcus praises his step-father, Emperor Anoninus Pius, for “putting a stop to homosexual love of young men” in Rome. In the notes to my Penguin Classics edition of the work, Diskin Clay, Professor of Classical Studies at Duke University, states that “Marcus seems to reserve a particular abhorrence for Catamites,” and this is likely in keeping with the trend among adherents of Stoicism to look with disdain on any activity which was not in keeping with the Stoic ideal: “life according to nature.” Van Holland’s meaningless quibble about Hitler and Rohm is neither here nor there. While we can argue about whether or not Hitler turned on Rohm because of his homosexuality, or his treason, there is no reason why it can’t be stated that the two were linked – at the very least in the mind of Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler. Most statements issued after the purge alluded not just to the fact that Rohm and his cadre were homosexuals, but that they were also engaged in a “homosexual conspiracy.” For some time these perverts had been corrupting German youth. Hitler may have had an aversion to gossip, but when he arrived at Bad Wiessee and saw with his own eyes the reality of this corruption, who is to say that his earlier feelings of indifference did not change? We must also take into account the arguments laid forth by Gobbels and Himmler, who believed that homosexual acts in and of themselves were not the most dangerous aspect of the problem. It was advanced, not without foundation, that homosexuality was a web of disorders, perversions, neuroses, subversiveness, and secrecy. By its nature alone it produced individuals difficult to assimilate into the united Volk. In differing so much from “life according to nature,” they represented a threat to the National Socialist Weltanshauung. I am reminded of the words of Kipling’s ‘Stranger’ :
    “He may be true or kind,
    But he does not talk my talk —
    I cannot feel his mind.
    I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
    But not the soul behind.”
    Thus, alongside the yellow star we find the pink triangle, and in my mind, justly so. It requires no hatred on my part, and no aggression. In order for a rose bush to grow strong and healthy, now and then it must be pruned.

  39. July 27, 2012 - 2:45 am | Permalink

    @Lew: The funny thing, Lew, is that I actually responded to you once, but my response has been removed. Essentially my response was that Greg P’s criticisms are silly.

    For example, in response to my inference that Greg Johnson’s aversion to revisionism is rooted in “fear of the Jews,” Greg P posted this:

    Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured. Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

    That’s a lovely statement from Greg Johnson that Greg P has quoted but it does absolutely nothing to address my observation, based on analysis of his words and actions, about why Greg Johnson wants to distance himself from that third rail known as Holocaust revisionism.

    Are you going to spam TOO with the announcement that I don’t respond point by point to everything that Greg P says?

  40. July 27, 2012 - 1:26 am | Permalink

    @Skadhi_the_Raverner:

    I suggest you explore the articles at Counter-Currents tagged “the racially-conscious left”:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/the-racially-conscious-left/

  41. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 27, 2012 - 12:49 am | Permalink

    “Unfortunately, many so-called ‘white nationalists’ hate the Jews more than they love their people.”

    I would change that to :

    Unfortunately, many white advocates hate Jewish influence more than they love their own people , since that influence has created far too many white cowards.

  42. July 27, 2012 - 12:16 am | Permalink

    @Greg P:

    > “Unfortunately, many so-called ‘white nationalists’ hate the Jews more than they love their people.”

    Quite a quotable quote!

  43. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 26, 2012 - 11:24 pm | Permalink

    Hadding is a master of arguing against that which is NOT stated.

    Greg P exposed Hadding lying about GJs ideas four times, and Hadding did not respond.

    comment-83083

    comment-83084

    comment-83085

    comment-83086

  44. European's Gravatar European
    July 26, 2012 - 11:22 pm | Permalink
  45. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 26, 2012 - 11:04 pm | Permalink

    Hadding is a master of arguing against that which is NOT stated.

    Greg P exposed Hadding lying about GJs ideas four times, and Hadding did not respond.

    @Greg P:
    @Greg P:
    @Greg P:
    @Greg P:

  46. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 26, 2012 - 10:44 pm | Permalink

    @Sandy:

    Here is a link to an interview of Dr E. Michael Jones.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciacv2FctVk

    What most people do not understand and what Jones is close to but it seems does not understand yet is that real Judah conqured Edom (Esau) 125 years before Christ. They absorbed Esau (who was prophesied to rule right at the very end of each age and then be destroyed at the comings of Christ). Hence when Christ exposed them as Satan’s seed, he was exposing them as from Esau and not from actual Judah. Thus by Christ’s words- and those who accepted them and him, Christ seperated real racial-ethnic Judah from fake “Jews” (citizenship term but not racial term for Judah)- real Judah becoming Christians- as did the scattered Israelites who migrated earlier to inhabit all of Europe.

    This is confirmed in the book of Hebrews where it says “7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

    9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

    11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

    12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

    13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

    Unfortunately, we are seeing right now almost an exact reply of those times 2000 years ago. We have Esau-Ashkenaz so called Jews who have stole our identity, claimed it as their own and hope to rule the planet as they tried constantly Rome by proxy.

  47. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 26, 2012 - 10:37 pm | Permalink

    @Sandy:

    Excellent comment Sandy.

    Here is a a good summary of that book by Henry Makow.

    http://www.henrymakow.com/meditations_on_the_jewish_revo.html

  48. Sandy's Gravatar Sandy
    July 26, 2012 - 9:57 pm | Permalink

    @TyronRobertParsons: @TyronRobertParsons: and anyone who cannot see this by now should be dismissed as a fool or they could read The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by E Michael Jones.
    Reply

  49. Mother Trucker's Gravatar Mother Trucker
    July 26, 2012 - 9:43 pm | Permalink

    It seems there was a movement several years ago by queers to hijack Rand’s Objectivism:

    http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Sciabarra/In_Praise_of_Hijacking.shtml

  50. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    July 26, 2012 - 9:39 pm | Permalink

    No serious Revisionist denies that typhus singled out Jews for especially harsh infection.

    The anti-Semitic attitudes of typhus are readily acknowledged by all serious Revisionists.

  51. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 26, 2012 - 9:13 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    So you want to be exposed as the Esau loving “Jew” troll that you are again-ayy Franklin?

    I am saying that the spirit trumps the physical always. I am saying that Christ himself identified these so called Jews as Esau (whom God says he hates)-whose father is Satan. I am saying that their ways are always evil and you can identify them by their EVIL ACTIONS-so I do not need a Satan control sample-Duh. I am saying they admit they worship Satan. I am saying their Talmud is Satanic. I am saying that their DNA is corrupt because as even David Duke said “They have a genetic desire to destroy all other races -always”. I am saying that as white Nationalists, we recognize that most of what makes up a person is DNA and then the society they live in. In other words, what is inside one’s self is greater than the influence from the outside. I am saying YOU’RE a JEW troll Franklin, one who is genetically and spiritually linked to EVIL and anyone who cannot see this by now should be dismissed as a fool

  52. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    July 26, 2012 - 8:44 pm | Permalink

    @TyronRobertParsons:

    “…the “Jews” are literally Satan’s seed and they do the will of their spiritual and physical father.”

    You mean that indeed literally : Jews have the DNA of Satan. So tell us dear Tyron in which clinic have you taken a mouth swab of Satan for a paternity test?

  53. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 26, 2012 - 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Here we sit on the verge of a Marxist Jew staged collapse of America and the subsequent rounding up of all the “Jews’ enemies to be exterminated, and all some people can think of is how we steer future debates about the “Holocaust”. These issues will become almost moot in the near future. Action will have to be taken if one even plans on surviving what is coming down the pike. While we debate the “holocaust” the enemy plans yet another one (REAL ONE) for us as we speak.

    The “Jews” will never be satisfied. They will never be tamed. They will never, ever stop their destruction of us, others and the planet we all inhabit and this is because the “Jews” are literally Satan’s seed and they do the will of their spiritual and physical father; murder, steal, destroy- END OF STORY.

    It will come down to a “us or them” scenario so I hope enough of you out there have planted enough “holocaust” truth seeds in the white population so that when the time for the “Jews” genocide for us reaches real-time, enough whites will wake up in that moment to do what has to be done to save their wives, children, neighbors and our people as a whole.

  54. Skadhi_the_Raverner's Gravatar Skadhi_the_Raverner
    July 26, 2012 - 8:15 pm | Permalink

    As to the holocau$t, I just ask people why its so important an issue about Germans and Jews is in our British school classes and on our television. No one has a rational argument against that one.

  55. Skadhi_the_Raverner's Gravatar Skadhi_the_Raverner
    July 26, 2012 - 7:59 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: I understand what you’re saying, but can you please define ‘left’. No one in the Anglosphere cares for working class whites anymore, so that the word ‘left’ is the same thing now as Cultural Marxism and is the enemy.

    This Exiled article exposes how the cultural Marxists killed an ‘old left’ who were often socially conservative, which is what the liberals hate about the right. The old left were a source of popular support, like less well off whites today, but how are the people attracted to today’s left of any use? They’re just a problem to be solved.

    http://exiledonline.com/the-lefts-big-sellout-how-the-aclu-human-rights-groups-quietly-exterminated-labor-rights/

    And you only need to look at France or the Netherlands, accommodating these people always means accepting the smears against our core beliefs – as you just did when you associated the old right with genocide! – then slamming the door on us to please them.

  56. Rodney Thomas's Gravatar Rodney Thomas
    July 26, 2012 - 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Let me pinpoint an area of concern that is significant to all of us who are trying to get our people to wake up. As a Christian, it seems to me that Christianity is a stumbling block for us in terms of making a radical critique of Jewish behavior as well as the possibility of taking serious and aggressive action to put the Jews in check. In other words, our kind hearts and desire to do good and care for others and forgive others transgressions, etc., all work against our own interests and these traits are exploited by the tribe. I think that it is of the greatest importance that we frame our agenda in ways that will appeal to the better natures of our people. For instance…we would like the Jews to retreat from their stance on massive third world immigration because we FEAR the rise of anti-semitism. We want what is BEST for both our people AND the Jews. Since we are a people who have fairness and honesty and integrity hardwired into our DNA, an effort to prevent anti-semitism should appeal to everyone concerned. The Jews don’t have to go Bolshevik on us and kill everybody, nor do we have to round up the Jews for expulsion. Seems to me that civilized people ought to be able to negotiate…

  57. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    July 26, 2012 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

    @katana:

    Excellent.

  58. July 26, 2012 - 6:17 pm | Permalink

    It’s just hilarious that Greg Johnson thinks he can make the Holohoax moot by claiming that he’s in favor of the Jews having their own state too under “unviversal nationalism.”

    Hitler was also for the Jews’ having their own state! Until the British blocked it in 1938, many Jews emigrated from Germany to Palestine. In the peace-treaty drafted for France (never signed, presumably being held in abeyance until the end of the war) Madagascar was to be ceded to Germany as a protectorate and as the location for Jewish resettlement.

    We also know, as David Irving says, that during the war Adolf Hitler intervened as necessary to prevent bad things from happening to Jews.

    Resettlement, a territory of their own, humane treatment. There is nothing, so far as Jews are concerned, that Greg Johnson advocates that Adolf Hitler did not. Add to this the kind of “Old Right” material that Johnson posts on his blog and it becomes glaringly apparent that the pretended “Old Right”/”New RIght” distinction is a distinction without a difference.

    Well, there is one difference. Adolf Hitler was a man of courage. He wasn’t trying to disown the past. Ditto for William Pierce.

  59. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    July 26, 2012 - 6:15 pm | Permalink

    @WardKendall: Dear Sir, I forgive you your callousness, but I cannot forgive you your style.

  60. WardKendall's Gravatar WardKendall
    July 26, 2012 - 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Donar van Holland to WardKendall: “Rest assured that no one will question your manliness, now that you throw fellow loyal white men under the bus. Your precious little book will not be tainted by any Greek stains.”

    This is the kind of flippant tone these vile fruit-boys typically take, as evinced by the comment above.

    Firstly, my disclaimer has nothing to do with “protecting my manliness”. This is also a typical ploy by homosexuals, i.e., insinuating that those who oppose their vile conduct are somehow guilty of that very same conduct. To that I respond: I was willing to tolerate low-on-the-radar homosexuals, but it seems that may have been ill conceived. Individuals like Holland clearly want to “faggotize” the WN movement, as they are crawling out of the woodwork from VNN to Stormfront to Counter-Currents to this website. Who hasn’t noticed that?

    As for “stains”, in your case you mean semen stains, which you are spewing all over Counter-Currents and thus staining association with that website.

    That is my point!

    Here
    and Here

  61. Eumaeus's Gravatar Eumaeus
    July 26, 2012 - 4:14 pm | Permalink

    homosex is at best, peripheral to the point of whether or not it is gainful to attack the holocaust lies. however if we are concerned about the white maroity and what they think about this or that, make no mistake they disapprove of homosexuality just as they vaguely disapprove of miscegenation. these matters are not just tastes or cultural opinions they are hard – wired social survival mechanisms and without them whites may in the future fail and vanish.

    I would hope that homosexuals have the intellectual integrity to want to challenge the holocaust lies just as much as straight folk do. homosexuals should be perfectly capable of challenging prevailing opinions as anyone. indeed it would seem that they tend to have a certain skill at it, like that or not.

    • Frederick Rhodes's Gravatar Frederick Rhodes
      July 27, 2012 - 9:07 am | Permalink

      @Andrew Joyce
      The SCIENCE of Evolution Theory shows that asexual reproduction came first, and the masculine Y chromosomes that make sexual reproduction possible, is a mutation of the already present X chromosome. Therefore, since Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are based on the delusion that a Heavenly Godfather created man first and made woman from his rib, these phallic philosophies are fatally flawed. Therefore these religious beliefs are oxy moronic and their practice can only lead to the opposite of evolution,,extinction. You WN’s who teach that a lord wants you to exterminate your white brothers and sisters because they want to have homologous affection when reproductive sexual affection is not available, wanted, or needed at the time, are the ones forcing women to get pregnant(rape), or causing the practice of cancer causing birth control, or have abortions, having heterosexual reproductive sex with animals (bestiality) causing HIV), or are causing overpopulation, leading to plagues, famines, extinction of species and environmental breakdowns, Holocausts, ethnic cleansing, genocides, religious, ritual, and routine genital mutilations, and other forms of eugenics. Next you’ll be advocating to have your sons and daughters spayed and neutered.

      It is biologically clear that humans evolved to be naturally bi sexual, from a feminine origin. In the womb all men start out feminine. All women have XX, making them all woman loving Lesbians who have to compromise and choose a male to love to father their children. Men have XY and are naturally bi sexual, choosing to be a reproductive father or non reproductive homo(-logous) depending on who they fall in love with. This is the only way we humans can live within a symbiotic relationship with our Living host, planet Earth. Any digression from nature leads to those ecological breakdowns that will lead to us causing our own extinction. It appears that we are heading for a nuclear holocaust of the religious races. This is because we have the right to commit worship of false gods, or freedom of religion. It’s going to be you heterosexuals who bring us to the brinks of extinction with your paranoid delusional false teaching of religious racial hatred. It even says so in your own New Testament . The Apocalypse (infant genital mutilation) causes Armageddon (racial holocaust). The End.

    • Frederick Rhodes's Gravatar Frederick Rhodes
      July 27, 2012 - 10:09 am | Permalink

      @Chechar: Allice the Jewess is tranfering blaim onto Hitlers Father. It was most likely Hitler’s maternal Jewess mother’s bloodline that caused his father hatred because it is the Jewess Diaspora (Jews are only concidered Jewish if their mother was a Jewess) that causes Jews to practice ritual genital mutilation to mark their sons as from Jewess bloodline.
      Remember that The Diaspora had to take control over Jewish racism because most if not all of Abraham’s Y chromosomes had been whiped out, do to infant surgical mishaps and anti-genital mutilation genocides on Jews, leaving onlt the mother Jewesses to carry on the coven law. Was Allice aware of Periah circumcision and it’s Diaspora side effect?

  62. WardKendall's Gravatar WardKendall
    July 26, 2012 - 4:02 pm | Permalink

    WHAT I POSTED: “That my novel Hold Back This Day should not be taken by anyone that I condone the pro-homosexual agenda over there, pushed by such homosexual individuals as van Holland, Donovan, et al.”

    What it should actually read: ” That my novel Hold Back This Day is sold through the Counter-Currents website should not be taken as evidence by anyone that I condone the pro-homosexual agenda over there, pushed by such homosexual individuals as van Holland, Donovan, et al.”

    Here
    and Here

  63. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    July 26, 2012 - 4:01 pm | Permalink

    @WardKendall: Rest assured that no one will question your manliness, now that you throw fellow loyal white men under the bus. Your precious little book will not be tainted by any Greek stains.

  64. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    July 26, 2012 - 3:31 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    First of all, I agree with you that disavowing the “Old Right” excesses will be much more difficult for us than it was for the left to do this with the “Old Left”. After all: the Jews and liberals are in power in the academia, so they can steer the debate quite easily. The Right will have a much harder time.

    Yet, in principle it can be done.

    I think you misunderstand Dr. Johnson when you argue that the Jews will not be convinced by the idea of universal nationalism.

    We do not seek to convince the Jews, we seek to convince white people.

    And given the white penchant for universalism Dr. Johnson’s proposition might just do the trick.

  65. WardKendall's Gravatar WardKendall
    July 26, 2012 - 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Donar Van Holland is a homosexual promoter over at Counter-Currents and is himself of that persuasion. That he is allowed to post anywhere under the banner of WN is sickening to the extreme. That my novel Hold Back This Day should not be taken by anyone that I condone the pro-homosexual agenda over there, pushed by such homosexual individuals as van Holland, Donovan, et al.

    Here
    and Here

  66. Eumaeus's Gravatar Eumaeus
    July 26, 2012 - 2:39 pm | Permalink

    I find it interesting that the thread comments were started by “telemacho.” I do not know who that is but I know the story of the Odyssey. The son of the clever abided the lies and assignations of the sutiors in his own house until his father returned and aided by the loyal swineherd, some of the other loyal domestics, and the gods, the father and son used subterfuge and stragem and then at the most opportune moment revelaed themselves and with truth and power slew the sutiors of Penelope and retook their own house.

    Should Telemachus, instead of remaining loyal to his father, though many years had passed with no word of his return, should he have given up on hope and truth just because other people did not share it? Dishonorable failure he would have been.

  67. Eumaeus's Gravatar Eumaeus
    July 26, 2012 - 2:32 pm | Permalink

    I read the article quickly and the first 300 or so comments. As usual Greg writes though provoking content. Greg is a good writer and comes up with interesting ideas.

    Nevertheless I have to reject this. The Holocaust industry peddles a story that is premised on some half-truths, distortions, and some outright lies, that has become an international extortion game of billions of dollars worth of shakedowns, modestly valued. It is of greater strategic value to both jews and israelis than the socalled “Sampson option” itself. To ignore this when we have facts that provably undermine the narrative is to leave a dangerous weapon in the hands of our enemies. It does not matter that the average boobus americanus does not understand. he is a lemming anyways. We must lead.

    Hadding has made cogent cirticisms and his persistence which so irratitates many of his interlocutors, I find admirable.

  68. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    July 26, 2012 - 2:21 pm | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland: This is all very off-topic I’m afraid, but I just have to add something about “homo’s” in the Third Reich.

    Hitler denounced Röhm for his sexual behaviour only after he had been executed. It was a convenient excuse.

    Furthermore, it is true that the law against homosexual acts was made more severe. However, it was even then not draconian. The same law remained in effect in Germany until the seventies.

    Most homo’s who were convicted by NS courts were actually persecuted for political reasons. They served their sentence in a gaol or a camp, and then just went home.

  69. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 26, 2012 - 2:17 pm | Permalink

    @Greg P: Thank you for your thoughtful and often insightful response to my earlier post, Greg P.

    You’ve left me with plenty of food for thought. I plan on starting to chew through it now.

  70. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 26, 2012 - 2:06 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: “Arthur, I am sorry, but I am weary of this discussion, and nothing irritates me more than patronizing gestures by people who are in no position to offer them (because you seem very confused). But I remind myself that “Hey, these are just names and words on a screen. It is not the real world.” You should take solace in that as well. “

    No wonder you’re weary of this discussion. Look at all the bobbing and weaving you’ve been doing.

    To be clear – I’m not remotely confused, nor was I being patronizing, Mr. Johnson. You’ll have to look in the mirror for that kind of thing. I made an attempt to meet you somewhere in the middle for the benefit of us all – an attempt you rudely and arrogantly shot down in flames.

    Indeed, you have proven yourself to be a master of almost Talmudic Sophistry throughout this thread when what I believe we need in our Thinkers is common sense, a clear eyed acknowledgement of and respect for HISTORICAL FACT and the courage to stand tall in the face of adversity. There is no room for sophistry in our struggle. We don’t have time.

    You talk about the real world as if you live in it but there’s nothing real about a world built on false definitions and a lack of interest in science and physical evidence corralled behind a fence of misplaced and defensive pride.

    You have refused to honestly address or rebut a SINGLE one of the points of concern I raised in several posts, including my accusation that you are an unapologetic plagiarist – a point I based on my reading of the original source texts linked to by Hadding that you appropriated without crediting the author. And then for you to demand my sources was simply more disingenuousness considering you’d copied the phrases in question almost word for word! Nor have you even attempted to respectfully rebut any of the many other commenters here who have disagreed with your outlandish premise that the best way to deal with the falsity of the holohoax is to accept that it happened!

    I have gone from admiring you and your thinking to having the scales removed from my eyes by your actions and attitudes towards the comments (and their authors) that followed your well written but ill-conceived essay.

    To state that you have been dishonest with all of us would be an understatement. And because I now believe you’re unreachable I’m done with this endlessly looped conversation. Go back to purring under the hands of those who think you’re on the right track. Go back to leading those who respect you and your often confusing and contradictory thought processes away from the truths we need to win this war of attrition we’re fighting against those who want nothing more than to destroy us. Lead your huddled masses out into the wilderness where they will become ineffectual apologists tilting at windmills just like you. Even if it does nothing to further the interests of white people in general, it will certainly help bolster your own ego, won’t it?

    Sayonara, baby.

  71. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 26, 2012 - 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Continuing to comment on this article is becoming pretty pointless. Hadding, Carolyn Yeager et al. will not convince Greg Johnson or those supporting the position he advocates of their position or vise versa.

    Both sides – to lapse into the false dichotomy of the “two sides” – have more than stated their opinions, beliefs, and approaches.

    Greg Johnson expressed what he believes in this article. No one else is required to agree with him. I wouldn’t even want everyone to agree with him. We need people pursing different courses of action. As I stated before,

    I believe we should make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic, so that no matter what approach succeeds, white interests will be secured. My approach is a pluralistic pro-white movement in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

    I think all parties, assuming they care primarily about their positions on the subject of holocaust™ revisionism and WN, would be wise not to waste any more time commenting here and instead focus their time and energy on promoting what they believe to be correct. I hardly think the handful of people still reading this far (almost 700 comments) are worthy of our time and energy, especially considering how set they are in their opinions.

  72. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    July 26, 2012 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager: Hitler knew perfectly well about Röhm’s preferences, as the latter was his close mentor in the early days.

    Later Hitler made Röhm his closest collaborator for more than a decade. Röhm was the only one who could address the Führer with the informal “du”. Hitler put Röhm in charge of the S.A., which made him the second most powerful man in his movement. And as I said, Hitler defended Röhm and the S.A. against attacks because of their sexual practices.

    If even the Führer did not object to Röhm’s sexual activities, why should you?

    Furthermore, I use the term “same-sex activity” because I reject the modern, 19th century idea that men who engage in such acts are a special species called “gays”. They are just men. The essence “queerness” does not exist. Sexual acts do not define you.

    So the use of the word “same-sex activity” is not a way to introduce liberal ideas, on the contrary. “Gay” is a political term that encompasses a whole liberal agenda. “Same-sex activity” is just a factual description of behaviour. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to be an honourable White Nationalist and engage in sex with men.

    But probably your Jewish-Christian religion tells you otherwise.

  73. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 26, 2012 - 1:49 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar:

    My comment was supposed to read:

    Please tell me exactly how you came to the conclusion the holocaust justifies white genocide today?

    If you were to start arguing about holocaust™ revisionism at this point instead of something like the above, not only would most people shut down, stop listening to you and label you a kook, but you would be implicitly affirming that if the official holocaust™ story were true it would justify white genocide. But more importantly than that, you would be shifting the argument away from the present white genocide.

    Once someone realizes the truth about white genocide, it will erode much of their previous conditioning and they will be open to critical analysis of historical events, especially the only one you go to prison for questioning in many countries. But even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t matter because they would be actively against white genocide. Their children or children’s children will inevitably uncover the truth. Either way, we win on all fronts.

    Just to clarify, I’m not against holocaust™ revisionism any more than Greg Johnson is. We both believe it to be a legitimate area of study. I just believe, like GJ, that it is not necessary or even an effective way of fighting white genocide. I wouldn’t want WNs to reject it and I would be concerned if every WN stopped talking about it. Even if every WN stopped promoting it, there would still be many other active holocaust revisionists. But even that’s never going to happen, so there’s no need to worry about it.

    I fully recognize and accept that other people will not agree with me or share my approach. That’s fine. Logically applying the North American New Right’s goal to pro-white approaches to stopping white genocide:
    I believe we should make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic, so that no matter what approach succeeds, white interests will be secured. My approach is a pluralistic pro-white movement in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

  74. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 26, 2012 - 1:47 pm | Permalink

    @Greg P:

    In my previous comment, the italics were supposed to end after

    Please tell me exactly how you came to the conclusion the holocaust justifies white genocide today?

  75. July 26, 2012 - 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Just a test to check and see if Greg P forgot to close the italics tag.

  76. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 26, 2012 - 1:37 pm | Permalink

    @arthurdecco:

    What I believe we should be investigating and publicizing are the FACTS . . . if we are to ever snap the shackles of enslavement we all wear in service to our Jewish Masters because of these dishonest dialogues they’ve created through their stranglehold over our access to information.

    . . .
    And that’s why I firmly believe the simple, unadorned facts are powerful enough to be accepted as TRUTH by sensible, curious people, if they’re given the opportunity to assess all the information available in a concise and fair display.

    I know in my heart of hearts if these facts are disseminated far and wide they will set us free.

    arthurdecco, my dear comrade, we need people like you, even if I think you’re making a common mistake. You are very honest, heartfelt, and exhibit the natural characteristics of a morally righteous and intelligent white person. For that, I respect you.

    Unfortunately, the facts have been on our side for a very long time but have not been enough. Our anti-white enemies have manipulated our people, condemned the truth as blasphemy not to even be considered, and condemned those who speak the truth as reprobate scum who don’t deserve human dignity. They have convinced a great number of our people, white people, that supporting policies and principles that result in white genocide is morally righteous. They have done all of this by manipulation, by studying, learning, and exploiting human psychology, especially those aspects unique to white people. They were able to do all of this without the truth.

    I cannot tell you how many people I have tried to convince that it is morally right for whites to preserve their race just stating the facts. It almost never works.

    What I’ve found and what many others have found out, including Greg Johnson, is that we are far more effective if we learn how to state the truth in a funny way that leads our people to the truth — especially to the fundamental truth about the morality of preventing white genocide — but bypassing as much of the negative conditioning as possible.

    You can think of white people’s anti-white conditioning (i.e. brainwashing) like a force field or filter that prevents the way we normally present the facts from getting through when we try to convince people of the truth. We’ve been wailing and wailing against this force field, trying desperately to pass through the filter with exactly what it’s been designed to filter out.

    What’s much more effective is stating the truth in this funny way that bypasses much of the conditioning and strikes at the core of the matter – like an arrow piercing a force field designed only to prevent lasers and striking the target in the heart. The only reason it gets through in the first place is because we are stating our truths in a way that works with the psychological makeup of our people — by utilizing white people’s predispositions (e.g. moral universalism, hatred of double-standards) as a strength instead of trying to fight against it.

    White people care about other races more than any other race cares about other races not its own. We have this innate sense of fairness. We should use it to our advantage.

    So, when it is applied:
    We are against genocide on principle and believe that nationalism is morally right, healthy, and normal for all peoples, including our own. In fact, if you believe that, like I do, it would mean we are especially concerned about our own genocide and nationalism, just as blacks or Arabs would be if they were in the same position.

    An anti-white will start screaming about the holocaust™ at this point:
    “You White Supremacists are hilarious. You Holocaust the Jews and now you want us to believe YOU were the victims?”

    To which one can reply something like:
    Regardless of what Jews suffered in WWII, it does not justify anti-whites committing genocide against my people today. Who taught you that genocide justifies genocide?? Who taught you that genocide okay as long as it’s only targeting white children?

    Or

    You’re Justifying white genocide right now with the holocaust. Do you realize how disgusting that is? How did you possibly come to the conclusion that the holocaust justifies the genocide of white children?

    Or

    Please tell me exactly how you came to the conclusion the holocaust justifies white genocide today?

    If you were to start arguing about holocaust™ revisionism at this point instead of something like the above, not only would most people shut down, stop listening to you and label you a kook, but you would be implicitly affirming that if the official holocaust™ story were true it would justify white genocide. But more importantly than that, you would be shifting the argument away from the present white genocide.

    Once someone realizes the truth about white genocide, it will erode much of their previous conditioning and they will be open to critical analysis of historical events, especially the only one you go to prison for questioning in many countries. But even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t matter because they would be actively against white genocide. Their children or children’s children will inevitably uncover the truth. Either way, we win on all fronts.

    Just to clarify, I’m not against holocaust™ revisionism any more than Greg Johnson is. We both believe it to be a legitimate area of study. I just believe, like GJ, that it is not necessary or even an effective way of fighting white genocide. I wouldn’t want WNs to reject it and I would be concerned if every WN stopped talking about it. Even if every WN stopped promoting it, there would still be many other active holocaust revisionists. But even that’s never going to happen, so there’s no need to worry about it.

    I fully recognize and accept that other people will not agree with me or share my approach. That’s fine. Logically applying the North American New Right’s goal to pro-white approaches to stopping white genocide:
    I believe we should make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic, so that no matter what approach succeeds, white interests will be secured. My approach is a pluralistic pro-white movement in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

  77. July 26, 2012 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    We publish two “gay” writers: Jack Donovan and James O’Meara.

    Are you sure that’s all? And don’t say you don’t ask. You don’t have to ask … you know. Further, you use another media word: gay.

    … the CC agenda, the main aim of which is to develop a new worldview and culture [… ] The project of creating hegemonic white racial consciousness requires that we craft white racialist messages for all different white groups. A very important project is to foster the rebirth of a racially conscious left.

    That’s why Greg Johnson doesn’t want anything to do with Adolf Hitler and what he is now calling the “Old Right.” Adolf Hitler’s regime disapproved of homosexual practices and even put the practitioners into camps!! That’s what Greg calls brutality and heavy-handed totalitarianism. He is crafting a very different message – a new world view and culture – which includes “gays” and leftists as respected citizens. The only requirement in the Counter Culture ethno-state is that you be white. Otherwise, anything goes.

    This also explains his lack of interest in “holocaust” revisionism, because it would take the stain off of Adolf Hitler too, which GJ wants to keep.

  78. July 26, 2012 - 11:56 am | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland:
    I will refrain from getting into discussion about homosexuality in this ‘thread’ since it doesn’t apply. However, this …

    Or maybe, just maybe… the authors do not show enough enthusiasm for a witch-hunt against same-sex activity? Do they follow too closely in the footsteps of Hitler when he defended the S.A. and Röhm, saying that the S.A. was not an institution for raising young girls, but an association of rough fighters?

    Are you confused? After Hitler defended Röhm, he later had him “removed permanently” because of Röhm’s disloyalty and intention to remove and replace Hitler with himself and “his” SA. How does this give support to homosexual leadership in the WN movement? It doesn’t.

    I notice you use the more delicate term “same-sex activity.” Same-sex is the term the media uses in order to push queerness into the mainstream of White society as normal. There has been some discussion here about how important it is not to use the words that are given to us by our enemies.

  79. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 26, 2012 - 11:35 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Hadding:
    When are you going to remove the essays written by Dr. Pierce that you reposted on Counter-Currents? Since you are going to include Dr. Pierce as “Old Right” and try to distance yourself from “Old Right,” you really need to remove those essays from your blog. That’s a striking inconsistency on your part, Greg Johnson.

    Um, not even close.

    Greg Johnson, again quoted from his article New Right vs. Old Right:

    The New Right rejects the totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.

    But we do not reject their political model: the ethnically and culturally homogeneous, hierarchically organized, organic society. We want a world in which every distinct people has such a homeland, including the Jews.

    Nor do we reject the theoretical frameworks of Fascism and National Socialism, which today are more relevant and better-grounded in science and history than ever before.

    Nor do we reject such figures as Hitler and Mussolini. Objectivity requires that we recognize their virtues as well as their flaws. We have much to learn from them. We will never repudiate awakened white people just to curry favor with the Bourgeoisie.

    I have received some gentle ribbing about including Hitler and Mussolini among the birthdays we commemorate, as it smacks of the totalitarian cult of personality. But as an editor, I find that birthdays are ideal, regularly-occurring occasions to discuss important figures. . . . we commemorate many birthdays, and it would be craven to discuss people like Ezra Pound or Knut Hamsun but ignore the people they were imprisoned for following. So we will keep commemorating their birthdays until, eventually, everybody does.

  80. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 26, 2012 - 11:26 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Hadding: Fear of the Jews is what drives Greg Johnson’s essay, “[Not] Dealing with the Holocaust.”

    Wrong again. Greg Johnson’s goal, as well as that of the North American New Right’s is clearly stated:

    Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured. Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

    Hadding, we know Greg Johnson’s goal. What is yours?

  81. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 26, 2012 - 11:22 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    GJ: Hadding, by Old Right I also mean people who advocate genocide, like William Pierce….

    Hadding: Of course Dr. Pierce in actuality never committed any more genocide than Adolf Hitler.

    GJ said, “by Old Right I also mean people who advocate genocide, like William Pierce.”

    Hadding:
    When are you going to remove the essays written by Dr. Pierce that you reposted on Counter-Currents? Since you are going to include Dr. Pierce as “Old Right” and try to distance yourself from “Old Right,” you really need to remove those essays from your blog. That’s a striking inconsistency on your part, Greg Johnson.

    I am being a bit ironic here. I really do understand why this inconsistency and hypocrisy exists.

    Greg Johnson, quoted from his essay New Right vs. Old Right says,

    . . . in the case of classical National Socialism, revisionists argue that many of these atrocities are exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth. But revisionism about the Second World War is really beside the point, because the terroristic, imperialistic, genocidal impulse exists in National Socialism today. For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. That spirit is what we reject. [emphasis on the last sentence is mine]

    Hadding: Manifestly it is not genocidal rhetoric but Holocaust revisionism per se that bothers Greg Johnson.

    Wrong. Anyone who’s read and paid attention to either this article or the aforementioned essay GJ wrote knows that is categorically false.

  82. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 26, 2012 - 11:16 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    In his social views Dr. Pierce has some things in common with the American Old Right as defined by Wikipedia, which is very different from national-socialism or fascism.

    Greg Johnson redefined the terms Old Right and New Right for how he uses them in his essay on the subject. To continue to argue that he is using the term incorrectly is stupid. People redefine words all the time. The meaning of words change. GJ clearly defined how he uses the terms. You are not required to use them the way he does, but you act as though letting him use his definitions will require you to use them the same way.

    Do you also accept wikipedia’s definitions of “The Holocaust,” National Socialism, etc.? Again, GJ clearly defined how he uses the terms, which is not even remotely the same thing as demanding everyone else they are required to use his definitions.

  83. July 26, 2012 - 11:02 am | Permalink

    @katana:

    Parody is no substitute for argument. But of course you get an A from our leading sophist.

    @arthurdecco:

    Arthur, I am sorry, but I am weary of this discussion, and nothing irritates me more than patronizing gestures by people who are in no position to offer them (because you seem very confused). But I remind myself that “Hey, these are just names and words on a screen. It is not the real world.” You should take solace in that as well.

  84. July 26, 2012 - 10:50 am | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland:

    We publish two “gay” writers: Jack Donovan and James O’Meara. Donovan does not even write on the topic, but he wrote a book on it a few years ago under another pen name called ANDROPHILIA. Both are excellent writers, and both of them advance the CC agenda, the main aim of which is to develop a new worldview and culture and demonstrate its relevance today, and a subordinate part of which to sow discord into the Jewish-minority grievance-liberal coalition by showing white women, environmentalists, homosexuals, etc. among them that their concerns and identities are consistent with being racially aware. The project of creating hegemonic white racial consciousness requires that we craft white racialist messages for all different white groups. A very important project is to foster the rebirth of a racially conscious left.

  85. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    July 26, 2012 - 9:29 am | Permalink

    @Z.O.G.: I do not believe six million Jews were gassed. I have devoted much time to the study of revisionist literature, and it has changed my appreciation of National Socialism enormously.

    But I have to agree with Dr. Johnson: even if the gas chambers can be disproved, whites will still be badgered by the Jews and liberals with issues they want to make us feel guilty about. They will and can use ANYTHING to undermine our morale.

    Therefore, we need a fundamental, catch-it-all defense against these ideological attacks, a consistent, moral position. Dr. Johnson has succinctly formulated such a position.

  86. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    July 26, 2012 - 8:00 am | Permalink

    Mrs. Yeager discerns a “homosexual mindset” on Counter-Currents. I wonder what this might be? Is it a fascination with Michelangelo? Has she caught Dr. Johnson doing a successful flower arrangement? Do the authors read Yukio Mishima late at night? Maybe Plato is taken too seriously? Is ballet not derided enough?

    Or maybe, just maybe… the authors do not show enough enthusiasm for a witch-hunt against same-sex activity? Do they follow too closely in the footsteps of Hitler when he defended the S.A. and Röhm, saying that the S.A. was not an institution for raising young girls, but an association of rough fighters?

    Whatever the label Mrs. Yeager assigns to it, this mindset on Counter-Currents has produced many brilliant and very helpful writings. And this article is one of the best.

  87. katana's Gravatar katana
    July 26, 2012 - 7:28 am | Permalink

    Hadding
    July 26, 2012 – 4:07 am | Permalink

    @katana: That’s a very nice summary. You get an A.
    ————–

    LOL! Thanks Hadding.

    I can tell that you’re very old school about handing out an A, so I’m honored!

  88. john thames's Gravatar john thames
    July 26, 2012 - 6:52 am | Permalink

    Holocaust Revisionism is persecuted in many countries and therefore not effective for our cause? What idiocy! It scares the shit out of them or it would not be persecuted! Here’s the formula:

    Who created multiculturalism?

    Answer:

    The same Jews who sold you the “gas chamber” hoax.

    Who created diversity?

    Answer:

    The same Jews who created the “gas chamber” hoax.

    Who created racial equality?

    Answer:

    The same Jews who created the “gas chamber” hoax.

    Who created feminism?

    Answer:

    The same Jews who created the “gas chamber” hoax.

    “False in one thing; False in all things.”

    In politics the reasoning has to be simple “See dog; see dog run.” My equation is exactly that simple – and true. The trouble with the Occidental egghead crowd is that they wish to write esoteric articles that will never reach the masses. Look at Adolf Hitler. He succeeded with simple street logic. He argued.

    (1) Jobs for every German.

    (2)Break the Treaty of Versailles.

    (3) Destroy Jewish Bolshevism.

    Follow the example.

  89. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 26, 2012 - 5:04 am | Permalink

    @Lew:Expressing any view that less than fully endorses the official story could have implications for travel, as per Irving. Tactical silence in public fora or professed ignorance allows no insight into a person’s inner thoughts.

  90. Huntelaar's Gravatar Huntelaar
    July 26, 2012 - 4:52 am | Permalink

    If one is incapable of understanding the concept political strategizing and have a weak grasp of the real world and how it works then they needn’t be involved in discussions about the holocaust from a white preservationist perspective. It goes back to the notion that NS care more about rehabilitating the reputation of their dear leader than preserving the white race.

  91. July 26, 2012 - 4:07 am | Permalink

    @katana: That’s a very nice summary. You get an A.

  92. katana's Gravatar katana
    July 26, 2012 - 3:56 am | Permalink

    Many readers are busy people and may not have the time to go through Greg Johnson’s 5,000 word plus essay. For the benefit of those and as a handy reference for others here’s a shorter version.

    [Not] Dealing with the ‘Holocaust’

    1. White nationalists really need to deal with the ‘Holocaust’ and those picky jews. The following points will show that the best way to deal with the ‘Holocaust’ is not to deal with the ‘Holocaust’! Pretty neat, hey!

    2. Let’s redeem Whites from this ‘world’s supreme evil’ accusation by becoming, umm… , all for ethnonationalism! Problem solved. There’s no need to “deny,” minimize, or revise the ‘Holocaust’, because, well, it ‘just happened’ dude, just like the gulags.

    3. What is the ‘Holocaust’? (It’s that thing that surrounds us 24/7/365.) What is Revisionism? It’s a really important, necessary, legitimate thing, but we don’t need it!
    BTW, I believe that all those revisionists sitting in jails should be released. I also believe in motherhood and apple pie, especially apple pie.
    To be quite honest I’ve never really been interested in the studying the ‘Holocaust’ as it’s all in the past and so on, and as such will cramp my style. Think about ‘deep’ stuff, instead of fluffy facts.

    4. The standard account of the ‘Holocaust’ is probably true, umm.. no, what I mean is that it could be completely true. But it doesn’t matter anyway.
    The Germans should just confess and say, ‘Yeah, we did it!’, and forget about it like the jews have. Let’s all move on folks!

    5. Even if revisionists prove that the ‘Holocaust’ is total BS, then what? Nothing because:

    * Mark Weber said so.
    * Jews will think of something else to pin on us.
    * Even one dead jew is a ‘Holocaust’. And what about Annie? She ain’t coming back.
    * The pity party for jews will still continue, anyway.
    * The jews would sue us for forcing them to believe in ‘Holocaust’ BS. Pain and suffering right there!
    * White people love to feel guilty about something, so Whites would just move on to something else.

    6. Whites are addicted to guilt and self abasement. The jews have nothing to do with this when you get right down to it. It’s all our fault.

    7. Revisionists actually don’t do everything, therefore, they do nothing. In fact, worst then nothing. Something about pruning.

    8. Real men don’t concern themselves about the past. Doesn’t matter. Same with memory. Forget it!

    9. Tinkering with the ‘Holocaust’ death numbers is irrelevant. Six million or six, it’s still the jews’ greatest tragedy.

    10. Something about the most touted lesson of the ‘Holocaust’ being not true.

    11.Revisionism is a clumsy way of dealing with the ‘Holocaust’ question, so let’s just admit it by saying it was wrong. Why bother with specialized knowledge and tiresome explanations when you can just say something pithy instead?

    12. Let’s tell the jews that they have double standards, but let’s not adopt double standards ourselves. Play fair. Because:

    * Jews are smarter than us.
    * Jews have power and we don’t.
    * Whites like universalism, so better stick with it, even if it is killing us.
    * Whites get outraged at violations of universalism, except when jews do it. So let’s channel that rage at jews. Um.
    * The New Right is for everybody.
    * Jews have thankfully invested a great deal in telling us we are genocidal maniacs. We can make that work for us!
    * Revisionism it just nibbling away at the edges (fools).

    13. ‘Holocaust’ revisionism is illegal in many countries and revisionists persecuted, so this implies that it’s not effective for our cause. Finally, as non revisionist White Nationalists become effective they are going to be persecuted even more, so there!

    14. To sum up I have argued that we need to deal with the ‘Holocaust’ by not dealing with it. Let’s all concentrate on ‘psychological and moral’ stuff, not history or facts.

    Anyway, step over it folks! We are doomed, no future, well except for us Nietzschean supermen.

    ————————-

  93. Trainspotter's Gravatar Trainspotter
    July 26, 2012 - 3:34 am | Permalink

    “Now, imagine what kind of figure Hadding cuts when he says, huffily, that Anne Frank did not die in the Holocaust, because (a) she did not die in a gas chamber and the Holocaust is defined as killing Jews in gas chamber, or (b) there was no Holocaust, because the Holocaust means the attempt to kill all Jews, and the Nazis did not do that.”

    Greg, you are absolutely correct. That’s not to say that I’m anti-revisionist, in the sense that the more Jewish lies that the revisionists can uncover the better. That’s all well and good.

    But the real heart of the matter, when confronted with the “holocaust” charge, is to demonstrate Jewish power, duplicity, exploitation, animus toward whites, hypocrisy, justification of white genocide, and so forth. Again, revisionism may be able to help with these things, but it’s not necessary. It’s certainly not necessary to establish our case for white homelands. Our cause supersedes revisionism, it is bigger than that. Far, far bigger and greater. Nothing, absolutely nothing, negates our cause. We must be fanatics on this point, yet we can often be pragmatic in other respects. This is not to say that we should sacrifice truth, but rather that we must always ask ourselves, within the realm of truth, what is most effective.

    The most effective points to make about this issue typically require no revisionism at all. One of the most effective, in my personal experience, was offered by an old WN leaning site (FAEM, if memory serves). I’ve used it many, many times in real life. Ask the person how many Jews died during World War II. Of course, they answer 6 million. Then ask, “How many Americans died during World War II?” Crickets chirping. That of course provides the perfect backdrop for moving into excessive Jewish power and media manipulation. No revision required. It’s pretty astounding that the typical Kwan has no idea how many of his own ancestors, his own kith and kin, died in the war, but can eagerly give the “right answer” of six million sainted Jews.

    Another effective approach that I’ve used many times is to simply point out that, on general principles alone, I cannot accept a claim in which reasonable inquiry and research that doesn’t fit the claim is actively suppressed and punished. (apparently BUGS promotes something similar). I’ve had great success with this, and it too provides the springboard for what I’m trying to accomplish: judo in which my accuser presents Jews as victims, and I flip it to show the truth: Jews as obscenely powerful, and shameless abusers and exploiters of that power.

    I’ll also give a special mention to a poster above who, when asked about the holocaust, replies “Which holocaust?” That’s very good, and a perfect launching pad to hit on a real holocaust in which largely Jewish commisars slaughtered millions of white Europeans.

    I could go on and on, what I’ve mentioned is a mere sampler. I have no problem with being hit with “you’re a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews,” as I will happily beat the hell out of my accuser with point after point. Typically, they are stumbling and in retreat in no time. Again, best wishes and godspeed to particular revisionists who can document compelling Jewish lies. I mean that. We should always beat our opponents over the head with their dishonesty, bad faith and shameless exploitation. BUT, my cause is that of the white homeland. It does not depend on revisionism, and is not a slave to it. We can and should win regardless of what happened in World War II. Greg obviously gets that.

    Final aside: unless a person is very careful and talented, quibbling over numbers and means of death makes a person come off as distinctly creepy. Far better to keep one’s eye on the prize – white homelands – and as Greg suggests go for the matador and not the blanket. Revision or no revision, Jewish behavior post World War Two has been shameless, dishonest, and genocidal toward our people. It’s not as if we are lacking for ammunition.

  94. Sandy's Gravatar Sandy
    July 26, 2012 - 2:42 am | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager: Not being the sharpest pencil in the box I am having a little difficulty in keeping up with all the comments (fascinating as they are). Carolyn, because of your use of “White/Christian” I fell into the trap of thinking that you were a Christian but then you said that you typically works 12 hours a day 7 days a week without a problem in violation of a Commandment which would make you as nominal a Christian as Dr. Johnson is so could you elaborate for us lesser mortals where you stand in the grand scheme of things? Please.

  95. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 26, 2012 - 2:19 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:

    Never heard of a serious editor who runs material wildly out of step with his own perspective, or that he doesn’t view as adding value to his project or advancing his goals. Plus, KMD does not publish revisionist materials here. Make some inferences.

  96. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 26, 2012 - 1:58 am | Permalink

    @Lew: “Moreover, his argument has been implicitly backed by KMD.”

    How so?

  97. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 26, 2012 - 1:36 am | Permalink

    @arthurdecco: “…and I say that even though I consider you a demonstrably well informed, well intentioned, admirable and passionate supporter of White interests. ”

    I was describing Greg Johnson when I typed that. And I believed it.

    …Then.

    I’ve changed my mind: “…I consider you a demonstrably well informed and passionate supporter of White interests. ” is all I’m prepared to admit to.

    Based on my experience reading this comments section, there’s nothing “well intentioned” or “admirable” about Greg Johnson’s responses to those who disagree with him.

    He’s proving himself to be a junk yard dog – not interested in anything beyond proving how clever and correct HE is…

    Wouldn’t it be smarter for him to reassess the consequences of his kind of reprehensible behavior rather than to continue snarling and nipping at anyone who passes by with a questioning eye?

    just asking

  98. July 26, 2012 - 1:32 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    Hadding, by Old Right I also mean people who advocate genocide, like William Pierce….

    Of course Dr. Pierce in actuality never committed any more genocide than Adolf Hitler.

    In his social views Dr. Pierce has some things in common with the American Old Right as defined by Wikipedia, which is very different from national-socialism or fascism.

    When are you going to remove the essays written by Dr. Pierce that you reposted on Counter-Currents? Since you are going to include Dr. Pierce as “Old Right” and try to distance yourself from “Old Right,” you really need to remove those essays from your blog. That’s a striking inconsistency on your part, Greg Johnson.

    I am being a bit ironic here. I really do understand why this inconsistency and hypocrisy exists.

    Manifestly it is not genocidal rhetoric but Holocaust revisionism per se that bothers Greg Johnson. The Jews don’t mind genocidal rhetoric either, so long as it doesn’t actually go anywhere: it actually helps them to convince their people to circle the wagons and send donations to the ADL or SPLC. Revisionism on the other hand bothers Jews a lot because it takes away the basis of Jewish cohesion. It tells them that their fears are exaggerated. Jews therefore hate and fear an amiable explicator like Ernst Zundel much more than a frank enemy like Dr. Pierce.

    Greg Johnson, be just a little bit honest here. You make it clear in your essay that you are trying to sidestep trouble. We both know where that trouble is. You and I both know that you would get a lot more vituperation from Jews for Holocaust revisionism than you would ever get for advocating genocide yourself.

    Fear of the Jews is what drives Greg Johnson’s essay, “[Not] Dealing with the Holocaust.”

    Really, at this point you need to quit, because if you keep dishing up sophistries for me to explode …

    In your dreams.

  99. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 26, 2012 - 12:58 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: I tried to reach out to you, Mr. Johnson – to appeal to something collective – beyond our individual egos, and your response was to treat me with condescension and outright rudeness.

    Based on that I believe you’re no one I would want on my side in any of our coming conflagrations.

    Evidence seems to support the idea that you’re simply another interchangeable psychologically damaged narcissist lashing out willy nilly because of the heavy hits you’ve been taking from people who have thought things through better than you have.

    Phttttt!

  100. July 26, 2012 - 12:49 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Hadding, by Old Right I also mean people who advocate genocide, like William Pierce and Alex Linder.

    I said that the New Left did not pin its projects on “gulag revisionism,” but you are saying something different.

    Really, at this point you need to quit, because if you keep dishing up sophistries for me to explode, the only people who are incapable of thinking will take you seriously.

  101. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 26, 2012 - 12:42 am | Permalink

    @MOB:

    {snip} …Regardless of the respect the author showed for the work of the holocaust revisionists, a respect I’m sure most of us here share

    You said that well. Revisionists are doing work that everyone respects, so the vituperation is puzzling. I won’t swear to it with 650 comments, but I don’t believe anyone in this conversation has suggested revisionists end their projects. Everyone admires their courage and tenacity. That said, GJ made a convincing argument that revisionism is not essential. Moreover, his argument has been implicitly backed by KMD. Those two things together — a solid argument backed by KMD — puts a frame around the holocaust issue that is likely to influence many people going forward. When KMD backs a position, smart people take note, and they do so for good reason. I doubt any living person has a better understanding of how Jews operation. I suspect the revisionists are simply chagrined about how the chips have fallen in this particular debate, and that is the reason for the vituperation.

  102. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 26, 2012 - 12:41 am | Permalink

    @Chechar: Perhaps you’d like to address Hilberg’s genocide-by-telepathy/ mind synchroncity.
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n1p15_Faurisson.html

  103. July 26, 2012 - 12:39 am | Permalink

    @arthurdecco:

    Arthur, you need to percolate more, because you strike me as confused. Go back through the essay. You will see what I mean by the moral and psychological weaknesses of our people.

  104. July 26, 2012 - 12:32 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:
    Here is a sentiment expressed by Donar van Holland, with which Greg Johnson now professes to agree:

    – On a personal note, my admiration for Hitler and National Socialism means that Holocaust revisionism is still close to my heart. In fact, the Jewish blood libel smears everything German. That makes my blood boil, and therefore I am extremely grateful for the courageous revisionist scholars.

    The smear also affects White Americans, of whom a plurality are of German descent. Since Germany is the heart of Europe, a smear against Germany is damaging to the entire White World.

    Greg Johnson accepts that smear in his essay, where he defines Adolf Hitler as “Old Right” and declares “that we reject Old Right party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.” Johnson believes that he can sidestep the need to face these smears by advocating “universal nationalism.” In other words, Johnson is deliberately dissociating himself from the concern (expressed by Donar van Holland) with which Johnson now says he agrees.

    Anybody should be able to see that Greg Johnson is talking out both sides of his mouth.

    Incidentally, Johnson is wrong when he asserts that Communists have no historical revisionism of their own. I asked some Communists. They say that some Communist leaders made mistakes (but were well intentioned) and that anti-Communist propaganda exaggerates. There’s probably some truth in that.

  105. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 26, 2012 - 12:03 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: “So again, we need to deal with the moral and psychological roots of the problem.”

    I read this thought of yours a few days ago, Mr. Johnson. I let it go… I let it percolate… It wasn’t an idea I was comfortable with. I didn’t know why…

    Now I do.

    The “moral” and “psychological” “definitions” that are used to judge us as a People have largely been constructed out of Spit, Gossamer and Venal Hate by our enemies, Mr. Johnson, so why should we accept their definitions, or even their diagnosis of our morality OR our “psychological roots”?

    I know what disturbs me about your position now…

    It lacks courage. And, forgive me, common sense too.

    …and I say that even though I consider you a demonstrably well informed, well intentioned, admirable and passionate supporter of White interests.

    But let’s face it – you’re not any more perfect than the rest of us, are you? And right now it looks like you might want to consider rethinking some of the more contentious points laid out in your essay.

    I believe there’s always room for improvement. For all of us. And you’ve just had a huge amount of new data and timeless rhetoric shoveled your way…

    What I believe we should be investigating and publicizing are the FACTS regarding the condition (and the reasons for their condition) of the European Jewish population incarcerated in the territories controlled by Nazi-controlled Germany up to and including the 2nd World War. That’s if we are to ever snap the shackles of enslavement we all wear in service to our Jewish Masters because of these dishonest dialogues they’ve created through their stranglehold over our access to information.

    The truth is dramatically different than the propagated myths that abound. You know that. I know that. Lots of people know that to be fact.

    And that’s why I firmly believe the simple, unadorned facts are powerful enough to be accepted as TRUTH by sensible, curious people, if they’re given the opportunity to assess all the information available in a concise and fair display.

    I know in my heart of hearts if these facts are disseminated far and wide they will set us free.

    Please do your part to burst the bubble, Mr. Johnson. Take heart. We need you.

  106. dc's Gravatar dc
    July 25, 2012 - 11:55 pm | Permalink

    Damn your eyes!
    No jew would so betray his own. Scum who would pander to the enemy deserve no more than nine grammes of lead.

  107. July 25, 2012 - 11:53 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager:

    Does he [Chechar] really think these books by the holo historians have something to tell us that we have not come across yet?

    That’s exactly what I think, if my experience with parapsychological skepticism is an accurate analogy. Look forward to hear about your impressions of Irving’s Himmler.

  108. July 25, 2012 - 11:24 pm | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland:

    Thank you. I agree with you on both points. By the way, I highly recommend Russell Stolfi’s biography of Hitler, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (Prometheus Books, 2011). It is a brilliantly written biography that systematically demolishes the biases of Kershaw, Fest, and other major Hitler biographers.

  109. July 25, 2012 - 11:17 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager: Ah, that makes more sense then. You were not recommending Irmin Vinson as a sine qua non.

  110. July 25, 2012 - 10:57 pm | Permalink

    My comment @Hadding at 9:44 should read:
    “but Irmin Vinson, not by Irmin Vinson”

  111. July 25, 2012 - 10:52 pm | Permalink

    @MOB:
    MOB quotes Greg Johnson as saying:

    If one’s goal is historical truth about the Holocaust, to rehabilitate National Socialism and the Third Reich, or to cleanse the German people of blood libels, then Holocaust revisionism makes perfect sense. But if one’s aim is White Nationalism, then Holocaust revisionism is not necessary.

    Carolyn Yeager answers: Cleansing the German people of blood libels created by International Jewry and their puppet politicians should definitely be one of the aims of White Nationalism. If not, what does White Nationalism stand for?

    MOB: Foremost, of course, CarolynYeager© who selected wartime Germany-related matters as her area of expertise when she entered these circles 5 years ago, stating in an email “I’ll let others handle the decline of the white race — it’s too big. ”

    Carolyn Yeager: Copyright on my name? When I entered these circles? It sounds like MOB claims a special prior position “in these circles” and I may have grown too big for my britches. MOB and I haven’t spoken since probably that email she seems to have kept from 5 years ago. Who saves non-important emails for five years?! I haven’t been given the the context, but I didn’t “select” Germany-related matters to “become an expert” in, but I was powerfully attracted to learn, read and know what happened then. I spoke out for Truth for Germany then as I do now. Speaking out openly is not something MOB did then or seems to do now.

    MOB: “The Holocaust” became the major focus on which she built her reputation.

    Carolyn Yeager: It is clear now that MOB is presenting a fantasy, for reasons of her own. I have not been “building a reputation” and never had a clue I would become as well-known, in limited circles, as I have become. Nor that I would be seen as the threat that some people seem to perceive today. In 2007 I created my first website (yes, I created it, I didn’t use a ready made blog as I wanted to be unique … not too smart of me, actually), and the domain name I chose was whitewomenonly. I headed it White Warrior Woman and the content was all about the importance of race, and correspondingly the role of women, with a smattering of holocaust revisionism. I used my own name and wrote about my past, growing up in a white world. Pretty brave of me, actually. I don’t tend to hold back, never have. It’s not a calculated thing with me – it’s my personality.

    MOB: Last month Carolyn and her radio show parted ways with Voice of Reason. She quickly allied with Tanstaafl, who was dealing with his own problem — her radio enterprise and his web skills were a mutually beneficial match.

    Carolyn Yeager: Last month? MOB is not really up on this. The first post I made on The White Network website was on May 27, two months ago. I gave Mike Conner a 2-month heads-up on my plans (because of persuasion from Tanstaafl), so it actually started four months ago. You can’t be fairer than that. My ‘alliance’ with Tanstaafl began around the time he was a guest on my program ‘The Heretics’ Hour’ earlier this year. We had become mutual admirers well over a year before that when he wrote a positive comment about my first program about Gordon Duff, which aired on December 6, 2010, leading me to read his blog on Duff and to write a couple of comments there. Tan and I go back that far. This was the Christmas season that Mike Conner went AWOL for 3 weeks, marking the beginning of my discontent at VOR.
    MOB’s reference to Tanstaafl “dealing with his own problems at that time” shows the definite attack mode she is in. The truth is Tan had no special problems then; his life was normal.

    MOB: By that time she had realized that holocaust revisionism alone is in the margins with limited visibility, little known participants, and no career path to the top. She wanted a larger playing field. She needed a make-over.

    Carolyn Yeager: One month ago I realized this? A make-over?? Yuk, yuk. This is all MOB’s imagination. I have no career path and everyone who knows me knows that. In fact, I have never in my entire life been able to put myself on a career path. The way I am is that once I get interested in something, I stick with it until that interest fades or something else intervenes.

    MOB: No problem. Out with “The Heretics Hour.” In with “The White Network.”

    Carolyn Yeager: “The Heretics’ Hour” (a radio program) belongs to me. I created it, and no one else ever produced it but me. It went with me to The White Network (a radio network), where it remains my and the tWn’s premier program. It is not “out.”

    MOB: Having one’s own radio show on one’s own website enables one to fill a stable with people grateful for the exposure, preferably people with a fan base, which fans give weight to the website.

    Carolyn Yeager: Blah, blah, blah. Is this supposed to mean something?

    MOB: Apparently one of Carolyn’s first broadcasts from the new website featured an attack on Counter-Currents.

    Carolyn Yeager: Apparently? Did she get this second-hand? My 2nd Heretics’ Hour broadcast on The White Network turned out to be an exposure of the homosexual mindset among certain leading WN orgs. It was not an attack on Counter-Currents per se, but CC turned out to be Specimen #1. Not my fault. It’s what I found when I started looking. The reception I got from official WN was: We don’t talk about this. You are doing damage to our reputation. But I said nothing that had not come from these peoples’ own writings! So they talked about it first.

    MOB: The website’s first Yeager-Hadding project features Henry Ford’s The International Jew–the book about which Kevin MacDonald has written extensively. It’s all pretty transparent.

    Carolyn Yeager: MOB is pretty transparent. I had no idea Kevin MacDonald had written “extensively” about The International Jew. I wonder how many others have done so? It would probably be quite a long list. I got interested because I was reading the monthly installments in “The First Freedom” newspaper, the one that Olaf Childress puts out. I was bragging to Tanstaafl how great the material was and he thought the same. Right then, we thought we would like to do a special program, just reading it. Later, he said he just couldn’t find the time for it on a regular basis. We gave it up for awhile; then I thought I would try to do it with someone else. That someone became Hadding Scott, a fantastic choice. It’s not a difficult program to do, and it’s fun.
    So is MOB implying I am trespassing or stealing from the ideas of other WN’s in order to advance myself in WN? She really should explain herself if she doesn’t want us to think the worst.

    MOB: I’m not quite sure where the attack on Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents fit in. Maybe like Mark Weber and David Irving and a few others whose names I’ve forgotten, Greg just happens to be in the way.

    Carolyn Yeager: Weber and Irving have been highly criticized by many, including Germar Rudolf (whom Marge mentions) and most revisionists. But if Yeager also criticizes them it is because of her ruthless march to the TOP of the WN hierarchy. And now she is doing the same to Greg Johnson because “he is in her way.” Do I sense some input from VOR in all of this?

    If anyone wants to know about Carolyn Yeager I can tell them. She is someone who wants to – maybe even needs to – do a good job of whatever she sets out to do. So she works hard at it to satisfy herself. She enjoys being engaged in work because she’s a serious person, and typically works 12 hours a day 7 days a week without a problem. As long as she remains interested. A problem might occur when her high expectations are transferred to the people around her and she can be demanding, seeming to expect too much. There are those who see this as a fault, but many come to understand it and accept it. Those are her friends.

  112. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 25, 2012 - 10:12 pm | Permalink

    @Donar van Holland: I dare say that lies are an abomination to the Christian doctrine (including lies about Germans, and even National Socialism supporters).

  113. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 25, 2012 - 10:10 pm | Permalink

    @Helvena:

    “The best reason I know for exposing the fairytale for what it is, is that the exposure has consequences. In no other case has the jew stuck his nose out so far. And not just one of them, it’s the whole f**king tribe, in unison. And it is only the tribe, out there all on their own. Once the lie is exposed so is the jew, left standing completely naked as either insanely superstitious or insanely evil. (With a hand full of exceptions) It’s the wedge that splits the log.

    Exactly.
    It is a complete and thorough exposition of our enemy. An enemy who has gone way out on a limb.
    The implications of the hoax will shake the entire globe. Billion$ could be spend on educating the public and it would not be even nearly as effective as exposing the truth about the big H.
    People do not like to be fooled and they will draw conclusions. The truth is all powerful and all the big H films in the world can not put the tempest back in the teapot.

    It’s staggering that white advocates do not see the importance here.

  114. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 25, 2012 - 10:05 pm | Permalink

    @Helvena: The effort expended by Jewish agencies and their proxies to shore up the Holocaust fabrications – propaganda everywhere and legal sanctions in some jurisdictions – corroborate your point about vulnerability.

  115. Donar van Holland's Gravatar Donar van Holland
    July 25, 2012 - 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Dear Dr. Johnson, I am very grateful for your brilliant and convincing article. I think it opens truly a way forward for the white peoples. I shall try and direct my own small contribution guided by your article.

    I would just like to make two observations:

    – On a personal note, my admiration for Hitler and National Socialism means that Holocaust revisionism is still close to my heart. In fact, the Jewish blood libel smears everything German. That makes my blood boil, and therefore I am extremely grateful for the courageous revisionist scholars.

    – You mention the western guilt complex as one of our main weaknesses and you call for a transvaluation of values to cure the sick western mind. I cannot help but think about the role Christianity has played in creating this guilt complex.

    Unfortunately, none of the Christian reactions to your article have addressed this. Is there a Christianity thinkable that does not thrive on guilt but on strength? The old gods loved men if they sought power and honour, the Christian god seems only to love men if they humbly accept their guilt.

  116. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 25, 2012 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Sorry about the double post. Please delete one. Thanks

  117. July 25, 2012 - 9:44 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:
    Chechar is weird. Asking people if they have looked at the “other side” is either a not-very-clever tactic or an expression of his lack of any understanding of “Holocaust” literature and how steeped we all are in the “Holocaust” narrative. Does he really think these books by the holo historians have something to tell us that we have not come across yet? Are we in the dark about the great arguments they put forth? Chechar needs to read these books. He admits he hasn’t read anything by Irmin Vinson.

    @Chechar: I think you should see that David Irving sends a complimentary copy of his Himler book to all revisionists that say they want one. I would like to receive one, and of course I will read it.

  118. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 25, 2012 - 9:38 pm | Permalink

    This is HOW you change the tables so we can educate the people about the “holocaust” myth and who controls it.

    The Organic Act of 1871
    “. . . if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?” — I Corinthians 14:8 — 07/25/12
    Maine Republic Email Alert
    “. . . that I should bear witness unto the truth.” — John 18:33 // David E. Robinson, Publisher
    No.174
    1871, February 21: Congress Passed
    an “Act to Provide a Government for the
    District of Columbia”, also known as the
    “Act of 1871”.
    With no constitutional authority to do
    so, Congress created a separate form of
    government for the District of Columbia,
    a ten mile square parcel of land (see,
    Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section
    34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
    The act — passed when the country
    was weakened and financially depleted
    in the aftermath of the Civil War — was
    a strategic move by foreign bankers who
    were intent upon gaining a stranglehold
    on the coffers of America.
    Congress cut a deal with the
    international bankers and incurred a
    DEBT to them because they were not
    about to lend money to a floundering
    nation without serious stipulations. So
    they devised a way to get their foot in
    the door of the United States.
    The Act of 1871 formed a corporation
    called THE UNITED STATES.
    The corporation, owned by foreign
    interests, moved in and shoved the
    original Constitution aside. With the Act
    of 1871, the organic Constitution was
    altered when the title was capitalized and
    the word “for” was changed to “of” in the
    title.
    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the
    constitution of the incorporated UNITED
    STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an
    economic capacity and is being used to
    fool the People into thinking that it
    governs the Republic. But it does not!
    Capitalization is significant when one
    is referring to a legal document. This
    seemingly “minor” alteration has had a
    major impact on every subsequent
    generation of Americans.
    What Congress did by passing the
    Act of 1871 was create an entirely new
    document, a constitution for the
    government of the District of Columbia,
    an INCORPORATED business.
    This newly altered Act of 1871
    Constitution was not intended to benefit
    the Republic. It benefits the corporation
    of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    and operates entirely outside the original
    organic Constitution.
    Instead of having absolute and
    unalienable rights guaranteed under the
    organic Constitution, we the people now
    have “relative” rights, or privileges. One
    example is the Sovereign’s right to travel,
    that has now been transformed (under
    corporate government policy) into a
    “privilege” that requires citizens to be
    licensed. (Passports)
    In passing the Act of 1871 Congress
    committed TREASON against the
    People who were Sovereign under the
    grants and decrees of the Declaration of
    Independence and the organic
    Constitution.
    The Act of 1871 became the
    FOUNDATION of all the treason
    committed by government officials ever
    since.
    To fully understand how our rights of
    sovereignty were ended, you must
    understand the full meaning of the word
    sovereign: “Chief or highest, supreme
    power, superior in position to all others;
    independent of and unlimited by others;
    possessing or entitled to; original and
    independent authority or jurisdiction.”
    (Webster).
    In short, our government, which was
    created by and for us as sovereigns —
    free citizens deemed to have the highest
    authority in the land — was stolen from
    us, along with our rights. Keep in mind
    that, according to the original, organic
    Constitution, We the People are
    sovereign; government is not sovereign.
    The Declaration of Independence says
    that “government is subject to the
    consent of the governed”; that’s us.
    We’re sovereigns. When did you last feel
    like a sovereign?
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a
    constitutional historian to figure out that
    the U.S. Government has NOT been
    subject to the consent of the governed
    since long before you or I were born.
    Rather, the governed are subject to
    the whim and greed of the corporation,
    which has stretched its tentacles beyond
    the ten-mile-square parcel of land known
    as the District of Columbia. It has invaded
    every state of the Republic.
    However, the corporation has NO
    jurisdiction beyond the District of
    Columbia. You just think it does.
    You are ‘presumed’ to know the law,
    but We the People are taught NOTHING
    about the law in school. We memorize
    obscure facts and phrases, here and
    there, like the Preamble, which says,
    “We the People…establish this
    Constitution for the United States of
    America.” But our teachers only gloss
    over the Bill of Rights. Our schools, which
    are controlled by the corporate
    government, don’t delve into the
    Constitution in depth.
    The corporation was established to
    indoctrinate and ‘dumb-down’ the
    masses, not to teach anything of value
    or importance. Certainly, no one
    mentioned that America was “sold-out”
    to foreign interests, and that we were
    obligated to pay the debt incurred by
    Congress, or that we are in debt to the
    international bankers.
    Yet, for generations, Americans have
    had the bulk of their earnings confiscated
    to pay a massive debt that they did not
    incur and do not owe.
    There’s an endless stream of things
    that the People aren’t told. And, now that
    you are being told, how do you feel about
    being made the recipient of a debt
    without your knowledge or consent?
    After passage of the Act of 1871
    Maine Republic Free State News, 3 Linnell Circle, Brunswick, Maine 04011
    http://maine-patriot.com
    2
    Congress set a series of subtle and overt
    deceptions into motion, deceptions in the
    form of decisions that were meant to sell
    us down the river. Over time, the Republic
    took it on the chin until it was knocked
    down and counted out by a technical KO
    [knock out].
    With the surrender of the people’s
    gold in 1933, the ‘common herd’ was
    placed under illegitimate law.
    (I’ll bet you weren’t taught THIS in
    school.)
    Our corporate form of government is
    based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty
    or Maritime Law, which is also known as
    the “Divine Right of Kings” and the “Law
    of the Seas” — another fact of American
    history not taught in our schools.
    Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully
    established in the colonies before our
    nation began, and then became
    managed by private international law. In
    other words, the government — the
    government created for the District of
    Columbia via the Act of 1871 – operates
    under Private International Law, not the
    Common Law foundation of our
    Constitutional Republic.
    This fact has impacted all Americans
    in concrete ways. For instance, although
    Private International Law is technically
    only applicable within the District of
    Columbia, and NOT in the other states
    of the Union, the arms of the Corporation
    of THE UNITED STATES are called
    “departments”: the Justice Department;
    the Treasury Department; etc. And these
    departments affect everyone, no matter
    where and in what state they live.
    Each department belongs to the
    corporation — to THE UNITED STATES.
    “Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE
    (USC). Note the capitalization; this is
    evidence of a corporation, not of a
    Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002
    (15)(A)(B)(C), it is unequivocally stated
    that the UNITED STATES is a
    corporation.
    Translation: the corporation is NOT a
    separate and distinct entity; it is not
    disconnected from the government; it IS
    the government — your government.
    This is extremely important! I refer to
    it as the “Corporate EMPIRE of the
    UNITED STATES” which operates under
    Roman Civil Law outside the original
    Constitution. How do you like being ruled
    by a corporation?
    You say you’ll ask your Congressperson
    about this? “HA!! “
    Congress is fully aware of this
    deception. So it’s time that you, too, be
    aware of the deception. What this great
    deception means is that the members
    of Congress do NOT work for us, for
    you and me. They work for the
    Corporation, for the UNITED STATES.
    No wonder we can’t get them to do
    anything on our behalf, or meet or
    demands, or answer our questions.
    Technically, legally, or any other way
    you want to look at the matter, the
    corporate government of the UNITED
    STATES has no jurisdiction or
    authority in ANY State of the Union
    (the Republic) beyond the District of
    Columbia.
    Let that tidbit sink in, then ask
    yourself, could this deception have
    occurred without the full knowledge and
    complicity of the Congress? Do you think
    it happened by accident? If you do,
    you’re deceiving yourself.
    There are no accidents, no
    coincidences. Face the facts and
    confront the truth. Remember, you are
    presumed to know the law. THEY know
    you don’t know the law or, for that matter,
    your history. Why?
    Because no concerted effort was ever
    made to teach or otherwise inform you.
    As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full
    disclosure of all facts. As a slave, you
    are entitled to nothing other than what
    the corporation decides to ‘give’ you.
    Remember also that “Ignorance of the
    law is no excuse.” It’s your responsibility
    and obligation to learn the law and know
    how it applies to you. No wonder the Act
    of 1871 corporation counted on the fact
    that most people are too indifferent,
    unconcerned, distracted, or lazy to learn
    what they need to know to survive within
    the system. We have been conditioned
    to let the government do our thinking for
    us. Now’s the time to turn that around if
    we intend to help save our Republic and
    ourselves — before it’s too late.
    As an instrument of the international
    bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you
    from birth to death. It also holds ownership
    of all your assets, of your property, even
    of your children. Think long and hard
    about all the bills taxes, fines, and
    licenses you have paid for or purchased.
    Yes, they had you by the pockets.
    If you don’t believe it, read the 14th
    Amendment. See how “free” you really
    are. Ignorance of the facts led to your
    silence. Silence is construed as
    consent; consent to be obligated for a
    debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign
    People we have been deceived for
    hundreds of years; we think we are
    free, but in truth we are servants of
    the corporation.
    Congress committed treason against
    the People in 1871. Honest men could
    have corrected the fraud and treason. But
    there weren’t enough honest men to
    counteract the lust for money and power.
    We lost more freedom than we will ever
    know, thanks to corporate infiltration of
    our so-called “government”.
    Do you think that any soldier who
    died in any of our many wars would have
    fought if he or she had known the truth?
    Do you think one person would have laid
    down his/her life for a corporation? How
    long will we remain silent? How long will
    we perpetuate THE MYTH that we are
    free? When will we stand together as One
    Sovereign People? When will we take
    back what has been as stolen from the
    us?
    If the People of America had known
    to what extent their trust has been
    betrayed, how long would it have taken
    for a real revolution to occur? What we
    now need is a Revolution in THOUGHT.
    We need to change our thinking, then
    we can change our world. Our children
    deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty
    our ancestors fought to preserve, the
    legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free
    People.

  119. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 25, 2012 - 9:27 pm | Permalink

    The Organic Act of 1871
    “. . . if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?” — I Corinthians 14:8 — 07/25/12
    Maine Republic Email Alert
    “. . . that I should bear witness unto the truth.” — John 18:33 // David E. Robinson, Publisher
    No.174
    1871, February 21: Congress Passed
    an “Act to Provide a Government for the
    District of Columbia”, also known as the
    “Act of 1871”.
    With no constitutional authority to do
    so, Congress created a separate form of
    government for the District of Columbia,
    a ten mile square parcel of land (see,
    Acts of the Forty-first Congress,” Section
    34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
    The act — passed when the country
    was weakened and financially depleted
    in the aftermath of the Civil War — was
    a strategic move by foreign bankers who
    were intent upon gaining a stranglehold
    on the coffers of America.
    Congress cut a deal with the
    international bankers and incurred a
    DEBT to them because they were not
    about to lend money to a floundering
    nation without serious stipulations. So
    they devised a way to get their foot in
    the door of the United States.
    The Act of 1871 formed a corporation
    called THE UNITED STATES.
    The corporation, owned by foreign
    interests, moved in and shoved the
    original Constitution aside. With the Act
    of 1871, the organic Constitution was
    altered when the title was capitalized and
    the word “for” was changed to “of” in the
    title.
    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the
    constitution of the incorporated UNITED
    STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an
    economic capacity and is being used to
    fool the People into thinking that it
    governs the Republic. But it does not!
    Capitalization is significant when one
    is referring to a legal document. This
    seemingly “minor” alteration has had a
    major impact on every subsequent
    generation of Americans.
    What Congress did by passing the
    Act of 1871 was create an entirely new
    document, a constitution for the
    government of the District of Columbia,
    an INCORPORATED business.
    This newly altered Act of 1871
    Constitution was not intended to benefit
    the Republic. It benefits the corporation
    of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    and operates entirely outside the original
    organic Constitution.
    Instead of having absolute and
    unalienable rights guaranteed under the
    organic Constitution, we the people now
    have “relative” rights, or privileges. One
    example is the Sovereign’s right to travel,
    that has now been transformed (under
    corporate government policy) into a
    “privilege” that requires citizens to be
    licensed. (Passports)
    In passing the Act of 1871 Congress
    committed TREASON against the
    People who were Sovereign under the
    grants and decrees of the Declaration of
    Independence and the organic
    Constitution.
    The Act of 1871 became the
    FOUNDATION of all the treason
    committed by government officials ever
    since.
    To fully understand how our rights of
    sovereignty were ended, you must
    understand the full meaning of the word
    sovereign: “Chief or highest, supreme
    power, superior in position to all others;
    independent of and unlimited by others;
    possessing or entitled to; original and
    independent authority or jurisdiction.”
    (Webster).
    In short, our government, which was
    created by and for us as sovereigns —
    free citizens deemed to have the highest
    authority in the land — was stolen from
    us, along with our rights. Keep in mind
    that, according to the original, organic
    Constitution, We the People are
    sovereign; government is not sovereign.
    The Declaration of Independence says
    that “government is subject to the
    consent of the governed”; that’s us.
    We’re sovereigns. When did you last feel
    like a sovereign?
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a
    constitutional historian to figure out that
    the U.S. Government has NOT been
    subject to the consent of the governed
    since long before you or I were born.
    Rather, the governed are subject to
    the whim and greed of the corporation,
    which has stretched its tentacles beyond
    the ten-mile-square parcel of land known
    as the District of Columbia. It has invaded
    every state of the Republic.
    However, the corporation has NO
    jurisdiction beyond the District of
    Columbia. You just think it does.
    You are ‘presumed’ to know the law,
    but We the People are taught NOTHING
    about the law in school. We memorize
    obscure facts and phrases, here and
    there, like the Preamble, which says,
    “We the People…establish this
    Constitution for the United States of
    America.” But our teachers only gloss
    over the Bill of Rights. Our schools, which
    are controlled by the corporate
    government, don’t delve into the
    Constitution in depth.
    The corporation was established to
    indoctrinate and ‘dumb-down’ the
    masses, not to teach anything of value
    or importance. Certainly, no one
    mentioned that America was “sold-out”
    to foreign interests, and that we were
    obligated to pay the debt incurred by
    Congress, or that we are in debt to the
    international bankers.
    Yet, for generations, Americans have
    had the bulk of their earnings confiscated
    to pay a massive debt that they did not
    incur and do not owe.
    There’s an endless stream of things
    that the People aren’t told. And, now that
    you are being told, how do you feel about
    being made the recipient of a debt
    without your knowledge or consent?
    After passage of the Act of 1871
    Maine Republic Free State News, 3 Linnell Circle, Brunswick, Maine 04011
    http://maine-patriot.com
    2
    Congress set a series of subtle and overt
    deceptions into motion, deceptions in the
    form of decisions that were meant to sell
    us down the river. Over time, the Republic
    took it on the chin until it was knocked
    down and counted out by a technical KO
    [knock out].
    With the surrender of the people’s
    gold in 1933, the ‘common herd’ was
    placed under illegitimate law.
    (I’ll bet you weren’t taught THIS in
    school.)
    Our corporate form of government is
    based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty
    or Maritime Law, which is also known as
    the “Divine Right of Kings” and the “Law
    of the Seas” — another fact of American
    history not taught in our schools.
    Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully
    established in the colonies before our
    nation began, and then became
    managed by private international law. In
    other words, the government — the
    government created for the District of
    Columbia via the Act of 1871 – operates
    under Private International Law, not the
    Common Law foundation of our
    Constitutional Republic.
    This fact has impacted all Americans
    in concrete ways. For instance, although
    Private International Law is technically
    only applicable within the District of
    Columbia, and NOT in the other states
    of the Union, the arms of the Corporation
    of THE UNITED STATES are called
    “departments”: the Justice Department;
    the Treasury Department; etc. And these
    departments affect everyone, no matter
    where and in what state they live.
    Each department belongs to the
    corporation — to THE UNITED STATES.
    “Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE
    (USC). Note the capitalization; this is
    evidence of a corporation, not of a
    Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002
    (15)(A)(B)(C), it is unequivocally stated
    that the UNITED STATES is a
    corporation.
    Translation: the corporation is NOT a
    separate and distinct entity; it is not
    disconnected from the government; it IS
    the government — your government.
    This is extremely important! I refer to
    it as the “Corporate EMPIRE of the
    UNITED STATES” which operates under
    Roman Civil Law outside the original
    Constitution. How do you like being ruled
    by a corporation?
    You say you’ll ask your Congressperson
    about this? “HA!! “
    Congress is fully aware of this
    deception. So it’s time that you, too, be
    aware of the deception. What this great
    deception means is that the members
    of Congress do NOT work for us, for
    you and me. They work for the
    Corporation, for the UNITED STATES.
    No wonder we can’t get them to do
    anything on our behalf, or meet or
    demands, or answer our questions.
    Technically, legally, or any other way
    you want to look at the matter, the
    corporate government of the UNITED
    STATES has no jurisdiction or
    authority in ANY State of the Union
    (the Republic) beyond the District of
    Columbia.
    Let that tidbit sink in, then ask
    yourself, could this deception have
    occurred without the full knowledge and
    complicity of the Congress? Do you think
    it happened by accident? If you do,
    you’re deceiving yourself.
    There are no accidents, no
    coincidences. Face the facts and
    confront the truth. Remember, you are
    presumed to know the law. THEY know
    you don’t know the law or, for that matter,
    your history. Why?
    Because no concerted effort was ever
    made to teach or otherwise inform you.
    As a Sovereign, you are entitled to full
    disclosure of all facts. As a slave, you
    are entitled to nothing other than what
    the corporation decides to ‘give’ you.
    Remember also that “Ignorance of the
    law is no excuse.” It’s your responsibility
    and obligation to learn the law and know
    how it applies to you. No wonder the Act
    of 1871 corporation counted on the fact
    that most people are too indifferent,
    unconcerned, distracted, or lazy to learn
    what they need to know to survive within
    the system. We have been conditioned
    to let the government do our thinking for
    us. Now’s the time to turn that around if
    we intend to help save our Republic and
    ourselves — before it’s too late.
    As an instrument of the international
    bankers, the UNITED STATES owns you
    from birth to death. It also holds ownership
    of all your assets, of your property, even
    of your children. Think long and hard
    about all the bills taxes, fines, and
    licenses you have paid for or purchased.
    Yes, they had you by the pockets.
    If you don’t believe it, read the 14th
    Amendment. See how “free” you really
    are. Ignorance of the facts led to your
    silence. Silence is construed as
    consent; consent to be obligated for a
    debt you did not incur. As a Sovereign
    People we have been deceived for
    hundreds of years; we think we are
    free, but in truth we are servants of
    the corporation.
    Congress committed treason against
    the People in 1871. Honest men could
    have corrected the fraud and treason. But
    there weren’t enough honest men to
    counteract the lust for money and power.
    We lost more freedom than we will ever
    know, thanks to corporate infiltration of
    our so-called “government”.
    Do you think that any soldier who
    died in any of our many wars would have
    fought if he or she had known the truth?
    Do you think one person would have laid
    down his/her life for a corporation? How
    long will we remain silent? How long will
    we perpetuate THE MYTH that we are
    free? When will we stand together as One
    Sovereign People? When will we take
    back what has been as stolen from the
    us?
    If the People of America had known
    to what extent their trust has been
    betrayed, how long would it have taken
    for a real revolution to occur? What we
    now need is a Revolution in THOUGHT.
    We need to change our thinking, then
    we can change our world. Our children
    deserve their rightful legacy — the liberty
    our ancestors fought to preserve, the
    legacy of a Sovereign and Fully Free
    People.

  120. anarchyst's Gravatar anarchyst
    July 25, 2012 - 8:43 pm | Permalink

    @Marcy Fleming:
    It’s not !Q, but cultural and social insularity that makes the jews so successful. The number one reason for Jewish “success” is that Jews look out for each other.
    It is much easier to get into any field of study or profession if “your own kind” is already there to “grease the skids” and make it easier for you to excel. When you know the correct answers to the “test” and impart them to your offspring and social peers, success is just about guaranteed.
    Whites would do well to emulate Jewish cohesiveness and cultural insularity.
    It is a shame that many Jews fight against us whites when we attempt to emulate their cohesiveness and cultural insularity, the reasons for their (and potentially our) success.

  121. July 25, 2012 - 8:38 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar: I will be very eager to read David Irving’s Himmler biography as soon as it’s available as a free download. I am hoping that he won’t be as pusillanimous as he was with his Goebbels biography.

    The pro-Holohoax propaganda is ubiquitous. That’s what has to be addressed, since that’s what convinces ordinary people. I saw the miniseries Holocaust; I saw World at War; I sat through Schindler’s List, and I am sure many other biased representatiosn that I forgot. In most mainstream books about Hitler or National-Socialist Germany you have to wade through a lot of passages that regurgitate Jewish sado-masochistic fantasy. Even John Toland included a good bit of it in his Adolf Hitler, although he was trying to be honest and the Holohoax story was inconsistent with the rest of his narrative. Nobody develops an interest in revisionist material until after being exposed to pro-Holohoax propaganda. In that light your question as to whether I ever entertained the other side of the question is just weird.

  122. July 25, 2012 - 8:16 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Let’s suppose for a minute that you are the honest one here. Why haven’t you responded my already iterated question: When David Irving’s study on Himmler is released will you read it? I.e., Are you willing to listen to the “prosecutor” once in your life without “leaving the courtroom”? (the same question goes for Carolyn Yeager of course). Or are you going to avoid cognitive dissonance at all cost?

  123. Noble Lord's Gravatar Noble Lord
    July 25, 2012 - 8:07 pm | Permalink

    @Helvena:

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:

    You get it!

    SOME DAYS ARE WORKING DAYS!

  124. Noble Lord's Gravatar Noble Lord
    July 25, 2012 - 7:51 pm | Permalink

    @Matthias:

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:

    I am human and made many typos and i feel i was a bit harsh with you and perhaps antagonistic, so i apologise.

    If only you were listening to these influential white en and women, who’s racism, for once is good, because there is NO BLACKMAN OR WOMAN, on the air nauseating me with Jewish lies!

    Oops their is one……..there’s always one!

    Out numbered by white men ( offensivelt pro jew), homosexuals (aplenty) and feminist women (nearly all jewish with gentile names), the real Jew b’std lackeys!

    Come on peeps flash mob UK radio with “Operation throwdown”!

  125. July 25, 2012 - 7:50 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: Greg Johnson, you’ve been ripped to shreds here. Your main response has been to throw insults.

  126. July 25, 2012 - 7:46 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:So Mickey Meadoes, if I understand correctly, your gist is that it’s fine for Greg Johnson to be dishonest. Let’s just be clear that this is your position.

  127. July 25, 2012 - 7:32 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Hadding: “Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, usw.”

    Anything but deal honestly with my arguments.

  128. July 25, 2012 - 7:29 pm | Permalink

    @MOB:

    Wow, thanks MOB. This means a lot, particularly since we have crossed swords in the past.

  129. Noble Lord's Gravatar Noble Lord
    July 25, 2012 - 7:21 pm | Permalink

    @Matthias:

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:

    Nice of you to pony up, i have no prodlem educating the dim.

    Excuse my barb, but this is a war for truth over deception and what you have offered is mere deception at best and typical, so called White Nationalism thinking at its worst!

    First of all i did not come here to join a sinking Titanic, i came to save a ship with worty passengers aboard and why?

    You are being manipulated by Jews and it is sickening to see ok!

    Do not mention what you have no idea of, ie the BNP and Nick Griffen and if you must wonder…Yet again a white org coopted by the Jews and now he’s an MEP getting paid in the EU!

    I know Nick didn’t get a decent and honest appearance,, but HE KNEW HE WOULDN’T AND DID HE DENY THE HOLOCAUST ON THAT PLATFORM, OR JUST CONFORM, PLAY ACT FOR YOU, SO HE CAN GET A NICE JOB AND SNOOKER THE “WHITE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT” HAS SOME HATE GROUP?

    You tell me?

    It’s obvious to me that you have little knowledge of the history of the FBI and who had the who on who to effect the proverbial on who.

    Really you guys cannot even fathom the jews in this forum let alone discuss the freaking FBI and that’s me telling YOU!

    Forget your Jew organised crime stats, lets discuss how much you luuurve a comfort stat from a Jew Richard Hernstein, ie “The bell curve” and the obvious hasn’t hit your wooden head yet!lolol

    It’s hard HARD loving a brother who is intent on destruction and personally i’ve left my own brother to his own, as he is just him, one, but here i speak to an ethnic group who have continuously been fed crap from the Jew and just because YOU CANNOT SEE PAST THE COLOUR, you cherry pick his lies to stand firm to.

    No science of great import is genuion UNTIL he is removed from weding himself in the hierarchy of the decsision making and it appears I HAD TO TELL YOUR DUMB ASS THAT!

    Forgive my righteous indignation here, but really dude?

    There is nothing NOTHING, no crime you can say is specific to blacks that is soooo horrific that white equally cannot do and i add, perhaps you may think so….. Call it!

    Get your sick bag ready as i trump your ace!

    Now, i’m not getting into a dick length contest, but why bother with the flawed ideology?

    Does it make you feel happy and warm inside, if so, let’s allow you to hug your comfort blanket a little more, say 5 years and then you’ll get the picture eh?

    When i was a child son, i saw evil as white men and only white men could be so evil. My parents were never that way, they always taught me, basicallyy y’all stupid and we have work twice as hard to get a job, or achieve, albeit they didn’t say y’all stupid, but that what i see now.

    Get this and get this straight!

    1/. YOU gave the JEW his power buying into his crap not the black man!

    Why is it he finds you easy?

    2/. The Jew Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray wrote the book the “Bell curve”, which one of those two had the background to make such a claim and why is it white grabbed onto the fact that blacks are supposedly dimmer than whites, but whites dimmer than the jew, yet y;all swear by it todasy!lololol

    3/. What Gay Edgar hoover’s view on black people and who pulled his strings?

    4/. Blacks did better under segregation, believe that, or what i’ve read weeellll i could be wrong! NOT!

    5/. I have a great respect for the good things white people do, but YOU have sold out to thet JEW on the basis of a false history and place on the world stage!

    5/. You still celebrate “Columbus day”” er er Cristobal Colon a JEW!

    Admit it bruh, your head needs rinsing out and listening to this negro may educate you on some issues of great import.

    Don’t get me wrong, you are on the end of a man who’s hearing explsions, or fireworks and helicopters near the Olympc site and i’ve had a bottle of wine, so i may sound a little vex with your your your uhm querk, but believe me, no one owns the depth of crime and hate than the Jew.

    Lastly, i will admit that i see some sickening and what i would have termed unbelievable crimes committed by blacks and how well they have been trained, traumatised, used and abused and sold a bag of roaches for diamonds/leaderss. All controlled of course.

    Oh by the way, Marcus Garvey had a plan to move the African American back to Africa, buuuuuut a certain Jewish group and their HELPERS stopped that and i wonder who they were?

    A dog can be trained to open the fridge door, but only A FOOL would think it’s in their nature!

    Over to you.lolol

    A DAY IS BUT A BLINK OF AN EYE AND REALLY IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU MISS NOTHING.

  130. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 25, 2012 - 7:16 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Hadding, you raise the concept of honesty quite a lot and I was wondering if you could help clarify your thinking by answering a couple of ‘thought experiment’ questions.

    1. In your view does the word machiavellian equate to ‘dishonest’?
    2. If the european people could not be saved without sometimes deploying dishonest approaches, would it be better not to save them?
    3. In a war, is the use of secret services for subterfuge dishonest?
    Thanks hadding…these answers will help me understand.

  131. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 25, 2012 - 7:04 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Hadding/Greg/MOB/Carolyn,
    Would you mind stopping for a moment to explain the strategic necessities underlying this apparent falling out. Why can’t there be a movement that attempts to get some traction using using Holocaust revision at the same time as another movement that leaves the Holocaust out, or strategically acknowledges Jewish suffering, or whatever.
    There is such thing as trial by fire, or natural selection, or however you want to picture it. If a movement becomes sucessfull then that is what makes it ‘right’.

  132. July 25, 2012 - 6:22 pm | Permalink

    The fact that Johnson really hasn’t stepped over the Jewish Holocaust story is evident in the fact that he is so uncomfortable with it.

  133. July 25, 2012 - 6:17 pm | Permalink

    I should clarify, to head off potential confusion, that the expression of Johnathan Bowden’s that Johnson uses with a completely different meaning is “step over.”

  134. July 25, 2012 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

    @MOB:

    I’m not quite sure where the attack on Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents fit in. Maybe like Mark Weber and David Irving and a few others whose names I’ve forgotten, Greg just happens to be in the way.

    The problem with Greg Johnson is that he is a bit dishonest. The way he uses the name and the words of Johnathan Bowden — who said, “There’s nothing wrong with Fascism. Nothing wrong with Fascism at all.” — to excuse running away from “fascism” and whatever thorny issues may be attached, is dishonest. Where Bowden advocated courage and overcoming, Johnson makes excuses and runs away, while pretending that it’s what Bowden advocates.

    Given that Johnson has defined “Old Right” in a way that nobody, not even Alain de Benoist, ever used the term before, with the transparent purpose of creating an artificial line of demarcation between himself and “fascism,” what Johnson does now with this anti-revisionist essay is rather obvious.

  135. July 25, 2012 - 5:10 pm | Permalink

    To return to your excessive praise of Greg, you might be interested in the opinion of a respected poster which I find very cogent. “The best reason I know for exposing the fairytale for what it is, is that the exposure has consequences. In no other case has the jew stuck his nose out so far. And not just one of them, it’s the whole f**king tribe, in unison. And it is only the tribe, out there all on their own. Once the lie is exposed so is the jew, left standing completely naked as either insanely superstitious or insanely evil. (With a hand full of exceptions) It’s the wedge that splits the log.

  136. July 25, 2012 - 4:52 pm | Permalink

    @Mob, I’ve never had the impression Carolyn wasn’t concerned about White issues. I find your attack of Carolyn curious and given that your first post was number 613, who prompted you? I’ve enjoyed Greg and Carolyn’s go around, it’s thought provoking and isn’t that what we want? Carolyn explained why she left VOR. I don’t know what you are trying to insuate about her or Tan but I find the tone vicious and I’m sure others do as well. If you have something to say to her, then have the good manners to keep it private. If you have something to say about her then speak plainly, not everyone wants to waste their time with your arch manner.

  137. Huntelaar's Gravatar Huntelaar
    July 25, 2012 - 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Holocaust revisionism will not substantially solve any problems for whites. The attacks on western history and white guilt are far from being sourced from that alone, they stretch from the crusades to colonialism. Liberals have made up their minds; westerners are evil and our history is vile and detestable.

    That one could delude oneself into believing that holocaust revisionism is of crucial importance to white survivalism is rather reflective of something else: ideological bias. It’s not a surprise that most of the people who espouse such a view are NS attempting to rehabilitate the third reich’s reputation, or something like that – which is an immoral and futile effort, and unbelievably harmful to the cause of whites because it fuels the fires of villainization of white activism and firmly keeps its fringe status intact. But the people who espouse such views don’t care because they don’t live in the real world and don’t think in realist terms.

  138. MOB's Gravatar MOB
    July 25, 2012 - 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Thanks to TOO for giving Greg Johnson the opportunity to present this thoughtful analysis of the merit of including holocaust revisionism as an active component of White Nationalism. No one could have done a better job; Greg’s gift for logical analysis is on regular display in his writings and broadcasts at Counter-Currents, as well as elsewhere.

    Greg’s essay presents the case that holocaust revisionism is an important area of study, but that it is not an essential or necessarily helpful component of White Nationalism. He defines it, differentiates it from ordinary historical revisionism, and one by one explains why its various aspects lack the ability to significantly change people’s present feelings about the event, which work against White interests. Clearly and objectively the proofs he provides support his conclusion. Aside from minor disagreement on particular details, it’s hard to see how this remarkably well thought out analysis could have provoked such a vituperative attack on its author. He writes,

    “Holocaust revisionism, true or false, is not a necessary component of our intellectual project. Which is not the same thing as saying that it is a hindrance, or that it cannot help under any circumstances, although it is often a distraction. My main concern is with the genocide being committed against our own people today, not real or imagined crimes committed by our people in the past. The Holocaust strikes me as having little to do with the deep causes of our racial plight and less to do with the solutions. The proper aim of Holocaust revisionism is historical truth. The aim of White Nationalism is the creation of White homelands. Although the ranks of revisionists and White Nationalists overlap, there is no necessary connection between the two. If one’s goal is historical truth about the Holocaust, to rehabilitate National Socialism and the Third Reich, or to cleanse the German people of blood libels, then Holocaust revisionism makes perfect sense. But if one’s aim is White Nationalism, then Holocaust revisionism is not necessary.”

    Regardless of the respect the author showed for the work of the holocaust revisionists, a respect I’m sure most of us here share, certain people were not going to take those words sitting down. Foremost, of course, CarolynYeager© who selected wartime Germany-related matters as her area of expertise when she entered these circles 5 years ago, stating in an email “I’ll let others handle the decline of the white race — it’s too big. ” “The Holocaust” became the major focus on which she built her reputation.

    Last month Carolyn and her radio show parted ways with Voice of Reason. She quickly allied with Tanstaafl, who was dealing with his own problem — her radio enterprise and his web skills were a mutually beneficial match. By that time she had realized that holocaust revisionism alone is in the margins with limited visibility, little known participants, and no career path to the top. She wanted a larger playing field. She needed a make-over.

    No problem. Out with “The Heretics Hour.” In with “The White Network.”

    Having one’s own radio show on one’s own website enables one to fill a stable with people grateful for the exposure, preferably people with a fan base, which fans give weight to the website. Apparently one of Carolyn’s first broadcasts from the new website featured an attack on Counter-Currents. The website’s first Yeager-Hadding project features Henry Ford’s The International Jew–the book about which Kevin MacDonald has written extensively. It’s all pretty transparent. I’m not quite sure where the attack on Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents fit in. Maybe like Mark Weber and David Irving and a few others whose names I’ve forgotten, Greg just happens to be in the way.

    I agree with almost all of the conclusions Greg draws in his essay. Most of us are familiar with the findings of holocaust revisionism; I read many varied articles as a proofreader for Germar Rudolf’s magazine. Most of us understand the allegations and rebuttals. No need to revisit any of it on a regular basis.

    Of greater importance (and interest), not only to us, but to everyone everywhere–are the patterns and processes of inherently predatory Jewish behavior, and the predictable parallels between past and present Jew-instigated White misfortune. These connect the past and present, activate awareness, and hopefully will make some cauldrons in the U.S. start bubbling, as they appear to be doing in Scandinavia.

  139. July 25, 2012 - 2:07 pm | Permalink

    @Freki:

    I would not say “closely” if you think that implies mutual endorsement of all positions, which is not possible given the way intellectual movements work anyway. Faye is intellectually closer to Dugin than Benoist, but Eurasianism is not the same thing as the ENR, even though they share common concerns and intellectual influences.

  140. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    July 25, 2012 - 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Matthias, it doesn’t matter one iota if establishment seals and general population imbeciles go on about ‘denial’ because the only issue on any subject is the truth. Only historical know-nothings can find anything of value in Greg Johnson’s confused babbling.
    The fact is that there are too many problems with the traditional ‘holocaust’ or Shoah story and as the anomalies build up a new paradigm is likely to emerge as Thomas Kuhn
    demonstrated in The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.
    We Jews are alleged to have higher IQs than the slower witted Gentiles and thus are able to put things over on them for a long time before the oxen arouse from their deep slumbers.
    This is a pure Jewish Race racist theory that I personally don’t subscribe to and that I think Shlomo Sand has demolished in The Invention Of The Jewish People. Nor does my Jewish Mom
    or my late Irish Dad.
    But to the rare intellectually honest person the only issue is truth, not whether it benefits or harms any particular group.A concept totally alien to the Greg Johnsons of this world.

  141. Freki's Gravatar Freki
    July 25, 2012 - 11:02 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:
    Is it true that the European New Right is closely associated with the Eurasianists? Benoit is certainly associated with people like Dugin. Eurasianists certainly have a lot in common with neocons.

  142. July 25, 2012 - 10:33 am | Permalink

    @Organon:

    Funny, it didn’t seem like me. But I guess I write too many sentences to recognize every one when it is quoted back! Very well. Even if it was just a paraphrase, it is a position I have defended.

  143. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 25, 2012 - 10:27 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    You said:

    “I want a Jew-free America, and I am glad Israel exists, so we have a place to send them to.

    I think that WNs who want Israel to fail are guilty of hating Jews more than they love our own people.

    If Israel fails, where do you think all those Jews are going to go? A lot of them will end up here, which is the last thing that we should want.”

    Answer:

    You bring up an interesting point but the problem is that the power centers of the world are in route to being transferred to “Israel”. Couple this with the “Jews” controlling our immigration process through domination of our politics, media, finance and Gov and we whites are in a no win situation. The bible calls this Jacob’s trouble and this is why I am highly suspicious of anyone who tries to demonize Christian whites who understand the truth about the biblical reality of who the “Jews” admit to being and who the white-European peoples at the four corners of the earth really are.

    Like I said before, 3 major lies about the “Jews” must be made known to Christian whites and let’s face it, we are the majority among the white population.

    1. The Jews are not Judah/Israel but admit to being Ashkenaz (japeth lineage) and Esau (the one’s Christ/God says he hates
    2. The holocaust has been used to destroy European-white Christian nations to create an anti Christ state.
    3. Whites/Europeans/Christians are those who are the real Israel/Judah as even confirmed in the New Testament.

    Let’s say for example that CI is completely wrong- ok? Let’s say that is a bold face lie-all of it.

    Would you want those lands that are destined to be the center of future world dominance (Israel) controlled by the “Jews” and their talmudic ways and holocaust lies or by white/European Christians under New Test law-Common law?

    This is why I keep trying to explain that the key to upsetting the “Jews” rule in our own lands is within the Christian community. Our lawful Governments MUST be re-inhabited. We must win our wars against Jewish and Muslim powers here at our present home. This will drive the “Jews” back to so called Israel. The “Jews” are fast approaching a time when they will have no other choice than to allow masses of whites (dupes so they think) to enter their lands if they ever hope to hold onto the area and not be destroyed. It is then, when we fill up those lands that we will be in a position to finally deal with the Esau “Jews”. Where do you think whites are going to go as we are being pushed out of our nations we barely posses now?

    If we lose these wars at home brought on by the “Jews”- we will have to go somewhere-right? Why not “Israel”?

    If we win at home- we cannot allow the “Jews” to rule them anymore-right? If we win at home- how many of us will be left in our native lands today to maintain control? Would it be better to live outside the center of world power or within it?

    The idea of sovereign nation states as existed in the past is moot. If we allow the “Jews” to rule at home or out of “Israel” we are finished as a people- we will go the way of the dinosaur. So my previous propositions as to a solution have merit- would you not agree?

  144. July 25, 2012 - 9:58 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    Are those my words in quotes, or yours?

    Those are your words, taken from point 12 of this essay.

  145. July 25, 2012 - 4:25 am | Permalink

    @Matthias: I see that you are one of those clever people with the moistened finger in the breeze, You call it “Holyhoax” but you recommend genuflecting before it. Patent dishonesty.

  146. Matthias's Gravatar Matthias
    July 25, 2012 - 3:53 am | Permalink

    Noble Lord, there ARE crimes exclusive to blacks that Whites will not do:

    The FBI has for years kept a behavioral psych division which quietly put out papers on various types of crimes. In the words of one of their lead researchers:

    Of all the metrics of black violent crime against whites the sexual homicide of elderly white women offers the most compelling evidence of race hatred toward the victim. For starters, the motives of the perp in any sexual homicide of an elderly woman is pure hatred. His victim is largely symbolic. His motive is not lust but extreme hatred.

    (Special Agent Mark E. Safarik, a profiler in the Behavioral Analysis Unit at the FBI Academy, published in the May issue of the Journal of Interpersonal Violence)

    The study involved a review of 110 offenders who perpetrated the rape and murder of 128 women 60 years and older. The mean age of the victims was 77 and 97% were black on White. The gut wrenching comes in the last paragraph, in the interview section (!) almost buried and forgotten, an aside:

    “Based on other reports, Safarik says that there has never been a case of sexual homicide involving a white offender and an elderly black victim in modern times. Yet the sexual homicide of elderly white women by black men is epidemic in comparison.”

    Someday might be interested to learn that his hypothetical scenario of a WN being grilled about the Holyhoax on live tv by a hostile audience actually happened to Nick Griffin of the BNP a while back on the big BBC ‘debate’…remember his response?

    I thought Mr Johnson’s article was quite good. I can’t help thinking that that those who oppose our good Prof. Kmac and seek to ostracize his message could hope for no better than to link his efforts with the death-kiss of ‘holocaust DENIAL’. IMO

  147. July 25, 2012 - 3:47 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks: The only way that any belief in the “Holocaust” can survive is if people continue to discuss it without clarifying exactly what they mean by that word.

    Sometimes, if you ever discuss the matter with a Jew, you might find the pro-Holocaust argument resolving into, “If only one Jew died, it was a Holocaust.” I’ve heard that a few times. It’s an exploitation of the fact that the term Holocaust has been left undefined. He’s essentially saying that facts don’t matter; he’s saying that whatever happened, we are going to call that the Holocaust and insist on its importance. But then the groundless claim of six million murdered Jews will be asserted anyway.

    I don’t see why a rational White person would condescend to participate in that kind of thinking. We Westerners have known since Socrates and Plato the importance of using clear and fixed definitions in an argument, but we let Jews get away with not doing that.

    The intellectual foundation was already during the trials of Ernst Zundel in the 1980s and early 90s for the Holocaust to be deader than dead among thinking Westerners. It’s only timidity, I think, that has kept the death of the Holocaust from being universally recognized among educated people. People have been told that they are cruel anti-Semites if they don’t indulge the Jews in their Holocaust myth, and people who have some social status are usually very eager not to be seen that way; so if they start to have any doubts, they try not to think about it. I think it’s very similar to how people try not to have doubts about their religion. If Nietzsche were alive today, he might say, The Holocaust is dead and has been for a long time! You people are just afraid to admit it!

  148. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 25, 2012 - 3:38 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    I think everyone agrees that the specific claims of some Jews about this or that technique can be false, or that the numbers can be exaggerated.

    I think that everyone agrees that there is such a thing as exaggeration , and then there is such a thing as the biggest promotion of mass deception that the world has ever seen.
    A deception that is so obvious to those who value the truth but yet so massively promoted that it has legs.


    You asked if I sensed that people were getting skeptical of the holocaust. I have no idea. I would have expected more skepticism decades ago.

    Decades ago is when the big H broken record was just starting to play loud .
    It’s starting to lose it’s effect on the masses just like the “racist” broken record is.
    The more they play it , the more it back fires. But they have to play it because with out it, their house of cards crumbles. Not a good place for the enemy of white advocacy to be.

  149. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 25, 2012 - 2:58 am | Permalink

    @John hearns:

    No, that’s not helpful. I think everyone agrees that the specific claims of some Jews about this or that technique can be false, or that the numbers can be exaggerated. But that is not what people are thinking of when they discuss “the holocaust”. And of course, what “the holocaust” is will change over time, as needed for both political purposes and depending on facts that come out.

    You asked if I sensed that people were getting skeptical of the holocaust. I have no idea. I would have expected more skepticism decades ago.

  150. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 25, 2012 - 2:45 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Well is it quite as open-and-shut a case as that? It isn’t quite like proving or disproving a physical law. History is a different field from physics, which has its own set of laws and problems. There are all kinds of controversies over historical events that have raged for centuries, and they don’t even involve any real political angle.

    Look at the controversies over the War of Northern Aggression – or Civil War – or War Between the States – or War created by Jews to divide America – you get the idea. History has never been as black and white as the physical sciences, for all sorts of reasons – some legitimate, some due to political corruption. And none of that will change.

    I don’t really know how to best characterize the treatment of Jews during WWII in Europe. I don’t trust what 99.9% of history books tell me. But I am not sure I can trust all the revisionists either. But maybe they are right.

    However, there must be something about the revisionist history that isn’t quite such knock-down proof, or otherwise doesn’t quite ring true, because I don’t see too many otherwise honest scholars like MacDonald embracing it.

    So, historians should pursue the truth without regard to political feelings. But “the Holocaust” is likely to be something that continues to exercise real political power for the next several decades – in fact, it is stronger now than it was 25 years ago. So, somehow, political parties need to operate in that environment, if they want to be something other than in a state of hibernation.

  151. July 25, 2012 - 2:42 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    If Israel fails, where do you think all those Jews are going to go?

    Many Jews are already leaving. Apparently they tend to go back to wherever they lived before.

  152. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 25, 2012 - 2:41 am | Permalink

    correction:

    They were Germans so they knew about chem-ee-cals and they were not so stupid as to use bug killer if they ever did want to do something [THAT SHOULD BE ] completely unbelievable for Germans to do , like to kill a whole race of people.

  153. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 25, 2012 - 2:35 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:


    I have no way of knowing the veracity of the various revisionist claims. My impression is that it’s not quite as clear cut as some on both sides would like to convey.

    Ok, let’s clear it up.
    Bug killer is not people killer. Bug killer is bug killer. It kills bugs.
    They were Germans so they knew about chem-ee-cals and they were not so stupid as to use bug killer if they ever did want to do something completely unbelievable for Germans to do , like to kill a whole race of people.

    Diesel makes smoke that does not contain enough carbon monoxide to kill people. Germans knew about this because they were Germans and they know stuff like this because they are good at engineering and engines and smoke and gases and all that sort of stuff.

    Is this helpful ?

  154. July 25, 2012 - 2:24 am | Permalink

    @Organon:

    Are those my words in quotes, or yours?

    I want a Jew-free America, and I am glad Israel exists, so we have a place to send them to.

    I think that WNs who want Israel to fail are guilty of hating Jews more than they love our own people.

    If Israel fails, where do you think all those Jews are going to go? A lot of them will end up here, which is the last thing that we should want.

  155. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 25, 2012 - 2:11 am | Permalink

    @John hearns:

    I have no idea when the public will catch on. I felt I was being manipulated by the whole Holocaust Story way back in school, although at the time I had no reason to doubt it happened. I can feel propaganda when it’s thrown at me. The other side has successfully silenced all debate on the issue through smears and government oppression.

    I have no way of knowing the veracity of the various revisionist claims. My impression is that it’s not quite as clear cut as some on both sides would like to convey. But whatever the truth is, historians should pursue it ruthlessly, without regard to how palatable it is to the public or the authorities.

    However, I think it is also true that there is a practical game of politics (yes I said ‘game’) that has to be understood by its own rules. We are involved in a war with an enemy that has no interest in playing fair, uses force, and has hornswoggled most of the people who should be on our side. I don’t have a playbook for how to deal with the political terrain, I just know it is somewhat different from that historian’s world.

  156. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 25, 2012 - 2:09 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    As with Pat , not all people in high places of power are completely corrupted. I would think that there is a kind of underlying rolling of the eyes in the highest avenues of power at the mention of the big H. It must suck to be a big H promoter since with all that is happening in the world , they must have to feel like anyone at any given moment is about to make cat calls and snicker when they have to go on with their “nevah foe-git” spiel.
    Of course, with the small help of some pro-whites, they won’t be made fun of , just yet.

  157. July 25, 2012 - 1:48 am | Permalink

    @John hearns: Pat Buchanan has even dabbled in revisionism, 20 years or so back. He attacked the idea that Jews could have been gassed with diesel engines. When Buchanan talks about flaws and impossibilities in the Holocaust story, one may assume that a large number of his readers also are willing to give it consideration.

  158. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 25, 2012 - 1:37 am | Permalink

    Thanks Trenchant and send it to Oprah with the note
    ” Here’s the truth sistah , now you go girl ”
    I’m sure she will soon be doing a revisionist special on network tv.

    I have read oodles of revisionist literature. I find it interesting in that it’s amazing that the Germans were so
    reserved in the face of their enemy within. But, reserve is what Germans are famous for.

    JS, ok, the same could be said of white advocacy in general. I’m more optimistic . I would say that there are very many people fed up with the holohoax promotion agenda. It’s pretty obvious to many that there is something not on the up and up with blatant, constant, in-your-face show of holohoax promotional force.
    Do you not detect that?

  159. July 25, 2012 - 1:32 am | Permalink

    @Richard:

    Of course I don’t know them, or you. So if my comment is inappropriate, I hope you will forgive me.

    Go to my blog Fallen Leaves and follow the White Rabbit (this discussion is most inappropriate for TOO).

  160. July 25, 2012 - 1:18 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    I have no idea who will set the record straight about events in WWII. But I don’t think it will be modern day National Socialists nor anyone among the White Nationalists.

    It’s already been done. You’re just like somebody saying, around the time of Galileo, “I don’t know when somebody’s going to prove that the Earth goes around the Sun.” IT’S BEEN DONE.

    It takes time for truth to catch on.

  161. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 25, 2012 - 12:46 am | Permalink

    @John hearns: Here’s one for Oprah’s book club.
    http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/HoaxV2.pdf

  162. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 25, 2012 - 12:37 am | Permalink

    @John hearns:

    I have no idea who will set the record straight about events in WWII. But I don’t think it will be modern day National Socialists nor anyone among the White Nationalists. It will probably come in several generations, after the current batch of historians die, and a new environment exists. That’s just the way things work.

    I’m not suggesting anyone, including the NS and WN crew stop talking, I’m just saying I don’t think it has much impact on the public view of anything. In fact, I know it doesn’t.

  163. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    July 25, 2012 - 12:24 am | Permalink

    The Sacred Nature of Six Million in the Judaic Religion

    http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3293426.0

  164. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 25, 2012 - 12:23 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    The truth, hopefully, will out. But I’m afraid it will take some time.

    The truth has been out from the beginning. It’s important that the lies are refuted.


    There are myths about White men that deliberately infecting Native Americans with smallpox that are still widely believed, even though they are false. If you don’t believe the myth you are considered an apologist and a hater.

    Yes, yet another example of how the enemy tirelessly creates false white guilt in the psych war on whites.
    It’s essential that these lies be refuted. It’s a duty.


    I don’t know how the various mythologies of World War II will be finally debunked but my feeling is that it won’t be done in a highly charged partisan atmosphere.

    Huh ?
    If highly charged pro white partisans are not going to refute anti-white lies then who the heck will?
    Oprah?

  165. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    July 25, 2012 - 12:23 am | Permalink
  166. Z.O.G.'s Gravatar Z.O.G.
    July 24, 2012 - 11:59 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    Sounds like you’re avoiding the issue, again and again.

    Do you believe 6 million Jews were killed in homicidal gas chambers or not?

    Stop trying to have it both ways, you coward.

  167. July 24, 2012 - 11:16 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    I have no problem in allowing Alex Linder to say whatever he wants to say in his interview. He is there so listeners can hear what he thinks. It’s pretty well known what he thinks about Jews so it’s not “shocking” to me to hear him say it. Plus he talks at such a fast rate that I don’t think I even noticed since I don’t remember it. I will have to listen again.

    Jews say horrific and outrageous things on radio and TV about German atrocities that never happened; this is slander and defamation but no one cares about it, no one gets upset. Linder is ethnic German so I guess he can say outrageous things about Jews. He doesn’t have the power to carry anything like that out, and everyone knows it, including himself. So I think you are trying to make an issue of something that isn’t.

    You are being just a little dishonest when you imply in your comment to me that Linder is National Socialist, but admit you heard him say he wasn’t to Hadding’s reply to you. Or are you meaning that I am National Socialist and I am approving of what Linder says? Alex Linder is for sure a White Nationalist, but he doesn’t like Nazism, it turns out. He also said he hasn’t been on a radio program for a few years, so it’s not like he’s making the rounds of WN shows, as you also kind of implied.

    What happened to the Germans really happened, and over 10 million CIVILIANS and POW’s (we can actually count the number) died through intentional abuse, firebombing, starvation, disease, forced expulsion and murder largely because it was desired by Jews and much of it at the hands of Jews. And we’re here being told that the death of a few thousand Jews was a catastrophe – a holocaust! – in the minds of the Jews and thus for all of us. And the White race, seeking its own salvation, should “walk or step over this” and leave it behind. And if you don’t think so, you are being “emotional” and need to gain objectivity. It is mostly people of Anglo ethnicity who are telling us this. If this smacks people here as divisive, I am sorry but it is true. It’s impossible not to notice.

    What Alex Linder says about extermination has not happened, and will not happen, but you, Jason, would rather focus on the speculative than on a reality that really occurred but is not “politically” comfortable to “deal with.”

    You end by saying, “I realize it isn’t fair to hold anyone here accountable for what Alex Linder says, but it remains true, but people do associate Alex Linder types with WN.” If it isn’t fair, why are you doing it?

  168. Richard's Gravatar Richard
    July 24, 2012 - 10:40 pm | Permalink

    @Richard:

    In my previous comment above @Richard: it almost looks like I included a smiley face after the red-highlighted word “Richard”.

    But that wasn’t my intention.

    I just wanted to clarify that.

  169. Richard's Gravatar Richard
    July 24, 2012 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar:

    You wrote:

    “Your response was a pathetic example of what Alice Miller calls “poisonous pedagogy”.”

    I don’t know what that phrase (poisonous pedagogy) means or how it is relevant to my comment/question.

    I wrote my comment (@Richard: ) because… if someone is repeatedly accusing his parents of horribly abusing him when he was a kid, then shouldn’t he at least clarify what he means by “abuse”?

    Otherwise, people’s imaginations might lead them to believe untrue things about your parents.

  170. July 24, 2012 - 10:23 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    “There was no shock, so apparently this kind of statement isn’t that stunning to people in certain parts of WN, especially the NS wing.”

    Please do not make that leap. As a National-Socialist myself, I do not advocate the extermination of Jews. I advocate the policy of the government of Germany from through 1945, which was to deport all Jews out of our countries and thereby deprive them of not only literal spatial proximity but political, social and psychological influence. After that, we should make air-tight our borders and iron-clad our immigration policies, thereby depriving future diaspora of any prospect of return.

    In this, I differ from Greg Johnson, who has argued elsewhere, fallaciously, that “Whites have a stake in the continued existence of the state of Israel.” We do not. We have a stake in ridding ourselves of Jews and Jewish influence.

  171. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 24, 2012 - 10:12 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    This is what seems “off” to me about so many White Nationalists. You had Alex Linder on your show and he flatly stated he was for the extermination of all Jews. […] Now, here you have a guy on your show calling for the genocide of over 12 million people, today, in our world, and you don’t raise an eyebrow […] There was no shock, so apparently this kind of statement isn’t that stunning to people in certain parts of WN, especially the NS wing. So, my question is this: How in the world can a group of people who are comfortable with such statements, be taken seriously when they deny “the Holocaust”? It is as if they are saying, “we don’t believe the holocaust happened, but put us in power and we’ll make sure one does happen.” It’s a bizarre approach. Everyone listening processes the incongruity.

    I don’t understand your point. Alex Linder does not deny the Holocaust because he wants to prove the immaculateness of NS, he denies it because there is a compelling scientific and logical case for its nonexistence. If the revisionist scene had never developed in the 1970s thanks to Professor Robert Faurisson, Alex Linder would never have discovered revisionist arguments, and would not be making any attempt to deny the Holocaust today. Perhaps doubt it out of common sense (6 million is a freaking high number), but not deny it.

    @fender:
    Question about holocaust denial laws: can one also go to jail for having a neutral opinion? i.e. “I have no opinion on the Holocaust and will neither deny nor affirm it?’ Seems to me like it’s a case of Russell’s Teapot. Is it possible that it happened, as it’s told to us? Yes…but is it LIKELY?

    In France, yes. Bruno Gollnisch and Jean-Marie Le Pen were both tried simply for having issued neutral statements on the Holocaust, such as “let historians do their job freely”.

    @Hadding:

    That could be a way to approach the matter under difficult circumstances (for example in a college classroom), just by asking apparently naive questions that have uncomfortable answers.

    In France, again, it is forbidden. The Loi Gayssot applies « même si [cette contestation] est présentée sous une forme déguisée ou dubitative ou par voie d’insinuation » (Code pénal, p. 2059), i.e. even if you use insinuation or irony to make your point.

  172. July 24, 2012 - 10:02 pm | Permalink

    @Richard:

    Your response was a pathetic example of what Alice Miller calls “poisonous pedagogy”.

  173. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 24, 2012 - 9:32 pm | Permalink

    @Everyone

    There are many truths that are barely known while the “Jewish” Media and Education systems continually spew out new lies that we simply cannot keep up with even with the advent of the internet. Here are a few.

    1. Most of the holocaust story is an outright lie.
    2. The “Jews” have murdered 10s if not hundreds of millions of Christians/whites through various programs- for example the 66 million plus whites-mostly Christians in Russia.
    3. The “Jews” admit they are from Ashkenaz and Esau,
    4.The “Jews” have been behind almost every war in the last 400 years.
    5. The Jews control America’s money systems-finance, Media, Politics and Government.
    6. The “Jews” are trying to kick start WW3 with an attack on Iran.

    Point is I could go on and on but how does one fight their propaganda machine when they are on the verge of trying to send the military machine in America against us, while starting WW3-to mass murder which follows their M.O. ALWAYS-especially within populations that start the process of waking up? The internet will not suffice as it stands today and they are trying to control this medium as well through the methods described above.

    The solution will HAVE to be that we TAKE back lawful control of the centers of power they have unlawfully usurped. ONLY then can we begin to turn things around via reeducating the white and even non white masses. If this is not done and I mean quick, they will destroy- MURDER America and most of the white and Christian population with it.

    This is why I sit and wonder why so many of you are content with simply employing the present tactics that have had some success but will be too late in reaching the critical mass of awakening necessary to avert their diabolical plans for us.

  174. Richard's Gravatar Richard
    July 24, 2012 - 9:21 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar:

    Hi Chechar

    I don’t want to derail the seemingly important discussions/debates taking place on this thread, but I don’t want to pass up an opportunity to ask you question/comment about something you wrote:

    “As I explain in my blog, in my teens I was horribly abused at home.”

    Is there a specific blog post/entry where you clarify what you mean by “abuse”?

    I’m asking because… I sort of feel bad for your parents. I’m not a parent myself, but I would hate for my children to publicly accuse me of abuse.

    I imagine that being a parent can be very difficult and stressful at times; so many different kinds of pressures and concerns. Is it possible they did their best under the circumstances?

    Of course I don’t know them, or you. So if my comment is inappropriate, I hope you will forgive me.

  175. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 24, 2012 - 8:25 pm | Permalink

    @John hearns:

    The truth, hopefully, will out. But I’m afraid it will take some time. There are myths about White men that deliberately infecting Native Americans with smallpox that are still widely believed, even though they are false. If you don’t believe the myth you are considered an apologist and a hater. I don’t know how the various mythologies of World War II will be finally debunked but my feeling is that it won’t be done in a highly charged partisan atmosphere.

  176. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 24, 2012 - 8:08 pm | Permalink

    I should say that there were no gas chambers as depicted in NS comic book fantasy history . However, there really were gas chambers for putting clothes in to for the purpose of killing lice as to save prison work camp inmates from typhus that was always a threat in those days. Ironic, to save lives.

    It’s just that bad for those who are bent on supporting the hoax. They gotta push this bug spray = death chamber stuff.
    And these are grown up people!

  177. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 24, 2012 - 8:03 pm | Permalink

    @John hearns:

    On that word “deny”, I assume everyone catches the similarity to weeding out religious heretics in the past. Weren’t people asked some questions like, “do you deny Christ is the son of God”? The search for Holocaust “deniers” has all the trappings of a witch hunt.

    Yes, every group has radicals. But, if Rachel Maddow had an extreme feminist on her show who called for the extermination of all right wing Christians, I would think even Rachel would make a strong point of distancing herself from that. I’m not saying this to blame Carolyn or anyone else, but to point out what I find to be a tone deafness in the community.

  178. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 24, 2012 - 7:59 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar: http://is.gd/UGN3hY

    As you seem interested in Jews, mental illness and the JFK assassination, here’s Ben Gurion into the mix.

  179. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 24, 2012 - 7:48 pm | Permalink

    @Frederick Rhodes:


    Come on. Don’t deny the Holocaust happened. Show how and why it happened so it won’t happen again.

    If you do a little research you will find that one leading revisionist has made the standing request of :
    ” Show me or draw me a gas chamber”
    Which has yet to be seen because there weren’t any. *gasp*

    Do some inquiry yourself.

  180. July 24, 2012 - 7:48 pm | Permalink

    @Frederick Rhodes:

    Don’t deny the Holocaust happened. Show how and why it happened… It wasn’t the German people, but some of their leaders who were victims themselves of infant and childhood sexual trauma/mutilation that got into power and directed their nation into commiting atrocities upon those who traumatised their minds.

    You are talking about Swiss psychologist Alice Miller’s silly theory about Hitler’s willing executioners. Please take a good look at my long response to Miller here.

  181. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 24, 2012 - 7:38 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    JS , you know darn well that there are radicals in every camp.
    Your guilt by association concern means nothing and you should know that.

    How in the world can a group of people who are comfortable with such statements, be taken seriously when they deny “the Holocaust”?

    There’s that awful word “deny” that the other side has manipulated so well.

    The answer is simple; the truth is, was, and will be, taken seriously.

  182. Frederick Rhodes's Gravatar Frederick Rhodes
    July 24, 2012 - 7:33 pm | Permalink

    Come on. Don’t deny the Holocaust happened. Show how and why it happened so it won’t happen again. Enforce our laws protecting our rights as infants to bodily integrity, to prevent religious eugenics, so those who caused the Holocaust upon themselves will not be able to subversively manipulate the races. It wasn’t the German people, but some of their leaders who were victims themselves of infant and childhood sexual trauma/mutilation that got into power and directed their nation into commiting atrocities upon those who traumatised their minds. If you deny it happened then you are helping to set the stage of it happening again. Keep religious, ritual, and routine infant circumcision illegal, and punishable by expulsion.

  183. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 24, 2012 - 7:28 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Yes, I heard him say he was opposed to NS on the show.

  184. July 24, 2012 - 7:23 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks: I would point out to you that Linder is also hostile to national-socialism. I see his bluster as an attempt to cover an ideological deficiency.

  185. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 24, 2012 - 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Clinton: Remain vigilant against Holocaust denial

    There you go. It just shows you that, in the end, justice will prevail. There is a price to be paid for being at the wrong end of the stick in terms of truth and good spirit. That price being, as just one example; that you will have to call Hilary a spiritual fellow traveler. Your stomachs must turn.
    You poor buggers who want to ignore the mega-lies, people are just trying to help you and yet you refuse.

  186. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 24, 2012 - 7:14 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager:

    This is what seems “off” to me about so many White Nationalists. You had Alex Linder on your show and he flatly stated he was for the extermination of all Jews. He came out and said it was necessary to kill all of them (if I am wrong I apologize, but I am sure that is what he said). Now, here you have a guy on your show calling for the genocide of over 12 million people, today, in our world, and you don’t raise an eyebrow or express any shock. I know you didn’t say it, but nevertheless, you have a blunt call for mass extermination of a people right there on your show.

    There was no shock, so apparently this kind of statement isn’t that stunning to people in certain parts of WN, especially the NS wing. So, my question is this: How in the world can a group of people who are comfortable with such statements, be taken seriously when they deny “the Holocaust”? It is as if they are saying, “we don’t believe the holocaust happened, but put us in power and we’ll make sure one does happen.” It’s a bizarre approach. Everyone listening processes the incongruity.

    I realize it isn’t fair to hold anyone here accountable for what Alex Linder says, but it remains true, but people do associate Alex Linder types with WN. And this is an understandable belief, given that he is interviewed and treated respectfully on your show and I believe other WN shows.

  187. July 24, 2012 - 7:12 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Question about holocaust denial laws: can one also go to jail for having a neutral opinion?

    That could be a way to approach the matter under difficult circumstances (for example in a college classroom), just by asking apparently naive questions that have uncomfortable answers.

  188. fender's Gravatar fender
    July 24, 2012 - 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Question about holocaust denial laws: can one also go to jail for having a neutral opinion? i.e. “I have no opinion on the Holocaust and will neither deny nor affirm it?’ Seems to me like it’s a case of Russell’s Teapot. Is it possible that it happened, as it’s told to us? Yes…but is it LIKELY?

  189. George's Gravatar George
    July 24, 2012 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    @ Chechar

    “I’m not so sure. The experience I have had with controversial subjects that happen to be well debated on both sides (above I mentioned the Rhine School of parapsychology vs. CSICOP skeptics) is that you really have to spend the equivalent time of a PhD to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong.”
    – Oh, come on now! The Holycau$t and the Kennedy killing have one thing in common: our common enemy has a lot to lose if the general public were aware of and believed the official accounts to be fabrications (which both are). Where is the physical evidence of the eradication of six million Jews? To the contrary, the evidence supports the impossibility of this event. Deliberate obfuscation marks both these events in history. No, you do not need to spend the equivalent of a lifetime of research to reach a conclusion on either of these two events. Many believe that the official account of these two events were engineered by the same group, with the same interests. As regards the JFK killing, the deciding factor for me was the revelation that Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock (the founder of the Marine Corps sniper school) had toured the Texas Book Depository and viewed the room from which Oswald was supposed to have killed Kennedy. Hathcock and a team of marines tried repeatedly to duplicate the conditions of the shooting at Quantico Virginia. Hathcock, now a historical figure in his field and with many kills to his credit in Vietnam concluded that the one-man theory was impossible and he (Hathcock) could not duplicate that shot.
    As for Bugliosi’s book, verbosity does not necessarily equal scholastic thoroughness, or even indicate that the “the truth” uncovered between its pages. And Bugiliosi’s goal was to confirm the Warren Commissions’s Report. I include this excerpt from “The Publisher’s Weekly Review”: Bugliosi, best known as Charles Manson’s prosecutor, spent more than 20 years writing this defense of the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the slaying of President Kennedy, but his obsession has produced a massive tome that’s likely to overwhelm most readers. At times, the author seems determined to present every detail his researches revealed, even if it doesn’t add to the overall picture (like a footnote on Elvis sightings). Further, while Bugliosi says even serious conspiracy theorists don’t claim the FBI or Secret Service were involved, he devotes chapters to each. The book’s structure—it’s organized by subject, such as theories about the role of the FBI, the KGB or anti-Castro Cubans—leads to needless repetition, and, for an author who excoriates conspiracy theorists, charging them with carelessness and making wild accusations, Bugliosi is not always temperate in his language; for example, twice he makes the nonsensical claim that some Warren Commission critics “were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had come to rest.”

  190. July 24, 2012 - 6:41 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    My main aim is to clarify matters intellectually.

    This wins the prize for perverse claims.

    Your aim is to justify running away from issues. Sylvie and Organon described your position as cowardice and they are right. The people opposed to you here are the ones who value clarity.

    I think Johnathan Bowden would ridicule you if he were still alive, especially given how you’ve twisted his expression “stepping over,” which, as Bowden used it, was a synonym for Nietzschean overcoming, into an excuse for running away from issues with the pretense of having Bowden’s blessing.

  191. July 24, 2012 - 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Clinton: Remain vigilant against Holocaust denial
    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Holocaust denial and Israel criticism that crosses into anti-Semitism require vigilance.

    On Tuesday, Clinton addressed a symposium at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on preventing genocide.

    “Let me begin by acknowledging that here in this museum, it’s important to note that every generation produces extremist voices denying that the Holocaust ever happened,” she said. “And we must remain vigilant against those deniers and against anti-Semitism, because when heads of state and religious leaders deny the Holocaust from their bully pulpits, we cannot let their lies go unanswered.

    “When we hear Holocaust glorification and public calls to, quote, ‘finish the job,’ we need to make clear that violence, bigotry will not be tolerated,” she continued. “And, yes, when criticism of Israeli government policies crosses over into demonization of Israel and Jews, we must push back.”

    Clinton outlined policies that she said were aimed at genocide prevention, including training officials in detecting warning signs, the use of technology to enhance monitoring, pressuring oppressive regimes and making clear that perpetrators will be held accountable.
    http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/clinton_remain_vigilant_against_holocaust_denial_20120724/

    “But pay no attention to the little lady she’s on her way out. The holocaust isn’t important, nothing to see here, more along to the more important things WN have to think about”, says present leadership

  192. July 24, 2012 - 6:24 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    Jews have been a cohesive people for thousands of years before the Holocaust came along. They have deeper sources of cohesion to draw upon. Thus if one day the world just yawned about the Holocaust, Jewry would still be around.

    This is just empty words, no deeper than saying “pish posh.”

    Jews only started coming out of their ghettos two centuries ago and only got civil rights during the 19th century. They have relied very heavily on anti-Jewish sentiment to hold them together, and today there is very little. Assimilation used to be hard for Jews; now it is very easy. Many Jews are marrying non-Jews these days, because they don’t live in the ghetto and most of them don’t even believe in the Jewish religion, so that the barriers are pretty much gone. Whatever the circumstances were under which Jews maintained cohesion for so many centuries, those circumstances are different now.

  193. July 24, 2012 - 6:22 pm | Permalink
  194. July 24, 2012 - 6:20 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager:

    Carolyn writes:

    If what you want is to separate White Nationalism from Holocaust Revisionism, fine. But some of us are both WN’s and HR’s. Are you suggesting we are not welcome to bring any HR topics into WN debates, forums, meetings, etc?

    My main aim is to clarify matters intellectually. Of course people can be both WN and Revisionists. As for the practical questions you raise: you have your website and can set your own policies. Kevin MacDonald has his website and can set his own policies. I have my website, etc. Given that situation, nobody is really in a position to lay down the law for the WN movement.

    This relates to a point raised by Helvena. He asks if WN needs new leaders. Actually, we have no shortage of leaders, because our leaders are pretty much all writers, and anybody can create his own blog and get his voice out there. And practically everybody else in this cause is a reader. Readers do not follow leaders, they just “follow” writers by reading their material. We have no shortage of independent minds, all of them leading themselves and nobody else.

    As Andrew Hamilton discussed in an article posted at CC, the difference between a lone nut and the leader of a movement is the first follower. What we really need are followers.

  195. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 24, 2012 - 6:14 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    Greg – IMHO he’s right about the importance of the holocaust to contempory Jewish cohesion. A lot of them understand on one level or another the terrible crimes they are committing, particularly against Americans. Many of them very often will question themselves and the morality of this. The Holocaust is a very important rationalization at this moment, which comes often.

  196. July 24, 2012 - 6:01 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    … because they know what a massive turn off it is for mainstream whites. They know, because they have poured all those resources into demonizing us for exactly talking about this.

    If they have put resources into demonizing anyone who discusses the matter, then obviously they do not want us talking about it.

    I would suggest that the Holohoax in general is a big turn-off for Whites because it’s about showing gory images and inflicting guilt. It’s not revisionism that’s a turn-off.

    The first obstacle that revisionism has to overcome is the dogmatic presumption that there are no solid revisionist arguments. Once that is overcome, revisionism becomes good news and a way to experience intellectual superiority to the general public that still believes such tripe.

    Immediately, you have to show your interlocutor that he doesn’t know as much as he thought he knew. That’s easy. He will say that he believes in the Holocaust because of all the photos and films. You point out that the images are from places where no gassings are claimed to have occurred and where everybody agrees that a typhus epidemic was going on. He might say, What about all the eyewitnesses? You say that there are really only very few so-called eyewitnesses to “genocide” and it is indisputable that some of them did not tell the truth: the lampshade story is supported by eyewitness testimony.

    You are not going to convince anybody in one conversation that something that he firmly believed all his life is not true, but you can make him have some doubts and start to question things. It took some years for me after I started questioning the Holohoax to come to the conclusion that it’s a lie. You can induce a radical change of perspective in other people with patience.

    Of course if you are always looking for the quick and easy way to do things and adjusting what you say strictly in accord to the direction of the breeze (imagining yourself clever), you will never accomplish any such great change.

  197. July 24, 2012 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

    @Barkingmad:

    I would not go so far as to endorse the standard narrative. One could speak hypothetically or in an agnostic mode. But yes, I would recommend that strategy, because it brackets the facts and refocuses on the value question, it brackets the past and refocuses on the present and future, it brackets the Jews and refocuses the argument on whites. It is important to do these things to frame the discussion in a white-centric way, a way that can lead to White Nationalist conclusions.

    Why do the sensible people use handles like “Barkingmad”?

  198. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 24, 2012 - 5:49 pm | Permalink

    @Sandy:

    Yes, Sandy- it is very sad to see how many people have become completely ignorant of the truth- the truth- the only thing that can save them and the white race.

  199. July 24, 2012 - 5:47 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Jews have been a cohesive people for thousands of years before the Holocaust came along. They have deeper sources of cohesion to draw upon. Thus if one day the world just yawned about the Holocaust, Jewry would still be around.

  200. July 24, 2012 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Hadding admits that Jews were deported en masse to camps as enemy aliens. We any other peoples in Germany and German occupied territories so interned? As far as I know, not even gypsies were sent en masse to concentration camps. Was any other group interned as a group, including women and children and old folks? The whole community?

    He admits that Jews were chosen, simply because they were Jews, for reprisals for partisan activity. That means: a German soldier is found dead, presumably by partisan activity, so a certain number of other people (not the partisans themselves) are killed for the crime. The Jews were presumed more punishment-worthy than other groups.

    So Jews were singled out for some pretty tough treatment. But heaven forbid this be called harsh!

    Now let me make a prediction here. The fact that Jews were singled out for particularly tough measures by the Germans, leading to the deaths of an unknown number of Jews, will be evaded in the following ways:

    1) Justifications will be offered for such treatment of Jews (Jews really deserved it!), which does not dispute the underlying facts.
    2) Comparisons will be offered (the US did the same thing with the Japanese!), which does not dispute the underlying facts.
    3) Accusations will be hurled (you are assuming there is something unique about Jewish deaths!), which does not dispute the underlying facts.

    So, just to be clear:
    1) I want a Jew-free America for the same reasons that the Germans wanted a Jew-free Germany. We can’t live with those people.
    2) I think that it is perfectly reasonable to deport enemy populations during wartime.
    3) I don’t think that Jewish deaths are special. Jews do, and they have sold our people on that as well, but we need to combat that. We need to become a normal, healthy people again, a people that takes a greater interest in its own ongoing genocide than in the past sufferings of others.

    That said, the unrevisable facts of what was — even when all the subsequent lies, rumours, and exaggerations are scraped away — history’s greatest tragedy FOR JEWS, still remain.

    The only way to deal with that unrevisable remainder is to change people’s thinking about it. And in a way, the revisionists agree with me, because: (1) explaining to people why whites today, like whites did in Germany in the past, should want to free themselves of Jewish power, (2) comparing the Holocaust to other events, including events that should be far more important TO US, and (3) criticizing the idea of the greater value of Jewish life — all this boils down to changing people’s evaluations of the Holocaust. Which is what I have been arguing for all along.

  201. July 24, 2012 - 5:40 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows: It looks like the same people as usual to me, Mickey.

  202. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 24, 2012 - 5:39 pm | Permalink

    some white-ish music for today

  203. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 24, 2012 - 5:21 pm | Permalink

    What I always find interesting is that whenever there’s a thread about national socialism or the holocaust no trolls ever show up.
    I think the reason is that from their perspective this is what they want us talking about because they know what a massive turn off it is for mainstream whites. They know, because they have poured all those resources into demonizing us for exactly talking about this.

  204. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    July 24, 2012 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

    How about a Third Position: We openly (as a tactic) acknowledge the holocaust as presented to us for eons (gas chambers, 6 million dead, etc. etc.) but say that we are more concerned about the destruction of our own group because we have only so much sympathy and concern to spread around. So sorry.

  205. Sandy's Gravatar Sandy
    July 24, 2012 - 5:09 pm | Permalink

    @TyronRobertParsons: I never thought that I would see THAT site here but now that you have gone and done it here is some music to read it by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59hWl7I81fc. It is, of course, Dust on the Bible by that American icon, Hank Williams.

  206. July 24, 2012 - 5:06 pm | Permalink

    That’s why the last thing many Jews want to hear is that there was no Holocaust: because belief in the Holocaust is what holds the Jewish world together.

  207. July 24, 2012 - 4:54 pm | Permalink

    @fender: The Holocaust is also a bogey that is used to maintain solidarity among Jews in spite of the fact that many do not practice or believe in the Jewish religion. Zionist Jews have used the Holocaust to goad secular Jews (and non-Jews) in the United States into supporting them and excusing their actions. Without fear of “another Holocaust,” the Jews fall apart into factions, and many are already assimilating.

  208. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 24, 2012 - 3:42 pm | Permalink
  209. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 24, 2012 - 3:27 pm | Permalink

    @ Eric

    You might want to check out this link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi21Yi7dhKg

  210. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 24, 2012 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

    @ Eric

    True Christianity is NOT the enemy of the white man. The white man prospered like never before within true Christianity. All that Apostate Christianity needs is to be awakened to three great truths.

    1. The so called Jews are really Esau-Ashkenaz and not Israel/Judah
    2. The so called Holocaust is a Hoax and has been used to destroy both Christianity and the white man.
    3.The white/European peoples are the true physical Israelites.

    If they ever awaken to these truths (which they will) the backlash will be so great you will never have to worry about the fake Jews again.

  211. July 24, 2012 - 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Carolyn Yeager is correct to identify this statement of Greg Johnson’s as false:

    The problem with revisionism is that it cannot revise away the fact that the Germans singled Jews out for harsh treatment and a lot of Jews died as a result.

    Hitler’s government did not single out Jews for “harsh treatment.” It singled them out for internment as enemy aliens, and eventual deportation. The United States Government has done both of those things at some time during its history.

    A lot of Jews and other people in the camps died as a result of typhus. That’s what the famous gory “Holocaust” documentary footage shows.

    The only place where you can argue that Jews were in some way singled out for harsh treatment is on the Eastern Front in the war against guerrillas, where Jews were the focus of reprisals because it was generally presumed that Jews were behind such activity. That was probably an accurate assumption most of the time. It was not gratuitous harsh treatment.

  212. July 24, 2012 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    and they have disdain for talking to the public.

    Not total disdain, but it is impossible to get a radical change in thinking from people that don’t think.

    What you can do for the people who don’t think are symbolic gestures of defiance toward the ethos that the system is trying to impose. This can be done on a local level, but only on a local level, because normally it won’t get much media-coverage. It works well at a state university (and you might even get a few opportunities to answer questions from thinking people that somehow wandered into the university). If you are going to try to influence the unthinking multitude this way, you need to be ready to endure a lot of hostile reaction, although the hostility from most people will abate over time.

    And then your standard for success should not be the number of people who step forward to say that they agree with you, but rather a general softening of hostility and apprehension toward what your symbol represents. It’s a form of desensitization therapy for the public.

    So, that’s the kind of thing that intrepid people can do in regard to their local unthinking multitude. The main benefit of it is that it will gradually create more tolerance for your viewpoint and related viewpoints.

  213. July 24, 2012 - 2:26 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:
    Thank you, Mickey. I guess it’s good to get around a little and let people know who you are (speaking of myself). :)

  214. July 24, 2012 - 2:22 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:
    You wrote:
    “The problem with revisionism is that it cannot revise away the fact that the Germans singled Jews out for harsh treatment and a lot of Jews died as a result. The only thing that can be revised away are the lies and myths told about these events after the fact. But no serious revisionist denies these facts, and those facts are Holocaust enough for Jews to be guilt tripping us until the sun burns out.”

    You are wrong about this, so the very basis of your argument is faulty. You are so far unwilling to acknowledge this possibility. It has been pointed out by several commenters that you are assuming Jews who died in camps to be a special kind of “victim” because they were “singled out for harsh treatment.” What about the non-Jews who also died? You have yet to prove this first point, instead basing it on “no serious revisionist denies it.” You had better poll all the “serious revisonists” and find out first. This then brings us to what constitutes a “serious revisionist.” You see what a “can of worms” you have opened for yourself, which you are in no way competent to handle?

    Does anybody need any clarification of this argument so far?

    Yes, a great deal of clarification. You had better take care of that before you go any further.

    Exposing the nefarious lies told about these facts does not deal with the problem, because the victims did not tell the lies. The survivors did. And the victims will still be pitied, even if the survivors are revealed to be contemptible liars and swindlers.
    Oh yes, exposing the lies does deal with the problem. We don’t know that anyone was “victim” of “Holocaust”. You are accepting the popular narrative without examination based on what one person (who you won’t even reveal!) told you. You are turned off by Revisionism because it is hard, scientific investigation and research which is not your cup of tea. Although I think there might be other reasons, too. One is that many WN’s don’t WANT National Socialism to be found innocent of charges levied at Nuremberg anymore than Globalists do. These WN’s, as with everyone seriously engaged in politics, don’t want science to interfere with their political objectives.

    The fact is, most “serious” revisionists have gone too far in acknowledging Jewish deaths and suffering, setting that aside in their preference to make some headway with disproving the gas chamber myth, . But now, many are realizing that once we’ve taken care of the most damaging issues, we can and will press on into the numbers and the evidence for the real intentions of the National Socialist government (based on the real nature of that government).

    If what you want is to separate White Nationalism from Holocaust Revisionism, fine. But some of us are both WN’s and HR’s. Are you suggesting we are not welcome to bring any HR topics into WN debates, forums, meetings, etc?
    If I had to choose between the two, I would choose to focus exclusively on HR because I believe it’s more important to White survival.

    Make it clear to fan and foe alike just what your motivations are. There is a real lack of transparancy in this article, and in your responses to the comments.

  215. Danny King's Gravatar Danny King
    July 24, 2012 - 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Great thread. Don’t knock the current WN leadership. It must be sheer HELL to be in the shoes of KM or Taylor, with constant confrontation as your daily companion. I’d like to thank KM for his work and for providing this forum. Seems to me that there will never be a consensus on tactics to lead people to the truth. I happen to think that revisionism is good stuff. I went from a weepy Holocaust believer to feeling that we fought on the wrong side in the war. That’s a big turn, but it didn’t happen overnight. I dug in and did my own research. Also, the fact that Jews have forced massive third world immigration on us, changed me from admiring Jews to loathing them as a group, and this feeling happened instantaneously. As I think out loud it occurs to me that the immigration issue is probably the fastest way to make our case to the uninitiated. The truth about the Holocaust is important, but the discussion is longer.
    I don’t get the animosity generated here. I think that ANYBODY who has the balls to stand up for white folks ought to be commended.

  216. Frederick Rhodes's Gravatar Frederick Rhodes
    July 24, 2012 - 2:05 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager-“Repeated long, convoluted posts pushing one’s personal philosophy, no matter how much “truth” they are believed to hold to the writer, are not welcome.”
    I cannot tell if my convoluted personal philosophy is also not welcome to WN’s. Please let me know by not responding or helping to promote it. You need not reply directly as I know there are those WN’s who want to have me censored for my shit-kickings and their denial.
    To properly deal with the Holocaust of the Jews, it is good and wise to portray it as a natural reaction within the laws of physics; for every action there is an equal or opposit reaction. A Holocaust of Jews(rounding Jews up into a circumference and then excising them from society) is caused by a Jewish holocaust of human rights upon themselves, ie., infant circumferencial excision(circumcision) of the prepuce, or taking away(apo) the masculine cover(calypse). In other words, sexually traumatising infants with circumcision is the Apocalypse that causes Holocausts. I know you may think I’m just an Intactivist troll and maybe because you yourself are guilty of being tricked into allowing yourself to beleive the Jewish lies claiming benefits from religious surgery, but White Nationalism adopting Intactivism as one of its policies can only be a benefit.

  217. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 24, 2012 - 1:59 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager:

    Carolyn – I hadn’t known your site before but just looked at it and I want to say you are doing a wonderful thing and I particularly admire the focus for women.

  218. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 24, 2012 - 1:52 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    Yes..fender….but read between the lines a little. No one is saying different. But as the man says….how.

  219. July 24, 2012 - 1:38 pm | Permalink

    @rhondda:

    Restating your conclusion and reiterating that the reasons that led to it are obvious does nothing to persuade me as to that conclusion.

  220. July 24, 2012 - 1:37 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Yes, but the discussion we are having here is HOW to disarm it.

  221. July 24, 2012 - 1:24 pm | Permalink

    @Faustus:

    While you, Carolyn, have had many good points and posts, on your own forum, The White Network, you have repeatedly marginalized Posts and ideas that did not fit into your world-view; I know of at least two people who have tried to get the ‘truth’ to you, but you have always found an excuse to maintain silence on these issues. At least on this forum, there is not this type of censorship, and the strengths and weaknesses will bear out.

    Dear Faustus, aka Richard aka rburch aka Frank DeSilva,

    The White Network is not a forum, and it is not unmoderated. It provides a place for listeners to our Internet radio programs to comment on those programs, and for the host and/or guest to reply to those comments. Repeated long, convoluted posts pushing one’s personal philosophy, no matter how much “truth” they are believed to hold to the writer, are not welcome. Read our Comment Policy.

    I remain silent toward issues I did not bring up in my program, yet someone wants to “prod” me into a debate in which I have no interest, or find any value therein. My time is not at YOUR disposal, nor are my program pages. You have misused The White Network comment sections with fake information about yourself (you’re not the only one!) and will not be allowed on again. I guess you will have to follow me around the Internet and try to get at me that way. Good luck with your book “Foundations of the Twenty-First Century.”

  222. fender's Gravatar fender
    July 24, 2012 - 1:03 pm | Permalink

    WN’s who don’t think the holocaust should be questioned don’t understand the problem. The thought process that’s sold to us is that if Whites start becoming racially aware they will become N*zis, and if they become N*zis they will start wars, and if they start wars they will destroy everyone, including themselves. The “holocaust” is sold as a warning to Whites: “if you start defending yourselves racially, you will hurt yourselves. Just look at what happened to Germany.”

    The “holocaust” is a weapon of the people who hate Whites, and it needs to be disarmed. As long as this weapon continues to function- as long as Whites think that race realism leads to evil- it will continue to be our undoing. This doesn’t mean that the “holocaust” should be our only concern, it just means that it has to be among our concerns.

  223. rhondda's Gravatar rhondda
    July 24, 2012 - 1:02 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:
    It is called thinking it through. What he said, what other said and then using one’s own brain.

  224. July 24, 2012 - 1:02 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    I think she is basing this impression on some of the comments.

  225. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 24, 2012 - 1:00 pm | Permalink

    @Helvena:


    Perhaps it’s time for new leadership in the WN movement. The present leadership have softened on core issues and they hasn’t gotten us very far anyway.

    Happens everytime. It always gets watered down. It’s the same old stupid republican thing where they would rather be sitting on the side lines than to be “divisive” Divisive is too hard for ’em.
    Revisionism and NS are divisive and they are “toxic”, so they want to capitulate and to be comfy.

  226. July 24, 2012 - 12:56 pm | Permalink
  227. Mother Trucker's Gravatar Mother Trucker
    July 24, 2012 - 12:53 pm | Permalink

    “Find your mark, look the other fellow in the eye, and tell the truth.”

    – James Cagney

  228. July 24, 2012 - 12:48 pm | Permalink

    @Random:

    Neoconservatism is a Jewish intellectual movement. The European New Right is a European identitarian movement. The European New Right is not anti-racist, although some ENR writers are critical of over-emphasis on race, or biological conceptions of race. So it is a point of debate. The only ENR writer who is “philo-Semitic” (in the same way that Jared Taylor and Gert Wilders are) is Guillaume Faye, who because a pariah because of it.

    The fact that you are pushing this line by casting things in the most superficial terms means you are either stupid or dishonest. In either case, you are not to be taken seriously.

  229. July 24, 2012 - 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps it’s time for new leadership in the WN movement. The present leadership have softened on core issues and they hasn’t gotten us very far anyway. For the love of god how can someone be for WNism and have married a non-white? It tells me their instincts are weak when it comes to ethnicity. Let Taylor, Weber, Benoit and the rest go lead jewish white nationals, see how far they get.

  230. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 24, 2012 - 12:39 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:


    They simply aren’t concerned about the toxicity of Hitler, the Holocaust and endless debates over WWII arcana.

    Being pro-white is socially toxic too.
    Should that mean you should just shut your mouth?

    For many it is not so much being pro NS/Hitler , it is for being pro truth and valuing the lesson of history. Valuing that he who controls the past controls the present and sets the future.

    Basically , a fair judgement of NS would be that NS was fighting the very same enemy that you face you today. > The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
    And , your enemy kicked your friends butt and then went on to make lies that convinced everyone that your friend was the bad guy and your enemy was the victim. Victimhood is very powerful. I am sure you will agree.
    You’ll note that the victimhood thing has been used by your enemy against whites in regards to all races . ie black victim , gay victim, native victim, female victim, etc etc etc
    Very powerful and effective; so don’t accept it. It’s very important to the cause.

  231. omop's Gravatar omop
    July 24, 2012 - 12:36 pm | Permalink

    @90404.

    A comment attributed to anonymous said it best.

    ” The actual number referencing the Holocaust is actually 5,999,999 since Elie Wiesel is still alive.”

  232. July 24, 2012 - 12:00 pm | Permalink

    @rhondda:

    Maybe you would care to explain how it follows from Greg’s article that “revisionism is … the controlled opposition of the Jews”.

  233. rhondda's Gravatar rhondda
    July 24, 2012 - 11:22 am | Permalink

    I just want to thank you Dr. Johnson for tackling this topic.
    After reading these comments, I am now convinced that revisionism is nothing else but the controlled opposition of the Jews. Keeping people stuck in an emotional topic is quite the clever, cunning strategy. It seems not too many people have heard of logic or how to use it. In science one does not set out to prove something, but to disprove it. That would mean not to disprove the holocaust, but to try to disprove the revisionist position if one was really interested in the truth.

  234. Random's Gravatar Random
    July 24, 2012 - 11:20 am | Permalink

    @Eric Hunt:

    Jared Tayor, who censors whites and promotes Jews as our friends, along with MacDonald, Johnson, Mark Weber, etc, meet in California to come up with strategy such as the type displayed in this article. A “White Nationalist” who attends these meetings, (who has an asian wife) told me about this.

    That Judeo-Christian “Holocaust” believers can become revolutionary white Nationalists is sheer idiocy. But Christians donate…

    So do jews.

  235. Random's Gravatar Random
    July 24, 2012 - 11:17 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    To say that the European New Right are the Neo-Cons of Europe based solely on the similarity between the phrases “New Right” and “Neo-Conservative” is really a new low in superficiality and indifference to truth.

    It’s not solely or even primarily based on that. It’s primarily based on the fact that they have a similarly philo-Semitic, anti-racialist ideology, as I clearly stated.

  236. DICARLO's Gravatar DICARLO
    July 24, 2012 - 11:07 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson

    “No serious revisionist denies that a very large number of innocent Jews died as a result of the Third Reich’s policy of deporting Jews to concentration camps.” I said, “Stop right there. That’s all I need to hear.”

    Jews were killed? That’s it? I think there’s a little more to it. The jews were rounded up because they were enemies of the state. They were Communists and subversives, stock market speculators and business swindlers, pornographers, loan sharks, gamblers, spies for Russia, child molesters, smugglers, pimps, drug dealers, abortionists, homosexuals, crooked lawyers, perverted physicians, corrupt politicians, dealers in stolen art, leaders of thieivery rings and fences for stolen property, and they are no different today and deserve all they get.

  237. July 24, 2012 - 10:42 am | Permalink

    After so many hours my comment is still awating moderation. I will repost it again:

    @Hadding:

    I think I’ve shown that generating doubt about the Holocaust Myth should not be difficult, if the effort is addressed to a reasonable person.

    I’m not so sure. The experience I have had with controversial subjects that happen to be well debated on both sides (above I mentioned the Rhine School of parapsychology vs. CSICOP skeptics) is that you really have to spend the equivalent time of a PhD to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong.

    If my personal sharing has any worth, it took two professional psychology academics, James Alcock and Ray Hyman (whom by the way I have met personally more than once) to devote their entire free-time, adult lives to follow each parapsychological journal (which as I said above is often peer-reviewed and undistinguishable from mainstream psychology journals at first glance) even though they don’t swallow the claims that the existence of “psi” has been demonstrated scientifically.

    They of course are the true professionals. But for a layman like me, once I started reading the writings of Alcock and Hyman (and many other skeptics of the paranormal) and clashed their arguments internally with my ingratiated beliefs on the reality of psi, it still took me years to recognize that, despite the parapsychologists’ claims, evidence for psi was basically nonexistent.

    You cannot ask someone just to “believe” your position with any of the arguments in this thread because, for the honest thinker, the controversy can only be solved by embarking on a gigantic research where one has to read one book authored by mainstream Holocaust scholars for any revisionist book (just as the members of the juror have to spend about the same time listening to both sides of the debate).

    Complex scholastic controversies require thousands of homework. Vincent Bugliosi spent twenty years of his life disentangling the many claims of conspiracy theorists on the JFK assassination to write a 1,500,000-word book (with a CD-ROM containing an additional 1,000+ pages of footnotes) to refute any single claim he found in the most diverse, often mutually exclusive theories.

    Yes: we are laymen, not prosecutors like Bugliosi. But following my comparison, even if we as “members of the juror” followed every single word of a Holocaust debate between professionals (just like the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald staged by British television when Bugliosi acted as the prosecutor of Oswald and obtained a verdict of “guilty”), evaluating the pro and con arguments in the Holocaust debate would require, literally days—as in O.J. Simpson trial.

    I would be glad to see such (mock) trial, at least in the form of a TV program, debating the Holocaust. Meanwhile we only got books likeDebating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides, which has been on my reading list for a long time and was recommended by a commenter above.

    But again, in such a tremendously complex subject “generating doubt about the Holocaust Myth” as you say, is difficult without such mock TV trial. Or maybe I’m wrong and the heavyweights have already debated on TV for extended periods of time?

    Anyway, I must ask you again what I wrote above: When David Irving’s study of Herr Himmler is released are you planning to read it?

  238. katana's Gravatar katana
    July 24, 2012 - 10:36 am | Permalink

    Greg Johnson
    July 22, 2012 – 2:48 am | Permalink
    @Carolyn Yeager:
    Back in 2001, a very well-informed gentleman sat me down to explain Holocaust revisionism. The first words out of his mouth were, “No serious revisionist denies that a very large number of innocent Jews died as a result of the Third Reich’s policy of deporting Jews to concentration camps.” I said, “Stop right there. That’s all I need to hear.”
    I didn’t need to hear any more, because he opened by admitting all the Jews need to establish that a great tragedy befell their people in the Second World War. Everything else that the Revisionists deal with is just the trimmings — the mountain of stories told by the survivors, the Allies, and the Jewish leadership to wring political and financial gain from those deaths. 

    ———————

    Your definition of ‘just the trimming’ is rather insulting to the millions of jews that allegedly, and additionally, perished through ‘genocide’. BTW, what is a ‘very large number of innocent jews’? 

    The Red Cross official tally, for example, of all deaths in the camps, which they had constant access to, was in the two hundred and fifty thousand range, without a gas chamber in sight.

    I suggest that if you told the jewish organizations that that number was a ‘Holocaust’ they would gas you on the spot.

    They need the six million (as it is a magic number to them in their religious beliefs), the genocidal intent and the gas chambers. It’s their bottom line package deal that can only be tweaked a little.

    Telling your well informed gentleman that you only needed to hear that ‘a very large number of Jews died’  says a lot about willingness and rush to accept the jewish ‘genocide story’.

    Germans interned jews because, among other things, in 1933 world jewry officially declared war on Germany in the world press. Just like America interned Japanese during the war.

    GJ wrote:
    But Holocaust revisionism is not the answer, because it does not really deal with the core of the Holocaust and the moral and psychological reasons why whites are so susceptible to this form of emotional blackmail.
    ———-

    Revisionism does deal with the core of the ‘Holocaust’, that is, it concludes that it does not have any factual basis. It is a hoax. 

    Revisionism is not trying to deal with all the ‘psychological reasons why whites are so susceptible to this form of emotional blackmail.’ 
    Revisionism is not trying to play psychologist, to White guilt. It is trying to establish historical facts.

    This gets to the basic problem with your essay. You express no clear opinion on whether the ‘Holocaust’ happened or not. This is because you have said ( over in Counter Currents in the past) that you don’t know and also that you are not interested in spending the time and effort to find out.

    From this position of ignorance on whether the crime actually happened or not you suggest that we concentrate on overcoming the consequent guilt of this (alleged) historic crime. 

    Your advice only makes sense if the ‘Holocaust’ actually happened. What you are really saying, while being in an ignorant state about the facts, is that at least some kind of ‘watered down Holocaust’ took place. You are siting on a pointy fence trying to have it both ways. 

    Research the ‘Holocaust’ and then come back with you opinion.

  239. July 24, 2012 - 10:34 am | Permalink

    @zioncrimefactory:

    Jared Tayor, who censors whites and promotes Jews as our friends, along with MacDonald, Johnson, Mark Weber, etc, meet in California to come up with strategy such as the type displayed in this article. A “White Nationalist” who attends these meetings, (who has an asian wife) told me about this.

    Jared Taylor, Mark Weber, guys with non-white wives, this is not an elite whites should accept, anymore than we should accept Mitt Romney.

    It’s impossible to ignore the past. We need to reference the past to display what the Jews have repeatedly done throughout time.

    Orwell wrote, “He who controls the past, controls the future. He controls the present controls the past.”

    Or even better – “The Jews who control the past, control the future. The Jews who control the present, control the past.”

    There’s an entire new generation out there who in the year 2012 are naturally skeptical of gas chambers and ancient Jewish fairy tales such as Noah’s Ark. Rather than show these young people the whole truth, and win them over to our side, for life, by pulling them completely out of the Jewish Matrix, the apparent elite of the White Nationalist movement is seeming to push for a “big tent” by refusing to attack two pillars of Jewish lies and total mind control – “The Holocaust” and Christinsanity.

    That Judeo-Christian “Holocaust” believers can become revolutionary white Nationalists is sheer idiocy. But Christians donate…

  240. July 24, 2012 - 10:12 am | Permalink

    @Random:

    To say that the European New Right are the Neo-Cons of Europe based solely on the similarity between the phrases “New Right” and “Neo-Conservative” is really a new low in superficiality and indifference to truth. Do you think this is just a game?

  241. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 24, 2012 - 9:49 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    I think you make some fair points here. I’m all for correcting the historical slander against the Germans, but correcting slander and making the defense of NS Germany and NS a main goals of White activism are two very different propositions.

    Organon seems to come close to defending the Germans’ desire to seize territory in Poland and Ukraine. At a minimum, Organon summarizes Hitler’s intent to seize territory for the benefit of Germans at the expense of other White folks (Poles and Ukrainians) without including a negative judgment such as “Hitler’s desire to annex territory from other Euros was abhorrent.” Which it was, even if Hitler and the Germans had many valid complaints and greivances.

    One only has to refer to Mein Kampf to see that Hitler viewed the Soviet Union as the nation that should have to yield to German need for living space. In 1937 Ribbentrop approached Churchill directly and openly conveyed German intentions regarding the east. This was, or should have been, of no concern to the British, French or American governments.

    The primordial aim underlying Hitler’s intentions was securing the future existence of the German people.

  242. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 24, 2012 - 9:42 am | Permalink

    @Random:

    Except the ‘neocons’ of Europe are not dominated by Jews and are totally against immigration.

  243. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    July 24, 2012 - 9:31 am | Permalink

    @Random: I think that it’s just possible that you are being slightly too tough on the European New Right as a whole. I have met a few Flemings and even Brits, thoroughly sound people, who hold out hope for the emergence of a true rightist resistance. However, your description of Benoist strikes me as 100 percent accurate.

  244. July 24, 2012 - 9:17 am | Permalink

    From the horse’s mouth:
    M J Rosenberg pithily summed it up on his blog:

    Obama was naive. Too insensitive to Israel, Netanyahu and the Holocaust. Plus, he ignored the sage advice of Dennis Ross, Abe Foxman & other Jewish organizational wise men. And he used the word “occupation”.

    The holohoax is a powerful weapon for them and yet we should “overstep” it, ya riiiight.
    The “innocent jews” are not so innocent because they scream in unison, “ANTI-SEMITE” when we point out the privilege they have by virtue of club membership. The “innocent jew” benefited from the Cabal’s milking of the Weimar. Is a person free from responsibility when they receive known stolen goods?

  245. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 24, 2012 - 7:14 am | Permalink

    @Random:

    Good points. Many do imagine face to face street encounters – and when has that ever changed anyone’s mind?

    And then some of WNist around here who focus on NS Germany and the Holocaust are pretty open about the fact that they have little interest in talking to the public right now. We should take them at their word. They are only interested in the purity of a small group that they believe will somehow take power in the future. Well, that is a totally different model of social change than many of us have. Maybe they are right, but it is different.

    They simply aren’t concerned about the toxicity of Hitler, the Holocaust and endless debates over WWII arcana. They love it, they think they are building a special group that will take command, and they have disdain for talking to the public. I think they come off more as NS partisans than pro-Whites in a general sense, but I am sure they would disagree (I think). The approach will, in my opinion, go nowhere in our lifetimes, probably in the next 100 years. But they don’t care. It is as if there is some god out there they are trying to impress with their loyalty, regardless of real world practical considerations. Anyway, we have little in common.

    What else is there to say?

  246. Random's Gravatar Random
    July 24, 2012 - 6:07 am | Permalink

    If you had 2 hours to talk to a person, would you spend it explaining about complex chemical analysis issues involving cyanide tests on the ruins of Auschwitz? Wouldn’t it be more effective to discuss how immigration is transforming Whites into a minority, and what happened to the minority Whites of Zimbabwe, South Africa and Detroit?

    Everyone already knows about all this stuff. No White person needs to be told to stay away from the Black areas. They already know how to do that. Everyone already knows what is going on in SA and Zimbabwe.

    If you think you can take your average White person and make a racialist out of him in 2 hours, then I don’t think you’ve ever actually tried it.

    I like how there’s all these opinions out there on what works and what does not work when it comes to reaching out to people, and essentially none of it is motivated by any actual experience.

    I also like how all these discussions assume that these tactics for influencing people are going to be used primarily in face-to-face debates on the street, when realistically 99% of it is going to be used anonymously on the web, or with very close friends and relatives.

  247. Random's Gravatar Random
    July 24, 2012 - 5:50 am | Permalink

    New = neo
    Right = conservative
    New Right = neoconservative

    The “European New Right” are just the neocons of Europe. Alain de Benoist is a philo-Semitic, anti-racialist crank. These people do not want the things that we want. Anyone who allows his opponents to give him advice on strategy is a fool. They don’t want you talking about the Holocaust because they are doing damage control for the jews. The idea that exposing the Holohoax somehow is not in our interest is patently ridiculous.

  248. July 24, 2012 - 3:14 am | Permalink

    @Lew:

    Possibly, though it would be quite reduced in length.

  249. July 24, 2012 - 2:56 am | Permalink

    @Trenchant:You can thank Professor Faurisson. I met him in 2000 and I admire him a lot; he’s the only man that I ever met that reminded me in some ways of Dr. William Pierce. They both had backbones of iron and idealism about pursuit of truth.

  250. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 24, 2012 - 2:18 am | Permalink

    @Hadding: Good piece by Faurisson on Weber. I don’t think his pusillanimity will spare him any grief. Thanks.

  251. July 24, 2012 - 2:01 am | Permalink

    Hadding,

    There’s a 1:38 am reply to you still awaiting moderation. When it’s released I hope you read it.

  252. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 24, 2012 - 1:56 am | Permalink

    Ok , so here it is that jewish groups have spent countless energy in organization and billion of $ on creating a lie – a lie that Jews feel is so utterly important to be maintained that this same Jewish efforts has then managed to make it illegal to question that lie in much of the world. With temples being built to this lie all over the world and …
    With this we have people that say this lie is not worth refuting? That this lie is not that important to white advocacy?

    It’s no wonder that it is such an uphill battle for whites.

    Strange times these are.

  253. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 24, 2012 - 1:48 am | Permalink

    Organon:

    was swiftly informed by Kevin MacDonald that he doesn’t want a revisionist essay on TOO.

    Can you put it on your own web site? I’ll read it. Writers respond to each other all the time on their sites.

  254. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 24, 2012 - 1:38 am | Permalink

    @Lew:

    That was me that made that post. You made very valid points. I didn’t really mean it was this honesty as much as uncomfortableness with an inconvenient truth.

  255. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    July 24, 2012 - 1:28 am | Permalink

    @omop:
    Amy, who is from Orthodox stock.
    She who put Mumia on the map.
    However I think she is pro Palestine and anti Israel.

  256. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    July 24, 2012 - 1:25 am | Permalink

    @Bear:
    Wikipedia, today I was reading how they ‘scrub’ it.
    No mention of Al Gores sexual harassment of a massage therapist, etc etc.
    Do that 1000s and 1000s of times and Voila! Wikipedia.

  257. European's Gravatar European
    July 24, 2012 - 1:22 am | Permalink

    Andrew is right in that the Holocaust is more of an emotional issue then an issue regarding facts. We can all have the facts and know the truth intellectualy, and the rope can still be around our neck, unless the right facts will dominate our emotions as well, and also in the public image.
    The perspectives of events from “their” innocent jewish “emotionaly charged” side, like the images thru the cinema, media, false story-telling should not dominate, as it has been told and sold in surplus to the world and masses etc. Truth needs to dominate History and not Lies, and yes, a good dose of rightous indignation (emotion) is neccessary to expose truth from fiction/lies. I do not feel good when I am lied about, and can not, or are not allowed to say anything to the charges that is being delivered out to the world. Anyone else with me here? So it is a quest for ” BALANCE” and applied righting the wrongs done to us Germans or WN, which does not wish to minimize the jewish suffering, (mexican or blk. poverty as well) usw. or wrongs committed in or during war-time, but also not to silence the CAUSES that led up to their and OUR sufferings, for centuries if you will. And the later, the causes and jewish contributions are not being brought to light and is being silenced and opposed by Jews, with lables and/or punishments delivered when we speak out. And that is what I find utterly wrong, and nothing is being learned from this war WWII, and all the tragedys that occured to all people and Europeans. We are then doomed to repeat it.

    So I thank Prof Mac D (his books) and all the essay writers for having the courage to speak out, as well as the posters here, even though we do not all agree all the time. I do not have the capability to argue academically with any of you, as I am still learning and growing in my ability to communicate with you. And thanks to those who have the patients to hear or read me, and forgive me for all the grammatical errors. I know I should write thru word and spell-check, but it would take me then for ever. So thank you ALL, my last word for a while.

  258. July 24, 2012 - 1:19 am | Permalink

    @Andrew:

    Andrew, I appreciate your comments. I also agree that for me at least, the discussion is reaching the point of diminishing returns.

  259. Danimalius's Gravatar Danimalius
    July 24, 2012 - 1:06 am | Permalink

    Like Andrew, I also wondered whether Greg Johnson needed to write this article. Perhaps it would have been a better tactic for moving on by writing about something else? But no, he has convincingly argued in detail the damage fighting this futile battle does for our larger goals.

    I do have to take issue though with Greg Johnson’s advice of ruling out alliances now and in the near future with Jews, for many reasons. To start with, whether you, me, or anyone else agrees with it or not, many gentile whites and Jews, not to mention people outside these two groups, consider us all white. The Interior Minister of Israel complained that the soon-to-be-departing African immigrants and Muslims don’t understand that Israel “belongs to us, the white man.”

    Just today I saw a group of children wearing matching summer school t-shirts, peering excitedly around the local art museum as their chaperons watched on diligently. I thought to myself “how nice to see a group of white children enjoying a summer camp without having to undergo racial integration like so many other kids.” As these light-haired and fair-skinned, sunny-faced children rounded the corner, I was surprised to notice from their shirts that the summer program was a Jewish one.

    And the chaperons following after them down the hall probably share many of the same hopes and fears that non-Jewish whites feel, one fear being black crime. Chris Rock joked in his stand-up routine that blacks don’t have time to split whites into little groups (such as Jews). Look at the violence wrought upon Jews in New York City by blacks.

    Perhaps it is time, finally, to extend an olive branch to the Jews if we want to change public perception of white advocacy. How long have we made harsh criticism of Jews a cornerstone of our message? and how far have we gotten? I wouldn’t expect a sea change in a fortnight, but American Renaissance has made inroads, the ADL defended them from charges of anti-Semitism in the past, and AmRen even has speakers advocating on our behalf. All this, despite a virulently vocal opposition to all things Jewish that is pulsing through white advocacy.

    What do we have to lose? Can we not ensure that our movement and organizations are not led astray? Are we always such victims that white organizations must always be manipulated by Jews, rather than the other way around?

    Where are we today, ladies and gentlemen? Is not our situation dire? How then can we afford such an uncompromising attitude? Is it out of emulation of a leader and movement from the past that you admire? We do not sit at the command of the world’s single most effective military machine as they did. It is time we compromise our inherited biases and seek an amicable way forward with these people.

  260. July 24, 2012 - 12:43 am | Permalink

    @Lew: I think I’ve shown that generating doubt about the Holocaust Myth should not be difficult, if the effort is addressed to a reasonable person. It all starts with clarifying and nailing down what the word Holocaust is supposed to mean.

  261. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 24, 2012 - 12:38 am | Permalink

    @Organon,

    Sorry; I somehow clicked into the wrong comment. My comment above to you was meant for Jason Speaks.

    @Jason Speaks:

  262. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 24, 2012 - 12:35 am | Permalink

    @Organon:

    I get the impression that the pro-N*zi, anti-American posters, don’t want to admit we can freely have a discussion here in the United States that virtually no other White country will allow.

    Yes, but I don’t think the refusal to admit is based on disingenuousness or dishonesty. I don’t believe most pro-NS, anti-American posters are dishonest. I’m fairly pro-NS myself as well as anti-American by mainstream standards. So no, it’s not that pro-NS posters are dishonest.

    Jonathan Haidt says every specialist after enough years of study eventually comes to believe his research area is the “key” to human understanding. I think this is what we’re seeing.

    There are people here who know so much about revisionism they have lost sight of the forest for the trees and thus view revisionism as something other than what it is, a narrow field of historical inquiry mostly of interest specialists and few others.

  263. July 24, 2012 - 12:22 am | Permalink

    @Deviance: Maybe Greg Johnson will also pay Organon the $100 that he would have gotten for the essay on TOO.

  264. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 24, 2012 - 12:18 am | Permalink

    *not

  265. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 24, 2012 - 12:16 am | Permalink

    @Organon and @Greg Johnson: You could make a deal to get it published on Counter-Currents. Let’s continue the debate elsewhere, in order to turn the heat off MacDonald, who does want to associate with revisionism.

  266. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    July 24, 2012 - 12:15 am | Permalink

    @arthurdecco: arthurdecco, IF, the holocaust was proven to be a 100 percent bonafide LIE, that is, in the way it is traditionally characterized, (mass gassings in gas chambers, etc. I still think it would not have the effect on the public as some people claim on his forum. I have little faith, perhaps wrongly, when it comes to the American public and most people in general, in being able to overcome beliefs once solidly held. In any case, I doubt they would care much. People are comfortable with their beliefs, and hate those that prove them wrong, even if it benefits them.

  267. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 24, 2012 - 12:13 am | Permalink

    I am cursed. I started to write a lengthy response to Andrew, only to see it disappear forever after a bad manipulation on my keyboard (Ctrl+W instead of Ctrl+X).

    If Organon’s essay says what I wanted to say, it may spare me the work of rewriting it from scratch. So please, post it here.

  268. July 24, 2012 - 12:12 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    My essay was a direct response to this article of yours, so if you would like to see my remarks, ask Kevin MacDonald to publish it. A disclaimer can be included that TOO does not endorse it, if having a pro-revisionist essay appear is really that terrifying.

  269. July 23, 2012 - 11:47 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    Why not just serialize it in the comments section? Your comments are very good, so your essay is surely more worthy of publication than some of the craziness here.

  270. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 11:37 pm | Permalink

    @Floda: I have copied your post on to my hard drive, Floda. It deserves to be recorded for posterity.

    I’m doing my part to remember the truth of what happened. I only hope someone someday records these bits and pieces of real history for a larger audience.

  271. sylvie's Gravatar sylvie
    July 23, 2012 - 11:37 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew:

    Hey, hey, getting nervous? Loosing your cold blood?

    If you had 2 hours to talk to a person, would you spend it explaining about complex chemical analysis issues involving cyanide tests on the ruins of Auschwitz?

    It seems you didn’t follow the thread. Gregs dissenters basically say the following:

    Abandoning the revisionists and not dealing with the “Holocaust” is foolish, because the “Holocaust” is a gold mine for our cause.

    Why? Numerous examples have been given and none of them needs 2 hours of boring chemical discussions of Zyklon-B.

    Take this one for your next cocktail party (chewing a salmon sandwich and sipping champaign):

    “The ‘Holocaust’ is a myth since it must be protected by laws, people investigating it risk 5 years of prison [list the countries, starting with Germany …].”

    Or another one (reaching out for more champaign):

    “Look at the hundreds of memoirs of self-styled ‘Holocaust’ survivors that got literature awards and have been debunked as fake [list them, starting with Wilkomirski…]”

    If you cannot convince someone with simple arguments like these, that Jews are greedy liars, you should reconsider proselytizng for the WN mouvement.

  272. July 23, 2012 - 11:33 pm | Permalink

    @arthurdecco:

    What are the passages in question?

  273. July 23, 2012 - 11:28 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew:

    “So in conclusion, I would like to just say that I wish you a****les would quit ragging on the author, if you think the f****ing Holocaust is so frigging important, get together and write a persuasive article and submit it and explain why.”

    I did this just this very thing only yesterday, and was swiftly informed by Kevin MacDonald that he doesn’t want a revisionist essay on TOO.

  274. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 11:08 pm | Permalink

    @Andrew: “So in conclusion, I would like to just say that I wish you a****les would quit ragging on the author, if you think the f****ing Holocaust is so frigging important, get together and write a persuasive article and submit it and explain why. ”

    We have explained why, Andrew. Post after post. You just haven’t been paying attention. Is it a reading comprehension problem?

    Describing those of us who disagree with Mr. Johnson’s point of view as “a****les”, Andrew, only confirms your own asinine ignorance.

    There isn’t enough time left in my life to explain to a willfully ignorant person like you why your point of view is stupid so I won’t bother.

    You, and those who have been conditioned to think like you are the reason we haven’t yet been able to break the shackles that bind us.

    You are the Jew’s Glue that imprisons us – you and your idiotic delusions.

  275. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 23, 2012 - 10:37 pm | Permalink

    I am not sure how useful it is for the authors to read all the comments here, because I don’t think they represent the viewpoints of the vast majority of readers. I have no doubt that this article makes good sense to most logical, reasonable people who have a mind to successful activism and movement-building.

    I think that there are a minority of people who have a strong commitment on principle to rehabilitating the image of wartime Germany and its leadership. This is their focus and main concern, as opposed to addressing the predicament of Whites now. For them, it is maddeningly unacceptable that untruths/misrepresentations/falsehoods exist as accepted mainstream historiography of WW2. They don’t like the spectre of White’s potential biological extinction, but for them, first and foremost is the psychological need to bring the full truths of WW2 to public consciousness. “Its the Holocaust, stupid!”

    I would venture to say that this is more of an emotional issue than a logical issue, which suggests that reason and logical argument are probably of limited utility in persuading anyone. Attempts to persuade someone away from an emotionally-held position generally result in an emotional response, like “you [insert expletive/derogatory word here]!” I personally would prefer that the author would just ignore them and continue with his work without those distractions. And of course I would prefer that there were less derogatory comments and more support and unity, more positive productivity and less negative derision.

    It does suck that there is a blood libel laying like a yoke on Germany, which is used to demonize Nationalist movements. It sucks that falsehoods exists as fact. I am pretty much repeating my previous comment now, and I know that it does no good, but we don’t want the discussion of Nationalism to be tied to Hitler or the Holocaust. Those are ugly topics with all the wrong imagery. When we “deal with the Holocaust”, intelligent WNs do not defend it or explain it, they wage an intelligent war of ideas by using those ugly images to persuade Whites toward Nationalism. Is that dissembling and devious? Perhaps, based on your perspective. But wars of ideas are won through persuasion and building political movements. You choose your battles carefully. If you had 2 hours to talk to a person, would you spend it explaining about complex chemical analysis issues involving cyanide tests on the ruins of Auschwitz? Wouldn’t it be more effective to discuss how immigration is transforming Whites into a minority, and what happened to the minority Whites of Zimbabwe, South Africa and Detroit?

    So in conclusion, I would like to just say that I wish you a****les would quit ragging on the author, if you think the f****ing Holocaust is so frigging important, get together and write a persuasive article and submit it and explain why.

  276. July 23, 2012 - 10:33 pm | Permalink

    @Deviance:

    Alain De Benoist is the exception that confirms the rule, the “ugly duckling” of the movement.

    For some reason, he’s the one whose name we all know.

  277. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 10:31 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: “http://www.robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-weber-must-resign-from-institute.html”

    “Plagiarist? Do you even know the meaning of the word?”

    Why yes, I do know the meaning of the word, plagiarist, Mr. Johnson.

    But here’s the online definition of the word plagiarism for you, since you don’t appear to know the definition of plagiarism yourself:

    pla·gia·rism
    1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau’s plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off.

    2.a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation: “These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said, tossing them angrily on the floor. “

    All I needed to identify and describe you as a plagiarist was to read the article that Hadding linked to.

    You copy and pasted Mr. Mark Weber’s prose into your article without attribution.

    Full Stop.

    As far as I’m concerned that makes you a plagiarist.

  278. Mother Trucker's Gravatar Mother Trucker
    July 23, 2012 - 10:23 pm | Permalink

    Thank you A.D.

  279. Noble Lord's Gravatar Noble Lord
    July 23, 2012 - 10:20 pm | Permalink

    @Gregor:

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:

    Please excuse my bad manners, your comment was noted and certainly appreciated.

    There is truth in what you have said and because i am new to this forum/web site, i hesitated, realising that a kind response to your comment from myself could be attacked by the deviant.

    Fellowship and truth are not colour coded.

    NOT EVERYONE RECOGNISES AND APPRECIATES A KIND COMMENT, LET ALONE GOD BLESSED DAY!

  280. Noble Lord's Gravatar Noble Lord
    July 23, 2012 - 9:59 pm | Permalink

    @Helvena:

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:

    I appreciate your considered words of encouragement, it is always good for the spirit to hear/receive a kind word intended to aid and not hinder.

    I and many other “black” peoples have often considered that Muhammad Ali spoke contray to the prepared script and for that he was silenced via “PARKINSONS” disease!

    Perhaps if they took those drugs that “help” his Parkisons disease he’d be able to do much better.

    Alas, they will probably extinguish his life at or during the London Olympics!

    However, i did not agree with everything he said or did, he was a brave man and did speak some truth.

    This war will have a vast cost to humanity, such is the entrenched position of the opposition, who continues to be aided and abbetted by those who feel misoginism is the big it, when it has always existed and at minor rates.

    All ethnic peoples love themselves and poverty sure makes em love each other more, contrary to what the economic terrorist may think.

    The criminal Talmudic tribe can only exist, because “The lie” has been protected and promoted. The lie being them, all they do, say and fashion by hand.

    A PEOPLE ROAM THE EARTH, CAUSING MEN TO FEAR THEM MORE THAN THE TRUTH, BUT THAT TOMORROW WILL COME!

  281. July 23, 2012 - 9:57 pm | Permalink

    @arthurdecco:

    Plagiarist? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

    This discussion jumped the shark a long time ago.

    Hadding, in particular, is behaving more like a stalker than an interlocutor.

    Beam me up!

  282. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 9:39 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding: “@Carolyn Yeager: The negative view of Mark Weber will make more sense to people if they read what Professor Robert Faurisson had to say:

    http://www.robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-weber-must-resign-from-institute.html

    Greg Johnson has learned about revisionism from a very poor representative of it. Professor Faurisson by contrast is a very good representative. “

    I have just read, in its entirety, your linked comment by Professor Faurisson and have had my eyes opened. Anyone looking for honesty and openness in this discussion should read the article that you have linked to.

    Mr. Johnson is an undeniable plagiarist and a dishonest dissembler. No wonder he resorted to the adolescent rebuttals in lieu of substantive argument in his responses to you and the rest of us who disagreed with his basic premise.

    I stand humbly corrected. He is not remotely an earnest and honest seeker of truth – rather he appears to be just another ““spineless Revisionist”.

    When are our supposed “leaders” going to grow the cojones they need to win this fight against our tireless enemies?

  283. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 23, 2012 - 9:32 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    You are being a bit too harsh on the Nouvelle Droite here (the French 1970s movement that inspired Greg Johnson’s creation of the American New Right).

    It was mostly a scientific and pro-White movement, calling for a reexamination of the “humans are born equal” myth under the light of sociobiology (which is a “light” racism, so to speak).

    Alain De Benoist is the exception that confirms the rule, the “ugly duckling” of the movement.

  284. July 23, 2012 - 9:19 pm | Permalink

    @Deviance:I am seeing that this New Right stuff is useless crap. Now the hostility that I’ve encountered from various “New RIghtists” are starting to make sense. These people are not racists and they are not anti-Jew. What are they doing here?

  285. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 23, 2012 - 9:10 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    As a French by birth, I know very well Alain De Benoist. He is not one of us. He can be best described as a reactionary philosopher popular in conservative and libertarian milieus, whose mind wanders a lot and who, by real conviction or more likely by lack of interest in the subject, cannot be qualified as a racist or a sociobiologist.

    He has debunked Human Rights, Christianity and democracy on a theoretical and philosophical level rather than on a scientific, realistic or empiricist level. He is an interesting read, but I doubt he can convince anyone besides the already convinced.

    The only thing that can harm the Left is the scientific rejection of egalitarianism.
    Not philosophy.

  286. Floda's Gravatar Floda
    July 23, 2012 - 8:13 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: You claim the ‘Germans decided that Poland should cease to exist?’ That is simply nonsense, remember only 17 days after Germany entered Poland from the west the USSR attacked her from the east.

    Ever hear about the treaty of Versailles? It dismembered Germany. One of my schoolmates’ mother was a little girl during the 1930’s. To get to Berlin they had to take a train through Polish territory. On the way home Polish Inspectors would confiscate her new shoes bought for her in Berlin. The German Port city of Danzig and its 99% German population was suddenly ruled by Poleand.

    What Hitler wanted was the restoration of this city back under German rule. Same for the Sudeten Germans given into Czechoslovakia, a country which never existed before WW1 and which does not exist today. You should take a look at a pre WW1 map of Europe and see what happened after that war, but something tells me you won’t do that.

  287. July 23, 2012 - 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Here’s another statement from Alain de Benoist in the same interview with Der Spiegel:

    In numerous articles against racism, I have highlighted that history is more important than biology, that culture is more important than nature.

    This doesn’t seem like a very good recommendation of Alain de Benoist and the :”New RIght” to me. Compared to National-Socialism it’s a retrograde movement, in regard to the account that it takes of scientific knowledge. I think most of us who call ourselves White Nationalists in the United States are way more radical than Alain de Benoist.

  288. July 23, 2012 - 7:56 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    “The Germans could have liberated Danzig (which wast heir right), deposed the fools who ruled Poland, and set up a new Polish regime. They could have fought the Bolsheviks (for which I thank them) and still honored the legitimate national aspirations of the Ukrainians, Russians, and other peoples under Bolshevik rule. But they chose not to, because they wanted to reduce these peoples to helots in a German empire. Hitler’s remarks in the Table Talk make his attitudes abundantly clear.”

    There is no need to go to the Table Talks. One only has to refer to Mein Kampf to see that Hitler viewed the Soviet Union as the nation that should have to yield to German need for living space. In 1937 Ribbentrop approached Churchill directly and openly conveyed German intentions regarding the east. This was, or should have been, of no concern to the British, French or American governments.

    The primordial aim underlying Hitler’s intentions was securing the future existence of the German people.

    At the very least, this differs positively from the mercantile and commercial as well as the distinctively quixotic religious-missionary impulse of nations before him, which had nevertheless set no precedent of the sort you suggest regarding the “legitimate national aspirations” of the peoples whose lands they had expanded into, as with the Americas.

  289. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 23, 2012 - 7:51 pm | Permalink

    It would be very interesting, instead of an umpteenth debate on the so-called “Holocaust” and on Hitler’s attitude toward non-Germans (I consider this debate groundless on the fact several non-Germans became high-ranking officers in the elite corps of Germany, the Schutzstaffel), to write an article on Hitler’s two, even three, personalities.

    There was the personality he showed to the masses: Christian, pro-tradition, pro-German, conservative, with a lot of “the war is Germany against Asia” rhetoric.

    There was the personality he showed to the Wehrmacht and his subalterns: the same as the first one, but bolder and smarter on military and international affairs. He did not hesitate to say that he cared more about the German race than about Germany the country, or that there were no rules when it came to warfare except winning (which is true).

    There was the real one, only known by a handful of friends: racist rather than conservative, Social-Darwinist rather than Christian, and with grand plans to finally purge Europe of a parasite called the Semite.

    99% of misconceptions about the Third Reich can be traced back to people thinking Hitler had only one personality. Of course he did not. Did Bismarck say to the German masses that his favorite book was Might Is Right and not the Bible?

  290. July 23, 2012 - 7:51 pm | Permalink

    Here’s where Mr. New Right himself, Alain de Benoist, explains what HE means by “Old Right”:

    SPIEGEL: What is actually new about the New Right, in contrast to the traditional right, which had been very influential before the war?

    BENOIST: The old right was a ragbag of traditionalists in the catholic sense gathered from both royalists and Bonapartists. I’m neither a Christian, nor a royalist, nor a nationalist and furthermore I have no anti-Semitic impulses. We are ideologically at least as far from the traditional right as from the left.
    http://www.saloforum.com/index.php?threads/spiegel-interview-with-de-benoist.961/

    Royalists and Bonapartists? Benoist’s “Old Right” is not Hitler and Mussolini. Where is Greg Johnson getting his definition?

  291. July 23, 2012 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

    @Dan:

    The Table Talk is a good indication of Hitler’s plans for the Russians and Ukrainians.

  292. July 23, 2012 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: Talk of “legitimate national aspirations” reminds me of Woodrow Wilson. I think it’s easy to fantasize about self-determination for all peoples everywhere when you live essentially in North America with two oceans as defense against any serious military threat. “Legitimate national aspirations” is feelgood rhetoric from people that don’t have to deal with harsh reality.

    I think for Germany in 1930s and 40s, it was not such a safe and secure world. Letting all the other countries have an equal status and self-determination after you’ve conquered them in a war just looks like throwing away hard-won gains and asking for more trouble.

    It was a war that Hitler really hadn’t wanted.
    http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2011/10/was-hitler-responsible-for-world-war-ii.html

    I don’t think that the treatment of Slavs under German hegemony was really terrible anyway. The Czechs were so content that the British had to arrange the assassination of Heydrich to sour that relationship. The Soviet Union sent out agents in SS uniforms to commit atrocities to damage the German image there.

  293. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 23, 2012 - 6:52 pm | Permalink

    In any case, it puzzles me that people keep talking about “Germany against Poland”, or “Germany against Czechoslovakia”, or “Germany against France”.

    Hitler was a racist Austrian, for God’s sake. Not a blue-blooded German descending from the Junkers. All his actions as a head of State can be traced back to his racist ideas and his pan-germanism, not to some kind of geopolitical manoeuvres destined to expand the frontiers of a country that wasn’t even his.

    Even in white nationalist milieus, there is still this idea that Hitler was a politician doing his job out of lust for power, status, sex and good food, or that he cared only about German nationals, or that he treated problems from the point of view of “what is good for Germany”.

    This is wrong. Hitler was a racist, and really fought for the White Race (at the sole exclusion of Slavs).

    Therefore the idealization of Hitler, which is heavy in certain “neona.zi” forums, is not that ridiculous. Germany was our horse, Hitler its jockey, and by killing them both we ruined all our chances of victory against our parasites and our enemies.

  294. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 23, 2012 - 6:50 pm | Permalink

    In any case, it puzzles me that people keep talking about “Germany against Poland”, or “Germany against Czechoslovakia”, or “Germany against France”.

    Hitler was a racist Austrian, for God’s sake. Not a blue-blooded German descending from the Junkers. All his actions as a head of State can be traced back to his racist ideas and his pan-germanism, not to some kind of geopolitical manoeuvres destined to expand the frontiers of a country that wasn’t even his.

    Even in white nationalist milieus, there is still this idea that Hitler was a politician doing his job out of lust for power, status, sex and good food, or that he cared only about German nationals, or that he treated problems from the point of view of “what is good for Germany”.

    This is wrong. Hitler was a racist, and really fought for the White Race (at the sole exclusion of Slavs).

    Therefore the idealization of Hitler, which is heavy in certain “neo-nazi” forums, is not that ridiculous. Germany was our horse, Hitler its jockey, and by killing them both we ruined all our chances of victory against the coalition of Negr.oids, sub.hu.mans, Sem.ites and petitbourgeois Freemasons.

  295. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    July 23, 2012 - 6:47 pm | Permalink

    We don’t know what they actually were going to do. Had Moscow fallen in 1941 the Krauts would
    have probably behaved no worse than they did in France. The summer campaigns of 1942 buried any possibility of a reasonable peace settlement or beneficial conquest.

    It’s all beside the point though. Jews are a competing hostile elite. There’s no question of innocence. If they ever acheived majority status they’d bulldoze us.

  296. July 23, 2012 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    For Greg Johnson

  297. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 23, 2012 - 6:32 pm | Permalink

    Greg Johnson says,

    The Germans decided that Poland would cease to exist, and the Ukraine as well. That is not nationalism for everyone.

    It is not exact to say Germany wanted to destroy Poland. Germany simply wanted to take back parcels of land that once belonged to Germany and therefore had German farms, cities and nationals on them. After the very moderate German ultimatum was rejected, Germany decided to wage war on Poland to strike down her ruling elite and replace it by a pro-German one. The fate of the country after this event is unknown of course, but it couldn’t involve genocide or enslavement of native Poles since it would have resulted in, besides the discredit of Germany on the international scene and the excommunication of all German State officials by the Church, an uprising and a terribly bloody civil war (Polish farmhouses were well-equipped in muskets and pitchforks).

    As to “nationalism for everyone”, that’s called pacifism and humanism. Everybody has a right to a country. I’m all in with you.

    But who decides how to distribute evenly the Earth surface? Why should Russia have such an immense territory rich in natural resources, and Luxembourg continue to be minuscule?

    The sword is the only thing that has ever created, maintained and destroyed countries. Not politics or diplomacy. The sword. Can you therefore blame Germany for understanding this cruel, but all too real, natural law?

    You are still a Christian, Herr Johnson. You are still soaked in Christian morality.

  298. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 23, 2012 - 6:30 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    WN could work with Muslims on an ad hoc basis to repeal laws against Holocaust denial in Europe, if it make sense in a short term political sense. But, of course, the Muslims have their own desire to restrict free speech an inquiry. So, as long as WN had their eyes fully open, it might be possible on this one issue. However, Muslims and WN have such opposite goals I doubt there could be cooperation on anything else.

  299. July 23, 2012 - 6:27 pm | Permalink

    @ Noble Lord, tip of my hat to you. Nationalist of all races must recognize our common cause and our mutual enemy, respect our differences and love our own people. Muhammad Ali on race, a true leader of the Black American people. He speaks sense to the ambitious toady Parkinson
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXEupeEMwyw&feature=player_embedded
    The jews are not a people. They are an international syndicate.

  300. July 23, 2012 - 6:16 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    The Germans could have liberated Danzig (which was their right), deposed the fools who ruled Poland, and set up a new Polish regime. They could have fought the Bolsheviks (for which I thank them) and still honored the legitimate national aspirations of the Ukrainians, Russians, and other peoples under Bolshevik rule. But they chose not to, because they wanted to reduce these peoples to helots in a German empire. Hitler’s remarks in the Table Talk make his attitudes abundantly clear. It pains me to say it, but those are the facts.

  301. Faustus's Gravatar Faustus
    July 23, 2012 - 6:08 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager:

    While you, Carolyn, have had many good points and posts, on your own forum, The White Network, you have repeatedly marginalized Posts and ideas that did not fit into your world-view; I know of at least two people who have tried to get the ‘truth’ to you, but you have always found an excuse to maintain silence on these issues. At least on this forum, there is not this type of censorship, and the strengths and weaknesses will bear out.

    The ‘holocaust’ is what it is – a maze of preconditions, faux pas, and a tremendous machine which has lied, deceived, and misdirected the weakened and atrophied West.

    Why, then, do you and others seek to present the religion of the ‘dead’, to our folk-community, as have many others in the past, at the expense of a validated political and philosophical agenda which will take our People Forward, in lieu of this historical albatross which, it must be admitted, must be cogently dissected and presented to the public at large. But not as the a priori of WN’st direction.

    WN’sm seeks to instill Unity as a priori, not division; the breaking into smaller and smaller parts, which ‘holocaust revisionism’ has done for thirty years, has accomplished what, exactly?

    I do not agree with Mr. Johnson on all things, and I have different take on WN’sm – one that I think is right and true, but you, yourself, have stated that “[I] don’t even know what White Nationalism is,” and then offer an Interview with someone who such a anti-figure, that the sheer mention of his name makes the varying sides take to arms, and then is offered the title of WN’st, as a spokesman! The division which has alienated millions of our people here, as well as Europe, is caused mainly by uninitiated, and well intentioned amateurs which have done nothing but cause irrevocable harm to our momentum.

    If others, and Mr. Johnson might be included in this assessment, have erred on one aspect of this issue or the other, it is NOTHING in the scheme of things, as longs as we all attempt to fortify and build a working system which we then may move into the streets, and ultimately into power for the benefit of our People. This will be done with very hard work, sacrifice, loss of freedom, and even our lives. These puny and disgusting debates like this serve only the one Master, and he is not from us.

    The foundations of the twenty-first century are to be laid by us, or by no one.

  302. July 23, 2012 - 5:48 pm | Permalink

    Greg:

    Regarding the first response that you gave to me. In this statement, you make it clear that Jews exhibit pathogenic tendencies in their own brand of nationalism that is detrimental for everyone else, which is an extension of my point. It is not the case that the interests of all peoples can be reconciled, only the interests of a finite subset of peoples. It is naïve of you suggest that. Some interests will inevitably conflict, and some interests have to give way to others. That is the history of the world. I do not see our interests on this finite body of space as reconcilable with the interests of Jews, as they demonstrate to use over and over again.

    Second, your characterization of German foreign policy in those kinds of exaggerated moral terms is ridiculous.

    Germany’s principal foreign policy aims were reuniting the German people and confronting the Soviet Union, which in its propaganda clearly projected itself as a direct threat to the interests of Germany and every existing European power. Germany first sought an alliance with Poland against the Soviet Union. All that was required was the return of Danzig and a railway and autobahn connecting East Prussia to the Reich. Quite frankly, Poland had a choice to make between Germany or Russia. Because of British meddling and a hollow war guarantee, it chose neither. Poland was aware of potential consequences of its decisions, and they ensued.

    While Adolf Hitler did indeed desire the extension of German living space at the expense of Bolshevik Russia, the specific contours of this expansion did not have to take the form that they did, and Polish intransigence is the principal cause of the outcome, not German imperialism.

    If the British Empire, as it very well should have, taken stock of its actual interests and allowed Germany to expand at the expense of a Communist tyranny, we would not be talking about the demise of our race.

    Lastly, had it not been for “imperialism most foul”, you and I would not even be engaging in this issue at all. The origins and the history of the United States is certainly no mystery to those of us present here.

  303. sylvie's Gravatar sylvie
    July 23, 2012 - 5:33 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    The Germans decided that Poland would cease to exist, and the Ukraine as well.

    The non-German part of Poland (“Generalgouvernement”) was not annexed, but administered, a normal procedure in wartime, same as the Allies did with Germany. After the war this would have become a new Polish state (with limited independence and under Germany’s control). Again, same as the Allies did with Germany.

    So don’t complain too much about “imperialism most foul”.

    As for Ukraine, I am not aware of plans integrating it into Germany.

  304. July 23, 2012 - 5:22 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    First, I will charitably assume that, unlike Hadding, you are not merely objecting to the term “the Holocaust”….

    I have explained VERY clearly that this is not what I am about. I define terms so that they can be discussed intelligently.

    This accusation of merely trying to change what things are called as a kind of “flim-flam” is really projection on your part.

    You are the one that is playing with labels when you pretend that there is a “New Right” and an “Old Right,” using the label Old Right in a way that it has never been used before, in the vain attempt to sidestep difficult issues and abandon our kinsmen to the defamations that have been heaped upon them.

  305. July 23, 2012 - 5:10 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    RE the analogy between New Right and New Left on dealing with Old Right and Old Left atrocities: it is not a weak analogy just because the New Right is in a weaker position than the New Left. I never said this is going to be easy. But the fact that the New Left had a lot more open and tacit support from the existing establishment does not change the fact that essentially their decision not to defend Old Left atrocities was an inner act of will, an expression of moral-psychological strength and courage. They REALLY believe their bullshit, so much so that NOTHING is going to deflect them from advancing their agenda.

    Even though the New Right is virtually powerless in a social sense, we all as individuals still have the power to rally our moral and psychological strength and courage and to move forward with our agenda REGARDLESS of the past. Even if Hitler killed 16 million Jews, that does not make our cause any less right, and we need to stop acting as if it would.

    Although many individual revisionists have shown great moral strength and courage in facing crazed hatred, criminal assaults, social ostracism, job discrimination, exile, and prison, I think that the revisionist project itself, AT LEAST IN SOME CASES, springs from moral weakness: from the feeling that if these terrible things are true, then we as a race really don’t deserve to survive.

    That is the same moral root as the most disgusting displays of white ethnomasochism. Until that root is severed, we are a race without a future.

  306. July 23, 2012 - 4:52 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    The Germans decided that Poland would cease to exist, and the Ukraine as well. That is not nationalism for everyone. That is imperialism most foul. The Third Reich supported the nationalistic aspirations of other peoples when it suited them, but not when these people got in the way of their plans for Eastern expansion.

  307. Sandy's Gravatar Sandy
    July 23, 2012 - 4:52 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding: Isn’t euthanasia a hall mark of our democracy? Even if you accept that Hitler gave no written order for killing all the Jews, which is quite a remarkable view given that he did give a written order authorizing the euthanasia of the chronically ill and severely retarded, there still should be other documents showing the plan

  308. July 23, 2012 - 4:47 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    1. Yes, I argue that “Whites should concede that Jews suffered during World War II.” It is true, and no serious revisionist denies it, and that is all Jews need to keep playing violins and tugging at the heartstrings of morbidly conscientious whites until we cease to exist.

    2. You then state: “then you go on to believe that this warrants the continued application of ‘The Holocaust’, as if there was something exceptional about Jewish suffering and as if among all of the peoples that suffered in that war, they are so clearly individuated as a people as to warrant the dignity of a separate name and distinct narrative for their experience.”

    I think there is a major confusion here.

    First, I will charitably assume that, unlike Hadding, you are not merely objecting to the term “the Holocaust” and pretending that such autistic semantic quibbles matter.

    Second, the major point of my article is that Whites need to STOP CARING so much about dead Jews. We need to stop thinking like Jews (i.e., in a Judeo-centric way) and come up with a white-centered perspective on genocide, because whites are being destroyed RIGHT NOW by soft, cold genocide. Moreover, Jews are the major architects of that genocide. Jews have (and continue) to subject whites to genocide on a far larger scale than anything that happened to the Jews in WW II. Once we start thinking that way, we are immune to the Holocaust guilt trip.

    Third, everything is unique metaphysically speaking. But everything is also comparable to everything else. Jews insist that the Holocaust is both unique (which is trivially true) and incommensurable (which is false). That is just a projection of Jewish hyperethnocentrism, which the rest of humanity needs to identify and reject. Jews can sell this absurdity because they have the power and money to do so. We need to immunize our people so they stop buying it.

    3. You are misrepresenting my views on Israel. Philosophically speaking, if ethnonationalism is true and good, it applies to Jews too. I think we need to be consistent and principled on that point.

    But that does not imply any sort of political support of Israel: no aid, no alliances, nothing. Of course it doesn’t exclude them either. for it is conceivable that a WN state might find such things to be in their interests (REALLY in their interests).

    As for any relations between WNs TODAY and Jews: I make it very clear that the European nationalists who suck up to Jews are fools who are being played. Jews are the most powerful people on the planet. White nationalists have no power at all. Nobody makes alliances with the powerless. So when Jews try to establish friendly ties with White Nationalists, there can be only one agenda: the subversion of White Nationalism.

  309. July 23, 2012 - 4:45 pm | Permalink

    A point that I want to add to Greg’s assumption of some clearly demarcated difference between the “Old Right” and the “New Right”, which are absurd classifications in any event:

    Greg says: “As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” We believe that this idea can become hegemonic through the transformation of culture and consciousness. We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers. Thus we retain the values, aims, and intellectual framework of the Old Right. Where we differ is that we reject Old Right party politics, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.”

    I do not recall reading anything in National-Socialist literature that rejects nationalism for other peoples. In fact, a cornerstone of National-Socialism is that there are not universally valid principles that apply to all peoples in all times and places, in the sense that different peoples must find different political paths for themselves; the world is diverse. But in tandem with this view is an acceptance of the reality that conflicts emerge between peoples, as higher level expression of a fundamental biological reality.

    So, I completely disagree with Greg’s bifurcation on these grounds.

    Furthermore, he cannot appeal to German foreign policy as some kind of reference point to his justification, and I dare him to.

  310. July 23, 2012 - 4:32 pm | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows: Those arguments are all very weak.

    Even if you accept that Hitler gave no written order for killing all the Jews, which is quite a remarkable view given that he did give a written order authorizing the euthanasia of the chronically ill and severely retarded, there still should be other documents showing the plan. It is impossible to undertake such a gigantic project without having many people know about it, and certainly people are not going to undertake killings without having firm documentation that this is what they are supposed to do, because they could be punished for it; some SS-men were tried and punished for mistreating prisoners in camps: consequently there should be many written documents demonstrating the Holocaust explicitly, if it was a real project.

    Hitler and other Germans said negative things about Jews and occasionally mentioned Vernichtung or Ausrottung of Jews. Those words don’t usually mean killing. You can tell that by observing how Hitler used those words in Mein Kampf. Bombastic utterances don’t prove anything.

    The “Goebbels Diaries,” from which a passage is famously quoted in support of the Holohoax, are fake. Mark Weber himself testified to that effect under oath in a Canadian courtroom in 1988. There is no original manuscript of the Goebbels Diaries, only reproductions of typed pages from Soviet archives that we are supposed to accept as authentic in spite of inconsistencies internal and external.

    Statements from Adolf Eichmann at his trial are not reliable because he was trying to cooperate and escape the death-penalty, or possibly guarantee the safety of his family. Some of Eichmann’s statements at his trial are impossible. Hannah Arendt noted this.

    Killing Jews on the Eastern Front in reprisal for guerrilla-activity is not legitimately counted as part of the Holocaust, even though it is customary to do so.

    Himmler’s second Posen speech, carefully read, cannot reasonably be understood as a discussion of killing Jews. This is another example of “decoding” what is literally said in order to make it incriminating. Himmler says Ausrottung, which the Holocaustians unreasonably insist must mean killing, but then glosses the word with Judenevakuierung, which cannot mean that. So, this is not evidence for the Holocaust.

    There are several arguments against the claim that the Auschwitz-Birkenau kremas were used for gassing people. One is the physical structure (Leuchter). the Auschwitz kremas have floor-drains that connect them to all other buildings in the camp. There was also a low exhaust stack that would have allowed wind to carry gas to the nearby SS hospital. And this was supposed to be a structure for gassing people round the clock with cyanide? Not likely.

    Another argument comes from the head of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers, Walter Lueftl. Lueftl notes that it takes many hours for Zyklon-B pellets to stop emitting gas, whereas we are supposed to believe that fresh groups of Jews were supposed to be rotated in and out every 20 minutes. It doesn’t fit.

    One of the more recent dodge of the Holocaustians for creating doubt about revisionist arguments is to emphasize that it takes less cyanide gas to kill humans than to kill lice. Then they make calculations based on the assumption that there was a uniform minimum concentration of cyanide sufficient to kill humans, rather than calculating based on how the event was claimed to have occurred, which is that Zyklon-B pellets were dumped into the middle of a room packed with people and the gas allowed to diffuse passively until all were dead.

    If Zyklon-B pellets were dropped into a room packed with Jews and allowed to diffuse passively throughout the room, and this was done over and over and over, there would be the recurrence of a very high concentration of cyanide gas in that one part of the room, and there should be blue staining at least in that location. There is no such staining in the Auschwitz-Birkenau so-called gas-chambers.

    The discussion of the Hoess confession in that Wikipedia article is very selective. There are several falsehoods in the Hoess confession. Wikipedia there focuses on an argument based on concentrations of cyanide gas, which is the least obvious point. Hoess’s confession admitted to a very high death-toll for Auschwitz that no scholar now accepts as accurate, and he referred to a camp called “Wolzek” that never existed. Those are glaring problems with the Hoess confession. The fact that some German prisoners were tortured in Allied custody is incontestable. Therefore any such confessions may be doubted. In the case of Hoess, a book was written that narrates his capture, in which reference was made to his being beaten almost to death.

    I am not so familiar with the issues in the rest of the article. Some revisionists have made some mistakes, and of course the Holocaustians make the most of it when they can. There were some mistakes in Richard Harwood/Verrall’s booklet Did Six Million Really Die? These mistakes were sorted out in Canadian courtrooms during Ernst Zundel’s series of trials for publishing the booklet in Canada. Subsequently Zundel published a new edition with a list of errata. The bulk of the content was not affected. The British publisher then put out its own new edition with the mistakes removed.

  311. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 23, 2012 - 3:29 pm | Permalink

    @john thames:

    I think the problem is much more fundamental than this, in fact concerning logic. The reason the Protocols are called a forgery is plagiarism. But plagiarism proves theft of ideas, not inauthenticity in any other sense. This is a logical matter, because authenticity is a concept that depends on purported purpose or purported meaning. Plagiarism only proves inauthenticity if originality is part of the purported meaning. In most real world cases implicitly it is in that a published piece of work implies originality. But in the case of the protocols this patently is not the case. The purported meaning is that of a secret conspiracy framework. Originality of the explanatory or illusrative text is no part of that meaning, therefore plagiarism is largely irrelevant.
    this is a logical matter….it’s pretty incontrovertable.

  312. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 23, 2012 - 3:26 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    As to a personal solution right now- I would look into becoming a secured party under the Constitution and Common law which trumps the legal corporation fictions statues/codes etc. This will allow you to operate “inside” the fiction by way of your Corporation (Add you name in caps) while maintaining your living soul under law outside that system and inside Common/Christian/Constitutional law. This is because that Corporation (Add your name in caps) is now indebted to YOU and not property of the Corporation UNITED STATES.

    To do so one must start opening their books and LEARNING THE LAW vs legalities. Secure all your property and your children under your status. This will exempt you and your children from all these unlawful acts and statutes designed by the “jews” by orders of the City of London Corp and their owners. This is a practical step to consider until we see what the good guys are going to do concerning their sworn oath to protect we the people.

    Do not worry about the “Holocaust”. That stake will be driven in the vampires heart once the lawful Governments have those trillions of dollars released to them by the US Military; when the Corporation is contained inside DC and the lawful Governments control everything else. Then the education of such matters will go to the population of America at large by way of Media and lawful Education systems that We The People now control again.

    As of now this is how I see it going down according to the plans that I heard that are in effect but as of yet are awaiting to be commensed. For more info on this do a search on the Nation States, RuSA and Secured Party.

  313. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 23, 2012 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: Our people don’t trust us, we need to be direct, open and honest. You can’t evade issues without coming across as evasive and highly untrustworthy. On mainstream live TV you would probably not allowed to deliver that lengthy prepared sound-bite in response to a question about the Holocaust without being interrupted. They might let you finish but edit it out, if it is a recording. However, lets assume you do manage to deliver that reply (you’d have had to talk fast, too fast) while being pressed about your views, will that end the matter? The interviewer will instantly ask if your response to his question means you accept the reality of the Holocaust or not. You certainly won’t be allowed to get in any more sound bites, and the interviewer will not give up asking what you believe.

    Saying that we ‘recognize that the Holocaust is being used to abort the White future’ sounds like very poor way to frame our beliefs, if our beliefs do not derive from the Nazis we should have no reason to be evasive about the Holocaust. When asked about Abel’s whereabouts Cain tried to ‘evade the frame’ and replied with a question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    Nietzsche believed the most important kind of honesty was honesty with oneself.

  314. July 23, 2012 - 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Tom:

    That is a good point and it is part of the basis for the fact that Greg has provided us with a weak analogy by attempting to argue that because leftists are unconcerned with Communist crimes, we should similarly be unconcerned with any guilt that is supposed to accrue to us because of the Holocaust myth. Both the Jews and the left have set agendas in academia, education and media for decades, and so the contours of public discourse have focused largely on advocating policies, domestic and foreign, that would stem from guilt from past racism and colonialism.

    This is why the Holocaust myth is relevant to us in ways that Communist atrocities are not to leftists. It is not simply that unreformed Marxists do not care, but that culture and education, and therefore resultant policy both domestic and foreign, does not demand it.

    If we see clearly that the Holocaust narrative is a myth in its tenets that it is not the case that Jews suffered in unique ways that other peoples did not and that they were not subjects of a policy of deliberate extermination, it has implications for us, for Jews, and for the State of Israel. Furthermore, as you rightly point out, Jews behaved in certain ways in German society, law and politics, and from the perspective of any observer in 1933 vividly conveyed in the form of the Bolshevik horror the consequences of rule in which they are a privileged caste, that what in fact occurred to them from 1933 to 1945 was very clearly deserved.

  315. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 23, 2012 - 3:09 pm | Permalink

    @fender:

    Judaism-Talmudism and radical Islam are in the same camp. They falsely oppose eachother at the top. The “Jews” let masses of muslims into White Christian lands by way of controlling our immigration. This acts as a pincer to crush their mutual enemy- White national Christiandom. You will find little to no allies within Islam- only a few possible ones so I would not concentrate my efforts at “coverting” Muslims to an alliance pertaining the holocaust.

    As I keep saying we are being pushed out of our homelands hence we will have to fight against both Judaism and Islam at home while using the situation to our advantage. When the time is right we make our lawful claim to inhabite what is ours- the lands of Israel in the ME. The muslims will not know what to do since they helped create the situation by siding with the “Jews” concerning their invasion here and European Christiandom will not be able to refute it in law, nor socially since they have no other options. “Jews” will be unable to deny us least they die concerning the prospects of taking on all of Islam in the ME and the far East plus Asia’s aspirations. Then the time will be right to make our move and take out the Esau “Jew” elite by way of a lawful trial while returning the regular imposters to their nations of origin.

    Check-mate :)

  316. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 23, 2012 - 3:04 pm | Permalink

    From that wiki the link to ‘Criticism of Holocaust denial’. What are the answers to the main points here?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

  317. July 23, 2012 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

    @Tom: The German reaction was to intern the Jews as enemy aliens, which is what the United States of America did to its Japanese residents.

    The Holocaust properly defined is not an exaggeration: it’s a falsehood.

  318. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 23, 2012 - 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Just for information, Holocaust denial is not illegal in the UK, and nor is expressing racist opinions. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

  319. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    July 23, 2012 - 2:39 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    I don’t think the Germans would have reacted to the Jews without reason and cause!

    By the same token, Semites exaggerate, and the Holocaust is an exaggeration of epic proportions.

  320. July 23, 2012 - 2:35 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager: The negative view of Mark Weber will make more sense to people if they read what Professor Robert Faurisson had to say.
    http://www.robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-weber-must-resign-from-institute.html

    Greg Johnson has learned about revisionism from a very poor representative of it. Professor Faurisson by contrast is a very good representative.

  321. July 23, 2012 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Greg:

    Don’t anticipate an apology from me for any misreading of your writings. I have a very clear conception of your philosophy and arguments. My comments here were intended to address them at large, not just the claims you advance in this article here.

    Fundamentally, you argue that Whites should concede that Jews suffered during World War II, a position I have no problem conceding, but then you go on to believe that this warrants the continued application of ‘The Holocaust’, as if there was something exceptional about Jewish suffering and as if among all of the peoples that suffered in that war, they are so clearly individuated as a people as to warrant the dignity of a separate name and distinct narrative for their experience. Furthermore, you would have Whites maintain political support of the State of Israel, as you have very clearly argued elsewhere.

    Both are objectionable, which is putting it politely and academically, and sick and pernicious, which is putting it personally and honestly.

  322. July 23, 2012 - 1:59 pm | Permalink

    @Carolyn Yeager:
    Replying to myself, I will add the conclusions drawn in Weber’s paper “How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?” written in Jan. 2009:

    “In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power [Zionist power] is a crucially important one. In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role.”

    “Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe’s Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help.”

  323. July 23, 2012 - 1:46 pm | Permalink

    @katana:
    Katana has made an excellent case, by the quotes from Greg Johnson’s article he has used in his comment, that Greg’s whole idea comes from what had already been put forth by the discredited and dishonest Mark Weber, who first stated in the article Greg linked to in the beginning of his essay what Greg says here:

    I simply wish to argue that Holocaust revisionism is not a necessary component of our intellectual project. We don’t need it. Which is not the same thing as saying that it is a hindrance, or that it cannot help under any circumstances, although I will argue that it is often a distraction.

    This is exactly the same as what Mark Weber has given as his reasoning, in almost exactly the same words. Is GJ depending on Mark Weber for most of his “Holocaust” ideas? And why is it so important to turn White Nationalists (or I should say “New Right” Nationalists) away from Holocaust Revisionism? That, I think, is the most important question to ask of Greg. The only answer he has given is in the quote above, which is from Mark Weber. Very curious that this has come up again.

  324. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    July 23, 2012 - 1:43 pm | Permalink

    As regards the veracity of the so-called “Holocaust”. I’m surprised that no one has mentioned Thomas Dalton’s excellent examination of the subject matter in his book Debating The Holocaust. A Google search will lead to a review of this important book at the Inconvenient History website, and a link to Amazon.com, which sells it.

  325. July 23, 2012 - 1:30 pm | Permalink

    @fender: Much of the world has a different view of Hitler compared to the propagandized West. India has its warm family-drama, Hitler Didi, about an attractive young woman named Didi with positive Hitlerian personality-traits. http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2012/04/lighthearted-representations-of-hitler.html

    Meanwhile Greggy Johnson in the USA is wringing his hands and trying to distance himself from this man that much of the world admires in spite of Jewish propaganda.

  326. July 23, 2012 - 1:21 pm | Permalink

    @Freki:

    True, but the point is that only a small minority is likely to be interested in philosophical discourse.

    I have been saying over and over since last December that the thinking minority is our proper audience.

  327. Noble Lord's Gravatar Noble Lord
    July 23, 2012 - 1:04 pm | Permalink

    @Anglo Saxon:

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:

    I must admit, i am partial to ackee and saltfish, but it’s been a while since i’ve cooked it.

    As for visiting any part of the Caribbean, i’ve not had such luck, but one day.lol

    You make some weighty points yourself, in one post you sounded like a freeman on the land, or should i say a man seeking the fullness of God given freedom in this deceptive world.

    Good to see you in the trenches facing the correct position.

    THOSE WHO DEFINE THEMSELVES BY VIRTUE OF REACTING TO THE WORST IN OTHERS, ARE WORST THAN THE OTHERS, BECAUSE YOU VOLUNTEERED FOR YOUR PLIGHT.

    TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK!

  328. European's Gravatar European
    July 23, 2012 - 12:29 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:
    Jason,
    in Germany the Holocaust is like a rope around their neck, although most Germans know the lies and truths, that is why the Jews been after the Grandmothers (they’ve been labled as anti-semites) of todays Germans, because they were the first-borns after the war and received the true stories. They are here in the US as well, with Children, then many Americans, generations ago are of german origin with ties to Germany. We are all Whites.
    I had to deal with the Holocaust with my children as they come home from school here in the US. The rope is placed on the US in other ways, but nevertheless it is a rope that we have to deal with. We untangle one, we can untangle others. And since America is the main breeding-ground for the Holocaust-Propaganda – movies and freedom, we should use this freedom also to our advantage, and the Holocaust stories, and defamations of Germans should STOP. The holocaust should be adressed. Germans have been told by Americans and thru war…you are losers, so they will politicly do what ever is neccessary to stay grounded.
    I disagree with Mr Johnson, that we today can feel guilt for the innocent victims , just as you can not feel guilt for the innocent german victims today of yesteryear. Maybe we should harp on that…but as whites we realize war is dirty business. It is on the contrary, I find more eyebrows raised here in the US then in Europe, just attend school here. Most Germans are sickend, that thru Jewish efforts the dead can never rest in peace. It is all Politics. It is a can of wurms to them.
    The problems with Multi-culi, immigratios, white displacement, the Holocaust propagnda and exploitations etc. are all a part of jewish machinery at work. Jews have “”NEVER”” been singled out, they have”” Singled themselves out””. Mr Johnson fails to understand that.

  329. fender's Gravatar fender
    July 23, 2012 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    “How do all of you propose that White Nationalist parties deal with the concept of the Holocaust outside of the United States, one of the few countries where it is legal to question or deny the event? ”

    European WN’s should ally with all the Muslims in Europe in demanding that laws against questioning the Holocaust be repealed. You can be sure that the Muslims are way ahead of us when it comes to seeing through Jewish nonsense.

  330. Oxy's Gravatar Oxy
    July 23, 2012 - 12:20 pm | Permalink

    @Greg
    Answer: I just ignore him

    Its a great article and one of many necessary steps in oder for nationalist views to gain traction outside the true believers. This will be furiously combated by many in our own ranks for several reasons so what to focus on is reaching out to those receptive to it, not arguing with those, who for what ever reason cant or do not want to have a qualitative discussion. Those who have an overtly emotional reaction to opinions different from there own are not an asset even if those opinions happen to coincide with yours for the time being. True believers will always be anti-intellectual at their core and thus unsuitable for building a movement. When the new movement has established a new set of dogmatic assertions is the time to convince these types to come aboard, not before.

  331. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 23, 2012 - 12:09 pm | Permalink

    @katana:

    So how can White Nationalists dispel that [holocaust] cloud?

    By way of re-inhabiting the lawful US Governments, enforcing the real 13th Amendment which will force all “Jewish” dual citizens and other traitors from all sectors of America-including Hollywood; then by simply reeducating the masses with a truthful Government, education and media system.

    How the hell is ‘standing for ethnonationalism’ dispelling, answering the ‘Holocaust’?

    Almost all (probably 95%) of all patriots are of European stock. 99% of all illegals are not of European stock. 85% of all dual citizens/traitors are “Jewish” elite. 99% of all lawyers hold foreign titles (BAR) hence all would have an opportunity to drop this foreign allegiance but they also run the risk of being brought up on charges for previous crimes. This means that even if a “Jew” for example, is a British Accredited Registry (British title of nobility) “lawyer”- if they committed crimes against we the people- they either run or assume the risk of charges being brought up against them.

    All of this means that the remainder of the population of America would be predominately European stock with a remainder of other ethnic true patriots among us. I personally have no problem with this because they are adhering to our law source and lawful culture which poses no danger to us numerically or socially.

    Problems solved!

  332. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 23, 2012 - 11:57 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    One thing more. It is not “My master plan”. It is a plan taken from contacts with the US Military and other patriots combined with what I believe the future holds for us whether we like it or not.

  333. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 23, 2012 - 11:47 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:

    We do not “take over” ANYTHING. The law trumps legalities and the US Military has already cited the “Nation States” as their authority to act on behalf of we the people, if and/or when they start rounding up the cabal on their way toward transferring the Corporation US system back into the lawful Constitutional box- Republic Government(s). The US Military has reportedly stated it would take around 90 days to make the transition, but then of course there is much more work to do.

    All any state, municipal or county entity needs to do is dissolve their corporate status and they would automatically revert back to the Constitutional Government(s). It is this easy for the “feds” as well (outside DC) but as for DC itself- I would not sit around and wait for them to dissolve their Corporation status. They are a foreign nation to any natural born American before the unlawful adhesion contracts “apply” putting that living soul under that foreign jurisdiction-unlawfully. DC, like the Corporation UNITED STATES, is OWNED by the city of London Corp and I do not think the Crown/Jewish Banker cabal is about to grow a conscience. We do not need DC-symbolically Egypt. We have Philadelphia- the place in which the organic national Government resided.

  334. katana's Gravatar katana
    July 23, 2012 - 10:36 am | Permalink

    Second attempt to post this message:

    Disappointed in this article from Greg Johnson. Many previous commenters have rightly criticized it.
    OK, some from me.
    GJ writes:
    So how can White Nationalists dispel that [holocaust] cloud? We need an answer to the Holocaust question. As a New Rightist, the short answer is simply this: the New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all peoples—what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism.” We believe that this idea can become hegemonic through the transformation of culture and consciousness.
    ———–
    How the hell is ‘standing for ethnonationalism’ dispelling, answering the ‘Holocaust’? This is not an answer to the ‘Holocaust’ issue at all. What is the connection between an alleged historical event and adopting a proposed political viewpoint? Nothing. Apples and oranges.
    GJ writes:
    I simply wish to argue that Holocaust revisionism is not a necessary component of our intellectual project. We don’t need it. Which is not the same thing as saying that it is a hindrance, or that it cannot help under any circumstances, although I will argue that it is often a distraction.
    ———-
    Ethnonationalism, White Nationalism if you like, equals Nazism, which equals the Holocaust. The jews have linked these ideas together in the minds of White peoples. That’s why Holocaust revisionism matters.
    GJ writes:
    I simply wish to argue that Holocaust revisionism is not a necessary component of our intellectual project. We don’t need it. Which is not the same thing as saying that it is a hindrance, or that it cannot help under any circumstances, although I will argue that it is often a distraction.
    …….
    Thus, some White Nationalists reason, if the principal claims about the Holocaust could be refuted — if the death toll could be lowered, if the homicidal gas chambers could be exposed as a myth, etc. — then the whole racket of anti-White guilt and extortion would crumble.
    But is this true?
    ……
    Of course if the revisionists could score a major hit — if, for instance, they are right about the gas chambers at Auschwitz — there is no question that the Jewish establishment would suffer considerable embarrassment and loss of credibility and prestige in the eyes of Whites. That certainly couldn’t hurt White Nationalism. But would it really constitute a decisive blow against Jewish power?
    I think not, for the following reasons.
    ————
    Debunking the Holocaust, showing that it is a large pile of jewish lies is of course not the be all and end all of our problems. It will not cause ‘the whole racket of anti-White guilt and extortion’ to crumble. But it would be a major setback for them since the Holocaust is foundational to White guilt. The argument presented says that because debunking the Holocaust won’t in itself solve all our problems, let’s not bother with it, since it is a ‘distraction’.
    GJ writes:
    Third, Holocaust death totals are never going to be revised to zero. In a war in which countless innocent people of all nations died, countless innocent Jews surely died as well, and ultimately that’s all the Holocaust needs to survive. The gas chambers, the genocidal intent, and the rest of it could be dropped, but poor little Anne Frank and many others like her would still be dead.
    ———–
    Numbers, intent and methods all matter and are crucial to the Holocaust story. If at the end of the debunking process all you end up with is a few hundred thousand ‘innocent’ jews dead from disease and food shortages that were not deliberated inflicted then you just have one of the many misfortunes of war. No Holocaust and no White guilt.
    GJ writes:
    6. It is our own people’s grandiose propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement that is the ultimate source of the Holocaust’s power over us. No amount of Jewish propaganda could sell us the “lessons” of the Holocaust if we were not willing to buy them. The real problem of the Holocaust is moral and psychological, and historical revisionism simply does not address it. It is a problem that can only be addressed by moral and psychological means. Unless we deal with the real root of the problem, Whites will be just as willing to abase and ruin themselves over 600,000 dead Jews as over six million.
    ————
    This is plain wrong thinking, putting the cart before the horse. Our ‘propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement’ stems from the belief that the Holocaust really did happen. That it was the worst crime in history. As I said above, numbers, intent and methods all matter to whether Whites feel guilty or not.
    GJ writes:
    Attacking the moral dimension of the problem is like hacking at the trunk of a tree, whereas revisionism is akin to merely trimming the branches.
    ————
    This is also wrong thinking. The ‘moral dimension of the problem’ only exists because of jewish lies about a ‘historical event’. Revisionism is getting to the root of the problem by cutting the whole tree down, while your suggested ‘Attacking the moral dimension’ is ‘merely trimming the branches’, if even that.
    GJ writes:
    Tinkering with Holocaust death totals is obviously relevant to where the Holocaust fits into the hierarchy of human atrocities.
    ————
    Revisionists are not ‘tinkering’ with the death totals. They are exposing the whole thing as a total lie.
    GJ writes:
    Imagine you are protesting some evil done by Jews and you are told that Jews have a right to do x because of the Holocaust. Do you splutter that the Holocaust is a “hoax” and then start disputing the numbers? Or do you simply say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”?
    ————
    Yes, you call the Holocaust a hoax and you also say that what the jews are doing to us is simply wrong and evil.
    GJ writes:
    14. To sum up, I have argued that White Nationalists need to deal with the problem of the Holocaust. I have argued that the root of the problem is our people’s willingness to accept unearned guilt and punish ourselves for it. The problem, in short, is psychological and moral, not historical. Thus Holocaust revisionism is not the answer.
    ————–
    Wrong. We accept the guilt and punish ourselves because we think we have earned it by having committed a real historical ‘Holocaust’. Revisionism is not some magical final solution to our problems but it will go a long way towards solving them.
    In a few words: Holocaust = Nazism = National Socialism = White Nationalism/Enthonationalism = Evil Whites.

  335. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    July 23, 2012 - 10:20 am | Permalink

    @Helvena:
    In my world it is precisely the opposite. The vast majority of sensible people can see the silliness of race equality with their own eyes. In fact, it takes a fair amount faith in things unseen to believe it. If people are unable to see the evidence all around them, the notion that they will understand the actual facts of the holocaust is simply wishful thinking.

  336. camillus's Gravatar camillus
    July 23, 2012 - 9:57 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    Color me obtuse, Greg, but I fail to see how subscribing publicly to the H/holo- H/halfocaust will put steel in our people’s collective backbone. You have provided no explanation as to how owning up to more guilt can reduce guilt, particularly when a tiny fraction of living whites had anything whatsoever to do with the wartime German Jewish policy—except in the black books of the Jews. As I decipher your logic, an across-the-board apology for every slight treasured up in the Jews’ elephantine memory might well be hoped to transform currently spineless whites into a race of morally unassailable volitional colossi.

    Your contentions are delphic and diffuse, their brunt frequently shifting, but so far as I can perceive your intent, you’ve aped many a nationalist of lesser experience who, in closed conclave with his like, believed that he had devised the killer argument, the irrefutable formulation that would confute the enemy and persuade the doubters. But seldom did, or does.

    Do you really believe we can “step over the Holocaust” with a canned statement couched in weasel words, tricked out with an unctuous and unnecessary reference to “the greatest tragedy of Jewish history?” (You sound guilty already—everyone’s heard of the lady who protests too much.) Seriously, Greg, do you think that’s going to end it? Your antagonists in this discussion have concentrated on the “exterminationist” aspects of your position, but to many others it is the revisionist aspects that will be striking. You profess blithe agnosticism of the intent of the wartime German Jewish policy, of the manner in which the Jews perished, and of the number of their dead (you allow at one point that Jewish deaths might number 600,000—opening you to the accusation that you have thereby written off a million Anne Franks). All of this implicitly contests the orthodox version. As does your denial of the all-important “uniqueness” of the Holocaust.

    I can see no benefit from your proposed embrace, however half-hearted, of what is essentially a hoax of a piece with the Jews’ tales of hair’s-breadth escapes, miraculous and otherwise, in their storied past. Believe me that were you to show me any appreciable benefit from Halfocaust credulity, complete with the mechanics of successfully implementing your program, I would consider it, for all its demonstrable pitfalls, at this late hour in our race’s fortunes. I’m not holding my breath.

    And a cheerful warning: Writing about the Holocaust is a field in which the appearance of running with hares and hunting with the hounds can result in uncommon vexation. Caveat scriptor.

  337. JustaWhiteMom's Gravatar JustaWhiteMom
    July 23, 2012 - 9:43 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: You make a good point, Alice. I think it makes great sense to speak out against holocaust censorship. This way, we can avoid the appearance of defending genocide while at the same time planting the seeds of doubt, and exposing the Jews for their power-grabbing and guilt-mongering.

  338. July 23, 2012 - 9:37 am | Permalink

    How are WN to deal with Denial Laws in Europe?
    Answer: Never Ever abandon the truth. To avoid the truth out of fear is not leadership. Speak the truth and let the fur fly.

  339. Freki's Gravatar Freki
    July 23, 2012 - 9:35 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    blockquote> Definition of terms is the prerequisite for clear discourse. Sometimes when you clarify the meaning of a word and compare the meaning to specific examples, you find out that what the word was supposed to signify doesn’t exist. This is not “flim-flam”: this is philosophy.

    True, but the point is that only a small minority is likely to be interested in philosophical discourse. Rhetoric is far more important than any “philosophy”, as far as the mainstream is concerned. The rhetorical (moralistic) “game” has been won long time ago by the other side. H-revisionism is a profoundly subcultural activity without any significant breakthrough in MSM.

    The revisionists, Habermas, and perhaps even Mr. Greg Johnson himself, tend to underestimate the “irrationalisms” of public (and even scientific) discourse. It seems far too “old-fashioned” to think that the best argument always wins. I’m not sure if the world ever worked that way, and certainly not in the 21st century.

  340. July 23, 2012 - 9:24 am | Permalink

    The laws against *denial* of the myth in Europe (soon to come here) are a demonstration of the importance of the myth. For WN NOT to hammer away at the lie is to tie one hand behind our back in the fight. When people grasp that they have been lied to on a massive scale about jewish deaths in WWII they will be more reseptive to how other lies, such as race non-difference, have also been constructed and pushed.

  341. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 23, 2012 - 9:23 am | Permalink

    @Lew:

    I think that is a good point and a good thing to say. Anytime the gov’t makes discussing something illegal, well we should be suspicious. BUT, you can only say that here in the US. I’m not even sure you can make the statement you made in Germany, France, or dozen other countries. So, aren’t you forced to say, “we don’t discuss the holocaust as a part of our activistm” in most of Europe?

    I get the impression that the pro-N*zi, anti-American posters, don’t want to admit we can freely have a discussion here in the United States that virtually no other White country will allow.

  342. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    July 23, 2012 - 9:15 am | Permalink

    @Andrew:
    Great point! We may get there someday if we can ever become a group who are more interested in the good of white folks than in the vindication of their pet theory. I urge all historians to go at this issue with all of their talents. The rest of us need not affirm that every word that Elie Wiesel speaks is sacred truth. I much prefer to be the champion of free scholarship and inquiry rather than the hair splitting arguments in defense of the camps and the government which ran them.

    The vast majority of Americans are sick to death of the holocaust, and would be delighted if they never heard the word again. There really are no tales of valor and heroism, no redeeming lessons to give us hope for humanity. No one comes out of this looking good.

    Thanks again.

  343. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 23, 2012 - 9:12 am | Permalink

    @Jason Speaks:

    When it comes up, I say “there are laws all over the world that make discussing it illegal. That’s reason enough to reject the traditional numbers. Research into the subject wouldn’t be illegal if they didn’t have something to hide.”

  344. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 23, 2012 - 9:06 am | Permalink

    @arthurdecco:

    That’s a commendable ambition but you don’t “stop apologizing for the past” by ignoring it, Mr. Johnson.

    This is a misrepresentation. There are almost 400 comments in this thread, but I don’t see where Greg Johnson said this. You and the others keep putting words in his mouth. If a moderator deleted every comment in this thread by Greg Johnson’s critics that did not quote words from the argument being made, the moderator would have to delete many comments.

  345. omop's Gravatar omop
    July 23, 2012 - 8:54 am | Permalink

    Addendum: A mini holocaust in the making?

    Jewish group slams Olympics for refusing Munich massacre minute of silence
    Ron Lauder says hopes the IOC isn’t bowing to pressure from ‘certain regimes,’ saying the panel was ‘out of touch.’
    By DPA and AP | Jul.23, 2012 | 6:38 AM | 16

  346. omop's Gravatar omop
    July 23, 2012 - 8:52 am | Permalink

    Antisemitism on the rise in Europe!

    Following German court ruling, Switzerland hospitals suspend circumcisions
    Two Swiss hospitals temporarily suspend all circumcisions, pending a reassessment of policies; a German court recently ruled the practice illegal.

  347. JustaWhiteMom's Gravatar JustaWhiteMom
    July 23, 2012 - 8:02 am | Permalink

    Greg I’m sorry that you have to put up with abuse from people you are trying to help. You would think that people would be more grateful. It is perfectly legitimate to have a disagreement about strategy and there is no need for hostility.

    Anyway, I think many commenters are putting the cart before the horse. When I advocate for whites, the holocaust is not the first thing to come up. The first things to come up are usually (1) race is a social construct, and (2) poor immigrants deserve a better life, and (3) we stole the country.

    The first thing we have to do is convince whites that they deserve to exist in a country of their own. For many, this will be sufficient. In fact, I was so outraged when I first began to understand the Jewish role in mass immigration and multiculturalism that I began to wonder if it was subversive activity by the Jews themselves that brought on the holocaust.

    Still, there will be some whites who are so sensitive by nature and so wracked with guilt, that they will have to feel confident that white racial activism need not degenerate into mass murder, which is exactly the slippery slope the Jews use to scare whites. Whites can be reassured by recourse to universal nationalism or revisionism. Either one of these, or a combination of both, approaches will do the trick. Revisionism has a place, but it is most appropriate when a person is already well down the path of racial awareness. Frankly, I don’t know many people who are there yet.

    I would challenge pro-revisionism commenters to look back at their own journey. How many of you came to white nationalism through holocaust doubt? I’d bet none of you did. I’ll bet that for most of you the first step was race realism, meaning a realization that reality did not conform to the egalitarian Zeitgeist.

    That isn’t to say that the Holocaust can’t be undercut in subtle ways. For example, if it comes up it is perfectly legitimate to ask, “If the white race is a social construct, then why are all whites made to feel guilty about the Holocaust? My ancestors fought the Nazis.” Whites must first realize that they are under attack. The rest will follow in time.

  348. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    July 23, 2012 - 7:27 am | Permalink

    @Noble Lord: Ayree, Noble Lord, Ayree!

    I do miss my regular dish of akee and salt-fish, washed down with White Rum laced with spices! Was there in the land of hot winin’ women (and for a long time) back in the 1980s.

    Appreciate your constructive and thought-provoking comments. Keep ’em comin’.

    Angelsächsischen

  349. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 23, 2012 - 6:47 am | Permalink

    @fender:

    fender you sometimes write the most searingly rousing and to-the-truth comments. You could have a gift IMHO.

  350. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    July 23, 2012 - 6:40 am | Permalink

    The root of Jewish power is an understanding of power itself. What it is, how to get it, and how to use it. White society used to understand this as well but it is easy to wash away and this is largely what has taken place. Because white nationalists have never had power, knowledge of it is not carried in their ranks, nor their knowledge, nor wisdom…and this tends to be reflected in strategizing and/or general conversation.

  351. katana's Gravatar katana
    July 23, 2012 - 5:00 am | Permalink

    A comment I posted a few hours ago is stuck in moderation.

    Can a mod please process it.

    Thanks

  352. Noble Lord's Gravatar Noble Lord
    July 23, 2012 - 4:50 am | Permalink

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:

    One of the planks Jews use in order to hide their lie, is that it is against Jewish law to dig up the bodies of the buried.

    Point 1, where is that law?

    Point 2, according to the liars, these people were victims of a crime, hence they are buried evidence, or have been interred against their will and are awaiting a good old Jewish burial no?

    Point 3, when it suits them they have no qualms about digging up their “heroes” and resetting them in some grand burial tomb, as in this case below:

    http://www.jamaicans.com/culture/articles_culture/JacobDeCordovaJewishJamaican~print.shtml

    “In 1935 the bodies of Jacob DeCordova and his wife Rebecca were re-interred at the State Cemetery in Austin Texas, from Bosque Country to honor those who had contributed to the development of the State of Texas. The De Cordova Bend in the Brazos River south of Fort Worth, and the De Cordova Bend Dam which impounds Lake Granbury, were both named for him.”

    There are many ways in which the holocaust can be exploded and with short order at that!

    I propose operation “Throw down”!

    Whilst everyone is enjoying the Olympics, target the UK radio stations LBC and BBC London, or any of the BBC community radio stations, when they have a talk phone in and put salient points to your public.

    Please avoid the hosts, as they are well schooled and besides their producers answer the phone asking what it is you want to say, you may have to lie, but boooy do they love an American voice!

    Unfortunately, the Jewish network is way ahead of you “White Nationalists” and have phoned in often enough pushing their agenda!

    I even listened to BBC London take calls from the Occupied territories and that over emphasised the fact that the BBC is overrun by Jews.

    The petty squabbles going on here are the distraction and those who make sense to me, make sense to me, i neededn’t engage with intelligent agents, useful idiots, knuckle draggers, cowards, bespoilers, diverters etc!

    The Gospel is about a man bringing it to the people and that TRUTH will make all free, so to the WN, really dude?

    How anyone can put the state of their perceived race above and beyond THE TRUTH, is beyond me, but Yesua has made note of their methods and their rewards.

    “Operation Throwdown” must commence by the start of the Olympics and by my white US brothers and sisters who care to take back ground.

    Go online and copy the You Tube link 100,000 people to die at the Olympics and post these links, with relevant commentary to their websites, or phone in talk shows, when they give out their emails, twitters etc.

    You can use Mike Delaney’s “911 missing links”, i care not for Mike’s new found anti black position, but his work in that movie along side Khanverse and John Allen Martinson was dillegent and to my mind highly effective.

    The David Cole video is another weapon, or the Montell Willams show, or Donague shows, where revisionists Weber, Cole and Bradley Smith feature.

    There are good weapons to use, Dr Toben’s movie is another brillaint weapon to use.

    For those of you who can stand getting a little close to a black person like myself, use the movie “Who brought the slaves to America” and push on from there.

    My white brothers and sisters, if Yesua knew one amongst his 12 was a betrayer and history tells us that he was a pharisee, Talmudist, why do you think in your forums of hudreds and thousands in some cases, you will not have liars and sneaks waiting for an opportunity to be placed in a favourable position to crash your car into the wall?

    For the longest time, i have been amazed at how petty you can be and how easy you make it for the Jew to take what belongs to you and make you point fingers at the black man.

    Lastly, for Mike Delaney, there are horrendous and to be quite frank, stupid crimes blacks do, but it is not exclusive to blacks. If i can do my research into Jew crimes and history on many issues, leaving my ego aside, why do you only look at what you wish to see?

    Comforting i expect, as is your right, but you taint your own gravitas with that weak comfort blanket.

    Perhaps your leaders are like the African America leadership, all puppets dangling false ideologies in your face, keeping you on the plantation.

    Just sayin

    Let “Operation throwdown” commence FRIDAY AM and go on until exacty one week after the Olympics, it may just stop the London Olympics being attacked and an unnecessary war on Iran, or Syria!

    As for the continent of Africa, i know you’re not ready for full truth, where that is concerned, so this is your Farley’s rusk job to commence.

    A BAD DAY IS JUST A BAD DAY!

  353. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 23, 2012 - 4:45 am | Permalink

    How do all of you propose that White Nationalist parties deal with the concept of the Holocaust outside of the United States, one of the few countries where it is legal to question or deny the event? Or does such practical concerns bore you too much?

  354. July 23, 2012 - 4:11 am | Permalink

    @Andrew: Here’s another thing. People will be much more likely to be interested in dissident views of history if that view isn’t being aggressively pushed. I have had conversations where I mentioned very casually, when the occasion arose, that I did not believe in the Holocaust, and this led to a lot of questions, not hostile questions either.

    The worst thing that you can do in presenting a dissident viewpoint is to appear desperate for acceptance and endorsement. That kind of neediness assures that you won’t get it. The proper attitude is assurance, and relative indifference to whether others agree or not.

  355. July 23, 2012 - 3:59 am | Permalink

    @Andrew: I agree with you that the Holocaust is a superstition, but I disagree with abandoning the effort to educate people out of superstition.

    Instead of “ten random Whites,” you should probably concentrate your educational efforts on ten smart Whites.

  356. Andrew's Gravatar Andrew
    July 23, 2012 - 3:52 am | Permalink

    I think some commenters have missed the point and/or just enjoy annoying the article’s author. In the West, the Holocaust is a “fact” in the same way that Muhammed’s rise to heaven is a “fact” in the Muslim world. Every child in their respective cultures is indoctrinated with these “facts” through their lives, beginning at an early age. How many movies have been made, books written and memorials built to the Holocaust? If your platform for persuading people toward the WN viewpoint is based on combating/disproving the Holocaust, then you have an almost impossible task. TALKING ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST DOESN’T HELP THE CAUSE, IT TURNS PEOPLE OFF. WE WANT TO PERSUADE PEOPLE AND BUILD A MOVEMENT, THAT IS THE GOAL. If you don’t believe me, then try it yourself: go up to 10 random whites and tell them there were no gas chambers, and then report your reactions.

    Since we are all smart people here who gradated frum publik skool, we should probably direct our efforts to more productive means of persuasion, for example, discussing how mass emigration is genocide, and therefore evil, taking advantage of the Holocaust meme. Political activists who wish to succeed should carefully select their message and goals for maximum impact, not knock their heads against brick walls with unproductive messages.

    If you are a revisionist, and can advance revisionism, then more power to you, by all means continue with your worthy goal. However, if you are a WN attempting to build the movement, then drop revisionism, Hitler and WW2, and use a message that is going to resonate with your fellow Whites.

    I agree with the author that even if revisionism replaced the current narrative immediately and completely, the impact on our situation would be minor. The powers that be would still be in place, with a similar level of influence to what they have now. On the other hand, if the WN movement had significantly more supporters, and therefore more resources, that could be a game-changer.

    Now you can return to your regularly scheduled program where other commenters resume insisting that the Holocaust is all important in every way, shape and form.

  357. July 23, 2012 - 3:43 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:Since this is a swipe specifically directed at me, let me just see if I can give a clearer response than I’ve given already.

    Arguing that the word “Holocaust” does not apply to the innocent Jewish casualties of the Third Reich is merely a semantic flim-flam, since all those poor dead Jews are still there tugging at our heart-strings, no matter what we call it….

    It’s not about what word is to be used. You’re not grasping at all what is accomplished by defining the word Holocaust before we discuss it. If we define our terms, we gain the possibility of clear discussion. From clear discussion you can get clarification of thoughts, so that people may end up with a radically different understanding of a matter as a result of discussing it.

    Most people think that “Holocaust” means the attempt by the German government to kill all the Jews. In particular, they understand this to mean killing with gas-chambers. That definition has implications. We can reasonably ask whether various aspects of what passes for the Holocaust make sense under that definition.

    How does a typhus epidemic make sense as part of a government’s attempt to kill all the Jews, when the epidemic could not be limited to Jews? A rational person who has agreed to the common understanding of what the word Holocaust means, and has given a little thought to the matter, would have to concede that Anne Frank was a victim a wartime disease epidemic. The same kind of disease epidemic has occurred in many European wars, as far back as the Great Plague of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. But death in a disease-epidemic is really not what we mean we say “the Holocaust.”

    What has been more powerful than any other piece of “evidence” in securing popular belief in the Holocaust have been the films and images of emaciated people, dead and alive, from concentration camps captured by the Western Allies. Then you find out that the places where those films were made are no longer claimed to have been killing centers, and that what the images show is the effect of a typhus epidemic. So, since we have defined the term Holocaust as as a deliberate attempt to kill all the Jews, we suddenly find that what has convinced most people that the Holocaust occurred is really not evidence for it at all, Those images have been used as spurious evidence to convince the public that the Holocaust story, specifically the gas-chamber story, was true, when a little bit of information and rational consideration reveals that they prove no such thing..

    A reasonable person at this point may understand that he has seen essentially no evidence for this claim called “the Holocaust” that he always accepted as true.

    Definition of terms is the prerequisite for clear discourse. Sometimes when you clarify the meaning of a word and compare the meaning to specific examples, you find out that what the word was supposed to signify doesn’t exist. This is not “flim-flam”: this is philosophy.

  358. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 23, 2012 - 3:30 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:Feelings of guilt have been induced by the story-shaping, not by some biological predisposition (biological determinism is unsatisfactory, as this guilt is a contemporary phenomenon). If the story were amended in line with the facts, rage at having a sad story – internment of innocents, along with the culpable – distorted for political mileage is more likely than guilt, I’d warrant.

  359. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    July 23, 2012 - 3:19 am | Permalink

    @TyronRobertParsons:
    One small detail of your Master Plan ( “the quickest and most effective solution” ) is that you don’t show any practical way how to take over the government and abolish the US corporation.

    Or do we have to wait for Jesus to come back from the Hollow Earth in an UFO?

  360. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 23, 2012 - 3:09 am | Permalink

    @Chechar:This will give you a taste for the weakness of Raul Hilberg’s case for the Jewish Holocaust. What is genuinely shocking is the flimsy evidence on which he bases his arguments, though most, as you say, wouldn’t bother delving too deeply into the official story, let alone its counterpoint.
    http://is.gd/N4vahk

  361. Floda's Gravatar Floda
    July 23, 2012 - 3:01 am | Permalink

    My mother spent three or four days in Auschwitz in mid December 1944 and she was not gassed, nor did she even remotely suspect anything out of the ordinary ever happened there.

    She was a Ukrainian Schoolteacher fluent in German and all Slav languages engaged by the German Army as an interpreter in Poltava district eastern Ukraine 941. In 1944 the commander of her unit shot himself rather than order an execution. A few days earlier one of his soldiers had taken a Ukrainian girl out for a moonlight ride on his motorcycle. They were ambushed by partisans who killed the popular young man and badly roughed up the girl.

    The German Wehrmacht had protocol dealing with such matters: This meant the commander, one Kapitan Nagel had to select 10 men and boys for the firing squad from a community in which by now they had made many friends.

    War really is hell, he simply couldn’t do it, so the old Nagel went to the latrine late one night and pointed his service Mauser to the roof of his mouth. It left my Father, a Leutnant, in charge of this small non combat unit at a time the Red Army was well and truly back and blood in its eye.

    The men had long feared the inevitable arrival of the enemy and urged my Father to ask Nagel to retreat. But Nagel was your old style Prussian career officer and always said, ‘My orders do not include a retreat’.

    Now was their chance. Before Nagel’s body had cooled in his coffin my Father and his men rounded up all the stuff they needed for their retreat back to the Fatherland. They left all mechanical equipment behind and took a herd of horses, numbering perhaps a hundred, for transport and food.

    The Red army by this time had already set up bridgeheads on the mighty Dnieper river and would hardly welcome the retreating Germans, so they had to swim the herd towing their Russian ‘Droshky’ or ‘Britshka’ carts across at night.

    They were by now deserters and behind enemy lines. They spent the better part of 1944 evading capture while attempting to reach Upper Silesia, Germany’s most easterly province.

    Upon arriving on German soil my Father took a moped (bicycle with a small motor) and rode it 300 kilometers to his brother’s house in Halle, near Berlin telling him to expect the arrival of his 24 year old Ukrainian wife after she gives birth to her child in March. He then rode the Moped 1,000 Kilometers all way down to the Rhineland which is quite a story in itself. His intention was to surrender the the Brits or Ami’s and after many attempts he succeeded. He finished up in an American camp on French soil where he lost half his body weight and was not released until October 1945. He walked all the way back from France to Halle near Berlin.

    This left my mother six months pregnant, with yours truly alone in a foreign country losing a terrible war. But she wasn’t alone, pretty soon she joined a group of about twenty five women, some with babies, all on foot heading west sometimes in front and sometimes just behind the red Army.

    On a freezing afternoon in mid December 1944 the women arrived in a smaller German Town and as they passed through it they came across a huge building complex she saw as a gigantic ‘Fabrik Werk’ the like of which not one of them had never seen. They later found the town was called Auschwitz.

    Also among this group of ‘fluchtlinge’ were half a dozen or so Nuns, some quite old. Two of these approached the uniformed German guards while the remainder waited anxiously outside in the snow. It was already quite dark and they were tired and cold, hoping to find a place to sleep and something to eat.

    After a few minutes an older man wearing the black SS Uniform came out to the waiting women and invited them to follow him inside one of the buildings.

    In 1996 my daughter and nieces asked me to write down their grandmothers remarkable wartime stories so I ‘interviewed’ her. I have posted this on TOO before. Suffice to say she saw nothing at Auschwitz remotely resembling the holocau$t fable and went on to say that she was among two dozen women who spent about 3 or 4 days there and not one of them had anything to say about their stay apart from how NICE and POLITE the OLD GENTLEMEN of the SS were to them and how pleased they were to see the Nuns, especially so close to Christmas.

    She is now aged 92 with most of her marbles. Born in 1920 to a prosperous Kulak family she was one of five girls. In 1932 her father sent her to live in Poltava. She did not see her father again until 1941 when the German Army rattled through a small Town in Easter Ukraine. Late in 1942 she was sent to Stalingrad for Russian prisoner interrogations. Instead she was to ride in a Railway shunt car with a Loud megaphone in front of retreating Hospital Trains carrying German wounded out of the hellish battle for the city to warn Partisans not to attack the train. She did this for three months and never lost a train. Her four sisters each lost one husband in the Red Army, one lost TWO!

  362. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 23, 2012 - 2:58 am | Permalink

    For anyone who’s interested here are some ways to answer the following question from anti-whites (preferably when other whites will read/hear it):

    “You White Supremacists are hilarious. You Holocaust the Jews and now you want us to believe YOU were the victims?”
    a. You’re trying to justify white genocide with the holocaust. The Jews boast of committing genocides in their biblical history, so using YOUR logic they “deserved” what Hitler did to them. I don’t think you’d dare make that claim. So why are you using this logic to justify White Genocide?

    b. You’re Justifying white genocide right now with the holocaust? How does the holocaust justify genocide of whites right now?

    c. If Every Black country and Only Black countries were FORCE Integrated with non-blacks, and they were being assimilated and intermarried out of existence, would you call a Black man who disagreed with the Genocide of his people a “Supremacist”?

    d. Aboriginals were almost wiped out with Assimilation and Interbreeding, it is a well known Genocide, and why assimilation is a KNOWN tactic for Genocide. Were the Aboriginals “Supremacists” for Opposing their own Genocide too??

    An anti-White brings up the holocaust to delegitimize White interests:
    Regardless of what some Jews suffered in WWII, it does not entitle other Jews to abuse other people today. The holocaust no more discredits white interests/nationalism than the Gulag discredits socialism.

    A variation utilizing more tactics could go something like:
    Regardless of what Jews suffered in WWII, it does not justify anti-whites committing genocide against my people today. Who taught you that genocide justifies genocide?? Who taught you that genocide okay as long as it’s only targeting white children?

  363. Marcy Fleming's Gravatar Marcy Fleming
    July 23, 2012 - 2:53 am | Permalink

    The only issue here is whether the conventional ‘holocaust’ story is true and the increasing evidence is that it is not.
    The very term is a lie as Jews in Europe did not die in a great conflagration or firestorm though millions of German and Japanese victims did as a result of US-UK mass saturation bombing.
    At the Stalinist Nuremberg Farce Trial the Soviets posited 9 million Jewish victims, later it was reduced to 4 million, then to 1.5 million, then to 1 million and now the Polish Historical Society has it at 750,000. More reductions will happen over time. The very word ‘holocaust’ did not come into general usage until around 1970.
    My Mother, Sarah Israel, is a fourth generation Communist and she was always skeptical of the whole story.
    The gas chambers don’t add up, the six million figure is likely exaggerated by a factor of 10, Frank’s Diary I believe is partly true but with serious falsehoods added after the war by Otto Frank.
    No one disputes the harsh Nazi policy towards Jews but that hardly proves an extermination conspiracy.
    Even if the Shoah story was true it would pale besides Mao’s 110 million victims, the Soviets’ 70 million or more victims, Pol Pot’s extermination of three million Cambodians, half the country, equivalent to 160 million Americans being killed and so forth in Vietnam, Korea, Eastern Europe, Ethiopia
    and various Marxist regimes in the 20th Century.
    I don’t understand Greg Johnson’s purpose here.
    Who cares what most brainwashed, stupid people believe
    anyway ? The point is to challenge their complacent assumptions.
    Truth is truth and ‘whose side’ it benefits is irrelevant.
    The best introduction to Shoah Revisionism is Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.
    As a secular Jew I want to see more accurate Jewish history written without the perpetual whining about suffering.
    When we get power we are as bad as anyone else, Israel and US finance prove that.
    Zionism was supposed to normalize our status, not create endless victimology.
    Kudos to Carolyn Yeager for exposing that faker Mark Weber and also David Irving.

  364. TyronRobertParsons's Gravatar TyronRobertParsons
    July 23, 2012 - 2:49 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    You said

    “White guilt and self-punishment induced by the Holocaust is a serious impediment to white survival.

    So we have to attack this problem. There are basically two ways to do it.

    First, one can attack the Holocaust itself via revisionism.

    Second, one can attack the psychological and moral roots of the guilt and self-punishment. ”

    Answer:

    Or, we white folks can re-inhabit our lawful Governments whose Christian/Common/Constitutional law trumps the legal fiction which is the US Corporation to which the “Jews” control. By doing this we can have a real money system, enforce the REAL and lawful 13th Amendment which will take care of all illegals and dual citizens in Media, Finance and Government- by and large all of them all across America.

    Then when a lawful Media and Government is in place and the traitors eradicated from our lands we can reeducate we the people through a lawful education system and media. I think this is the quickest and most effective solution at this late hour- as we watch the “Jews” try to start WW3 and put all truth tellers in camps.

    In other words- why try and take on the “Jewish” mass media via the internet alone? Why wait for the internet to reeducate people? This will take too much time, but spending time in these places awakening people to certain truths while showing them the lawful solution is ok for now.

    It is only by way of the actual law that we can run them out of media/finance/Government/politics in our lands without any type of coup d’etat or civil war. Once the Corporation UNITED STATES falls and the Military backed lawful Governments take control of the reigns (The Corp US will have to be trimmed to fit inside the Constitutional box that is the Republic(s), all the power the “Jews” think they have will be gone. We know where they will all run to too. If this triggers similar events in other white nations we will have them in one place to finally deal with these Satanic lunatics once and for all.

    Either way- we are approaching do or die time. I believe people will see this plainly in the next 6-12 maybe 24 months.

  365. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 23, 2012 - 2:29 am | Permalink

    @Organon:

    Greg:
    In my above comment I suggested that your argument is naïve, and I want to add to that by saying that some aspects of it, also, are incorrigibly stupid. If there is one thing that the past seventy years of history has taught us it is that Jews, though lavishly supported in their state and as the parasites that they are in our nations, do not reciprocate altruism. I would like know from what flight of fancy you derive the notion that recognizing their right to an ethnic state and (as you argue in your essay, “White Nationalism vs. Jewish Nationalism”) continuing to lend support to the state of Israel is going to purchase their commitment to our right to exist.

    Wow. You seriously haven’t connected the dots? Allow me to explain:

    1. White people have a strong predisposition to moral universalism.

    2. Instead of fighting against this, Greg is saying: let’s try to use this to our advantage.

    3. It has nothing to do with gaining Jewish favor. We could care less what the Jews think, it’s not about them, it’s about us (I know that’s a big shocker for a lot of you).

    4. We maintain moral consistency this way, which, juxtaposed to the glaring Jewish double standards, gives us the moral high ground among whites. Not to mention our “scary” nationalism seems a lot more moderate than the genocidal psychopathy of organized Jewry which is literally trying to wipe whites off the face of the earth.

    So, just in case you missed it. Let me repeat it:

    No one is trying to convince Jews of anything. We don’t care what Jews think. It isn’t about them. It’s about US. We are taking a position (ethno-nationalist moral universalism) that works with, not against, white genetic, cultural, religious predispositions towards moral universalism and against double-standards (the Jewish elite default position).

    We are using the enemy’s tools against him i.e. standing against GENOcide (GENOtype = race). We are using the weakness the enemy has been exploiting to our advantage instead of trying to fight against the grain.

    I don’t know of any other way of explaining it. Hopefully, I have been clear.

  366. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 23, 2012 - 2:28 am | Permalink

    Holocaust Denial laws make serious investigation into the events of WWII illegal in most of Europe. And when you add “hate speech” laws, isn’t most of the discussion on this thread illegal for people in Europe, Canada, the UK, and Australia?

    The US is one of the few places in the West where this topic can be legally discussed.

    So, as a matter of practical reality, until those laws are changed, isn’t there a need for an approach to promoting White interests that does indeed, require side-stepping “the Holocaust”? If you say someone must deal with the Holocaust when promoting a pro-White agenda, you create real legal problems in almost all of the White countries on earth.

    As far as political activism outside of the US , aren’t people quite literally forced to remain silent on the issue of “the Holocaust”, unless they are prepared to go to jail?

  367. July 23, 2012 - 2:15 am | Permalink

    White guilt and self-punishment induced by the Holocaust is a serious impediment to white survival.

    So we have to attack this problem. There are basically two ways to do it.

    First, one can attack the Holocaust itself via revisionism.

    Second, one can attack the psychological and moral roots of the guilt and self-punishment.

    The problem with revisionism is that it cannot revise away the fact that the Germans singled Jews out for harsh treatment and a lot of Jews died as a result. The only thing that can be revised away are the lies and myths told about these events after the fact. But no serious revisionist denies these facts, and those facts are Holocaust enough for Jews to be guilt tripping us until the sun burns out.

    Does anybody need any clarification of this argument so far?

    So we need to attack our susceptibility to the guilt-tripping.

    Exposing the nefarious lies told about these facts does not deal with the problem, because the victims did not tell the lies. The survivors did. And the victims will still be pitied, even if the survivors are revealed to be contemptible liars and swindlers.

    So again, we need to focus on immunizing ourselves to susceptibility to the guilt-tripping.

    Arguing that the word “Holocaust” does not apply to the innocent Jewish casualties of the Third Reich is merely a semantic flim-flam, since all those poor dead Jews are still there tugging at our heart-strings, no matter what we call it, or how they were killed, or the motives for the killings, or the stories told about the killings long after the war — which are the subjects of revisionism.

    Even if not a single hair on an innocent Jewish head were harmed in the Third Reich, whites would be guilt-tripping and self-flagellating over slavery, the American Indians, and the passenger pigeon.

    So again, we need to deal with the moral and psychological roots of the problem.

  368. July 23, 2012 - 2:12 am | Permalink

    @Chechar: That’s not my point. I guess my assumptions about why people would use sockpuppets are different from yours. I only imagine using a sockpuppet to circumvent a ban. Others, certain notorious sockpuppeteers with whom you are acquainted, will use multiple sockpuppets just to create a false appearance of massive support for whatever position they advocate.

    No, I don’t do that, and I am really insulted at the suggestion.

    I just put out my arguments and people can see the merit of what I am saying or not. I am not using devious methods in the attempt to win over people who can’t think. It’s a waste of effort, and also just not what I want to do.

  369. Greg P's Gravatar Greg P
    July 23, 2012 - 2:02 am | Permalink

    First of all, this was an excellent article. Honestly, I’m feeling a bit of collective shame reading all of the naïve, egotistical comments on this article. Sadly, I’ve even spoken to some of them and others are mutual friends.

    I don’t know why people have such a hard time getting it. With a few exceptions, almost all of the criticisms have missed the main point. Our goal, as pro-whites is not to set the record straight about the holocaust; it’s to secure an existence for our people and a future for white children.

    Our goal, as pro-whites/white nationalists is not to set the record straight about the holocaust; it’s to secure an existence for our people and a future for white children.

    Our goal, as pro-whites is not to set the record straight about the holocaust; it’s to secure an existence for our people and a future for white children.

    My parents grew up with little money but graduated Ivy League schools. They are not people of ordinary educational attainment and are productive, contributing members of society (albeit, a sickly, Semitic, anti-white society). They both accept the moral arguments of the Jewish elite about the holocaust. Is that sad? Yes. Are they stupid because of that? No (well, maybe just a little).

    What Greg is promoting is tactical in nature. He’s saying: instead of attacking the enemy at their strong point (where they want you to attack), instead of diverting your focus to an alleged historical event, stay on point. Do not let the enemy or those serving him control the conversation. WE are the ones who should be directing the conversation. We should be engaging in actions that will convince more and more white people of the moral righteousness and necessity of our people having a homeland.

    Unfortunately, many so-called “white nationalists” hate the Jews more than they love their people. I don’t need to point out how psychologically sick that is. I still have some hope for these types, because I used to be one myself. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was also young and naïve. Eventually, I came around. But I fear most of these people are fringe by nature, not because they actually believe in the principles they proclaim.
    Too many of us have our pet peeves (the Jews, the holocaust, National Socialism, religious intolerance, so on and so fourth) and refuse to put our egos aside to promote what’s actually effective.

    What this article tells me is that at least some of those in the pro-white community are growing, learning, and promoting what’s actually affective instead of continuing the suicidal circle jerk that WNism has been post-WWII.

  370. July 23, 2012 - 1:58 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    I didn’t know that people who used them were banned at TOO.

  371. Valerie Wilder's Gravatar Valerie Wilder
    July 23, 2012 - 1:55 am | Permalink

    Despite some of the petty bickering, there’s great stuff here. I especially love the line, “What kind of an idiot feeds, clothes, and houses people targeted for extinction when bullets cost pennies?” Impeccable logic. This could probably be a mantra. As to the “best” way to approach the JQ; there is no best way. I maintain that there has to be some event in the person’s life to get them to open up and SEE. For instance, a liberal friend in computer tech. lost his job to Indians, and now questions affirmative action. The average man on the street doesn’t ponder who is running things and doesn’t care, for the most part.

  372. July 23, 2012 - 1:55 am | Permalink

    @Chechar: I don’t use sockpuppets. Why should I use sockpuppets? I have never been banned here, nor am I a maniac for self-promotion like some people that I shall not name.

  373. July 23, 2012 - 1:53 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Still I’d like to know if it was you under just another penname (at Sunic’s thread)?

  374. July 23, 2012 - 1:51 am | Permalink

    @arthurdecco: Chechar had a fake Hitler quote on his blog, to which I adverted his attention yesterday. He seems to believe that you said something about it to him before.

  375. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 1:41 am | Permalink

    @Hadding: You guys are both speaking in tongues as far as I’m concerned. Whaddaya sayin’?

  376. July 23, 2012 - 1:39 am | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    I accepted it was a fake quote since I was told with extreme rudeness at that Sunic thread that it was fake by someone I thought was a sockpuppet of yours. (Was it you under just another penname…?)

  377. July 23, 2012 - 1:32 am | Permalink

    @Chechar: It probably means that everybody except you and Greg Johnson knew that the quote was fake.

  378. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 1:31 am | Permalink

    @Chechar:”Since the issue was rather technical and only someone fairly knowledgeable with Hitler and NS would know it, surely this was merely… a coincidence? ”

    I’m sorry Chechar; I don’t understand what it is you’re trying to tell me. Or ask me… Honestly. Could you please rephrase your question?

  379. July 23, 2012 - 1:20 am | Permalink

    @arthurdecco:

    However, IIRC in Tom Sunic’s thread on Covington you advised me exactly the same thing that Hadding advised me about my blog’s swastika (which btw I’ve already changed).

    Since the issue was rather technical and only someone fairly knowledgeable with Hitler and NS would know it, surely this was merely… a coincidence?

  380. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 1:19 am | Permalink

    I would like to thank the following:
    Michael Colhaze
    john thames
    Hadding
    Random
    Anglo Saxon
    Curmudgeon
    Heather Blue
    Carolyn Yaeger
    michael
    Dan
    OwlBear
    and especially Camillus
    for opening my mind to avenues of thought I hadn’t yet considered and/or for confirming my prejudices. LOL

    Of course non of us would have had anything to say if Greg Johnson hadn’t taken the time and effort to write the essay that led to this fascinating discussion – an essay filled to the brim with insights and conclusions mostly on target.

    Thank you Mr. Johnson.

  381. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 1:02 am | Permalink

    @Chechar: “Btw, you are Hadding. Aren’t you? ”

    No.

  382. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 12:57 am | Permalink

    There is a fundamental flaw (to my way of thinking) in this essay:

    “It is time for a new nationalism. We simply refuse to tie our destiny to what happened in the Second World War. We’re over it. We’ve moved on. Jews are no longer being subjected to active, ongoing genocide, but we are.”

    We certainly are. But THEY never were. That is why I believe it’s important to stress that Jews were NEVER “subjected to active, ongoing genocide”.

    What kind of an idiot feeds, clothes and houses people targeted for extinction when bullets cost pennies? Certainly not the pragmatic and practical militarized German people of the last century – especially when their own people were going hungry because of supply disruptions caused by the western allies’ systematic bombing of German and Polish infrastructure.

    The holohoax myth is just another useful Zionist tool of manipulation like any and all of the myths contained in the biggest piece of propaganda ever written – the Jewish Old Testament/Bible. There are simply too many facts from too many independent sources that refute the myth of the holohoax for any sensible and honest person to continue to believe the grotesque stories about it that we have been bullied to believe are true.

    There was an orchestra at Auschwitz, made up from the interned. Some of the other people interned there actually were assigned to painting backdrops for the children’s barracks and the productions the prisoners/indentured workers put on. What genocidal program includes painted backdrops designed to please the children of the indentured workers?

    Therefore it is our responsibility to continue to challenge the status quo – to refute the dishonesty displayed by the holohoax’s adherents and true believers with facts that disprove their ignominious flights of fancy. To do anything less is tantamount to subverting our own interests to the interests of the liars and those uncountable ignoramuses who continue to believe in their lies.

    10 years ago we could not have even had this conversation online without having the weight of the world’s disapprobation laid on us to crush and destroy us. The reason we can now discuss this issue free from fear is obvious:

    The cat’s out of the bag!

    And all because some of us back then refused to back down and kept insisting on a proper reading of the historical facts that have led us to our present predicament. If the few of us hadn’t kept shouting into the darkness even though few people were courageous enough to publically defend us we would not now collectively be in the position to question out loud and in public the ridiculous holohoax narrative western societies have been forced to accept as truth.

    So why would we voluntarily give up the Power that comes from the forced acknowledgement of historical FACT by our enemies’ stenographers?

    I certainly don’t think that a contentious public reappraisal of the holohoax myth can in any way damage the interests of white advocates. The discussion will get dirty. It will get ugly. But it can only help us in the long term. Anything that calls attention to Jewish Zionist perfidy can only make us collectively stronger.

    The more everyday people realize that they’ve been swindled out of their children’s futures based on a series of gigantic self-serving lies the sooner we’ll get to where we need to be to effect the changes needed to stop our collective slide into irrelevance and, indeed, even towards our planned genocide by these master manipulator monsters who hate us beyond reason.

    “It is our own people’s grandiose propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement that is the ultimate source of the Holocaust’s power over us. No amount of Jewish propaganda could sell us the “lessons” of the Holocaust if we were not willing to buy them.

    This is simply NOT TRUE! We all recognize the power media manipulation and educational indoctrination techniques have over the average citizen of all nationalities and ethnicities.

    Strip the Jews of their positions in the media and the field of education, remove their propagandistic materials from circulation and you would very quickly see a turnaround in the opinions of the huddled masses.

    How can anyone develop a balanced opinion if they are never given the opportunity to see or hear more than one side of the argument?

    “…people who constantly harp on past negatives are trying to make you eat the psychic equivalent of excrement. They are trying to poison you. They do not have your best interests at heart.”

    I couldn’t agree more. That is exactly why we need to exorcize their “psychic equivalent of excrement” by ridiculing their monstrous perversions at every opportunity. Starting with their holohoax.

    “The problem is that Jews have gotten the rest of us to accept the Jewish view of the Holocaust as the only view, the view of “humanity,” which for a Jew means only Jews, but for Whites means everyone. Whites need to develop our own perspective on the Holocaust.”

    And how is that possible if we don’t challenge their false narrative at every turn, Mr. Johnson?

    “Jews are morally different people, and we need to recognize this.”

    Most of those of us reading and contributing here do recognize this.

    It is those who do not recognize this to whom I appeal with reason and passion.

    And not surprisingly, there are many who are starting to pay attention now that they have the opportunity to see the other side of the story. Surely you must be seeing evidence of this in your own experience.

    So why, I ask you, are you advocating for sticking our heads in the sand over a potentially explosive issue like this – an issue that could bring to the forefront the perfidy of our enemies in the minds of those we most need to convince to win this battle for our future?

  383. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    July 23, 2012 - 12:52 am | Permalink

    @Chechar: I second Chechar’s agreement with Owlbear’s excellent and supremely truthful statement. I also applaud Owlbear for coming here to post it, publically.

    But the truth remains that it was America and Britain that destroyed our common future by siding with the devil against Germany and there is no justification for this unforgivable crime against the German nation and the white race

    The enemy maintains operational bases in London and Washington DC, with strategy centres and psy-ops being run out of New York City (Manhattan), Los Angeles, Chicago, and the Vatican.

  384. July 23, 2012 - 12:43 am | Permalink

    @arthurdecco:

    You ignore that it is not the same what happened with you at 19 and what happened to me at the same age. As I explain in my blog, in my teens I was horribly abused at home. I badly needed a defense mechanism, and the mechanism was “psi studies”.

    Eminent people like Arthur Koestler believed in parapsychology too. Are you going to dismiss Koestler as a person just because he believed in “psi”? And unlike me Koestler never abandoned belief in the paranormal.

    Giving up a faith (i.e., a defense mechanism) is an agonic experience. I would say that believing in Christianity is far more like being “a malleable tool” (to use your words) than subscribing to Rhine’s parapsychological group at Duke’s University.

    Btw, you are Hadding. Aren’t you?

  385. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 12:36 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: “The whole point of my article is that whites need to stop apologizing for the past.”

    That’s a commendable ambition but you don’t “stop apologizing for the past” by ignoring it, Mr. Johnson.

    With all due respect that’s akin to the attitude of a 3 year old who insists you’re not really there because he can’t see you after he’s covered his eyes with his own hands.

  386. Brett Winslow's Gravatar Brett Winslow
    July 23, 2012 - 12:30 am | Permalink

    Hadding,
    C’mon. You won’t get anywhere claiming that there was no Holocaust. I get your point, but…the event is so deeply imbedded that people know for absolute certainty that SOMETHING happened. So….
    Look. I just now left a social gathering where a man I’ve known quite casually started to probe me about Jewish influence, and I talked about multiculturalism, black flash mobs, the Zionist media, etc., and I thought that he was WITH me. I could not have been more wrong. He suddenly exclaimed, “I’ve heard enough! That’s it!” And then he left for another room. This is a devastating evening for me. I probably won’t feel comfortable to return to my friend’s house for a very long long time. And I didn’t even TOUCH on the Holocaust! I was talking about jewish influence in the media and things that to me appear to be OBVIOUS as hell. People have been brainwashed for many many years. They have been trained that ANY thing said about the Jews is VERY dangerous stuff. One must not be politically incorrect. The idea that any WN could simply shrug and say that the Holocaust never happened…most people would simply think that you’re nuts. The idea that the Jews have manufactured and hyped a shield to protect them from all transgressions is more than most folks can process.
    Our tactics for disseminating information also depend greatly on the target individual, their openness and IQ and other variables. You might find that one person has had it with hearing about the Holocaust and senses that it’s used as a weapon of ethnic warfare, while another person might believe deeply in the tale and feel tremendous guilt at the prospect of denying any aspect of the event as the Zionists have laid it out. Tricky stuff.
    I have to say that this is an EPIC thread and there are some incredibly intelligent and aware people on here.

  387. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 12:28 am | Permalink

    @Chechar: “You cannot imagine how difficult it was, for a layman like me, to detect self-delusion coming from sophisticated authors in peer-reviewed journals undistinguishable, at first sight, from mainstream psychology journals. ”

    That is precisely my point.

    When I was confronted with psi at the age of 19 I had no trouble whatsoever recognizing its fraudulent nature. You, by your own admission, devoted years to a study of it.

    That is why I can’t trust your opinions – you’ve shown yourself to be a malleable tool of at least one group of charlatans. Why should I expect your judgement to be any different now than it was then?

    If you want to call my comments “trolling’, by all means do so. To my way of thinking my comments to you are a clear-eyed assessment of what I consider your inability to recognize nonsense when you see it, leaving you open to manipulation.

  388. July 23, 2012 - 12:18 am | Permalink

    @Mother Trucker: Yes I pay taxes, and I don’t object to paying taxes where they are directed to the public good. Taxes also pay for libraries, sewer and water systems, and roads. Where the hell do you think we would be as a society without those things? My objection is the cock-a-maimie schemes on which they waste my taxes, including the housing, schooling, and medical care for illegal immigrants and “refugees”.

    The reason nationalist movements continue to fail is that they insist on being defined as “right”, “on the right”, or the “new right”. Any nationalist movement forming a government has to be prepared to help its citizens. Governments are not buffet tables for corporations to pick and choose which public services they will profit from and leave the rest for the taxpayer. Nationalists will use whatever best suits the situation in the interests of the citizens, not the corporations. That means socialist measures where appropriate. Corporations are required focus on the national welfare as well. That means an end to sending jobs out of the country.

    The “right”, which is steered by corporations controlled by, guess who, has brainwashed people into believing that government involvement in anything is bad. How long have people been brainwashed by the notion that a parasitic “Fed” is better than a government owned and controlled central bank? The notion of a free market is just that, a notion. Today, virtually every market is manipulated through futures, short selling, insider trading, and the giant pyramid scheme on Wall Street.

    The thought process is so twisted that the revolutionary cry of “no taxation without representation” has turned into “I shouldn’t pay taxes.” Taxes have been around for thousands of years, and they aren’t to disappear. They may be lowered once a nationalistic economy is in place, and full employment is attained, but they won’t disappear. Which brings me full circle, if you want to compete in producing high quality goods and services you need to educate your citizens. Turning our young into debt slaves is not the way to nationalism.

  389. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 23, 2012 - 12:01 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: “Hadding, I accept your confession of bad faith and inability to deal with my arguments.”

    Mr. Johnson,

    In my opinion, when you lost your temper, you lost the argument, despite all of the good contained within your original essay.

    Hadding and many others have challenged your opinion on how the holocaust should be handled and many of their points have been sound. In fact, I plan on adding my voice to theirs shortly – right after I finish wading through these hundreds of comments.

    There is no shame in admitting you could have been wrong about certain aspects of your argument.

    Chest thumping is a needless distraction from the reasonable points rebutting your position that are being made here. I’m sure that it wasn’t your intention to distract us but your comments on Hadding’s comments are a distraction nevertheless.

  390. July 22, 2012 - 11:49 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    The whole point of my article is that whites need to stop apologizing for the past. How you torture that into the precise opposite is a mystery to me.

    I think this is all a bit over your head.

  391. July 22, 2012 - 11:43 pm | Permalink

    @arthurdecco:

    I was just advised above not to respond to trolling but… here we go.

    When I was immersed in parapsychology (the study of “psi”), the journal I subscribed, founded by Joseph B. Rhine, featured writers with PhDs.

    You cannot imagine how difficult it was, for a layman like me, to detect self-delusion coming from sophisticated authors in peer-reviewed journals undistinguishable, at first sight, from mainstream psychology journals.

  392. July 22, 2012 - 11:42 pm | Permalink

    @Organon:

    You are misrepresenting my position in “White Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism.” Read the essay again S L O W L Y, then get back to me with an apology.

  393. July 22, 2012 - 11:34 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar: @Hadding: The multitude believes many things that are not true. Scholars usually have better knowledge on the matter and can say, for example, that Nero did not fiddle while Rome burned or feed Christians to the lions (since the oldest manuscripts of Tacitus say followers of Chrestos, not Christos).

    In the case of the Holohoax, you can still find members of the general public who believe that there was gassing at Dachau, because that’s the story that was promulgated in 1945. They also believe that there was gassing at Bergen-Belsen (cf. the Sex Pistols’ song, “Belsen was a Gas”) but even mainstream scholars have known for more than sixty years that this wasn’t true either. What the general public believes is not a measure of anything except the residue of propaganda.

  394. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 22, 2012 - 11:33 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar: Look, Chechar…Anyone who admits to a belief in and a championing of PSI, no matter for how short a duration, is obviously a gullible fool.

    I, for one, do not take the carelessly-held opinions of a gullible fool seriously – especially when all their energies appear to be devoted to insulting those whose thought processes are light years further advanced than their own.

    Go get a coffee. Stop nattering at the knowledgeable people in the room. Please.

  395. July 22, 2012 - 11:29 pm | Permalink

    @Owlbear:

    But the truth remains that it was America and Britain that destroyed our common future by siding with the devil against Germany and there is no justification for this unforgivable crime against the German nation and the white race

    I agree with this.

  396. July 22, 2012 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    But let me ask some of the other commentators here: what do you think of Hadding’s tactic?

    I think that the answer is rather obvious. But this is what I would like to ask both Hadding and Carolyn: When David Irving’s book on Herr Himmler is released, do you plan to consider it seriously?

  397. July 22, 2012 - 11:08 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    There was no Holocaust and no Gulag (none that I know believes this).

    There was an Holocaust and no Gulag (a few far-fetched leftists believe this).

    There was an Holocaust and a Gulag too (what most people believe).

    There was no Holocaust, only the Gulag (what revisionist believe).

    Take your pick…

  398. July 22, 2012 - 10:52 pm | Permalink

    @Tom:

    The Holocaust was a direct result of the Bolshevik Revolution, and this point needs to be repeated endlessly.

    A very poorly informed argument, given that there was no Holocaust.

  399. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    July 22, 2012 - 10:46 pm | Permalink

    @Brett Winslow:

    Your very practical political comment cuts through all of the academic baloney:

    The Holocaust was a direct result of the Bolshevik Revolution, and this point needs to be repeated endlessly.

  400. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 22, 2012 - 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Anne Frank’s story has gross inconsistencies that deserve close scrutiny. Chips fall where they may, Google hits notwithstanding.
    http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres4/RFAnneFrank.pdf

  401. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 22, 2012 - 10:24 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: Not being a fellow-traveller of Hadding or NS in general, I think in this instance he’s perfectly in order correcting the untruths, however tedious that may seem, or however badly that may play in public fora. “Flim flam” in my lexicon is to cheat or swindle; quite a call.

  402. July 22, 2012 - 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Greg made substantially the same claims in his essay, “The Burden of Hitler”, where he tells us that “I do not think that the progress of White Nationalism in the 21st century requires the rehabilitation of Hitler and the Third Reich, which in any case would be an infinite task for scholars and a distraction for political activists.” Here, he attempts to reason by analogy to the political left and the fact that they have progressed without recourse to “rehabilitating” Communist-inspired crimes.

    This is a perfect example of the kind of stupidity I am referring to.

    And why do you think this is the case, Greg? Jews and the political left have bred into our culture, particularly academia, education and entertainment, the intrinsic badness of racism. What is good for the left is good for us? The difference between the left and us, is that there are many unreformed, unapologetic Marxists, who act unhindered by the past, whereas you, as you do in “The Burden of Hitler” and “New Right vs. Old Right”, and here, bend over backwards to disavow the past.

    You believe you have overcome history, but you haven’t. What you have generated for Whites is politically-applied cowardice.

    The left, and the unreformed Marxist segment of it, does not feel the need to apologize for the past, and nor do I for that matter, and it is a sickening plea for you to make to Whites to try to share “moral” ground on past Jewish suffering with Jews, as if that will generate shared agreement with them that the genocide of people of European descent is wrong.

  403. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 22, 2012 - 9:49 pm | Permalink

    @camillus: “furious, insectile energy”

    A masterpiece of word craft, that image.

  404. July 22, 2012 - 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Greg:

    In my above comment I suggested that your argument is naïve, and I want to add to that by saying that some aspects of it, also, are incorrigibly stupid. If there is one thing that the past seventy years of history has taught us it is that Jews, though lavishly supported in their state and as the parasites that they are in our nations, do not reciprocate altruism. I would like know from what flight of fancy you derive the notion that recognizing their right to an ethnic state and (as you argue in your essay, “White Nationalism vs. Jewish Nationalism”) continuing to lend support to the state of Israel is going to purchase their commitment to our right to exist.

  405. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 22, 2012 - 9:05 pm | Permalink

    My last message, which contained a link, was apparently blocked by the spam filter. Please check.

  406. Deviance's Gravatar Deviance
    July 22, 2012 - 9:04 pm | Permalink

    test

  407. George's Gravatar George
    July 22, 2012 - 9:00 pm | Permalink

    @ Chechar:

    You really ought to consider simply ignoring “zioncrimefactory” and “of German Blood”. They (although it is probably the same person logging in to comment with two different “handles”) are just baiting you it seems. You have responded to their accusations and they just keep up the baiting and name calling – a classic troll tactic.

  408. European's Gravatar European
    July 22, 2012 - 8:45 pm | Permalink

    I just watched a report with guest prime minister Benjamin Nat…on Fox. He spoke about the threat of Iran and “naming and shaming” the ones who are responsible for the latest bus-bombing, which he believes is Iran and Hezbolla, and Iran providing the emunition to Hezbolla etc. etc.. “Naming and Shaming” seemed to be central in his message. Israel, or Jews being the CENTER or world-stage, by which everything much be measured against. Meaning their lifes, by their values and worldview. And underneath the News-Report the moving lines on the French holding 13000 Jews, or something like that, and the jewish prosecutions during the 19…in France, all while Prime Minister Ben N is speaking. Talk about media manipulations-propaganda. They have the average dumb down american in their hands, like the music in the casinos, and the booz to keep you playing and putting your money in the slots, or just like Bush had them into going to war with Iraq. They play on your emotions…after 68 years, french persecution of 13000 is worked in very subtly with the Bus-bombing news of Jews today..how many were there?… to maximize the impact on the viewers.
    They are working the masses over …
    They want the US to support them, and in the end you will be BLAMED & SHAMED, paralyzed with massive dead Americans, and with the future of a 3rd world country, including a lot of sick and poverty sticken people (on the rise already). All I can say is pray for your children, when all reason and dialogue will have ceased to do any good. (As it is still being done here in good will….

  409. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    July 22, 2012 - 8:02 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding: “@Franklin Ryckaert: You have to build a cadre before you will have a chance to influence masses. To build a devoted cadre of capable and intelligent people you need a compelling idea. You don’t get there by compromising all the time. You get there by representing Truth.

    Now ain’t that,/i> the truth?!?

  410. July 22, 2012 - 7:40 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    The Google search is a good tool to determine public opinion. If you ask any of our brainwashed brothers and sisters to name one person who died in the Holocaust, I guarantee Anne Frank would top the list. Since these are the people whose minds Holocaust Revisionists presumable wish to liberate, one needs to know what they think.

    Now, imagine what kind of figure Hadding cuts when he says, huffily, that Anne Frank did not die in the Holocaust, because (a) she did not die in a gas chamber and the Holocaust is defined as killing Jews in gas chamber, or (b) there was no Holocaust, because the Holocaust means the attempt to kill all Jews, and the Nazis did not do that.

    I submit that anyone who took that sort of tack would be seen, correctly, as a flim-flam man. But let me ask some of the other commentators here: what do you think of Hadding’s tactic? Does it free our people of the burden of Holocaust guilt, or does it make revisionists look bad?

    Or do you all just ignore him?

  411. July 22, 2012 - 7:17 pm | Permalink

    By the definition of “Revisionist” – Rabbi Wolf Gunther Plaut must be a “Revisionist”.

    In his 1990 book, ‘The Man Who Would Be Messiah‘, Plaut wrote that Frankist Jews were responsible for the Holocaust. Interestingly, the book’s ‘Forward’ was written by no other than Elie Weisel, the father of ‘holocaust culture’.

    http://rehmat1.com/2012/03/24/rabbi-frankist-jews-committed-holocaust/

  412. July 22, 2012 - 6:59 pm | Permalink

    @camillus: While a difficult read, the Nuremberg transcripts are made easier through Carlos Porter’s website
    http://www.cwporter.com/ where he demonstrates the fallacy in translations, and provides links to the documents. Porter has, for many years, claimed the best thing to happen to revisionism was the collapse of the Soviet Union, which allowed researchers to study the captured German documents. They clearly show that the Hollowco$t was “manufactured in Russia”.

  413. Felix's Gravatar Felix
    July 22, 2012 - 6:55 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    My argument is that Holocaust revisionism is an inadequate way of dealing with the Holocaust problem, because the real problem is our people’s morbid willingness to accept unearned guilt and punish ourselves for it.

    Absolutely. Confront it head on, and then ask further questions about moral responsibility, e.g., which moral agent has more responsibility, the children or grandchildren of people who were alive during the “holocaust” yet didn’t know about it, or, say, IDF soldiers who commit atrocities against Palestinians and their Israel-lobby supporters who know they commit atrocities against Palestinians. To continue to think we should bear some sort of guilt for things over which we had no control psychologically unhealthy and downright sick. That is something, WN’s and non-WN’s need to recognize. Recognize they play a double-game and the guilt rapidly abates. Too many Westerners, and especially Christians, mistakenly believe these asiatics adhere to the same sense of moral universalism that they do.

  414. Bobby's Gravatar Bobby
    July 22, 2012 - 6:49 pm | Permalink

    How many holocaust centers are there in the U.S. anyway? That’s what gets me. Anyone that imagines this issue is aimed at Germans and only Germans, is highly deluded. Right?

  415. July 22, 2012 - 6:11 pm | Permalink

    @zioncrimefactory:

    You can read the “other side” right within revisionist material, since the fallacious arguments of the holohoaxers are often quoted and dissected at length.

    Sure: just as I believed that I could read the “other side” right within parapsychological material, since the fallacious arguments of the skeptics were often quoted and dissected at length there…

    You obviously have a passionate attachment to Jew fables…You remind me of that treacherous swine…

    Oops! Is there a moderator watching over this thread? (I did say “stupid” a couple of times but now you are crossing the line).

  416. July 22, 2012 - 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Hey Chechar, who did the Lavon Affair — Muslims or Jews?

  417. July 22, 2012 - 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Chechar’s “method” of discerning fact from fiction is: “Whatever the Jew media is saying is the truth.”

  418. July 22, 2012 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Chechar — what evidence do you have that Al Qaeda did 9/11? The Taleban asked the Bush Administration to provide them with proof of Bin Laden’s guilt and that upon receiving it they’d hand him over. The Bush Administration scoffed at the offer and began dropping bombs on Kabul.

    The US government has yet to produce a single piece of credible evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11, admittedly so. Since you are so sure that Bin Laden did it, why don’t you go to your nearest FBI office and give them the evidence that they’ve been looking for?

  419. July 22, 2012 - 5:53 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar:

    The only reason you don’t believe Iraq had WMDs is because they have admitted it was a lie, officially. You only come around to these things when the establishment confesses to deceiving us. This is a key facet of Shermerian pseudo-skepticism.

    Pre-1990 you’d still be saying that the Nazis did the Katyn Forest massacre, because that was the official line at the time, until they admitted the lie. Pre-1990 you’d be speaking of the “4 million” who perished at Auschwitz, until they admitted it was a giant hoax.

    You are simply a parrot and promoter of Jewish lies.

  420. July 22, 2012 - 5:49 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar:

    You can read the “other side” right within revisionist material, since the fallacious arguments of the holohoaxers are often quoted and dissected at length.

    I believed in the holohoax when I knew little to nothing about it. When I actually started to look into the subject did I begin to recognize gaping holes in the storyline. Reading exterminationist literature only solidifies my position. Their writings are getting more absurd as the decades roll by, and revisionists have had an answer to all of their exceedingly desperate propaganda.

    You obviously have a passionate attachment to Jew fables and are a dedicated defender of J-establishment dogma. Every myth they conjure, you recite like a trained parrot.

    You remind me of that treacherous swine Michael Shermer.

  421. July 22, 2012 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

    @camillus:

    I urge one and all to read the exterminationist classics as well as the revionist ones

    Then I have no major methodological problem with you. My trouble is with those who read 100% of revisionist material and basically 0% of the other side.

  422. July 22, 2012 - 5:35 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    You are allowing the opponent to frame the issue.

    You are doing that when you allow Google hits to decide whether it is legitimate to call Anne Frank a victim of the Holocaust.

  423. Noble Lord's Gravatar Noble Lord
    July 22, 2012 - 5:28 pm | Permalink

    FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:

    Pardon me for being the chap who happens to be “black”, aware there are some intelligent posters here, but a bit confused!

    Point 1 All Caucasion people know full well that everything they have they hand over to the Jew, because principally the Jew looks a bit like a white dude and he flatters them, shouts louder than them, when it comes to colour prejudice epithets, rewrites history putting so called whites in the starring roles etc

    Point 2 withn half a second of the UK EDL being formed, ignoramous’s they are too, Jews were all over that principally white orgnisation and now steer that juggernaught into the wall pointing at the Muslims, when it’s it’s aaaaah!

    Point 3 and this is an odd one, having listened to a You Tube poster by the name RamZPaul, he went a pains in his three and a bit minute humourfest, of what it is to be a White Naitonalist and there lies a freaking problem!

    Knock yourself out if you wish to confuse yourselves, just as many blacks have been programmed to confuse themselves also, but White Nationalism?

    Really dude? lolol

    Surely you mean to say Caucasion ethnicity no?

    There are many white nations around the world and they happily sold out to the Jew long ago, adopting feminism and Sodomitism and shoving the woman in the work place to say, uhhhm i don’t want no babies,because abortion is gooooood and that has nothing absolutely nothing to do with blacks being born in Europe, of Carlos border jumping, albeit Carlso is being aided and abetted by by by aaaaaaaaah!

    Is it freaking just me and a few others that recognise full well the holohoax IS the Jewish weak liink?

    The two issues actually have nothing to do with each other, the problem you whites have is this, you cannot step away from the car, without showing hatred for the black man and now a simple border jumper….Did you really need a first and second amendment, since y’all not interested in using it, apart from blowing hot air on forums like this.

    Your TEA Party was the perfect opportunity to make the point, but oh nooooo, ya had to give the Jew the time to hijack that movement and crash it into the wall!

    THE TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE, IN OTHER WORDS YOUR RACE WILL BE FINE, IF YOU REVEAL THE TRUTH, BUT HERE I SEE ARGUMENTS THAT SOME POST IN WANTING TO HIDE IT, AKIN TO GIVING UP FREEDOM FOR A LITTLE SECURITY!

    Unhook yourself from a need to have a pat on the back, a comfort blanket every freaking holiwood movie and challenge your leaders to stand for truth, or jog on!

    By the way Russia among other Caucasian races has a negative birth death rate, hence Peter Thatchell getting punched a few years back when he attempted to promote Gay rights over there. No mexican border jumpers there, or uneducated, programmed negros, who WERE targetted with Jew drugs to wreck a cohesive community base.

    A bit of a ramble, but i am unique and do not rate the Obama’s, Sharpton’s, Jacksons or any Jew puppet white, black, yellow, red and …..well there are green one’s around but that is a judgement of character & knowledge not colour.

    Be who you want to be, but know this, the race hate, the race superiority trip, is why you dropped the proverbial ball and calling it a stick of candy isn’t going to change that.

    Is there any reason whites mimmick Jew movies and wish to go this one alone, always coming up short?lolol

    Truth first all else sorts itself out, did i have to tell you that?

    A BAD DAY IS JUST A BAD DAY!

  424. camillus's Gravatar camillus
    July 22, 2012 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar:

    I’ve read many. Going through Hilberg, Poliakov, Gilbert, et al. with a critical eye is a powerful inducement to revisionism. As for the actual “prosecutor’s books,” the
    transcripts and evidence from the Nuremberg trials are also richly instructive. From them one can learn, for example, that the Germans murdered some four million persons at Auschwitz, a figure computed by a crack Soviet forensic team based on their estimate of the through-put of the German cremation ovens over the preceding several years.

    I urge one and all to read the exterminationist classics as well as the revionist ones, in which, judging from your stance, you must be well versed.

  425. July 22, 2012 - 5:16 pm | Permalink

    @Someday:

    No, a thousand times no: You are allowing the opponent to frame the issue. You can’t win that way. The proper response is to “evade” their frame and assert your own, for instance: “If whites do not get a handle on immigration, we will cease to exist as a people, and that’s genocide. We’re resisting our own genocide. Why do you support genocide against white people?”

  426. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    July 22, 2012 - 5:09 pm | Permalink

    The Germans killed how many Brits? 300,000 soldiers + about the same number of civilians. That was with them sinking ships, bombing cities, capturing armies etc etc. That’s all they managed to do in 6 years of war against a major enemy. The French under occupation conquered and twice turned into warzones had how many losses from combat with Germans? Not much more.
    The holocaust claims, what? 6 million dead 1942 to 1945. On the face of it the story sounds incedible. (Like the casualties and figures from the bible where figure are often inflated x10. ) The main cotradiction for people who dislike Jews and assert the Germans did nothing is that they’d also like nothing more than for the Jews to vanish anyway. So why argue that the Germans never acted.

    My personal take on it is that the Jews, where the Germans gained control in Europe, were driven from their illgotten gains among other groups who then joined national governments in exile. In the process many died many getting out of dodge in the nick of time. Jews in the higher reaches of Soviet, American and British commands made out like bandits once German was defeated. I do not think the Germans put much thought into it, they were nowhere near as thorough as many like to think.
    the place.

  427. July 22, 2012 - 4:52 pm | Permalink

    @Someday: If you know that there was no Holocaust, the answer is just a matter of honesty and being able to explain why you say that, which will be an education for the audience.

  428. ben tillman's Gravatar ben tillman
    July 22, 2012 - 4:50 pm | Permalink

    All in all, this was very well said, Mr. Johnson. I could quibble with a couple of things, but it generally strikes the right balance.

  429. July 22, 2012 - 4:49 pm | Permalink

    @zioncrimefactory:

    “Truthers” are pathetic ones (and by the by, I don’t believe that Iraq had WMDs and very much doubt that Johson believes it either).

  430. July 22, 2012 - 4:46 pm | Permalink

    @camillus:

    My advice to them and you: either investigate the Holocaust dispassionately [my emphasis] or forget about it.

    I must therefore ask you the same question that I asked Carolyn Yeager way above: how many “prosecutor” books have you read in comparison with your “attorney” sources? 50/50%? 80/20%? 98/2%? If you have not spent at least 40% of your time listening to the other side of the debate (see also what I said about parapsychology way above), I cannot consider your POV “dispassionate”.

  431. July 22, 2012 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

    @Of German Blood:

    I am not surprised. I bet these two morons still believe Iraq had WMDs too. Pathetic.

  432. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 22, 2012 - 4:39 pm | Permalink

    A Nietzschean revolution in values means that on being asked “Well what’s your view of the Shoah then?” you should be adroitly evasive? Terrible advice, that is just what they are hoping you’ll do.

    “We’ve stepped over that.” & then “We are minimizing its importance to our form of humanity!”

    I can tell you those responses will lead to merciless badgering about what you meant. A mainstream interviewer would not let that go. The game is to ask the most difficult question in order to get you to be evasive, don’t play the game. The way to deal with questions about the Holocaust depends on what you really think. If you are not a Holocaust denier in any respect then that is what you ought to say. (Although it is unlikely that question would be asked if it was known you would give that answer.) If you have doubts about the Holocaust there is no easy way out, that’s why they ask the question.

  433. European's Gravatar European
    July 22, 2012 - 4:39 pm | Permalink

    I like this what I saw mailed to me from facebook:

    Your work is not to drag the world
    kicking and screaming into a new awareness,
    Your job is simply to do the work…
    Sacretly, Simply, and Silently…
    And those with eyes to see …
    And an ear to hear…
    Will respond.

  434. buckle's Gravatar buckle
    July 22, 2012 - 4:27 pm | Permalink

    The South African, Ernie Els, who lives in the most exlusively white and expensive village in the UK, has just mentioned Nelson Mandela three times in his victory speech at the British Open. Heck, we can’t deal even with a golf tournament so what chance the “Holocaust”?

  435. camillus's Gravatar camillus
    July 22, 2012 - 4:07 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    You’re all over the map in your essay, but accepting a Halfocaust to further our missionary aims seemed the only worthwhile point—not that I think Halfocaust credulity would prove very effective at that.

    I’m puzzled as to how you intend “to take on the Holocaust,” given your expressed lack of interest in its essentials. On one of those, the number of Jewish dead, to be sure you didn’t specifically write that one death equals ten million, but you are vague enough to tempt the interpretation that a rather small number of Jewish dead from unspecified causes constituted the Holocaust. You write as if the death toll were irrelevant, but you go on to say that the Holocaust was the greatest tragedy of Jewish history—one could assume that large numbers played at least some part in your superlative.

    As in similar writing by white nationalists who are uncomfortable with Holocaust revisionism, I detect a lot of logic chopping and a ton of avoidance. My advice to them and you: either investigate the Holocaust dispassionately or forget about it. If asked, you can always plead your innocence of the Big H, and, if your inquisitor is tender-minded enough, get him to accept blame for the whole thing.

  436. July 22, 2012 - 4:01 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    Hadding, I accept your confession of bad faith and inability to deal with my arguments.

    Backhanded insults from Greggy:
    1. Hadding is not normal.
    2. Hadding is morally obtuse.
    3. Hadding has “self-induced imbecility.”
    4. Hadding speaks in “bad faith.”
    5. Hadding is unable to deal with Greggy’s arguments.

    I think I’ve dealt very concisely with your slop. Forgive me for not providing excess verbiage for you to nitpick so that you can distract attention from my core points.

  437. July 22, 2012 - 3:45 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    Hadding, I accept your confession of bad faith and inability to deal with my arguments.

  438. European's Gravatar European
    July 22, 2012 - 3:39 pm | Permalink

    The story-lines of the Holocaust his holding whole Nations in captivity.
    If some Germans still bow their head in shame, it is because they’ve been politicly indoctrinated to do so.
    It is the jewish power of story-telling, like the Bible, but it is only as good as it does not enslave people and the future. Is anyone aware that Messianic Jews do not harp on the Holocaust, or exploit the Holocaust toward their fellow Gentile Christians, although they may support the state of Israel and encourage Gentiles to do the same? They don’t seem to have a problem with some events being ordained. Inevitably being the consequences of our own actions, which the none-messianic Jews are unwilling to confront.
    To deal with the Holocaust fairly, Jews have to deal with their contributions to it too. But by not doing so, their anger and hate holds everyone captive in a …you owe me…and if you don’t do what I say etc.
    We have to let them go, let them mull and they will find another or create more reasons for hate and victimhood. They strike the hand that helped them, It is never-ending untill you and I wise up to it. Like being held captive by a suicidal spouse. If you leave me, all that befalls me is on your head, your fault. They can not muster a life without Gentiles, their money, support etc. etc. So they bleed us dry for their rainy day to no end. Like eating as it was the last meal you ever will get, even though the drought is over. It is psychological on all ends and sides. We need to do the work, see our own humaness and tendencies from all sides, we then cease to condem others when we see them do the same. Most of the condemnations are coming from Jews toward Gentiles. I hear that word so often in the news now, if not careful, their condemnations will eventualy paralyze the entire western hemisphere.
    Gregs writing is concise in that it is psychological and moral. We don’t have to agree in everything, but it is a worthwhile article to read and chew on.

  439. Dan's Gravatar Dan
    July 22, 2012 - 3:38 pm | Permalink

    What did the Jews living and exploiting Ukraine, Poland and other Eastern European areas expect to happen once the governments changed hands? Once competitors set the ruled? In the end they didn’t belong there. They were allowed to exploit an area many times the size of Texas and still managed to turn it into a hellhole for the locals.

    Or when locals got a bit of payback for the various deprivations of a hostile elite?

  440. July 22, 2012 - 3:20 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: You and Bowden are utterly opposite. Bowden puts a high value on thinking and masculinity. You represent dodging issues while using some specious excuse.

    You are using a reverse semiotic, for example, when you justify your use of the term Holocaust with Google hits. That is not a result of any thinking on your part. You are not authentic, you are not thinking; instead you are trying to operate within the enemy’s rhetoric and assumptions. That is a reverse semiotic.

  441. Faustus's Gravatar Faustus
    July 22, 2012 - 3:11 pm | Permalink

    @Anglo Saxon:

    This, my friend, was well said, and true. The seeds of compromise grow in whatever way they must. Enough is enough.

    Well done, Mr. Johnson.

  442. July 22, 2012 - 3:07 pm | Permalink

    @Lew:

    LEW, your argument that more people would be willing to give revisionism a fair hearing if some of the moral taboos and inhibitions around the subject were loosened is a very good point.

  443. July 22, 2012 - 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Greg:

    I find the substance of your entire argument unforgivably naïve.

    Jews do not promote the Holocaust narrative simply because they seek to maintain the State of Israel, and conceding the narrative as it is portrayed by mainstream and academic history and simultaneously conceding the right of all peoples to ethnic self-determination does not dissolve the problem that Jews pose for us, or bring us no closer to racial autonomy.

    Jews are determined to undermine White nations not because in doing so they can secure the existence of their own ethnic state, but because of a primordial animus they possess toward us and which cannot be dissolved by conceding their right to ethnic self-determination.

    You would have us share in the “moral lessons” of the Holocaust narrative, and reiterate those lessons to a breed of people that are systematically trying to exterminate us in spite of our support of Israel. That’s tactically the wrong approach and, to use your jargon, “morally” flawed.

    We would best serve our own racial and ethnic interests by segregating ourselves from the Jewish people, removing them from positions of influence, and compelling them to extradite themselves from our nations, leaving them to whatever fate they weave in virtue of their ability to adapt locally.

    Last, from the position that “all peoples are entitled to self-determination” it does not logically follow that the State of Israel is the living space within which Jews should obliged to exercise their share in that right. Not only do we owe the Jewish corpus nothing as regards space in which they can determine themselves as a people, we are certainly not obliged to prop up the State of Israel, which many in that region view, not without basis, as criminal.

  444. July 22, 2012 - 3:01 pm | Permalink

    @camillus:

    1. I did not say that we should avoid Revisionism because it is an impediment to bringing WN to the masses. That’s your straw man. We should not avoid talking about the Holocaust. We need to take it on, because it is a HUGE impediment to white racial pride, self-assertion, and nationalism. My argument is that Holocaust revisionism is an inadequate way of dealing with the Holocaust problem, because the real problem is our people’s morbid willingness to accept unearned guilt and punish ourselves for it.

    2. I’m not trying to fool the Jews, or anyone. Insisting, or merely insinuating, that this is some sort of “angle” that I am running here is a tiresome attempt to avoid dealing with my argument.

    3. I do not say that one death is equal to 10 million. Where are you getting that? Jews, of course, think that their lives are infinitely more valuable than ours, and they have the power to get whites to think that way. Part of that is sheer propaganda power on their part, but part of it is our own morbid receptivity to this kind of flim-flam.

  445. Of German Blood's Gravatar Of German Blood
    July 22, 2012 - 2:56 pm | Permalink

    So I now in moderation-limbo again? Thank you very much. This is really helps the discussion when people are forced to overlook my arguments. Mighty white!

  446. Sandy's Gravatar Sandy
    July 22, 2012 - 2:52 pm | Permalink

    I am quite well-versed in Holocaust narrative from both sides. Just what did I say to make you think otherwise?
    “It’s the debt – stupid.” Sorry about that outburst but I just wanted to mention the real issue today before answering your question about the holocaust. Outside of the church it is a non issue and Greg is not a church goer. If the taxpayers were not subsidizing the Jews they are so unorganized they would be just subsidizing somebody else. I think Greg sees this and treats the subject as a secondary issue and because the alleged event was before most of us here were a twinkle in our father’s eye so some of us really could not care less about this footnote in history.
    A footnote that can’t be stepped over. I like the Bowdens of the world and most English pups have one but entertaining and knowledgeable as they are they are not really focused on the goal. The holocaust is, as you know, an unusual word and as my professor said in a rush of words at Regent College (I got almost half my MA in theology) ” a sect within Jewry is using it to place themselves as savior of the world.” It doesn’t matter if either event is true or if you believe in Calvary or the holocaust for the point is that the central symbol of the West is being replaced. And for Occidentals to change the banner under which they fight at this point in history is suicidal. The common expression refers to changing horses in midstream. I just hope everyone can swim!
    I should also add that I like what Greg is doing and I hate to see him being undermined for no particular reason. He is talking about White survival and includes all Whites and avoids hyphenated whites and deserves our support. And if that makes sense it shows how insightful and wise that I am. Cheers.

  447. Owlbear's Gravatar Owlbear
    July 22, 2012 - 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Forgive me if I add to my own post by making a second one, but dear Chechar it offends me if you conclude from your unwillingness/ignorance to occupy yourself with the topic that I would be doing the same. This kind of projection is arrogant.

  448. Owlbear's Gravatar Owlbear
    July 22, 2012 - 2:46 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar:
    In contrast to you, YES, I have read and i was forced to read endless volumes of Holocaust books, was made to wath countless documentaries about the Holocaust (like everyone else in Germany) and ADDITIONALLY I freely decided to read all that Pressacs and Hilbergs. I was – as a visitor – present at several “Nazi war criminal” trials as well. If you would have just taken so much as a look into the CODOH archive, you would have indeed found out that there are many many Holocaust defenders participating in the discussions there, many excerpts from their works, many points of these man discussed. As a German I have been indoctrinated with all kinds of Holocaust education starting from the 5th grade and not finishing even after university.
    So YES, I do know their points and usually they are so crazy that an Aryan could not even invent them. Start with the magic ovens and fires that burn 10 x more people than any cremation method known in the present without leaving any ashes or traces in the soil.

    I appretiate the New Right, I appretiate that western philosophers and thinkers like Mr. Johnson and you fight against the destruction of our race. But the truth remains that it was America and Britain that destroyed our common future by siding with the devil against Germany and there is no justification for this unforgivable crime against the German nation and the white race, last of all a so-called Holocaust that never took place. Germans do not and never did mass-murder their enemies. We left that to our cousins overseas.

  449. Brett Winslow's Gravatar Brett Winslow
    July 22, 2012 - 2:41 pm | Permalink

    I stand by what I said earlier. “The Holocaust” (and we have differing definitions as to what the term means) WAS a result of the Bolshevik Revolution. I DO get your point, that The Holocaust is a made up event. Still, a shrug of the shoulders and the statement, “The Holocaust never happened” will not do the trick. I’m pointing out the cause and effect relationship between the need to round up enemy combatants, because of the very real possibility of a communist takeover in Germany. Hell, the Jews had already taken over the country, so the fear of Bolshevik type shenanigans was logical and understandable. You can try to skip over the H if you want. You can eat bacon every morning if you want. I happen to think that if revisionism gets to the truth of the H, then its’ power over us is totally dissipated. It’s a matter of perspective. We have allowed the Jew narrative of this event to brainwash and virtually emasculate white America and most of the western world. So, IMHO, time to whittle it down to the more manageable TRUTH.

  450. July 22, 2012 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding:

    I cite one point by Jonathan Bowden that I agree with, and you pop up citing other points where we disagree, and pretend it is somehow a problem with my position. It really is childish.

    I agree with Jonathan on the idea that the primary problem of the Holocaust is moral.

    I disagree with him RE Fascism: there’s plenty wrong with historical Fascism. We should maintain what is good in it, but we can do better.

    No, I am not running a “reverse semiotic”: I am saying what I really believe. So stop bobbing and weaving and making things up and start dealing with the actual argument.

  451. Lew's Gravatar Lew
    July 22, 2012 - 2:39 pm | Permalink

    Speaking as a person who understands the Germans did not organize or carry out a Jewish genocide using gas chambers, I’m a bit unclear on what GJs critics think correcting the record will accomplish. I’m not dismissing the value of truth or the worthiness of correcting the record as a goal. But, correcting the record won’t do anything to solve the more basic problem: White peoples’ pathological susceptibility to poisonous ideas and their willingness to act on them. This is one reason White folks refuse to critically examine the lies around the holocaust in the first place. It seems to me that if revisionists want more people to look at their case, they need to destroy the moral taboos around the subject first so that people will listen.

  452. Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
    July 22, 2012 - 2:35 pm | Permalink

    I must congratulate Dr. Johnson on this effort to touch on a very significant, and obviously quite sensitive subject. On a topic such as this, universal consensus will be impossible to reach. We can, each one of us, find something in the piece that we feel is inadequate or just plain wrong.I certainly don’t agree with everything said in the article. But overall, as an effort to simply ADDRESS the subject in an abstract, more tangential manner, I think the piece is thought-provoking and quite courageous. Unfortunately, I was left aghast by some of the egocentric, divisive, and frankly moronic comments posted by readers who would do well to read more and write less.

  453. camillus's Gravatar camillus
    July 22, 2012 - 2:34 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: @Greg Johnson:

    Greg, you really ought to sit down and read—carefully, this time—what you’ve written here. You’ll find, perhaps, that you’ve constructed not one but several straw men to flail at, the most important your allegation that Holocaust revisionism is a hindrance to bringing (white) nationalism to the masses. This is a straw man, not necessarily because it is untrue, but because it is irrelevant: I suspect most revisionists who are white nationalists quickly learn the value of discretion; more important, other than the puny resources afforded by the Internet, we presently lack the means for any serious proselytizing whatsoever. The sectarian commentary here that you adduce as proof of your chief contention is irrelevant to the matter at hand, as is your claim that unspecified revisionist nationalists believe that the Holocaust is the “foundation” of postwar Jewish power. I think we can all agree that that is false—but please show me how it matters.

    Your definition of the Holocaust is pure sophistry. Affecting the sophomoric pose that a single death is worth ten million, you showily disclaim interest in how many Jews actually died. Or how they died (evidently a point well beneath your lofty consideration). And to what extent their deaths were intentional (you would make a toothless defense attorney, I fear).

    Meanwhile, the Jews have striven, with all their Talmudic cunning and furious, insectile energy, to raise their wartime woes to far and away the worst crime ever to befall mankind. They specify genocidal intent, industrial-scale factories of death, and a butcher’s bill that adds up to six million dead Jews (give or take a few thousand to mimic a careful count). To this hoax they compel allegiance and actively seek to induce awe and veneration of whites. Googling “Holocaust museum” just now, I got myself 18,600,000 results. (“Holocaust” got over sixty million, the Crucifixion, alas, a mere twelve million.)

    Your quasi-definition, which you repeat with the rote of religious cultist, fails on at two counts. It’s false as history. In itself, that might be admissible as a tactic of deception (as in love, war, and very much else). A far graver failing is that it won’t fool the Jews. They’ll be on any nationalist who offers up a Halfocaust in a second, on general principles but also for trying to goy down the Big Six to the level of some risible Polackocide, or worse.
    Your entire line of argument discloses a peckish resentment with revisionists that seems unwarranted by any substantive considerations. Worse, your writing more than telegraphs the sentiment that Holocaust revisionists ought either to be silent among white nationalists, or depart their ranks entirely.

    Removing a few barnacles from the hull of racial nationalist dreadnought is in theory a good idea. Letting the Jews determine, by proxy, the content of our internal deliberations is not. And successive purges of writers of unwelcome truths may serve, in time, to whittle the “dreadnought” down to toothpick size.

  454. Brett Winslow's Gravatar Brett Winslow
    July 22, 2012 - 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Here’s the thing…the Jews play that victim schtick because we ALLOW them to get away with it. It’s outrageous and intolerable. The Jews are the richest most powerful group of people on this earth, and they have become BULLIES. They have destroyed this nation and are hell bent on ruining ALL of the white countries on earth. “Victims?” That victim crap is tired. We’re all sick of it. They are full of shit, if you want to put it in real terms. They are self absorbed, greedy, narcissistic parasites, and they need to be put in check.

  455. July 22, 2012 - 2:13 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson:

    A “serene confidence” won through self-induced imbecility. I’ll pass.

    What you’ve passed on is putting thought ahead of sentimentality. You’ve passed on thinking like a man.

    You pretend to be some kind of ideological kin to Johnathan Bowden but you really didn’t grasp what Bowden meant by “stepping over.” Here’s the passage from his speech, Nietzschean Ideas; it’s a short dialog to demonstrate how one ought to respond to moralizing, followed by a statement about what people usually do instead:

    You just say, “Liberalism is moral syphilis, and I’m stepping over it.”
    “Well I don’t like the sound of that! You sound like a bit of a Fascist to me!”
    And I’d say, “There’s nothing wrong with Fascism. Nothing wrong with Fascism at all.”

    Everyone now adopts a reverse semiotic and runs against what they actually think in order to convince people that don’t agree with them anyway.

    You, Greg Johnson, are doing and advocating the opposite of what Johnathan Bowden advocated, even while copying his phrase and pretending to be influenced by him.

    Bowden is “stepping over” liberalism as “moral syphilis,” while you embrace and hang on to your squeamishness and even moralize to others that they should be squeamish too.

    Bowden asserts that there is “nothing wrong with Fascism,” while you abuse his expression “stepping over” as a rhetorical excuse for distancing yourself from Fascism because you lack the fortitude to side with Bowden. You lack the fortitude to say that there is nothing wrong with Fascism.

    You even engage in the “reverse semiotic,” as Bowden calls it, of trying to make our enemies’ rhetoric work for us.

    If Bowden were here, I think he’d be none too pleased with the pretense that you are implementing his ideas.

  456. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    July 22, 2012 - 2:00 pm | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson: That fact did pass thru my mind, but I still felt it necessary to pursue the matter as many simply don’t have the capacity to comprehend such subtlety (irony).

    I think people like you and I are duty bound to include in our writings and discussions, such topics as the aerial genocide of Dresden. In contrast to the Holocau$t™, the numbers killed by Phosphorous munitions and high explosives in Dresden are always severely downplayed. Some researchers believe more Germans were killed during those infamous air-raids on Dresden in mid February 1945, than were killed by the A-Bomb dropped above Hiroshima later that year.

    The fire-bombing of Hamburg and Tokyo should also be included as examples of sheer evil. Men, women, and children turn to ashes, or dying a terrible death as they watch themselves being burned through to the bone after being splashed with Phosphorous. Once it is on you, there is nothing you can do to stop Phosphorous eating its way through your body, except immersing yourself in water (to remove the oxygen) and thus drowning.

    Although I have not seen this myself, I have it on good authority that a significant number of the most shocking photographs used to “prove” the Holocau$t™ were actually taken in Dresden. Of piled high German corpses. Those who were not incinerated died of asphyxiation as the firestorm took away the oxygen from the entire area.

    There are also the sick and ghoulish mutilations of ethnic Germans in and around Bromberg, at the very start of the war. After the German High Command learned of this atrocity, they naturally became more brutal towards the Polish than they would have otherwise been.

    Thank you for sticking around in the Comments section as long as you have Greg. As I said earlier, I do not agree with some of the key points of your thesis, but from a wider perspective you have nonetheless done good work for the betterment of all ethno-Europeans.

    While you wait for readers to identify value in your essay (already recognized by most, I would think) perhaps you could also read again, and contemplate the more informative comments given by your many readers. Don’t let pride get in the way, as we’ve all been “done over” by at least 4 decades of heavy and draconian propaganda.

    Never lose sight of the fact that the Holocau$t™ industry took off following the near annihilation of Israel during the 1967 war. Before then, it was entirely off people’s radars. A “non-event” if you will. Very fishy don’t you think?

  457. July 22, 2012 - 1:58 pm | Permalink

    @Of German Blood:

    What both this guy and you missed is that I am the foremost debunker of psychiatric labeling within the whole nationalist blogosphere (with a huge independent site on that very subject)—which doesn’t prevent me from seeing actual cases of paranoia when someone labels “infiltrator” a well-known blogger who combats Jewish influence in a well-known WN site.

  458. Of German Blood's Gravatar Of German Blood
    July 22, 2012 - 1:23 pm | Permalink

    @Chechar

    @zioncrimefactory said all what is necessary concerning your “Paranoira”-spouting. So, in a way, I am honored!

  459. July 22, 2012 - 1:18 pm | Permalink

    @Of German Blood:

    I woulnd’t be surprised if Johnson is an infiltrator on the art-review front. His opinons toward the two most important issues (911, Holocaust) are so obviously deceptive that I am surprised that some people are impressed by his conveluted rabulistics.

    Pathetic paranoia. This thread vindicates everything said in my long, Hunter Wallace quote above.

    @Carolyn Yeager:

    I am quite well-versed in Holocaust narrative from both sides.

    How many “prosecutor” books have you read in comparison with your “attorney” sources? 50/50%? 80/20%? 98/2%?

    Just curious…

  460. July 22, 2012 - 1:13 pm | Permalink

    @Anglo Saxon:

    RE the big pile of dead Jews, I was speaking figuratively, not referring to particular photos of alleged-to-be-Jewish corpses.