Don’t Call it the Holocaust

“You ARE Zaphod Beeblebrox?”
“Yeah,” said Zaphod, “but don’t shout it out or they’ll all want one.”
“THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?”
“No, just A Zaphod Beeblebrox, didn’t you hear I come in six packs?”
—Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

In many ways, language is everything when it comes to demographic warfare. The group that can control what other groups are allowed to say has the upper hand because controlling what a person says ultimately leads to controlling what a person thinks. And once you can do that, you can quite easily coerce entire classes and races of people into doing your bidding. The Soviets understood this well, and it was one reason why they were able to manage their oppression of a vast populace for many years.

Whites, as an oppressed class in our current demographic struggles, should be well aware by now of the language restrictions which have been placed on them. For example, referring to blacks as “Negroes” or Asians as “Orientals” is considered not just out of date, but offensive. Calling a black person a “nigger” is practically grounds for murder these days. But what way of referring to Whites is analogous to this? Nothing, really. Recently, a Jew named Donald Moss announced from his perch within the American Psychoanalytic Association that whiteness is a parasitic condition to which there is no cure. Can’t get too much more defamatory than that. And did Dr. Moss get in any trouble for offending White people? Of course not. After all, the Nation of Islam has been calling White people blue-eyed devils for years and getting away with it.

As a result of this pervasive abuse, I believe it is time for Whites to go on the offensive on the language front in the great demographic war. This means that we should produce a list of terms that we should never allow anyone, including other Whites, to say in our presence. Racial insults, of course, should top this list. Under no circumstances should we allow anyone to use the terms “redneck,” “cracker” or other racial epithets in a derogatory way. These should be met with a barrage of accusations of racism, followed by charges of hypocrisy and whatever else the circumstances call for. Basically, this should mark the permanent end of the conversation with those who think they can defame White people and get away with it.

But these are obvious cases. Less obvious is the derogatory term “Nazi” which I discuss in my 2019 Counter-Currents article “The Other N-Word.” I think, however, the most potent weapon at our disposal is the one which can turn the tables on the most potent weapon of our enemies—that is, the insidious demographic weapon known as “The Holocaust.” Not the historical event, mind you, but the demographic weapon which was designed to weaken the morale and spirit of an entire people through guilt, propaganda, and lawfare. The aggressive application of language which I outline below can work regardless if one believes the anti-Jewish atrocities of the 1940s happened or didn’t happen, or were exaggerated or not. This is about controlling language, not arguing history.

Any time a racially conscious White has a serious discussion with a Jew—or, really, anyone on the Left—they need to interrupt their interlocutor as soon as “the Holocaust” is mentioned. There are several ways to approach this. One could take the snarky Jonathan Bowden tack and ask not-so-innocently which holocaust they’re referring to. From Western Civilization Strikes Back, pages 97–98:

The deputy chairman of the party that I was in was asked about the Shoah on a Channel Four program. And he said, “Well, which ‘Shoah’ are you referring to? Are you talking about the communist holocausts, many of which were inspired by Jewish ideas?”

Silence. A very radical statement for a contemporary BNP leader. Silence. Silence.

A clever rhetorical twist, that.

I would prefer, however, to keep things on the up-and-up. When they say “the Holocaust,” we know that they are referring to the Jewish Holocaust—which is what it should be called—and it would be best if we didn’t pretend not to know this unless one has a talent for witty repartee and can handle oneself in these kinds of conversations. So in response to any reference to “the Holocaust,” a racially aware White person should resist the urge to make a Douglas Adams reference and instead politely inform their interlocuter that such a term is racist and evinces an offensive form of ethnic chauvinism.

Why? (They will invariably find the accusation shocking and in all innocence inquire “Why?”). Because by employing the definite article “the” and the capital “H,” the term’s user implies that there is only one holocaust. All other holocausts are, to borrow an expression from Jean-Marie Le Pen, a “just a detail in history.” For example, the Bengal Famine. I’m sure any Jewish person using the term “the Holocaust” would be interested to discover how Winston Churchill requisitioned grain from India during the Second World War, and thereby caused the starvation of up to three million Indians in the Bengal province of British India in 1943. That’s a holocaust. Referring to what happened to the Jewish diaspora in Europe from 1941 to 1945 as “the” holocaust is an insult to all the people who died in the Bengal Famine and every other holocaust before and since.

And if the person hasn’t scurried away or shrieked “anti-Semite!” by this point, then one can bring up the atrocities of the early Soviet period, such as the terror famines, the Great Terror, and the Gulag Archipelago. That’s between 17 and 18 million lives disposed of, according Robert Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow and The Great Terror. Throw in all the victims of the gulag up to 1939, and you have millions more. These were all holocausts, no? In fact, the point could be made that the Soviets were the ones who committed “the Holocaust” since they killed far more people than the Nazis did and with less reason. This last part is crucial. Whatever atrocities the Nazis committed, they at least had the excuse of being at war and forced to deal with a hostile population of Jews prone to sabotage and guerilla warfare. In fact, by 1944 they were at war with three superpowers on at least as many fronts. The Soviets had no such excuse since they drenched their countryside in blood in the years between the Russian Civil War and the Second World War—in other words, peacetime.

And if by luck or persistence the conversation continues, then one can bring up the names of all the Jews who contributed to “the Holocaust”—this one and only Holocaust—upon millions of innocent Russians, Ukrainians, and others prior to when most Jews even knew what a concentration camp was. Readers of this site probably don’t need an itemization of such a list. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together is a great source. But there are many others.

At this point, there can be no more conversation. We have flipped the script, so to speak. We have trumped the Jewish victim card with an even higher one of our own. We have overwhelmed their most powerful weapon with an even greater one of our own. All because of our control of language. All because we don’t let them or anyone else get away with calling the anti-Jewish atrocities of the 1940s “the Holocaust.” All because we make explicit what Jews have for so long kept implicit with their use the definite article and that dreaded capital “H”—that Jews believe that Jewish lives are worth more than non-Jewish lives. Once we expose this, they have no defense to charges of racism which will naturally follow.

Of course, nothing is this simple in life, and nothing will change in our favor overnight. But if enough Whites were to take this relatively easy tack in the public sphere—and not just on social media, televised news, or on CSPAN, but in everyday discussions with family, friends, and colleagues—then the Jews and their allies will be forced onto the defensive for a change. They will face a rare reversal in the demographic wars. And after that, who knows what could happen?