Rhetoric, Persuasion, and the Holocaust

So-called Holocaust revisionism is gaining some currency in certain circles among the dissident right. This is exhibited on various platforms and certain nooks and crannies of the Internet. Statements by mixed martial artist and podcaster Jake Shields evidence this trend, particularly the appearance of Germar Rudolf on the “Jack Shields Fights Back” podcast. Conversely, in the controversial essay by this author “Denouncing Hitler for Different Reasons” was criticized and rebuked by some for not embracing Holocaust revisionism. The subject is briefly addressed in the beginning, stating succinctly my position. Restating the late Jean Marie Le Pen’s characterization of the holocaust as a “mere detail in history,” the essay asserts that there is nothing truly unique about the Holocaust. Indeed, “over a hundred million people were murdered by various state powers in the 20^th Century.” This is just one reason among many why the Holocaust “certainly should never have been allowed to be used as a tool for blackmail and extortion by various Jewish organs, in the manner documented and exposed by Norman Finkelstein in The Holocaust Industry.” These and others contentions were insufficient to quell criticisms and rebukes for not indulging in so-called Holocaust revisionism or denial, even though it has nothing to do with strategic and tactical blunders made by Hitler, and should not be the focus condemning him for his wanton violence and brutality against different European peoples. At a broader level, what is regarded by many as Holocaust revisionism1—indeed what Jewish and other groups often decry as Holocaust denial—has become increasing among some dissident right circles. Such growing appeal and popularity notwithstanding, Holocaust revisionism, for lack of a better term, is an ineffective strategy to counter Jewish power and influence. It is both unnecessary and largely counterproductive.

In order to ascertain how this movement is both ineffective and superfluous, some preambles are in order. There are, to be sure, irregularities in the Holocaust narrative. The official death toll of Auschwitz was revised from between 3.5-4 million to 1.5 million.2 Stories about lampshades and the like have been recanted by even the most fervent, obnoxious advocates for Jewish activism centered around the Holocaust. It is also of note that the five million other alleged non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust seem to have been made up to garner gentile sympathy.3 Interests that fabricate or lie about statistics on such matters have dubious credibility on other matters. It is reminiscent of a phenomenon in trial procedure known as “impeaching the witness,” whereby a witness is confronted on cross-examination about a lie or inconsistent statement. The establishment of an “inconsistent statement,” characterized either as faulty memory or deception, is then used to “impeach the credibility” of that witness to the fact-finders, usually the jury. The myriad instances of retractions and revisions on both details and figures impeach the credibility of Holocaust advocacy in precisely the same way.

The Holocaust is peculiar in other ways. It is curious that there were exceedingly few survivors of Unit 731, a horrific Japanese installation in mainland China that ran gruesome human experiments on Chinese captives and even some American POWs; conversely, the Nazis left quite a few survivors. These and other considerations are interesting, but are of little import.

First and foremost, the Holocaust narrative can be much more effectively rebutted by conceding assertions concerning death tolls, assertions that are illegal to contest in most Western jurisdictions. Conceding these claims, as many are legally obligated to do, in no way changes the analysis on how Jewish interests wield such inordinate power and influence over Europe and white gentiles. This is particularly so given how such power and influence is used to extort gentile countries for seemingly endless payments in the untold hundreds of billions to Israel and various Jewish concerns.4 The shakedown extortion racket is further compounded by the manner in which the Holocaust is used as propaganda to infuse white guilt in to the white, collective consciousness, as well as the notion that Jewish interests are somehow of greater importance not just to Jews but white gentiles as well. In the United States, this includes a veritable set of industries in publication, education, and other efforts established to drone incessantly about the Holocaust. This includes expansive curricula in American and European schools at the middle school and high school levels or their equivalents.

As stated, over 100 million people were killed in the 20^th Century. While this includes the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China as well as Pol Pot’s Cambodia—mass murders that afflicted alien peoples on other continents—a large contingent of these numbers pertain to the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin, including the Holodomor. Stalin killed many millions before Hitler even started. Moreover, there is a particularly Kosher flavor to these crimes, as Kevin MacDonald has documented in “Stalin’s Willing Executioners.” The German populace has also been victimized5, by way of the mass murder and wholesale rape at the hands of the Red Army, the deliberate targeting of German civilian population centers by both the British and American air forces, and the deliberate deaths of German POWS, particularly while in Soviet captivity, although some historians argue that there were excessive deaths even in Allied captivity as well.

Even conceding official figures, nothing about the Holocaust warrants the Holocaust industry shakedown, either as an instrument of extortion or propaganda that engenders white guilt among gentiles: a propaganda apparatus that also promotes a presentiment that Jewish interests are somehow of elevated importance universally. This includes marring of the German capital and other German cities with unsightly pet projects at the behest of international Jewish groups. The nations and peoples of Europe are faced with their own existential crises, including a demographic winter and an infusion of hordes of black and brown people who have no right to step foot on the sacred continent, let alone resettle there. This should be and must be the overriding priority. Judaism is defined by such in-group preference, what MacDonald has described as “moral particularism.” It is a key factor behind their inordinate level of influence and power. Adopting that same in-group preference compels European peoples to prioritize European suffering and the threats to European posterity, and focus on the existential threats facing European identity and the existence of our posterity. Holocaust revisionism—in isolation—is not about this categorical imperative to prioritize European self-interest and in-group preference, but instead is centered around an objective to counter or discredit historical records that are in turn used to advance Jewish interests, power, and influence.

This problem is compounded by several severe practical limitations and liabilities that render Holocaust revisionism ineffective, regardless of how one appraises the merit, or lack of merit, of the historical claims advanced in contravention to historical consensus. These limitations are crippling and fatal. The single greatest consideration rendering so-called revisionism to be an ineffective strategy is that a critical mass of people in the mainstream will discount such talking points out of hand, regardless of how someone presents such arguments or any arguments that may be proffered. The technical, esoteric nature of such talking points, whether ultimately valid or not, are not subject matter most are willing to grapple with or even entertain.

This is all the more damning because repudiating the Holocaust industry does not require contesting numbers claimed at all. Holocaust revisionism is simply not necessary to repudiate how the Holocaust is used for certain nefarious purposes. In illustration of this, consider how summary judgement works in American civil law. Summary judgement is a process whereby a judge awards a verdict for either plaintiff or defendant as a matter of law. This can be done after pleadings have been filed, or it can be awarded before or after a trial. When a judge grants summary judgement, he concedes all questions of fact in dispute in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgement is sought against. An award of summary judgement is predicated on the legal conclusion that, even if facts are as alleged as the losing party contends, he still loses regardless on the basis of whatever area of law that matter may pertain to.

The same principle applies concerning the Holocaust. Even given the six million—or 5.7 million—figure and all that is alleged, the manner in which Jewish interests have been permitted to shakedown the nations of Europe for untold billions is anathema. It is so repugnant regardless of who Hitler and the Nazis killed, or did not kill. Nor can the Holocaust, accusations of anti-Semitism, and the like be used as a platform to incubate and promulgate notions of white guilt, or the idea that Jewish propensity for inter-group conflict is somehow off limits as a legitimate topic for polite conversation.

The simple rebuttal that the Holocaust should not and must not give Jewish groups license to do as they have done is far more effective and efficient than contesting the historical record of the Holocaust. This simple but effective repudiation of the Holocaust as a precursor to Jewish shakedowns and as a blunt instrument to silence dissent can be stated elegantly and concisely in a few short sentences. Compare and contrast with the unwieldly arguments and contentions set forth by proponents of Holocaust revisionism. This comparison and contrast provides an important reminder of how rhetoric and persuasion share a fundamental principle with chess and indeed all turn-based strategy games: tempo. Tempo simply pertains to the economy of moves that governs strategy in chess and other games as well. The same position reached in seven moves that could be reached in four effectively cedes three “free” moves to one’s opponent, or, more precisely, forfeits three free moves by a player who squanders tempo in such a manner. This of course is an imperfect analogy, but it bears on most points regarding how to counter the weaponization of the Holocaust. This is particularly so given how deeply propagandized the Holocaust has been. The decades of propaganda, epitomized for example by the girl in the red jacket in Schindler’s List, render this topic something many are both emotive and irrational about, often with a reflexive aversion as a Pavlovian response. This is compounded by an acute stigmatization of Holocaust revisionism.

Because of this emotive, irrational aspect to how a critical mass of people feel about the Holocaust, any attempt of persuasion of the masses on this matter involves significant limitations on time, attention span, and other factors. Such constraints are almost always present to some varying degree, but are particularly acute in relation to this topic for the reasons just discussed. Such constraints indicate that there is likely only time and space for one rhetorical method of persuasion to challenge and impugn how the Holocaust is used as a shakedown tool and bludgeoning instrument to silence criticism of Jewish behavior at an aggregate, collective level. One strategy involves a far greater number of moves, and involves many weaknesses and disadvantages, including criminal liability or loss of ability to travel to Europe, a strong propensity to repel large swathes of mainstream audiences, all while getting lost in the weeds with discussions about technical dimensions of gas chamber doors, the degree to which Zyklon B is indelible, or not indelible, when exposed to the elements, and other points of discussion. These things and others are pitted against tens of billions endowed by the entertainment industry, Jewish interest groups, the higher education establishment, and various legal regimes in Western Europe, Canada, and Australia that impose criminal sanctions for such utterances.

That consideration in turn invokes another axiom of both military strategy and tactics, as well as the full gamut of strategy games, from chess to grand strategy games; do not attack an enemy at a strongpoint unless absolutely necessarily. Instead, maneuver around strongpoints, bypassing them, focusing on points of weakness. This axiom informs why, as just one example, the German armed forces did not wage a frontal assault on the Maginot Line, but simply went around it. The historical record has the full backing of a syndicate of Jewish interests, (not unlike a crime syndicate), Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and seemingly unanimous backing by history departments and other organs of higher education. From a pure, practical standpoint, it is foolhardy to go against the tens of billions endowed by these institutions, regardless of the merits or lack thereof, when a topic is opaque, vastly complicated and technical, and when there is a nigh unanimous consensus against such theories. Conversely, what response can there possibly be to acknowledgment and subsequent dismissal of the Holocaust, followed by a quick, succinct negation that it be permitted to be used as a shakedown instrument or as a bludgeoning tool to silence criticism of Jewish interests collectively and to foster Kriegschuld and white guilt complexes and other pathologies that Jewish interests seek to engender in the European soul?

While many will nonetheless balk at any pushback to the Holocaust and the many nefarious ways it is used both to advance Jewish interests and harm the interests of white European gentiles6, this strategy does not invoke the same Pavlovian response programmed in large swathes of the population. Nor does it incur legal liability. This strategy is tantamount to stating “The Holocaust is a mere detail in history.” The manner in which a rhetorical strategy is dismissive of the importance and singularity of the Holocaust can vary from the obtuse, to the delicate, to bluntly, flippantly stating “I do not care,” to more tactful language expressing measured regard for the loss of life, before placing this morose, morbid hobbyhorse in its proper context: the context of the incomprehensible scale of killing and murder that took place through much of the 20^th Century. Redirecting and limiting this topic to its proper context allows for other possibilities, including asking why the French Railway was extorted for 30 million dollars, on top of some six billion paid by the French government, to benefit each survivor (and those who benefit from an inheritance) some $400,000 each,7 while those who survived the rape, murder and pillage of the Red Army in East Prussia, Silesia, and the rest of the lost territories take nothing.

However obtuse or delicate one chooses to be, it is of no pressing concern the degree to which the Holocaust happened as asserted; whether six million Jews died, 270,000 Jews died, or somewhere in between, the primary concern must always be how European peoples are on an accelerated trajectory to racial suicide and civilizational ruin because of the demographic winter, the infusion of alien, third world peoples, and other phenomena in the modern world: phenomena which are a direct result of American hegemony, of the Allies’ way of doing things. This last consideration allows one to pivot to how Jewish elements in Cultural Marxism and the “march through the institutions” are a significant predicate for the existential perils the peoples of Europe face.

In many ways, those interested in Holocaust denial and revisionism are reacting to Jewish talking points, in the same way mainstream conservatives often allow themselves to accept the terms of discourse when they adopt leftist nomenclature, buzzwords, and slogans about “racism,” “sexism,” and the like. They are addressing the argument on the terms set by their ideological enemies. Dismissing the Holocaust as a “mere detail in history,” or even stating “I really do not care whether it happened or not, I care about the future of my own people” is a bold counterstroke that displaces the opposition from any sound footing, and obliges them to react to this rhetoric, either with talking points about why the Jewish people are somehow deserving of special consideration or other rhetoric that smacks of Jewish in-group preference.

As is so often the case, the best strategy in rhetoric and persuasion involves a steadfast refusal to address the issue at hand on those terms insisted by one’s ideological enemies. Anything other than some variance between an outright indifference or a refusal to pander to the manipulative rhetoric characteristic of the Holocaust industry and the syndicate of Jewish interest groups still addresses the issues on the terms set by Jewish interests. This is true even in a hopeless effort to refute the historical consensus that has been established. Disregarding these terms and focusing matters on those terms demanded by the dissident populist right seizes the initiative, sets our own terms as the parameter, and puts the shills off balance. Figures insisted by historical consensus only matter so long as people regard the Holocaust to have such undeserved import. Regardless of history, regardless of how many Jews were killed (or not killed), these insidious elements of Jewish influence and power must be resisted and stopped.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.

_______________________________________________________

Notes