Dealing with the HolocaustGreg Johnson
Polish translation here
This essay simply argues that Holocaust revisionism does not perform as advertised for the purposes of advancing White Nationalism. It was originally published at The Occidental Observer on July 20, 2012, where it proved my adage that “All of life is an IQ test.” Aside from the addition of section headings, it is reprinted without alteration here and in my book New Right vs. Old Right, available in hardcover, paperback, and Kindle and Nook Ebook formats.
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, simply because 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.
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. 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.”
What is the Holocaust?
I understand the holocaust to mean the claim that up to six million European Jews were put to death during the Second World War 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.
What is Holocaust Revisionism?
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 the Second World War. 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.
Holocaust Revisionism is not Necessary for White Nationalism
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.
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.
The Holocaust & Jewish Power
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 from what I see, 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 the Second World War, Jews already had an enormous amount of power in the United States: 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.
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.
Second, 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.
Third, 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.
Fourth, 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.
Fifth, 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.
The Moral Roots of White Decline
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?
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 black 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.
Revisionism versus Transvaluation
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 racism, nationalism, 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 racism, nationalism, and self-assertion. 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.
How Much Should the Past Matter?
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, i.e., the longer the memory for slights, the pettier and sicklier the soul. The bigger the past, the smaller the future, i.e., 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 shit. 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.
The Holocaust from the White Point of View
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 the Second World War 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 the Second World War, 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, (1) it is not our fault and (2) 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?
Could “Another Holocaust” Really Happen?
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. Indeed, 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.
The time has never been better for whites to separate ourselves from Jews.
Revisionism & Rhetoric
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.
The True Lesson of the Holocaust
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, in 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 stupid 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, a trend 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.
Why is Revisionism Criminalized?
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. In the cases of Zündel and Mahler, they 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. 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. Indeed, holocaust revisionists who have no ties to White Nationalism have also been persecuted. 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.
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, and 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 ask Bowden what he meant by “our form of humanity.” 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.
The Occidental Observer, July 20, 2012
1. Irmin Vinson, Some Thoughts on Hitler, ed. Greg Johnson (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2011).
Western Civilization Is Destroying Its Historical Heritage, Part I
Plato’s Phaedo, Part II
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 4
Plato’s Phaedo, Part I
The Worst Week Yet: May 28-June 3, 2023
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 535 Ask Me Anything
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 3: Nové státní náboženství
Permit me, as a Briton, to make the observation that when following the First World War, the American people discovered that they had been tricked into that war by means of the atrocity-propaganda lies manufactured and broadcast by the British government -allegations of Belgian children with their hands cut off, stories of nuns crucified by the Germans, etc., then the reputation of the British establishment for honest dealing suffered perhaps irreparable damage.
That surely is what is at stake here. Should the investigations of Revisionist Historians show beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation of the Holocaust, that the Germans committed the murder of millions of Jews during the Second World War, falls into the same category of fabricated atrocity-propaganda as that of the First World War, then the reputation of the British government for fair and honest dealing would receive a fatal blow; and I would suggest the same for that of the US American establishment . Both have invested all their credibility in the claim.
Allow me to add that I do not minimise or make light of Jewish suffering in the Second World War. The Second World War was the bloodiest and most destructive war in the history of mankind. The suffering of all caught up in it, was immense.
While this is probably not something that the general public will understand, I have my own personal, private take on the “Holocaust” which hopefully will give heart to a few. The “Holocaust” may have been an atrocity, but atrocities are something to be proud of, because they demonstrate the strength of belief one has in one’s own cause. My sympathies lie with Rubashov’s interrogator, Ivanov. You really have to admire hard core communists and their ferocity, their unwillingness to apologize for anything, and their belief in struggle. Yes, the “Holocaust” occurred, what of it? We made a mistake, but that’s progress for you; “Nature is generous with her senseless experiments on mankind. Why should mankind not have the right to experiment on itself?”
Yes, the Old Right tactics, inspired as they were by their Old Left adversaries, are completely unsuited for the world of today, but we should never apologize for them, never make excuses for them, never give an inch. Who knows what the world of tomorrow will bring?
The difference between 6 million and 1 million is important. If 6 million is a lie, then the truth of that works to our advantage. I have been consciously pro-white for a number of years, but it didn’t even occur to me to question the 6 million number until recently. Maybe this is the path that most whites will have to take.
Carolyn Yeager, like her or not, argues there is no way out but “through the Holocaust.” Sometimes I really feel that way, mainly because our western world does not rely on moral, psychological, forces for our success. Just because we are vulnerable to psychological attack does not mean that is where are triumphs have come from. We rely on the forces of reason and logic, and a foundation for all of these is accurate historical truth. The points that Greg Johnson makes are very sound. I especially agree that if the Jews’ lie got exposed to everyone, they would come up with another the next day without missing a beat. I am seeing indications that they are preparing to abandon the gas chamber story before it crumbles in front of everyone. The chosen people will probably take over Holocaust revisionism from within and use it for their purposes.
Still, I cannot get off of this issue. The truth matters, and we should speak it. When people in authority have said things about human soap and skin lampshades, they should make amends when their “research” is found to be baseless. Not only should the truth come out, there should be apologies. The Holocaust debate is a tragic-comedy, with people of meager resources being beat down by entire governments. So-called legitimate historians, who are initially above even responding to revisionists, slowly start to concede to revisionist points (so slowly most people fail to notice). The white man’s stubbornness to the truth and proneness to guilt are both parts of the trap.
It is not about liking Caroline Yeager or not. She has a credibility problem. She does not know how to separate fact from fancy. She does not have access to documents that would shed light on the situation. She cannot create a plausible interpretation without adding her wishful thinking. Wishing something true does not make it so. Over time those who can sort the seeds and can dispassionately look at facts will expose the lies. It is best left to those who have the ability to do this. Other than that, amateurs are just a distraction and useful to the enemy. In short she is an opportunist. I discovered this when she did a podcast about Canada and took all her information from the BBC as if the BBC was an authority and not a propaganda machine.
I am seeing indications that they are preparing to abandon the gas chamber story before it crumbles in front of everyone.
Which famous movie did Spielberg direct about 20 years ago that interestingly enough never shows gas chambers?
“I am seeing indications that they are preparing to abandon the gas chamber story before it crumbles in front of everyone.”
I have sensed this also. Partly just in a lack of robust defense of the gas chambers story.
Or their attempts to shore it up seem feeble and desperate.
Recent Smithsonian Fiasco
Most have probably heard about the recent Smithsonian Channel pointing to some dug-up tiles with 6-pointed stars as proof of homicidal gas chambers. The notion being that the Germans went all out by having nice ceramic star tiles manufactured and placed in walls to assure Jews they were going to a nice Jewish place before they (didn’t) gassed them. (Which itself seems as cartoonish as early post-war stories). But the stars were a proprietary mark placed on tiles for decades before the war, by the maker. Smithsonian is embarrassed by the mistake. So they tried to stoke the “holocaust” meme with that promo, yet it only leads to a crumbling. That was a bust and embarrassed Smithsonian. Notice no Jewish teams are combing through the camps trying to settle the matter once and for all.
Absolutely brilliant article. I’ve always preferred to say nothing justifies current Jewish aggression. For a long time I’ve been curious about the Bolshevik death toll from 1917 until the beginning of WW 2.
There is a large discrepancy even on pro white sites, with the numbers ranging from 20 million to 66 million. The 1932-33 starvation of Ukrainians has been reported as low as 3 million and as high as 14 million.
I think it is important to make the point the NS were often reacting to Bolshevik aggression(and their allies) and weren’t even the worst offenders of their time period.
Are there any books/websites that provide definitive statistics for the Bolshevik death toll?
The Holocaust is a Jewish psychological and psychic crime of the very highest level directed against their greatest enemy, the German people. It is also the smoking gun – par excellence – of the Jewish criminal mind, just as the World Trade building 7 collapse is the smoking gun of 911. The public narrative in both events is physically impossible. WT7, never hit by an airplane, experienced total *simultaneous* collapse and went down in 6.5 seconds while reaching free fall speed. That’s impossible without applied demolition. The Holocaust assumes the killing of 6×10^6 Jews, even though not a single body has been found, as admitted by Raul Hilberg on the stand during the Zundel trial. The half dozen key witnesses and the killing techniques have been thoroughly debunked by revisionist scholars. There are absolutely no official German wartime documents that support the theory. And the mystery of the missing Jews is thoroughly explained by Walter Sanning in “the Dissolution of European Jewry”. They were absorbed by the advancing Soviet Union, which also conveniently supplied most of the ‘Holocaust evidence’ in a very understandable desire to re-direct attention from its massive atrocities onto the Germans.
Jews protect the Holocaust mythology with all their strength. Why? Because if the Holocaust is shown to be false…
– It leads naturally to the conclusion that the Holocaust is an intentional Jewish lie. This is why Holocaust ‘denial’ is regarded as anti-semitic.
– It highlights the overwhelming Jewish element behind Soviet atrocities.
– It reveals the incredible depths of their relentless desire to murder White history and peoples.
– It demolishes the justification for their takeover of Palestine.
– It grants tremendous moral power to White Nationalists.
This article attempts to minimize the importance of the Holocaust to White Nationalism. But nothing could be more important. The Holocaust is the Jewish crown jewel, an unending source of money and moral power. It’s the Jewish gonads, their most vulnerable location. That’s why they do almost anything to prevent it from being examined by the public.
Those who minimize the importance of the Holocaust to White Nationalism are suspect. Either they intend to mislead or their instinct is weak. Not good. Minimizing is tantamount to accepting blame. And why should any White Nationalist accept blame for the Holocaust? Whites have no history of intentional genocide. It’s not a white ‘thing’. Unlike the Jewish Old Testament which is chock-full of genocide, human sacrifice, torture, and arbitrary killing. The Holocaust is a Jewish thing, a perfect example of Jewish psychological projection.
It’s as if you did not read a word of what I have written.
I guess I missed your point also, since I think Joe nails it. I. Vinson seems to think so too: “Remove the false, childishly simplistic Hitler myth, and a significant ideological justification for multiracialism would collapse. The simple question, ‘Were Hitler and NS Germany really as evil as everyone says?,’ therefore has huge repercussions….” (Some Thoughts on Hitler p.4) But this was a great article. Thanks.
The Undying Fire by H. G. Wells was published in 1919. Lamenting on the effects of the Great War Wells wrote, ” For four years now the world has been marching deeper and deeper into tragedy………. Six million soldiers, six million young men, have been killed on the battlefields alone.”
Perhaps, instead of ” Dealing with the Holocaust,” the real issue is dealing with the mystical number, the six million?
Google “6 million jews 1915-1938”. Accusations of 6 million Jews dead, dying or in jeopardy have been in print for years before the Second World War. For someone with a little skill in logic, that kills the Holocaust story right there. One theory, and it is just a theory, is that the Jews who wanted the legend to be popular had to convince their own Orthodox Jews first that the story was true. So, they relied on Jewish numerology and mysticism as part of the story. The number 6 has great significance (6 days to create the Earth, for example) in Jewish lore.
It does seem consistent with the Holocaust legend, as in the problems that they experience keeping the myth alive have to do with the circumstances under which it was sold to the public in the first place. Stories about people being gassed to death may have seemed plausible in the 1950s, but modern investigation and video footage show how unrealistic such a plan would be. But they had to get the story going somehow, and as the skeptics slowly emerged the Holocaust supporters have been pushing them back ever since.
Just for the record, I grew up on the memoirs of Winston Churchill and how John Wayne won the war and they never mentioned any holocaust. I also read all the Denis Wheatley novels on those beastly Nazis and he never mentioned the holocaust either. The only gas chamber I ever heard of growing up was the one that the James Cagney characters ended up in!
And yes, as you suggest six is the number of man so anything with a six in it could be used for the deification of man.
Good point. The original narrative was “Democracies united to beat back totalitarians” which was nonsense but at least a reasonable sort of “us versus them” kinda war. Not til the 60s did anyone talk about any “holocaust”. Then, gradually it became “saving the Jews” from the evil Germans. Now, since we didn’t “stop Hitler” in the first place, it’s “all white/european/Christians versus the poor Jews, so it can happen again any time.”
Was Uris’s Exodus the first pop treatment?
Brilliant, Dr. Johnson. You seem to touch on some of what Nietzsche put forward in On the Use and Abuse of History for Life. I wonder if you have any essays that concentrate more fully on that work, as I would benefit, I’m sure, by your exegesis.
Thanks. I have been meaning for some time to write a commentary on that essay. I will give it a higher priority thanks to your comment.
I don’t think you can separate White nationalism from the rehabilitation of the Third Reich/fascism, simply because our enemies won’t. They are the ones who label every attempt at ethnic self assertion on our part as “fascist” or “Nazi.” Like it or not, White nationalism cannot ignore the legacy of the Third Reich.
If the holocaust revisionists are correct (and I believe they are), then the so-called “Old Right” is exonerated from the charge of attempted genocide.
Even if they are exonerated, so what? That will take time and great integrity, if that is your goal.
I think the goal of white nationalism to establish a white homeland where we as white people are in charge of our lives and our future. That does not mean one ignores what truths the revisionist find, but we all cannot be revisionists. Would it not be better to look at what the Third Reich did for the people of Germany that was good and promoted the welfare of Germans? What did they do right, instead of what they may or may have not done in the fantasy world of Jews. I applaud true revisionists. There is so much more to the Third Reich than the holocaust. What I have found is that one has to read between the lines all the time. This is the information that all the hullabaloo of the holocaust hides.
Same thing with high finance: if you go after the Bankers, you will be called Anti-Semitic even if you aren’t – even if you have Jews in your government as Putin does. The Jews will use what works.
After all, what relation do I – or dare I say, we – have to the Third Reich or Nazi Germany?
Many of us aren’t ethnic Germans or nordic. Many of us don’t advocate “aryan supremacy.” Many of us don’t advocate genocide. Many of us don’t argue that white people should take over the lands of other peoples. Many of us aren’t fascists, totalitarians, or advocate for any form of authoritarianism at all.
In fact, many of us see no necessary link between any of the hallmarks of Nazi Germany (dictatorship, totalitarianism, genocide, imperialism, “aryan” supremacy, etc.) and today’s pro-white dissident movement, such as it is.
So, speaking for myself at least, when our enemies try to link us with Nazi Germany, WW2, fascism, etc. it’s easy for me to say they’re wrong. I simply don’t believe in any of the things they say I do. In this sense, it’s easy for me to say that I’m “stepping over” the holocaust, though I’m not sure I’m saying it the way Bowden meant it.
To put it another way, I’ve seen leftists accused of wanting to recreate the killing fields of Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin – most just brush those accusations away. Of course they don’t want THAT, they say. And then they move on to talk about what they want to talk about. The lesson here is simple – just repudiate it and move on.
On the other hand, at every demo there are always a few tables set up by the various super far left revolutionary groups who overtly worship Mao or who support N. Korea. We all know how seriously such groups are taken. We all know how seriously such groups will ever be taken.
Holocaust revisionism and undue myopia of the Third Reich only substantiates their case. You can’t really complain about being called a Nazi and a Jew hater when you spend a lot of time defending the Nazis and arguing over the holocaust. This is exactly the fight they want us to fight.
I stopped half way this non sense.
[. . .]
So I stopped reading you after your first line, and so will my readers.
I would love to find intelligent critics.
Maybe I should have chosen another first phrase bit I was genuinly upset and it should be up to your readers to decide what is the most intelligent position, if there is one.
My question was in a nutshell, besides the completely philosophical discussion on which strategy to follow which will never work on a practical scale whenever confronted with nazi-callers) :
how come such highly intellectual authors as yourself, quoting Nietzche or Heidegger at ever line, are unable to make up your mind about the holocaust? Any book from these philosophers takes more time to comprehend and to memorize to quote than all the stuff from Faurissons and Rudolfs combined.
This is an easy question which you should be able to clarify.
How you can have lots of articles here praising the genius of Hitler while leaving the question on the holocaust unanswered or blurry, even a downgraded to the million holocaust makes him still an evil genius.
I have “made up my mind” about the holocaust based on a review of the literature as it stood in 2001: even when all the revisionist victories are deducted from the existing narrative, there is still “holocaust enough” for the Jews’ purpose of vilifying white ethnocentrism. Having drawn that conclusion, I don’t see why I should waste any more time looking at the see-saw battles of historians about World War II. What I decry is the absurdity of pinning the future of the white race world-wide to the fate of Jews in Europe between 1933 and 1945. The final solution to the holocaust problem is simply to stop caring about it. It is a simple act of will that does not depend one way or another on historical research. We have our own ongoing genocide to deal with. We are no longer listening to the disgusting attempts of Jews to wring money and political advantage from a genocide that ended in 1945.
I think that this an important strategic decision: Not caring about the holocaust. Furthermore, it is important either not to talk about it or otherwise didmiss the holocaust argument very tersely so as to not pour fuel into the fire.
I have read rather much literature on this topic and come to the inevitable conclusions, but I find it better to use this knowledge as an inspiration against a ruthless, amoral opponent than as an argument in conversations. Most people who are freshly confronted with an alternative view to that which is official are not ready to suddenly change their mind; that comes with thinking, reading and understanding the uses of this story. So I find that it is best to speak as little as possible about it, avoid all the common and expected obeisances and practically live in a parallel world in which the holocaust story is irrelevant.
While many salient points are made in this article I must disagree that demystifying the alleged Jewish Holocaust (so called) shouldn’t figure largely into the white nationalist or “new right” intellectual repertoire. Holocaust propaganda is almost singularly responsible for the power the Jewish race holds over white gentiles. Further, it falsely casts Jews as hapless and unwitting victims of the Germans so much so that the majority of whites are completely unable to perceive the Jewish people as aggressors, enemies and as a mortal threat to their own race and civilization. And lastly, the Holocaust myth is purposely designed to instill a permanent guilt complex not only in Germans, but in the entire Western World to ensure a perpetual wealth transfer to the state of Israel and diaspora Jewry.
The Holocaust has served and continues to serve as a multipronged attack against the basis and continuity of Western Civilization and has arguably facilitate European acquiescence to the third world invasion of their native homelands. In the near future there will likely be as many Holocaust museums as there are Walgreens’.
Jewish liars and propagandists in Hollywood and the media take great pleasure in distorting our history and dishonoring and lying about the great men of our race. Fair play and high mindedness simply isn’t in their DNA. Therefore, we should pay them back in kind and challenging the mainstream (Jewish) narrative of WWII and the Holocaust (with facts) and checking their lies, half truths and embellishments should continue to be of utmost importance.
No, the Holocaust is not “almost singularly responsible for the power the Jewish race holds over white gentiles” as I argued in the article on which you are commenting.
Jewish power mostly rests on the power of their finance. In the Middle Ages the Jews lent money to the princes, thus they acquired influence in politics, but that influence was often precarious. In modern democracies the Jews acquired additional power by the control of the media. Thus they not only can control the electoral process but also public opinion on everything. It is the control of the media and education which gives the Jews the power of mind control over the masses. The Holocaust story is simply an “extra” of this mind control, but by no means its essence.
“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.”
This essentially makes my point. Without white racial consciousness there is no sense of “us vs. them” as regards Jews and we won’t be able to units and mount a collective defense. Jews had economic power and political clout in the diaspora pre-1945 as you and Mark Weber note, but that still didn’t stop white gentiles in Europe and Russia from expelling them or launching pogroms against the Jews the most recent example being in Hitler’s Germany. This is in large measure to the fact that problems aside, the white ruling classes and white peasantry still identified with each other and against the Jew when it really mattered which Holocaust propaganda, equalitarian propaganda and “jews are the chosen people” addled brains of contemporary white gentiles of all economic strata makes impossible.
“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.”
Perhaps they’ve been quietly accepted by mainstream historians, but not the mainstream white American most of whom don’t read the works of these people (and are too busy watching sports, porn and swilling beer), so are blissfully unaware of any downward revision to the six million death toll of Jews during WWII.
“…just as the New Left felt no need to tie its projects to “Gulag revisionism.”
For what’s it’s worth I’ve stumbled upon a few lefty oriented sites that specialize in quibbling about the total number of people murdered by Jewish Bolshevism/communism in Russia. But this isn’t necessary as the horrible atrocities of that murderous creed has been largely suppressed and only a handful of mainstream books deal in the subject and even those downplay the role of the Jews in implementing and managing the murderous Gulag system.
Money is the sword. The holocaust is the very effective shield, which today renders impossible a counterstrike like the one made by Hitler.
I feel no guilt for the holo-hoax; nor do I feel any guilt for black slavery; nor do I feel any guilt for the American indians; nor do I feel any guilt for the crucifixion of jesus and I care not one whit for the third world. Our invective must flow faster and more vehement than theirs. The holo-hoax has already been proven false, white people believe in it because they want to believe in it. Our cause and movement must be based on nothing but race. Debating about these issues are an old jewish trick to divert us from our mission. When they decry our supposed racial crimes against other races, we must decry faster, louder and more vehement the extermination of the white race. On another note I think that the jews want to build a holo-hoax museum in every state of America and that white children will be required to make a field trip to these museums at least once in their grade school or high school period (the white christians will demand that these field trips occur, of course). Does anybody know how many holo-hoax museums there are in the united sluts of zion at this time?
In the US there are 43. For a list of those in the US and in other countries, go to : Wikipedia : List of Holocaust memorials and museums.
Thank you! See, my fellow white nationalists, the establishment of a new dimension of the christian religion. I predict that there will be an effort by the jews to make it mandatory that all gentle children visit one of these museums in the future, either as a school field trip or a church field trip. Someone, somewhere will suggest it. I wonder if they will try to make Anne Frank’s Diary a chapter of the bible.
I never understood why people who see the Jews as an innately malevolent and anti-white force wouldn’t instead argue that, while the number of Jews exterminated in the camps was almost certainly exaggerated, there most likely WAS Nazi policy as the war situation became desperate of removing the most dangerous Jews and those least able to assist in the war effort and that Nazi Germany, which for many years had sought a peaceful resolution to the Jewish problem, was as a matter of principle JUSTIFIED in carrying out these killings. The principle being that in a defensive war, the life of one’s own kin is more valuable than the life of one’s enemy. Or the principle that Jewish lives are worth approximately the same amount as the Jews consider non-Jewish life to be worth.
It certainly strikes me as odd that people like William Pierce and Alex Linder pooh pooh the orthodox holocaust narrative and then set forth their own rationales for exterminating every last Jew on the planet.
Thanks for a very interesting article. You are right. There must be an end to this internal political correctness within the nationalist movement regarding the Holocaust. I myself am convinced that there actually was a genocide of Jews. Those who do not believe it can for example read “The Jäger report” and the like, where it specifically says that the Jews killed because they were Jews, and not just partisans, for example 34.464 Jewish children shot is clear from the report.
Ridiculous to even deny this. And ridiculous to call nationalists who do not deny such things for “zog agents,” and so on.
As for Pierce and Linder, where have they written or spoken of their desire to annihilate all the Jews on the planet? Not that I’d be surprised.
I have never heard of the Jäger report and so I assume that it is one of those “recently discovered hitherto secret reports which unambiguously proves the holocaust”. The traditional tales do not withstand close scrutiny, so “newly discovered material” is being constantly introduced.
I am strongly sceptical of this report, as it appeals to the immediate emotional response by invoking an exact number of 34.464 Jewish children. I don’t think that anyone could stomach the murder of children in clear sight. I think that the Allied bomber crews could throw bombs on German cities, and to a much lesser extent, French and Italian cities, because they didn’t have to see what happened when the bombs fell into suburbs, living quarters, everyday live spaces. This very fact makes me not believe this report.
That Jews lost their lives because they were Jews is beyond doubt, but so did Germans lose their lives, who were hated with such passion as to talk lightly about roasting six million Germans (attributed to Churchill), or the insane Kaufman plan to sterilize all German men to extinguish the German nation, or the wholesale murder of Germans in Yugoslavia bu Tito’s gangs, and more, well approved by Churchill.
So the question remains why there is this focus on the Jews and their unique victimhood, even if they were the major force in driving the world to war, and this singling out of the Jews as the innocent perpetrators, warmongers and the recognition of a larger plan behind that leads to unsympathetic and sometimes callous remarks. That’s a consequence of an yet-unseen indecency foisted upon us.
It is plausible that, as the war situation became desperate, the Germans set out to kill of Jews. But the Holocaust that I understood was the planned extermination of all Jews at the highest levels of the German government. Where is the proof of that? If it was something less organized than that, how was this Holocaust different from Jewish pogram’s and diasporas that have happened at other points in history? The Holocaust is supposed to be “unique,” and it us kind of seen as a last straw of Jewish suffering. If this was instead viewed as another time the Jews got into trouble, people might have a different perspective. “What is going on with the Jews that they are always getting into this kind of trouble?”, people might ask. As it is now it becomes a question of how we can “never forget,” and all that. The one thing the Holocaust supporters don’t want is any different perspective than the one coming from the United States Holocaust Museum.
One reason I read white nationalist websites is that they provide brilliant strategic analyses of the current crisis facing white people. White nationalists have a solid grasp of the big picture (which has eluded most of the rest of the rightwing in the Western world). And they have some keen ideas on what needs to be accomplished on a global scale. But when it comes to tactics, that is, how to get to the strategic goal…well…
Let’s put aside any question as to whether Holocaust Revisionism (HR) is historically, ethically or morally valid.
I simply want to ask, “What has HR accomplished?”
HR has been tried. It certainly has not created a mass movement among white people. Nor has it gained white nationalism any bridgeheads into state power. HR has subjected a number of its advocates to legal action without any commensurate gain to the movement, so there is an apparent net loss. Yet the advocates of HR continue to push this tactic even though no visible success can be demonstrated.
HR has to be seen as merely a tactic. A means to an end. HR can not be the strategic political objective. That objective is, as a minimum, gaining political power for the white nationalist movement and ultimately state power for European peoples. If a tactic is not moving people to the strategic objective, then it ought to be dropped and a new tactical line developed. Yet there appears to be an emotional connection to HR among its advocates which makes a change in tactics downright impossible to conceive, much less execute.
This is no way to run a serious political movement.
Look at all the activities connected to HR – the development of intellectual arguments, the institutions performing historical review, the endlessly footnoted volumes, the people fighting court cases and sometimes going to jail. Now consider if all these resources and energies were instead pushing an agitprop tactic that actually worked in the real world.
Example: we’ve seen how the system is increasingly censoring the alternative right via speech codes, termination of the employment of dissenters, hatespeech laws, internet crackdowns, and so forth. Now what if all the energy devoted to HR was instead committed to fighting for free speech rights? Free speech is a tactic which a wide appeal among white people. And it uses the system against itself, especially in the USA with the First Amendment. White nationalists become the freedom fighters, the opponents of censorship, the righteous dissenters in the tradition of Galileo, John Peter Zenger, and et cetera.
Just look at how much mileage the 1960s New Left got out of the Free Speech movement. Like seizing power on campuses from Berkeley to Athens. Like putting millions of people into the streets. Like changing the “consciousness” of a generation. Why not emulate success? Especially since on so many issues white nationalism has solid scientific backing: e.g., Shockley, Rushton, and many more provide evidence on the relationship between genes, race and civilization. Make cases out of how they have been censored. Push their ideas into the public consciousness. Discredit the system for its repression.
More importantly, Free speech resounds with the average citizen who is fed up with the PC witch hunts launched against common people like Emma West and now Mr. Bundy. Turn the struggle for free speech into a struggle for white freedom. (And if not free speech, there are any number of other tactics which would succeed…this is a separate debate.)
Why shouldn’t white nationalists for once use a tactic that had a chance of success?
I want to reiterate my opening point. I am often amazed about how white nationalists can show such intelligence, and yet fail to appreciate the basics of political organizing. Why is this? It’s not as if those tactics are secrets buried in some chthonian tomb, or sealed into locked up copies of the Necronomicon.
Rather than producing another tome on HR, why not read – and discuss online and in conferences – any of the existing manuals on agitprop, political activism, psychological warfare, public relations, information warfare? Better, get the people who have been leading the nationalist movements in Europe online and have them share their tactics which work in the real world.
Anyone care to answer this one?
The real thrust of this article concerns the roots of white decline. A hundred years ago, the White race ruled the world, morally, diplomatically , militarily, economically, in the arts, in music, in science and technology. The Whites were confident, self-assertive, they had a high birth-rate, and they were colonising all those large, empty and habitable spaces that their explorers and pioneers had discovered.
And now we are the polar opposite: so contemptibly weak that we allow the rest of the world to foist themselves onto us and to walk all over us, and there is scarcely a peep of protest.
Why this absolute reversal of our fortunes ? IMO the time-line gives the explanation: the two World Wars destroyed the European and White order: the Whites committed suicide. Or may be there is a chance for us. If so it will take the form of anathematizing the political establishment of the “Anglo-Saxon” power-elite that launched the two world wars, and whose “Victory” bequeathed the White race the night-mare world we now inhabit: South Africa coming to a town near you.
Whenever the Whites find the gumption to shake off the current power-brokers, then we’ll be on the road to our salvation.
“Why this absolute reversal of our fortunes ? IMO the time-line gives the explanation: the two World Wars “
It isn’t the two World Wars. The problem is mostly due to the rise of Jewish power. They have been interfering with the formation of public opinion. They are not simply fighting against the point of view of normal White people, they interfere BEFORE normal White people can form a collective opinion, and they prevent the organization of counter movements. Their strategy requires constant work. They have to buy up the newspapers and the television stations, buy up the politicians, get their people in the universities and at the top of every major political party, interfere with the law, intimidate the leaders of the opposition movements… It is easy to check that the accusations of “racism” and “nazism” come mostly from Jewish activists, even though many White people also take part in the policing. So, it is a lot of work, but they are natural born activists, and the result is impressive. It is like they are acting on the nervous system of society as a whole.
People do not individually arrive at their particular opinions. They mostly accept the dominant opinion. That makes the work of the Jews very effective. But public opinion cannot be totally controlled. Few White people believe it is good for them to be race-replaced. There is a natural human tendency to rebel against oppression. And the Internet is spreading the information. Unlike 50 years ago, it has become clear that our society is being destroyed. So, if a pro-white TV station or a pro-white political party manages to break through, it may be enough to start a chain reaction and destroy Jewish power all over the world in just six months. Maybe next year.
“Images floated back, the long line of prisoners both Jews and Non-Jews and as the non-Jews were thrust into the cells with the Jews, the Jewish children would turn away in hostile silence, leaving me and the “other” children agonized. They have their own reality, they did so then, and they do now.” This is an excerpt from an old letter I received by my Gentile friend who spent a few childhood years in a Nazi camp. Point being, their reality and our reality will never mesh.
Thanks a million for this. Time to dismiss the HR autistics and move on to viscerally and intellectually productive pursuits.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment