1,078 words
French translation here, Spanish translation here
As a non-Jew, there are many countries in which I am not free to question the facts of the holocaust or even to offer a definition of what it was. Fortunately, for the purposes of creating white homelands, I don’t have to.
I’m not a historian at all, much less a historical revisionist (although I support the freedom of revisionists). I’m a philosopher by training, and my focus is New Right metapolitics, which means establishing the intellectual and cultural preconditions of White Nationalist politics. And, as I have argued in my essay “Dealing with the Holocaust,” whatever happened to Jews in World War II does not impede the case for white ethnonationalism in the least. Indeed, as I shall argue here:
- The “lesson of the holocaust” that Jews solemnly evoke whenever they can squeeze the slightest financial or political advantage from it, does not actually follow from the holocaust as Jews define it.
- The lesson of the holocaust as Jews define it supports rather than impedes the case for White Nationalism.
According to Jews, the lesson of the holocaust is that ethnocentrism and nationalism lead inevitably to genocide against those who are “different,” so we need to suppress ethnocentrism and nationalism and embrace multiculturalism and globalism, including race mixing and open borders. Every time whites show the slightest ethnic and national self-assertion, the specter of the holocaust is trotted out to put us in our place.
It is implied, of course, that a holocaust could befall anyone who is “different.” For instance, the meme above is now being inserted into discussions about excluding Muslims from white countries. And it is true that any people can be a victim of genocide. For instance, as I have argued elsewhere,[2] whites today are the targets of slow, systematic genocide.
Jewish holocaust propaganda emphasizes the universality of the threat of genocide to build a coalition of people who are against “another holocaust.” But the only holocaust such campaigns actively work to prevent is another holocaust against Jews. For if every people can fall victim to genocide, then every people should have the right to protect itself: to differentiate and defend itself from others who might destroy it.
But the threat of “another holocaust” is deployed precisely to prevent non-Jews from erecting intellectual and political barriers to genocide. It is deployed precisely to reinforce multiculturalism and globalization, which dismantle all intellectual and political barriers preventing Europeans from being demographically swamped by fast-breeding aliens.
The only people who are free to erect barriers against “another holocaust” are Jews.
- Jews have created a Jewish-supremacist state, Israel, which is dedicated to Jewish survival world-wide.
- Israel has a mountain of illegal nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons sufficient to deter any attack and to blackmail other countries into doing its bidding.
- Jews rigorously police the borders of Israel to prevent unwanted immigrants, just as they subjugate and squeeze out the indigenous non-Jewish population.
- Whether in Israel or the Diaspora, Jews encourage a strong sense of “us” vs. “them,” which is constantly reinforced in their education, both secular and religious, and popular culture.
- Finally, Jews are highly sensitive to preventing threats to their long-term biological survival, including miscegenation, dysgenics, and low fertility.
Jews are a small nation with a tendency toward low fertility and high parental investment (the K-strategy). All such populations are vulnerable to demographic swamping by more fertile, less civilized peoples. But Jews have erected the intellectual and political boundaries necessary for their long-term survival.
Yet Jews routinely claim that they face “another holocaust” whenever whites say “no” to the Jewish state or whenever anti-Semitism shows a tiny uptick. This is utterly ludicrous, because of all low-population, high-K strategy peoples today, Jews are the least threatened by “another holocaust.” It is also morally obscene when Jews, who are in no danger of genocide, use the specter of “another holocaust” against whites, who are currently the victims of slow genocide.
In short, the “lesson of the holocaust” promoted by Jews is pure self-serving hypocrisy, another “live and let die” double standard: ethnocentrism for Jews but not for us, walls for Israel but open borders for us. The people who are most threatened by genocide need to embrace multiculturalism and open borders, while the people least threatened by genocide can live and travel and make enemies wherever they please, secure in the knowledge that they have an ethnostate with a nuclear arsenal as their protector and refuge. It’s a disgusting moral and political swindle, nothing more.
What, then, is the real lesson of the holocaust? To answer this, we first have to know why the holocaust happened.
The answer is simple: The holocaust happened because Jews lived among other peoples rather than in their own homeland. When different ethnic groups live in the same society, ethnic conflict is inevitable. And when ethnic conflicts explode into violence, stateless peoples are much more vulnerable to extermination than those who have sovereign homelands.
However, there will never be another Jewish holocaust. Why? Because the state of Israel now exists, with its vast illicit arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Adolf Hitler’s clone could be elected German Chancellor, and there would not be another holocaust because Jews have nukes and Germans don’t.
Thus whenever Jews evoke the possibility of “another holocaust” to extract another pound of flesh from our dying race, the most polite response is to tell them that we have our own holocaust to worry about.
Jews have invested a great deal in promoting the idea that no crime is worse than genocide. Since whites are actually the target of genocide, White Nationalists can use this propaganda to our advantage. The lessons Jews draw from the holocaust—stigmatizing ethnocentrism and nationalism for whites while promoting it for Jews—is morally indefensible. The true lesson of the holocaust is that multiculturalism is bad for everyone, and ethnonationalism is good for everyone. Jews already have their homeland. Whites need to start reclaiming our homelands and sending non-whites to resettle in theirs. That is what White Nationalism is all about.
Ethnonationalism for all nations won’t create a world without conflict, but it will create a world without holocausts. By replacing multicultural nations with homogeneous homelands for all peoples, ethnonationalism will eliminate ethnic conflicts within states and make it impossible for stateless minorities to fall victim to genocide. As whites approach minority status in our own former homelands, this is a lesson of the holocaust we can all take to heart.
20 Comments
*clap clap clap*
This is much better than the infamous “gas the kikes, race war now!”
“gas the kikes, race war now!”
That’s comedy.
This is much better than the infamous “gas the kikes, race war now!”
It _is_ much better, but “gas the kikes, race war now!” has good qualities too.
It says, among other things, that the user of the slogan rejects any attempt to demoralize him with Jewish Holocaust propaganda. It takes the Holocaust’s factual claims and transforms them into a hard-edged joke. Anyone who has mentally reached the point where he finds the joke funny rather than upsetting is incapable of being browbeaten into racial passivity by the next Holocaust film and the thousands before it. “Gas the kikes, race war now!” would be worse than useless in the real world, but from within the online world it’s a good way to clear out anti-White clutter.
As a DS poster put it,
I appreciate diversity in the sense that I can totally accept long-winded theses AND text-free crudely-drawn memes which support the gassing of kikes. I am tolerant in the sense that if the kikes told me they were gonna gas themselves, I’d be like: “Me ‘n’ my bros were gonna do it, but whatever, I guess it’s okay if you do it yourselves.”
The average White would find that offensive. Some of them would find it horrifyingly offensive. But everyone who finds it funny is in good shape ideologically.
— Irmin
The article makes a strong point. Homogeneous nations are the key. And yes Holocaust denial is being used to promote a holocaust.
But it is Jewish behavior that caused anger and conflict against Jews. As it always has been. That should not be ignored or minimized.
Well done Greg.
As always Greg you’ve summed it up perfectly, great article. Cheers.
Ike.
Why the Hyperbole happened and why it won’t happen again.
And how, you think, you’d be able to defend your argument that Whites are undergoing a slow genocide? To most Whites it doesn’t look like genocide, but rather like:
– multicultural society
– cool to mate with people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds (e.g. White males find Asian females more sexy than the fat White women)
– loss of identity. It’s now normal for the average White to have no ethnic identity at all and to embrace identities of other ethnicities/cultures (emulating Blacks, Rastas, musical subcultures, etc.).
So to most people it doesn’t look like genocide. Even if you try to present the idea that it’s genocide, most people would say you’re a racist/supermacist and would not listen to you anymore.
Here’s the link in the article: https://counter-currents.com/2015/09/white-genocide/
Read it, and let me know what you think.
Yep, I checked it. Excuse me that I won’t comment directly on the topic, but I want to comment on something else, which strikes me as important. IMO, the main mistake that most white nationalists make is that they try to find a rational/logical reasons to support the existence of the White race. They say stuff like “White women are more beautiful, therefore we must preserve our whiteness”or “Whites are the smartest race, so the white race must survive” and stuff like that. It’s a comparison that degrades the human essence. It doesn’t work that way. Whites must survive, because NATURE/God/ made them to survive, not because they’re better or they’re worse.
The comparison shit must stop. If Whites are to survive, they must abandon this mechanistic way of thinking. Yup, the Jews must stop with this shit too. They’re not chosen people, and were not chosen by anyone except by themselves. Judaism is ethnocentrism. The same thing must be said for the Whites, who consider themselves superior.
I want to survive not because I’m superior to anybody, but because I AM. You get it? God created me and experiences the world through me. The same with the larger group that I belong to – my kin, and the even larger group – my ethnos. We all want to survive not because we’re superior, but just because we are. It’s NOT logical. Absolutely not! The essence of Reality doesn’t belong to the rational mind.
Very well said
” So I’m going to continue comparing myself to Others not only because it IS logical, but because the nature of identity IS the exclusion of the Other.”
Exclusion of the other doesn’t mean you’re superior or lower than him. It means you’re just different. Don’t become like the Jew. I suggest Whites should strive for Truth and Reality, rather than the delusional self-righteous thinking of Judaism and Semitic thought prevalent in Christianity and Islam.
Great comment by PatokaDonald. Our existence and survival constitute an end in itself. There are many objective criteria by which whites can be judged to be superior to other races, but above and beyond that, the biological imperative of any species or subspecies is to reproduce itself in perpetuity. Even races who have achieved far less than whites presumably have an equal will to survive, and that’s also justified. Conversely, all our “superiority” is useless to us if we fail survive.
On a strictly technical level the term genocide is correct. It would be more accurate if prefaced as:
Cold genocide,
Slow genocide, or
Article 2(c) genocide
However, for casual conversation the wording that works best is:
DEMOGRAPHIC EUTHANASIA
done by means of
RACIAL ENGINEERING.
Together they get the same point across, including the intentionality, without making you sound hyperbolic or hysterical.
“And how, you think, you’d be able to defend your argument that Whites are undergoing a slow genocide? To most Whites it doesn’t look like genocide, but rather like…”
This is a valid point. For these people, I would grant the implicit distinction between genocide (as group destruction by members’ destruction) and ethnocide (as group destruction by severing the bonds between members). The original conception of genocide made no such distinction — denationalization and deracination was considered to be a type of genocide — but if your interlocutor draws the distinction, grant it.
And then ask if he considers the Holocaust (and genocide in general) to be particularly heinous — if it is worse than the sum of the murders and deaths involved? If the response is that it is no different than e.g., garden variety democide, provide some numbers for comparison – ones which implicate non or anti-nationalist ideologies. But also note that you don’t agree and explain.
If he grants that the moral problem of genocide involves more than just the sum of individual deaths, tease out why. Explain that by Raphael Lemkin’s original conception, genocide was seen as particularly morally problematic because it involved the destruction of ethnic and racial groups as such (”Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.”), which implies that the existence and protection of these is a moral good. Agree and emphasize that you see the Holocaust as particularly bad not because a couple of million random individual were killed — the numbers involved — but because an attempt to extinguish an ethnic group was made. Make the point that if the preservation and protection of ethnic groups is a good in itself than nationalism/ethnostatism, as such, which attempts to achieve this can not be morally impugned. Point out that it makes no sense to maintain that: (a) the Holocaust was particularly invidious because it was an attempt to destroy of an ethnic group; we should eliminate ethnic groups — denaturalize them — to prevent this from happening again OR (b) the Holocaust was no more morally problematic than any other garden variety mass killings of the same order of magnitude, many of which have been perpetuated in the name of social justice (“Top Khmer Rouge leader tells court he fought for ‘social justce’”) and anti-nationalism, therefore nationalism, which when demonic can lead to genocide, is particularly morally problematic.
Personally, I have found that discussion along these lines – especially when structured Socratically — helps because many people are morally confused on the matter. In large part, this is because many have implicitly adopted (a) because it’s the Jewish perspective disguised in universalistic terms. Sometimes the discussion leads interlocutors to adopt the position that the Holocaust was only quantitatively problematic – a very classically liberal perspective. This can lead to Bayesian arguments in defense of ethnocide, which you should be prepared for.
whites are the new jews. holocaust coming down the pike. welcome in muslims they will do the job. NWO plan. add 40 years of media/college/religious org brainwash anti white proprganda. the pope is certanily on not your side. whites are docile. whites are evicted from their homes in norway to accomodate 3rd world. white children forced to clean refugee centers in germany. violence in the streets, no protection. BLK the new brownshirts. being jewish i see the paraelles. in order for jews to protect themselves they have to be rich. the elites arnt looking out for my interests either. muslims will kill us all- we are infidels. too little too late. there should have been anti 3rd world riots in the US 30 years back. the writting was on the walls.
I’ve had this thought, too. Holocaust–whether it is an indisputable historical event or not–is entirely irrelevant to the question of white survival. We deserve to survive if we have the will to survive, and no amount of alleged atrocities or miracles, superiority or inferiority, will change it. Even the dumbest criminal has a will to survive so why should we have to justify ours?
Holocaust–the propaganda–is mostly used as a noose to stifle nationalism when it would’ve been the answer even back then. It’s pretty hard to hate, round up and kill people who aren’t even in your nation in the first place.
Well thought out and strongly worded without baiting or uselessly re-fighting WWII. Standing O Sir.
I’m Jewish.
I (mainly) agree with this post. We have our well-armed homeland to retreat to if need be. I hope I don’t need to, but at least I have one.
All of you should have one too.
Interesting photo they are memeing with:
http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-most-famous-holocaust-photo-fraud.html