- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

My Conversation with Andrew Anglin

[1]1,700 words

On Monday, August 28, Tara McCarthy invited me to have a conversation with Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer on her Reality Calls Show. I enjoyed the debate between me and Vox Day she hosted on August 17th, so I accepted. Tara made it clear that we were to be having a conversation, not a debate, and the topic would be the current attacks on white advocates and the way forward from here. I need to make this clear, because Andrew is now billing our conversation as a debate [2]

The conversation was held as a live Google hangout on YouTube, but when it was over, Tara uploaded it to BitChute, a new censorship-free video platform. I thought this was a good idea, not just to prevent YouTube from censoring it, but also as a way to lead my followers and Andrew’s to discover BitChute, which is a platform worth promoting. You can listen and comment at BitChute here [3].

Some of my friends expressed surprise that the conversation was so friendly. It was my first public conversation with Andrew, but we have spoken before on Skype. We disagree on a lot of matters, but our interactions have always been collegial. I think The Daily Stormer is tasteless and probably a net negative for white advocacy, but I have defended Andrew from baseless charges by Colin Liddell and others that he is an enemy agent.

Andrew and I agreed on many, perhaps most, of the points we discussed. In particular, we agreed that Nazi flags are bad for optics at public rallies like Unite the Right in Charlottesville. Andrew went so far as to recommend that at future rallies, there should only be American flags. If this had been the case at Charlottesville, the normies of the world would have been treated to the spectacle of a rabble of grungy freaks carrying Communist flags assaulting clean-cut white men carrying American flags, which would have made it very difficult for the establishment to sell its now collapsing narrative that Unite the Right was responsible for the violence.

I was somewhat surprised that Andrew and I share the same basic view of the harm caused by Nazi aesthetics at protests, and I gently challenged him to apply the same thinking to The Daily Stormer.

Andrew claimed that I misrepresented his views on this matter in my discussion with Vox Day. I don’t recall saying that. (Listen [4] and let me know.) I do recall criticizing Andrew for insisting on claiming the Alt Right “brand” for white nationalism alone, and applauding hailgate for polarizing between the Alt Right and the Alt Lite. The Alt Right worked best by being a big tent. Now the Alt Right is increasingly marginal, and the Alt Lite is dedicated to combating ethnic nationalism.

Our main disagreement was about the Third Reich and the Holocaust. Andrew insists that since our enemies stigmatize all racial nationalists as Nazis, we must combat this by rehabilitating the Third Reich, including denying the Holocaust. My response is that we should simply focus on the injustice, absurdity, and neuroticism of the charge that all forms of racial nationalism, and nationalism in general — and, really, everything that the Left hates — is “Nazi.”

Andrew’s position on the Holocaust boils down to: It never happened, but it should have. This is completely indefensible.

First, it is factually indefensible. No honest revisionist claims that the Holocaust never happened. (Robert Faurisson does claim this, but only by insisting on a particular definition. His argument is too clever by half and cannot be taken seriously.) Even if one grants every serious revisionist argument, what remains is Holocaust enough for most people. Andrew claimed that his approach to the Holocaust was to offer mockery, not arguments. When I countered that revisionism is a rather intellectually demanding body of literature, he made it clear that he simply does not care if his positions are intellectually defensible. Unfortunately, intelligent and thoughtful people do care about things like that, and we want to attract them to our movement, not repulse them.

Second, I would love to see Andrew venture a moral defense of his position. Given the Jewish establishment’s enormous investment in stigmatizing National Socialism and the Holocaust as the ultimate evil, it strikes me as a blunder for white advocates to take such positions. That’s what the Jews want us to do. The Jews have cast racially-conscious whites into a pit of moral obloquy, which Andrew is simply deepening. But when you are in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. White Nationalists actually occupy the moral high ground, and we need to act like it.

My position on the Holocaust is explained in two articles:

Basically, I argue that trotting out the Holocaust — and sometimes the specter of “another Holocaust” — to stigmatize every expression of white racial consciousness and self-assertion is a moral fraud.

First, the lesson of the Holocaust is not that the planet must submit to Jewish emotional blackmail until the sun burns out, lest we sin again. The lesson is that stateless peoples living in multicultural societies are vulnerable to genocide when the tensions caused by diversity explode into violence.

Second, Jews are no longer in danger of “another Holocaust” because they have their own ethnostate with a huge arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

Third, while Jews are in no danger of “another Holocaust,” white genocide [8] — by means of low fertility, miscegenation, and race-replacement immigration — is real, and it will lead to white extinction [9] unless we turn these trends around by embracing White Nationalism and creating homogeneous homelands for all white peoples.

It is a moral absurdity for Jews, who are in no danger of another genocide, to morally blackmail a people that is facing genocide into doing nothing to resist it. In effect, they claim that because the Holocaust happened, the white race must die, which is a transparently bad argument that springs from an ugly spirit of vengefulness. It is, moreover, a moral obscenity when one comes to realize the role that Jewish influence played in setting white nations on the path to extinction in the first place.

Jews are manipulating our sympathy for a select set of innocent victims as a weapon of political and demographic warfare against whites. We have to make our people immune to this manipulation. Why the selective focus on Jewish suffering? Why do most Americans have a ready answer to the question “How many Jews died in the Holocaust?” but have no idea how many Americans died in World War II?  Why are we bombarded with the fake moral imperative that whites must never unite to protect our ethnic interests again because of the Holocaust? Why are all whites now stigmatized as perpetrators — or enablers, or potential perpetrators — of the Holocaust, even the nations that fought against the Third Reich? The way to stop the weaponization of the Holocaust against whites is to expose this sinister moral swindle, not to fiddle with the numbers — which at their largest have never approached the crimes of Communism, and which at their smallest will never reach zero anyway.

At one point, Andrew claims that the Holocaust is the foundation of the whole white-guilt complex, although he immediately backs away from that claim by mentioning that slavery and colonialism are put to the same use. In truth, the Holocaust is not the foundation of Jewish power, as Mark Weber has pointed out [10]. Jews were powerful long before the Holocaust. Powerful enough, for instance, to deliver the United States into two World Wars. The Holocaust has been weaponized against whites because of pre-existing Jewish power in the media, academia, business, and politics. And if the revisionists really had a magic bullet that would destroy the Holocaust as a historical event, the Jewish establishment would smoothly and shamelessly pivot to accusing the Allied governments of perpetrating a huge crime against the Jewish people, for if the Holocaust really is a big lie, then countless families were never reunited because they simply assumed all their relatives were dead. And slavery and colonialism would be promoted to the chief tools of raising white guilt and lowering white resistance to genocide. The holocaust is just one tool of Jewish power, not the cornerstone. It is not the matador, just one of his capes that revisionists foolishly keep charging, thinking it is the man himself.

One final point: I agree with Andrew that it is important to use mockery to counter the weaponization of the Holocaust. But we have to be very careful in choosing our targets. We need to mock the lies, the sanctimony, the selective moral outrage, the implicit Jewish supremacism (only Jewish victims matter), and the cynical political opportunism connected with the Holocaust. But we have to remember that the lies were told by the survivors and Allies, not the dead, most of whom died simply because they were Jews. If our goal is to immunize our people from being emotionally exploited by Holocaust propaganda, we need to raise their moral indignation against the enemy, not against ourselves. So it is self-defeating to mock the victims.

I want to thank Tara and Andrew for an enjoyable and stimulating conversation. I want to encourage her do to more such discussions. I am certainly happy to take part in them. I also think it is important to promote new platforms like BitChute by giving them exclusive content.

In that spirit, I want to end by repeating a friendly challenge to my listeners and Andrew’s. We both have Hatreon accounts. Right now, Andrew is the #1 Hatreon creator with 65 patrons and $1176.93/month. I currently have 27 patrons and $449/month. Naturally, I want to be #1. So if you are my supporter, please click HERE [11], use the invite code BNIHVDDYXEHW, and make a monthly pledge. Naturally, Andrew’s supporters will try to keep him #1 by also pledging. Thus this is a friendly sort of rivalry that will help all parties, including Hatreon.

So what are you waiting for?

Thank you for your loyal readership and support.

Greg Johnson

* * *

PS: There are other ways to support Counter-Currents:

First, you can use a credit card with the form below.

Note: Credit card numbers are not stored on our server, and all connections are secure and encrypted.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”true”]

Second, Counter-Currents also takes Bitcoin.

Our Bitcoin address is: 1ChE5DZVVZJpv8mnJ3fRrtSDrTikBh7uFL

In the coming weeks, we will begin accepting donations in all digital currencies, and we will publish a tutorial on how you can begin using them.

Third, you can also mail donations to:

PO Box 22638
San Francisco, CA 94122

We are profoundly grateful for the outpouring of generosity from a large number of readers after the recent round of attacks on Counter-Currents. But we need to hear from all of you. Especially from our monthly donors. Please renew today.

Winter is coming for white advocacy. We must be industrious ants, building up capital and bracing ourselves for further attacks and deplatforming. We can no longer be happy-go-lucky grasshoppers, depending on the kindness and fair play of capitalists. Fear not, we will never quit. But we need to build new institutions, an integrated electronic ethnostate offering everything from domain registration to webhosting to DDOS protection to mailing list management — all controlled by our movement. This is a huge task, and we obviously should have started building it years ago. But when you donate, you are helping us build it today.