110 words
Matt Parrott
Greg Johnson was joined by long-time friend of Counter-Currents, Matt Parrott, to discuss the fast-approaching US presidential election. The recording is available to download or listen to online.
Topics include:
3:38 – Changes in the political landscape
9:55 – Kamala’s investment in Lebanon
16:16 – Why isn’t Matt fat anymore? How is Matt’s Substack?
22:14 – Can multiculturalism work with strong policing?
29:06 – Who is the more accelerationist candidate?
38:37 – Nationalism is the answer to the holocaust
52:01 – On Joel Davis
57:11 – Was Hitler WN?
1:04:24 – What about an NS political party?
1:09:37 – On JD Vance
1:25:23 – What power does a VP have?
1:32:54 – On wignats
1:47:13 – Might nationalist populist tactics serve minorities?
1:50:32 – Does the “eating cats and dogs” line help us?
1:55:08 – Can leftist arguments help us?
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
12 comments
If it’s possible for an elite to have an Everyman, it would be Matt. He is an asset to the cause. I for one am glad to see he is back.
All I got for praising Adolf “Germany Only” Hitler was getting stuck on how to justify the Dutch Hunger Winter.
Each European nation has an innately nationalist revulsion against imperialist NS, even if one papered over with civnat/liberal talking points. They even know for a fact that they don’t need help from Nazis in order to fight overt Communism, for whom that matters regarding the Cold War.
NS is a complete dead end. Revisionism is ultimately just another path to concede this. The Holocaust is just the cherry on top of a set of seperate cakes.
A good discussion – significantly above average in my opinion…
The Nazis had no intention of imperialism. That is not at all what they were about.
I understand that you think it is important to fan the Slav ego, but they were partially responsible for their own long path through the rocky road of Bolshevism. At best, they were deceived by the Western powers to carry their water against the Germans ─ and then they came up short, which should have surprised no one.
Hitler had no intention of incorporating non-Germans into German lands if it was at all possible. They were German Nationalists (Nazis) and they fought Communism and internal subversion that kept them balkanized and unstable. We could learn much by their examples, and by their successes, and by their failures.
As the late Holocaust Revisionist Fritz Berg ─ who was a Columbia-educated engineer and second-generation German-American with an unfortunate streak of diehard Jack Kennedy admiration ─ often put it: “What saved our asses in the Cold War was the atomic bomb and the fight already waged by Adolf Hitler.”
For White Nationalists, you guys do a lot of uncritical obeisance with enemy war propaganda.
Hitler tried to get agreements with the Czechs and the Poles and even the Russians, and sometimes this was successful ─ but not for long, for the enemy could always offer a sweeter deal. At least the Brtitish paid back some of their Lend-Lease.
There was no Drang nach Osten on the part of Hitler; that notion falls more on older traditions from the Kaiser’s court. It fits with National Socialism about as much as the bombardment of Iwo Jima being a distilled Yankee Doodle expression of Manifest Destiny. Sure, and that is exactly what Marxists would say.
If anything, the Germans found that they were forced into a belated imperial policy to rationalize the continental resources necessary to fight their enemies. Hitler was amazed at the quality and quantity of the Czech contribution to his war-economy, for example. And that is another one of the criticisms of Hitler as a warlord, i.e., that the Nazis were not land grabbers right from the start. But Hitler never wanted to rule non-Germans, so this made perfect sense.
The British military historian B.H. Liddell-Hart, who wrote a tome called Strategy (c. 1954, 1967) actually did a good job of explaining Hitler’s grand strategy as being ready and willing but NOT bent on actually fighting if at all possible. Most others get it completely wrong or are just rehashing old Allied propaganda.
Why is any of this important?
Well, either the Germans gassed the Jews or they didn’t.
If they didn’t, then that claim is a colossal lie and one that matters today. It matters to the enemy or they would not be promoting it to the tune of trillions of dollars for the last 80 years, and getting legislation passed to gaol (jail) anybody who looks at it too skeptically.
But let’s don’t straw man this point. What is your real concern here?
I have always said that Revisionism is NOT a Movement, per se. It is a historical method, an epistemological process, and one like many others.
Yes, we should all at least understand something about it if only to avoid being caught blind in an enemy trap.
It is not about “believing” the “settled” Science, for example; it is about using systematic methods to credibly map, verify, and to understand our world, unburdened by what (lies told) that have already been (in Kamalamala speak).
In any case, I don’t see how good politics readily flows downstream from bad history.
One would have hoped that the Institute for Historical Review’s Mark Weber, for example, would have given a more pithy reply when handed a prime interview on national TV after attending the international Holocaust conference hosted in Teheran in 2006 ─ besides his mousy denial that, gosh no, he is not a Holocaust Denier.
I don’t understand the notion that one is doing Holocaust Revisionism to somehow find the golden key to gaining political power and thereby building an ethnostate. Just who is saying this, exactly? Any real historians or current racial movement leaders?
You talk about WN or Nazi subcultures and how bad the optics are ─ but how many are actually historians, lawyers, or actual political organizers, let alone effective propagandists?
We don’t have to agree on these exact points. There is no sacred canon with Revisionism, nor is Science anything similar to Scripture. But to have real-history as with real-science, we do have to take our investigations wherever they need to go.
I can understand the temptation of trying to garner Jewish money and support by playing it safe and Kosher and especially by not touching any icky NS third rails. But will that policy actually work? I think not.
Why is allowing the enemy to define who you are (epecially negatively) ever going to work out?
Most Jews ─ over 80 percent ─ support Leftists and Democrats. When they do support Conservatives and Republicans, it is sometimes generous but never decisive; it is more to hedge the bet or even to spoil the deal.
So far Conservativism is like saddling a milk cow, as Stalin would have put it, because it is stale and unimaginative, and forevermore inchoate. It can only fight to “conserve” what is already long gone and probably not coming back. George Lincoln Rockwell wrote about this over sixty years ago when he split with William F. Buckley, Jr. For Buckley, politics was about God and Man at Yale. For Rockwell, it was all about White Power.
Nothing else matters.
Meanwhile the Leftists and Democrats are overtly anti-White and proud of it.
I can understand not wanting to address the Jewish Question. There are many fish to fry, though convincing Normies should not be the primary goal in any case. What needs to be done instead is to normalize White interests. And that requires a willingness and an ability to occasionally trespass sacred Kosher spaces.
You may not care about the Big-H but it cares about you. And it is the only Thoughcrimes taboo I can think of that can actually get you tossed into jail for doubting in some Democracies, which speaks volumes.
Honestly, I would rather that skinheaded suds-swillers leave the Historiography to others who are more capable, regardless of what the mere optics would warrant.
But in any case, every White Nationalist should have a short elevator speech prepared on the Holocaust for when or if it comes up. Hopefully something more stout and interesting than former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s, “those are not our values,” or “that is not who we are.”
Mark Weber’s elevator thumbnail is I am not a Denier. David Irving and David Cole have tried that one too.
Mine is basically Nazi Gassings Never Happened. Nobody Was Gassed!
From pole to pole, all White people would do well thinking about what Blood and Soil means to them.
🙂
Scott, my coffee got cold while reading your long comment, but for truth, this pearl says it all:
—
Scott: October 16, 2024 …[E]ither the Germans gassed the Jews or they didn’t… [My elevator thumbnail] is basically Nazi Gassings Never Happened. Nobody Was Gassed!
Go to the head of the class.
—
I don’t understand the notion that one is doing Holocaust Revisionism to somehow find the key to gaining political power and thereby building an ethnostate. Just who is saying this, exactly? Any real historians or current racial movement leaders?
A personal anecdote: In 1994, representing the National Alliance, I was fortunate to be invited to an intimate gathering at the German restaurant in Black Mountain, NC — perhaps 25 others attended. After our meal the two honored guests, David Irving and Ernst Zundel, gave their talks, revisionist talks you might say.
I raised my hand to ask Ernst, “Why is it revisionists who are apparently on our side go to such lengths to put distance between yourselves and us racial nationalists, when we are the ones using your work to make our case,” or something along that line.
His answer was that revisionists can’t be too closely associates with White loyalists or risk being tarred with the same “racist” brush as you.”
Of course, they had both been heavily tarred by Jews already and continued to be for their courageous truth-telling. Viewing the video of Ernst, wearing a hard hat, being viciously attacked by a mob of Jews at his first Canadian show trial in 1985 was my first shocking introduction to the seriousness of the Jewish Question. David, a universally respected WWII historian, had his own serious legal bouts with Jews, especially when he went up against them in 2000. Both were jailed, basically, for the crime of “spreading false history.” WikiJews characterize David as a “negationist,” defined as:
Holocaust denial is an antisemitic conspiracy theory[1][2] that asserts that the Nazi genocide of Jews, known as the Holocaust, is a fabrication or exaggeration.[3][4][5] Holocaust denial includes making one or more of the following false claims:[6][7][8]
*Nazi Germany’s “Final Solution” was aimed only at deporting Jews from the territory of the Third Reich and did not include their extermination.
*Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers for the mass murder of Jews.
*The actual number of Jews murdered is significantly lower than the accepted figure of approximately six million.
*The Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by the Allies, Jews, or the Soviet Union.[4][9]
The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary.[10] Scholars use the term denial to describe the views and methodology of Holocaust deniers in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies.[11] Holocaust deniers generally do not accept denial as an appropriate description of their activities and use the euphemism revisionism instead.[12]
The truth is, like you say, Scott: “Nobody was gassed.”
—
There is no sacred canon with Revisionism, nor is Science anything similar to Scripture. But to have real-history as with real-science, we do have to take our investigations wherever they need to go… unburdened by lies.
Physicist Dr. William Pierce looked into Holocaust claims at Auschwitz as a scientist 35 years ago in his essay, “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue” at nationalvanguard.org. That single essay is all one needs to conclusively know that the Holocaust tale is “The Hoax of the 20th Century.”
Incidentally, Fred Leuchter, the expert engineer on whose work Pierce’s piece is based, asked me last year if I would serve on the board of an effort to finally unite revisionists with racial activists. I declined, telling him that the combination is a pipe dream, reminding him that some revisionist historians are race-mixers, so not compatible with strict race-thinkers.
I’ve met Mr. Irving many times and would have loved to have met the late Mr. Zündel.
I was scheduled to meet Bradley Smith (one of the race-mixer Revisionists, but a free-speech advocate and man that I admired) in an informal setting in Tucson ─ but he and the irascible engineer Fritz Berg got into a silly row for some reason and the meeting fell through. Both are now passed on.
I have tried not to be too hard on Mr. Fred Leuchter, but misrepresenting his engineering credentials and his ongoing pattern of grifting hard-earned farthings from White Nationalists makes it very hard.
The degreed chemist and publisher Germar Rudolf fixed the problems with the Leuchter Report, and Germar’s Revised and notated version is recommended. Also ─ now it can be told ─ the late Prof. Robert Faurisson is in that Revised version given the proper credit for writing much or most of it.
🙂
I agree 110% with Greg that the Holocaust should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether White people have and may assert legitimate group interests or not. Indeed, the emphasis on it is, logically speaking, an own goal, because it demonstrates the insecurity of stateless peoples. In so doing, it also lays bare the malice of those who wish to destroy White ethnic majorities wherever they are found, even in the very White countries that destroyed Nazi Germany.
That is a betrayal that is shocking to the sensibilities of decent people who have ever given the matter any serious thought. Unfortunately, our people seem to be spellbound by this tale in a way that completely debilitates them intellectually.
The good news is that White people don’t trust the government or media anymore. It no longer sounds particularly crazy to caution people about believing everything they read in their history books. Some of them will take the hint, and more than you might imagine. After all, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure out that they’re being grievously manipulated just as soon as you tell them about the Holodomor they never heard of despite going to school for 15+ years. If the whole point is “never again,” why are some dead bodies more equal than others?
We are not the ones emphasizing the Big-H, they are.
Also, just relying upom minimalistic government (Libertarianism) or (arguably) Christianity does not produce the kind of political action that can empower us. Unless Nordic Jesus some fine day floats down from the heavens in flowing white robes, that is how we will lose.
So we have to have people who can provide answers for these narratives and strategies to meet them head-on.
I don’t begrudge Jared Taylor for not wanting to address the JQ. He is doing good work otherwise, and I have never heard any complaints that the you-know-whos are pulling his financial strings.
And this isn’t necessarily about which cosmology is more true.
But as long as the Jewish Question is truly an item ─ and the usual suspects have trillions of dollars to dump into their anti-White mischief ─ then ultimately we can’t passively dismiss and ignore their Holy creed either or else our own Weltanschauung will never thrive.
It is not easy, but we can win with free-speech and the fact that the Truth is always the right answer.
We don’t have the luxury of the ostrich ─ which is to hope that if we can’t see or hear them, then they will not notice us and therefore we won’t lose. That is just not how we will win or attain White Power.
🙂
Lexi: October 22, 2024 I agree 110% with Greg that the Holocaust should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether White people have and may assert legitimate group interests or not…
The good news is that White people don’t trust the government or media anymore.
—
You and Greg are right. And that is good news. Some of us have been waiting for decades for more of our people to mistrust JOG and Jew-controlled media. Unfortunately, most cannot yet fully grasp the extent that Jews control their government, and they have been misdirected to believe “corporate media” are the problem, not Jewish media.
I listened to 12 or so minutes of Greg’s 2-hour chat with Matt Parrot: 38:37 – 52:01: Nationalism is the answer to the holocaust. Interesting, but nothing ground-breaking. Nationalism is the answer to the Jewish Question. The HolyHoax is not a question. It’s a large pack of Jewish lies, the biggest pack of Jewish lies since Christianity, and deserves nothing but our contempt.
Something Matt said caught my ear. Paraphrasing, he said that back in 2016 everybody was laughing at the HolyHoax, but no more. I take it that by “everybody,” back then he was talking about the online alt-right crowd, led by clever folks like Andrew Anglin and others that I never listened to after sizing them up. Even then I saw the alt-right “movement” as just another big tent flash in the pan. Where are those alt-right laughers now? Have they matured and ready to get serious?
The HolyHoax should be laughed at and ridiculed by us all the time, not argued. 30 years ago I would ridicule it to anyone and everyone to their face with confidence, and not anonymously online. An anecdote:
Around ’94 I had given up being a worker bee seven or so years earlier and had become an artist, mostly as cover for my new career in racial politics. I’d painted a series of still-life’s that were pretty good and a gallery in Raleigh, my hometown, invited me to display five or six of them in its front window. At that time, I’d enrolled in a workshop at Merideth College conducted by a faculty member who was quite good, picking his brain for technical methods.
After the class one Friday night everyone wanted to go to a local bar together for a beer. I did not drink but went with them to the Player’s Retreat, a bar with which I was familiar. I was sitting at a table, nursing a Ginger Ale, when one of the girl students sitting at our table started yapping about the goddamned HolyHoax for some reason. “You don’t still believe that shit, do you?” I asked. That’s all it took. She picked up her beer and cigarettes and stormed off in a huff without another word. But that was not the end of it. Turned out she worked at that gallery where my paintings were being displayed.
The following Monday the gallery owner called, asking me to pick up my paintings that she had just put in her window the previous week. I gladly did, seeing that same girl in the store, gloating like she had achieved some major victory over the “denier.” Of course she hadn’t achieved shit. I can tell that story here 30 years later as an example of how to ridicule and laugh in the face of a foolish “believer” in the Jewish pack of lies. It might inspire someone else to do the honorable thing himself without regard to petty personal consequences.
I read that as ‘what power does a VPL have?’
I’m glad you are going to vote for JD Vance (and the other guy running with him). I think this election is far too important to leave up to fate or irresponsible accelerationism. I feel we are on the road to a South Africa type of situation where Whites will be a persecuted minority. Democrats are the party of White genocide and degeneracy. They will make N worship mandatory and give our taxpayer money away to minorities as well as other countries. Four more years of them and the country will be utterly destroyed. I can’t fathom why White gentiles would vote for such a party.
Great conversation. I agree with what you both are saying about Thomas Sewell and other Australians like Joel Davis. A few years ago Sewell’s group was demonstrating around some towns in Australia shouting, “KKK! KKK!” It was probably puzzling to onlookers as much as anything. What does the KKK have to do with Australia today? I assume Sewell was thinking of the KKK era depicted in “Birth of a Nation” and not the later KKK activity, but who knows. I think it shows a lack of imagination and creativity on his part. Maybe he is struggling to find some kind of unapologetically pro-white symbol or movement or figure to rally around or use to express his ideas or gain attention, but he would have more luck imo by “centering” (a term Parrot used a few times here which I like) his arguments and messaging around things that have more relevance to Australian identity and Australians today.
Also want to add that Sewell and especially Joel Davis seem like decent people who probably would be willing to have good faith and honest debates, even if they might seem to be stubbornly wrong in some ways. They don’t seem like the Nick Fuentes type of person whom even his “friends” can never fully trust and who seems more interested in tearing down other nationalists or others on the right than having sincere discussions.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.