Full Thread: #1 Holohoax Thread
View Single Post
Old July 25th, 2012 #51
Greg Johnson
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138

Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
This is the point I don't get. A lot of everybody died in WWII. You keep saying the jews were singled out, they got harsh treatment. That isn't the case. The jews were focused on because they were the source of communism. In Russia, where they murdered tens of millions of our kind. And in Germany, where they staged various putsches. With an eye toward doing the same thing they'd just accomplished in Russia. And harsh treatment? They emigrated. How is that harsh? Their own leaders were encouraging them to do that.

The point is not that some jews suffered, it's that there was no special jewish suffering, hence no reason to give them any of the money or apologies they demand. What kind of chutzpah is it to insist on reparations for non-existent atrocities when your side was the one committing real ones?
Aside from the quibbling about the use of "harsh," I can agree with all of this. And it would be true, even if the conventional Holocaust narrative were true. Putting the Holocaust in context, comparing it to other events, trying to understand why the Germans wanted a Jew-free Germany (for the same reasons that we want a Jew-free America), challenging the absurd Jewish ethnocentrism that elevates Jewish lives above all others: that's the kind of thing that I advocate. Because instead of trying to pare down death tolls or refute lies told about the events after the fact, these sorts of arguments reframe the Holocaust and set the groundwork for a different moral evaluation of it. And that is where whites are going to get immunized against the guilt tips and emotional blackmail.

What revisionists discover is simply stuff we can use. The question is how to politically play WWII. The jews' plan is obvious: claim nazis, and germany, and all white culture, is responsible for the Worst Atrocity Ever. Use this to elevate their race over us for all eternity. How can we possibly not respond to this? There is no way. And even if you try, as many commenters pointed out, they will still just call you a Nazi. Which is intended to trigger Holo-horrors in the minds of the people you're trying to reach. So even there, you have no choice not to fight. You must fight. And the way you do that, to start with, is using the term Holohoax. Because that's exactly what it is.
Sure, revisionists give us some useful stuff for showing that the allies, the Jewish leaders, and the survivahs told lots of lies for political and monetary gain. That can't hurt. But, as I argued at length in the essay, it is not going to get the Holocaust off our back, much less challenge the Jewish power structure.

When the Holocaust is brought up, I really don't think we should respond to it. Why? Because we are allowing them to put us in a moral hole and demanding we climb out of it before we can say anything else. To use a metaphor from Chechar, revisionism is a shield. It is an essentially defensive weapon. We need to use the sword or the spear and go on the offensive. Or, to use a metaphor I employed, the Holocaust is the red cape, whereas the Jewish power structure is the matador. I say charge the matador, not the cape. Or, with Bowden, when the Holocaust is thrown down in our path, we need to "step over it," not get tripped up or stalled by it.

Revisionism has never interested me all that much, because my main concern has always been the genocide being perpetrated against our people right now. So when people have brought up the Holocaust with me in discussions, I have always "evaded" the question by saying, "If the lesson of the Holocaust is that genocide is evil and peoples need their own states to be safe from it, then that lesson applies to whites today. If we do not stop non-white immigration, separate ourselves from non-whites, and regain control of our homelands and our destinies, then we will cease to exist, and that's genocide too. Why do you advocate genocide against white people?"

That sort of argument is preferable because it sets aside the past and focuses on the present and future; it moves from a Jew-centric to a white-centric perspective; it parries their offense and goes straight to attack; it sidesteps historical issues and focuses on moral and political issues. It puts one immediately in white nationalist territory, not spluttering about hoaxes or trying to explain the Leuchter report.

As for the Nazi charge, I think the most disarming thing to do is simply to be honest. I say that as a New Rightist, I think that the basic values and political concerns of the National Socialists and Fascists are correct, namely that different peoples should have their own states, but I don't believe in totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide. Then I go right back to pressing for white nationalism.

You won't do that because you fear for your reputation among...people who don't matter. It's symptomatic of a conservative mindset that can't solve the problem we're facing. There was no Holocaust. When you and MacDonald use the term like it's A-OK, you have ceded the debate to the enemy. You're saying your communist agitprop term is perfectly legitimate and respectable, and I honor it. That's not the way to go.
This mantra is false, tiresome, and petty-minded. You need to give it a rest. My reputation among whom, exactly? You know, Alex, as wrongheaded and despicable as you often are, you are among the tiny handful of people in this movement whose opinion really matters to me. Kevin MacDonald is another. But I had no idea of what he would think of that essay before I sent it to him. Ultimately, there are some things more important than being liked, even by people whose opinions matter, and I think this issue is important enough -- because people who think that White Nationalism DEPENDS on revisionism are, as I have argued, pretty far from the real sources of Jewish power and white weakness, and if our aim is White Nationalism, then we can't win unless we really understand the problem.