Originally Posted by Alex Linder
And what response did you advocate? Giving in. You cede everything the revisionists argue, only to turn around and say none of it matters - we still must cede the jews all their H claims. And now you turn around again, and cite your mealy mouthed admissio that FACTUALLY THE REVISIONISTS ARE 100% RIGHT as though you agree with that position. Well, if you're not lying now, which I sure wouldn't bet on, it's just cost you money. Isn't that ironic, since your double-talk, your trimming, your hedging was supposed to produce more income, not less? You've done more damage to yourself than you realize, Johnson. You've shown you'll change your tune for money. You've shown incredible inability to read basic politics. And you've shown that when your errors are pointed, even by your fans, you will respond with female-hysterical ad hominems.
The fact-finders, who often call themselves revisionists, have well established the central claims on which the jew-communist agitprop term/concept 'holocaust' is based are big lies. These FACTS must be used to beat the jews' heads in. No quarter. Anyone who doesn't understand that is a weak analyst, and not someone who deserves support, but who deserves criticism until he figures things out and gets back on the right track.
Alex, it is ironic that you are accusing me of female hysterics, because your reasoning skills have gone completely out the window here. I expected more of you, although I don't know why I expected solid reasoning skills from a journalist.
1. Revisionists themselves concede that many innocent Jews died in WW II, and that is "Holocaust enough" for Jewish purposes, even if one scrapes away all the lies told after the fact by people who sought to use these deaths for political and financial advantage. I don't concede that. The revisionists do. I'm just the bearer of the bad news that revisionism can't successfully get the Holocaust off our people's back.
2. I think Holocaust revisionism is a legitimate field of inquiry. Revisionists should have the right to investigate and publish without penalty. That does not constitute a blanket endorsement of their claims. Nor does it imply I think that revisionism is sufficient to get the Holocaust off our back. In the end, I think that the facts are on the Jewish side, in the sense that even if all the after-the-fact lies deducted from the story, there's still "Holocaust enough" for Jewish purposes.
3. That means that we have to look elsewhere than revisionism for an answer to the Holocaust question. I think that part of that answer is to put the Holocaust and the Second World War in a larger historical context, so as to show that Jewish suffering is not unique and that Jews on the whole are an aggressor people, not passive victims. But the deeper answer is moral. I would like whites to become serenely indifferent to guilt trips and moral blackmail, no matter what our people have done in the past. A race with the vitality and will to power to project future cannot be tied to past negatives.
4. All of the above is true, and I am saying it because I believe that it is true, and because I think it is important for White Nationalists to get their heads screwed on straight if we are going to be effective. I think you would prefer to believe that I am lying, but I am not. Sorry to disappoint you.
5. This controversy is very important. I used to have a rather laissez faire attitude toward the whole range of the WN scene. I had hoped that I could help foster a constructive way for WNs of different stripes to make the best of their different outlooks by networking among themselves and turning their energies toward fighting the enemy rather than one another. Well, that was not possible given the human material here. But now I think that nothing is more important than to separate what I am doing from Old Right thinking and the milieu that gives birth to people like Hadding Scott and Wade Michael Page. So as I see it, the propensity to factionalism and infighting is now working in my favor. Keep up the good work.