Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 8th, 2012 #261
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Lew_
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What do you mean? I don't understand your point.
Sorry for the unclear wording. It was late. I meant your point is a good rebuttal to the notion Whites have a racial guilt flaw. I've never seen it put this way.

Yeah - where's the moral guilt our people feel over the incredible injustices visited on innocent Iraqis and Afghans as a direct result of a Mossad deception and jewish WMD lies? There is not an ounce of it. If we have these racial flaws that lead us to feel guilty all the time, it's sure interesting that they turn on and off 100% in line with the jew finger on the light switch.
 
Old August 8th, 2012 #262
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lew_ View Post
Sorry for the unclear wording. It was late. I meant your point is a good rebuttal to the notion Whites have a racial guilt flaw. I've never seen it put this way.

Yeah - where's the moral guilt our people feel over the incredible injustices visited on innocent Iraqis and Afghans as a direct result of a Mossad deception and jewish WMD lies? There is not an ounce of it. If we have these racial flaws that lead us to feel guilty all the time, it's sure interesting that they turn on and off 100% in line with the jew finger on the light switch.
Just realize, as many people don't: just because someone says something politely with a twinkle in his eye doesn't mean he's not an out-and-out liar.

Jared Taylor is an out-and-out liar.
 
Old August 9th, 2012 #263
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[from The White Network]

Nationalism and the Holocaust: A Reply to Greg Johnson

By Thomas Dalton

July 31, 2012

(This article was freely distributed on the Internet, so I have freely posted it here. Thomas Dalton, PhD writes for Inconvenient History Online Journal and is the author of Debating the Holocaust.)

“In the period of just six years, from 1933 to 1939, and amidst a global depression, Germany rose from a ruined, bankrupt nation to the strongest on Earth. The Holocaust—the real event—is a nationalist success story. Rein in Jewish-controlled banks and capitalist enterprises, restore national integrity to the media, expel Jews from the seat of governmental power…and your nation will flourish. What better lesson could revisionism provide?” … Thomas Dalton

Greg Johnson’s concise and articulate essay, “Dealing with the Holocaust”, is to be commended for grappling intelligently with two very controversial topics: White Nationalism and the Holocaust. But amidst his many insightful observations, I sense a kind of misunderstanding of the nature of Holocaust revisionism, and an undervaluation of the role that it can play. What follows are a few thoughts to clarify and elaborate on the important issues he raises.

Johnson’s basic position is this: Revisionism is useful in its own field of inquiry, namely history, but is of dubious value to any White Nationalist movement. This is true because (a) there is no necessary connection between the two topics; (b) a fixation on history is unhealthy for any forward-looking nationalist movement; (c) any revisionist successes (lower death tolls, explaining away the gas chambers, etc) are irrelevant; (d) the standard Holocaust narrative is actually useful for nationalist causes; and (e) revisionism avoids the moral and psychological basis for Jewish oppression of whites, and thus overlooks the central issue at hand. I will address each of these points.

As an advocate of the “New Right” form of White Nationalism, Johnson recognizes and accepts that he cannot ignore the Holocaust question. His answer to this question is two-fold. First, we must promote a “universal” form of nationalism, on the principle that all peoples should desire to govern themselves on an ethnonationalist basis. The Jews certainly wish this for themselves, and they are right to do so. But what’s good for the Jewish goose is good for the white gander. (As well, presumably, for Latinos, blacks, Asians, and so on.)

This is not a radical position; in fact it was the status quo for most of human history. Humans have always been “nationalists”, where a ‘nation’ is defined as a group of people that share a common culture or ethnicity. Throughout history, culture and ethnicity have largely overlapped. People lived in ethnically or racially homogeneous societies, relatively speaking. The primary exceptions were those empires that grew sufficiently large to encompass other ethnic groups; their diversity then contributed to their downfall. Only in recent times—by which I mean, the past century or so—have we abandoned ethnonationalism. We are now seeing the consequences. Ethnic diversity is not a human evolutionary condition, and we ought not expect it to be a viable form of social order.

The second part of the answer is rather simple: “move on”, “step over it”. I understand the need to not linger on historical tragedies, and I agree that a strong culture must be able to forget, but this part of the solution is inadequate. For one thing, it comes perilously close to “ignoring” the Holocaust—something we were just recommended to avoid. Furthermore, it conflicts with the later call to utilize the Holocaust tale to our (nationalist) advantage. These recommendations are mutually incompatible. But more importantly, the “move on” approach implicitly rejects the usefulness of revisionism—a mistake, as I will argue.

The virtue of universal nationalism is that it says to all people, “You have a right to govern yourselves, and to not be dominated by others, whether an external power or any minority group within your national boundaries.” This is true self-determination, and it is a universal human right. Whites are an identifiable ethnic group, and, like all others, they do hold the right to self-determination. Jews appear white, but by their own estimation, and according to human genetics, they are a distinct ethnicity; in fact the same is true for many Middle Easterners. A truly Euro-American white nationalism must be free to self-govern, away from dominating control by Jewish or other near-white ethnicities.

But more to the point, such nationalism is, in principle, independent of events like the Holocaust—precisely as Johnson says. In theory, they are distinct issues. The real question is the pragmatic one: In practice, in the actual world of today, is revisionism important to ethnonationalism? Johnson says no, calling it “rather clumsy” at best; I disagree. Granted, it has its drawbacks. But the relevant question is, Do its advantages outweigh its disadvantages? And here, I think, the answer is yes.

To begin with, the revisionists have a very strong case. As one who has studied revisionism for several years, and documented the competing arguments in my book Debating the Holocaust, I can attest that it poses multiple, serious challenges to the conventional view—challenges that have been either weakly responded to, or, more commonly, ignored. The many absurdities and inconsistencies of the survivor claims is only one problematic area. The dearth of human remains, the illogical gassing procedures, wartime air photos, and the lengthy propaganda history of “6 million” suffering Jews (dating back to the late 1800s), all conspire to seriously undermine orthodox claims. If there were rational answers to these challenges, surely by now the experts would have responded. Instead, they react with silence, even as they subtly back down from the hardline position. Recent expert analyses, for example, hardly mention witness statements any more. Some, such as Peter Longerich’s long-awaited study Holocaust (2010), go further, refusing even to cite the famous “6 million” figure at all. Orthodoxy is gradually retrenching, but popular media is lagging behind—which is why, as Johnson complains, we see no larger effects so far.

The strength of the revisionist case is precisely why they have been banned, censored, and outlawed. Johnson notes, but underestimates, the fear that the Jewish power structure has in this matter. He is right to observe that the Holocaust is not a “source” of their power; Jews have had disproportionate power in western nations for centuries. But neither is it merely an “expression” of Jewish power, as he (and Mark Weber) claim. If this were so, and if it was found to be deficient, they would simply find other ways of expressing their power. Rather, it is a means—their most important means for effecting control. Jews fear revisionism because it threatens to destroy their strongest guilt-tool. They have invested much in this story, and it would be very costly and time-consuming for them to develop another, equally-effective tool.

Because the power structure has no response to revisionism except censorship, the general public, and whites in particular, can be given a “proof,” of sorts, of Jewish duplicity. The Holocaust is a canonical case of Jewish deception and manipulation, and revisionism lays bare that fact. Many of the central revisionist arguments are clear and obvious; they require little in the way of specialized knowledge. Any non-Jew with a shred of rationality can be shown that they have been largely (though not completely) duped; this should make any thinking person more than a little angry.

The fact that Jewish fatality numbers never will go to zero, as Johnson emphasizes, does not really matter. The likely death toll is perhaps 10% of the claimed figures. A 90% reduction in deaths is not just some minor fiddling around the edges; it is a wholesale collapse of “the most well-documented event in history.” Those who have staked their careers and incomes on this event will be in for a rude awakening.

Of course, there will be some who will say “500,000 Jewish deaths is still a Holocaust.” Others will say, “Even one death is a tragedy.” And on a personal level, it is. For the Jews, 500,000 deaths is a Holocaust. For whites, or humanity at large, it is a mere blip—one percent of the roughly 50 million deaths in World War II. If it comes to this, and this fact is made known, the leading guilt-tool is effectively destroyed. Without guilt, the moral burden is relieved. And once the source of the false guilt is seen to lay in Jewish-inspired propaganda, white (and other) nationalisms will certainly benefit.

But for nationalist movements to realize maximum gain, the whole manipulation process must be spelled out. Jews are less than two percent of the US population; in both Europe and Russia, the figure is roughly 0.2 percent. These numbers are too small for direct personal control of finance, media, and government, so they rely heavily on two groups of servants: their well-paid (and usually white!) corporate and governmental lackeys, and their ideological lackeys—primarily (white!) Christian Zionists and liberal leftists. The lackeys have done, and continue to do, much of the legwork in protecting the orthodox Holocaust story, and in defending Jews generally. And because they are predominantly white, they pose a special challenge to White Nationalism. Downplaying revisionism lets these folks off the hook.

Finally, a few additional thoughts to bear in mind:

It is frankly a bit ridiculous to attempt to use the conventional Holocaust story as a lesson in the evils of genocide, on behalf of whites. This story is destined either to collapse or to undergo drastic curtailment; the last thing white nationalists need is to hitch their wagon to a dying horse.

The claim that revisionist success would be a “political windfall” for Jews is likewise groundless. Even if the Allies played a role in the scam—which they probably did, to cover for their own war crimes—few today will hold that against present-day whites. It will rewrite Allied history, as it should, but even the Jews would be unable to turn this fact to their advantage. They themselves are far more implicated than any war-era allies.

It seems like a losing strategy to cry “white genocide.” The white American population will continue to grow, slowly, for at least the next century, and likely well beyond. European white populations are likewise plateauing, but won’t be dropping significantly, let alone vanishing, any time in the coming centuries. True, whites will be outpaced by minority groups, and they will gradually lose hegemonic power. This is regrettable. But it is far short of genocide. And lacking a valid genocide claim, the conventional Holocaust story loses all relevancy.

An obsession with a “long memory” is assuredly not good, but it is not as pernicious as Johnson suggests. For one thing, all strong nationalist movements and cultures have long memories; perhaps they all are sick, but this is unlikely. Second, that paragon of ethnonationalist toughness and persistence, the Jews, have a longer memory than anyone—so it can’t be that fatal. Third, simple justice demands a long memory, certainly at least as far back as WW2. Yes, the Holocaust story should ultimately be forgotten—after justice prevails.

Johnson is surely correct to say that there are deeper moral and psychological issues at play, to explain why so many whites succumb to Jewish guilt-ploys. A Jewish-inspired Christianity is certainly a large part of the explanation. Undoubtedly, we need a Nietzschean transvaluation of all values. No one is suggesting that we all drop everything and become full-time revisionists. But there is clearly an important role for such work in any contemporary nationalist movement. We can trim the branches even as we hack away at the roots.

Lastly, we should not forget that the “Holocaust question” is only one, albeit important, aspect of a much larger and longer-standing “Jewish Question.” Jews don’t just work against whites; they work against everyone. One of the earliest recorded western commentaries on the Jews—that of Hecateus, circa 300 BC—noted that “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic and hostile to foreigners.” This is documented in the Old Testament, and in the (self-)view of the Jews as God’s chosen. Several early commentators, most notably the great Roman historian Tacitus, wrote about the Jews’ “hatred of the human race.” When a detested ethnicity gains power, popular outrage naturally grows. Thus the Jews came to be harassed, beaten, humiliated, and ultimately expelled from many nations of Europe. Nazi Germany was only the latest in a long chain of such expulsions.

This is a central aspect of revisionism, and one that is insufficiently appreciated. As the revisionists argue, there is little evidence that the Nazis wanted to deliberately kill all, or even most, of their Jews; they simply wanted them out. All those concentration camps and cattle-car journeys were, for the most part, aspects of an enforced evacuation program. Only late in the war did they become a means of forced labor. Hence the event known as “the Holocaust” is best read as a nationalist effort to, once again, drive out the Jews—all the while knowing that many would die in the wartime conditions.

But the vital point is, it worked. In the period of just six years, from 1933 to 1939, and amidst a global depression, Germany rose from a ruined, bankrupt nation to the strongest on Earth. The Holocaust—the real event—is a nationalist success story. Rein in Jewish-controlled banks and capitalist enterprises, restore national integrity to the media, expel Jews from the seat of governmental power…and your nation will flourish. What better lesson could revisionism provide?

In 1771, Voltaire wrote of the Jews, “they are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts… I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.” We should take Voltaire’s warning to heart. White Nationalism has an important role to play, and to be effective it must defend historical accuracy, and use this to demolish the leading Jewish guilt-tool, the Holocaust.

6 Responses

Hadding
August 8, 2012 at 7:43 pm

I am amused that Dalton felt it necessary to treat every point that Johnson made with seriousness.

Only people heavily immersed in self-delusion could accept the proposition that adopting the victim-posture ourselves could be in the long term a winning strategy.

Johnson’s essay was so bad that he was basically booed off the stage. I wonder why Dalton even felt that it was worthy of a response. Isn’t Dalton supposed to be “somebody”? Greg Johnson is almost beneath my dignity at this point, and I never wrote any famous book.



Carolyn
August 8, 2012 at 9:31 pm

I felt the same as I began reading it, but you know that fellow PhD’s have to treat each other with respect and always find something positive to say at the beginning. Beyond taking Johnson too seriously, Dalton did go farther in this “rebuttal” about Jewish guilt than I’ve ever heard any revisionist go. Or, at least, anyone at CODOH-sponsored Inconvenient History Journal. I think it’s fabulous in that regard. He is actually saying what I’ve been saying: The Germans were defending themselves against Jewish crimes! The Jews cannot be tolerated in White European societies.

Dalton is a University professor or teaches in some capacity, who uses this pseudonym. He is pretty courageous, therefore. He’s obviously not a libertarian moderate who thinks we can be friendly with Jews, as so many there do. I think what he wrote here will become controversial in both Revisionist and White Nationalist circles. I don’t think you should be putting Dalton down for minor flaws.

It’s possible Dalton decided to respond to Johnson’s essay in order to give out these views about the Jews. He’s never said anything close to this before, as far as I know. And I’ve read a lot of his stuff.

In 2010 he did a 2-part study of Goebbel’s “Diary” in Inconvenient History that kept me interested. http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/a...n_the_jews.php I’ve written a couple of emails (via Inc. His. contact form) to him which he doesn’t answer because he’s in “deep cover.”



Hadding
August 8, 2012 at 10:03 pm

“Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.” says that Goebbels’ “diaries are absolutely essential for understanding the Jewish holocaust.”

Mr. Ph.D. doesn’t seem to know, writing in 2010, that the “Goebbels Diaries” were already exposed as fraudulent (in whole or at least in parts) by 1988. http://national-socialist-worldview....-are-fake.html



Carolyn
August 8, 2012 at 10:15 pm

Well, his PhD is not in Holocaust Revisionism, haha.



Carolyn
August 8, 2012 at 10:29 pm

Dalton writes, regarding the false argument about whether the Holohoax is the “source of Jewish power” or simply an “expression” of that power:

Rather, it is a means—their most important means for effecting control. Jews fear revisionism because it threatens to destroy their strongest guilt-tool. They have invested much in this story, and it would be very costly and time-consuming for them to develop another, equally-effective tool.

This is what I said Monday night in relation to the ADL – that “Holocaust Denial” is their No. 1 enemy. It’s clear that it is. But Greg Johnson is a know-nothing on Holocaust who believes he can pass himself off as an expert in everything. Like you, Hadding, my opinion of him has plummeted so low that it may even go to zero. I really think he is finished because he has been “found out”, but it will take awhile for him and his followers to grasp that. Of course, many others keep going even after that so what the heck … he probably will too. But his star will never shine so bright again. And that’s as it should be.

This VNN thread is where you will see Greg Johnson coming apart at the seams even more so that he did in the TOO comments section. http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144074 People should go through this and read Greg’s posts, and also Hadding’s. They really tell the story.



katana
August 9, 2012 at 8:29 am

A very solid response by Dalton. Good to see a well known revisionist respond to Johnson’s essay.

As Carolyn and Hadding have commented, Dalton’s introductory remarks — “Greg Johnson’s concise and articulate essay, “Dealing with the Holocaust”, is to be commended for grappling intelligently with two very controversial topics: White Nationalism and the Holocaust.”— seem a little too kind given the skewering that follows. I suspect there’s some undercover sarcasm involved here with Dalton, as Johnson’s essay was surely not ‘concise’ nor what I would call ‘intelligent’.

But Johnson is intelligent (which doesn’t stop you from doing stupid things BTW), so what’s behind his essay? One big motive looks like his aim to get Counter Currents classified as an organization that allows donors to claim tax deductions. To get such classification would mean distancing ones organization from accusations of being a den of ‘Holocaust’ deniers. Proof of that would be helped by writing the article he did and then stirring the pot. No doubt there are other motives.

But enough of Johnson’s games. Let’s turn to Dalton’s concise and intelligent killer comments.
————



By Thomas Dalton
July 31, 2012

Because the power structure has no response to revisionism except censorship, the general public, and whites in particular, can be given a “proof,” of sorts, of Jewish duplicity. The Holocaust is a canonical case of Jewish deception and manipulation, and revisionism lays bare that fact. Many of the central revisionist arguments are clear and obvious; they require little in the way of specialized knowledge. Any non-Jew with a shred of rationality can be shown that they have been largely (though not completely) duped; this should make any thinking person more than a little angry.
———
This is pure and concise poetry!
People will be more than a little angry when they realize they’ve been taken for a very long ride, conned and scammed all the way.

————–
The fact that Jewish fatality numbers never will go to zero, as Johnson emphasizes, does not really matter. The likely death toll is perhaps 10% of the claimed figures. A 90% reduction in deaths is not just some minor fiddling around the edges; it is a wholesale collapse of “the most well-documented event in history.” Those who have staked their careers and incomes on this event will be in for a rude awakening.
————–

Another gem of a paragraph.

Johnson thinks numbers don’t matter much, jewish suffering is jewish suffering, so let them have their ‘holocaust’ and 100,000 museums and movies and books and essays and, ad nauseam. Step aside, over and under. Total BS.
I think what he really means by ‘step over’ is ‘start crawling’.

Thank you Thomas Dalton.

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2012/08/0...-greg-johnson/
 
Old August 9th, 2012 #264
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default People will be more than a little angry when they realize they’ve been taken for a very long ride

A 2000 year long ride.

In a Jew Canoe. (Cadillac)

 
Old August 9th, 2012 #265
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

I think Dalton makes a mistake in allowing the term Holocaust to continue being flexible.

Dalton is also wrong to focus on numbers. What is important is not how many died, but how they died. If you keep the figure of 6 million dead Jews but say that half of them died in a typhus epidemic and the other half was shot while fomenting insurrection, that would be an amazing catastrophe for the Jews but problematic to blame on the Germans.
 
Old August 9th, 2012 #266
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

In the end, it's just Johnson chasing money. Not even he belives what he's saying, he just thinks he needs to say it.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #267
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Carolyn
August 9, 2012 at 3:04 pm

Katana, Hadding and all: I am not able to find this article posted on the Internet except by Michael Santomauro at a Yahoo Discussion Group on which he is a regular. Santomauro is the publisher of Dalton’s book Debating the Holocaust. I have made some inquiries and will let you know what I find out. It’s all just a little bit strange.



Carolyn
August 10, 2012 at 12:35 am

I just received a reply from Michael Santomauro telling me that Thomas Dalton sent him (Michael) the essay “Nationalism and the Holocaust – A Reply to Johnson,” which was rejected by Kevin MacDonald at The Occidental Observer.

So friends, know that a reply to Greg Johnson by a respected revisionist was turned down at the site where Johnson’s article was published. Is that bias or not? So apparently Dalton sent it to Michael to do something with. I am the only person who has published it … so far. Anyone who can should spread it around.

I’m very gratified that Thomas Dalton is the author. So we can relax about that.

http://thewhitenetwork.com/2012/08/0...-greg-johnson/
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #268
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Germany is now in a life and death struggle with Jewish finance, and as of now it looks as if New York is winning:

On November 25, two days after a failed German government bond auction in which Germany was unable to sell 35% of its offerings of 10-year bonds, the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Germany might retreat from its demands that the private banks that hold the troubled sovereign debt from Greece, Italy, and Spain must accept part of the cost of their bailout by writing off some of the debt.

Jewish finance in New York decided to pull out the club known as "history" to beat Germany into submission once again. As Dr. Roberts put it: "Germany, which has been browbeat since its defeat in World War II, has been made constitutionally incapable of strong leadership. Any sign of German leadership is quickly quelled by dredging up remembrances of the Third Reich."

Leadership in this instance meant that Germany was insisting that the bankers (i.e., Goldman Sachs) who sold Greece toxic financial instruments, which the previous Greek government used to disguise the real magnitude of her indebtedness, take a 50 percent haircut on their bonds. The idea of Germany insisting on shared hardship as the solution to the debt crisis was intolerable to New York's Jewish banking elite, hence the attack by NPR.

http://culturewars.com/2012/German.htm

Yet another example of why Grandma Johnson is wrong that we can just ignore and step over 'the' 'holocaust.' It's used to inculcate guilt. It's used to steal money. A friggin jewish garden weasel, itz. And Johnson would have us back down and look away and run away and cede the entire argument and moral claim. With friends like these, we don't have any friends.

And this apparently figures into his fundraising. But not the way he expected - if he is telling the truth, which I now unfortunately cannot say I'm sure of, since he double-talks to beat the band these days.

Look at how he misrepresents his 'holocaust' position, even as he claims it cost him his second largest donor.


Now about this bump in the road: Our second largest donor, and one of the donors we expected the most from in the long run, has withdrawn his support from Counter-Currents. The most immediate consequence is that this donor had promised a $6,000 matching grant to help us make our goal of $25,000 by August 11. Obviously, we are going to have to drop that deadline. We will end this fundraiser when we meet our goal, whenever that may be.

This is, obviously, a setback. It will not stop us, but at least in the short run, it will slow down our projects a good deal: we will be publishing fewer books; we will be organizing fewer and smaller events; we will be able to pay fewer authors and will have to give them less money per work; we will generally be playing it safe, financially speaking, for the foreseeable future. I will not try to shrug this off with some brave or flippant remark. It’s a disaster, given that we really do believe that we are helping lay the foundations for the long-term survival of our race, and we don’t have time to waste.

Why did this happen? Quite simply, it is the cost of controversy. On July 20, Kevin MacDonald published my essay, “Understanding the Holocaust,” at The Occidental Observer. In it, I argued that the Holocaust is one of the primary tools by which white ethnocentrism, pride, and nationalism are beaten down, softening our people up morally and psychologically for our ongoing dispossession. Thus if whites are going to regain control over our destiny, we need a response to the Holocaust.

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.


Quote:
But I also argued that Holocaust revisionism is not an adequate response. Instead, I argued that the foundation of the Holocaust’s malign power is largely moral and psychological, namely our people’s grandiose tendency to assume and expiate unearned guilt, and that the only real solution to the Holocaust and other ethnic guilt trips (e.g., over slavery, the American Indians, etc.) is a transformation of white moral consciousness.
Right. Except I've destroyed this goofy argument you copied from known liar Jared Taylor. Where's the American white's guilt over what he's done to Iraq? You know - where over one million people have been murdered as the result of some jewish big lies about weapons of mass destruction? American whites, for the most part, have GLORIED IN this mass destruction. Where's this guilt complex whites supposedly have? How come it doesn't show up where they really are guilty? How come it only shows up where the jews WANT whites to be guilty? And it never shows up where the jews stimulate white-man bloodlust?

You don't any answer for these questions. They destroy your entire premise and show you and Jared Taylor to be plangent liars who refuse to address evidence that destroys your sick, pro-jewish big lies that whites are BIOLOGICALLY, GENETICALLY AND CULTURALLY DEFECTIVE.

Just admit it, Johnson. You're trying to sell out. How's it working out for you so far, big guy?


http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...f-controversy/

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 10th, 2012 at 11:19 PM.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #269
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Johnson would do better if he were just a little bit consistent. Out of one side of his mouth he does a poor imitation of Jonathan Bowden, saying that we need "a transformation of moral consciousness," while out the other side he's all weepy for Anne Frank and resolved to not reining in that kind of disproportionate sentimentality.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #270
Solskeniskyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,424
Solskeniskyn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
... Just admit it, Johnson. You're trying to sell out. How's it working out for you so far, big guy?[/COLOR]

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...f-controversy/
From the comments-section:

Quote:
Christopher Thorpe
Posted August 10, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

Greg Johnson, I fully support your stance on the issue of the Holocaust and moral attitudes. With due respect to all the revisionists who made so many sacrifices and put so much work into their position, the unfortunate truth is that “revising” the facts of history is not what is essentially required. The issue is not so much as what specifically happened (even though that is important in some ways) but how you look at what happened.

Mainstream historians oftentimes, when they want to condemn a group for an act, describe that act, which in many cases really happened, from a certain perspective and in a certain manner (that is, from a hostile perspective and condemning manner). For us, much more effective than arguing over technical details would be to advocate our perspective on the same acts. That is, not so much our perspective on the facts of these events, but how to view the events and in what context. I do not want the fate of an entire people to rest solely on simply the denial of every little wrong done by Europeans that mainstream historians have recorded.

As Greg wrote, we need to change the way people think about things. Whites today need to have the inner strength and such a worldview that even if the Holocaust happened exactly as described (and other similar events) , they could look past it, view it within the specific context in which it existed, and still believe in the inherent value of race and Volk (much like Alfred Rosenberg in his “Memoirs”).Otherwise, we will remain flimsy and weak and even the slightest act of violence such as the Breivik incident will cause entire worldviews to collapse. Counter-Currents ought to be supported for the very reason that it provides good and stable arguments on behalf of our history and people.
"... and other similar events"? Delusional.


__________________________


Quote:
rhondda
Posted August 10, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

You took alot of flack at too and other places. It did though, really help me separate the wheat from the chaff.
Yeah, it sure did.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #271
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,364
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
......Carolyn

August 10, 2012 at 12:35 am

I just received a reply from Michael Santomauro telling me that Thomas Dalton sent him (Michael) the essay “Nationalism and the Holocaust – A Reply to Johnson,” which was rejected by Kevin MacDonald at The Occidental Observer..........
Just wondering if it's certain that MacDonald himself rejected Santomauro's ''reply'' or is it possible it was another pal of Johnson's in the form of Matt Parrott who I believe is (or was) a moderator on TOO?
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #272
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

The problem with Christopher Thorpe's view is that (1) he's only dealing with what Greggy says out one side of his mouth, while (2) overlooking the fact that, if Greggy really were serious about inculcating a tougher attitude, the objection to Holocaust Revisionism (on grounds of uncontrolled weepiness) that he spouts out the other side of his mouth would be rendered null and void.

Last edited by Hadding; August 10th, 2012 at 03:51 PM.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #273
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Just wondering if it's certain that MacDonald himself rejected Santomauro's ''reply'' or is it possible it was another pal of Johnson's in the form of Matt Parrott who I believe is (or was) a moderator on TOO?
Seemed like someone mentioned this or similar rejection by KM in that TOO thread, so I suspect they do mean MacDonald.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #274
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
The problem with Christopher Thorpe's view is that (1) he's only dealing with what Greggy says out one side of his mouth, while (2) overlooking the fact that, if Greggy really were serious about inculcating a tougher attitude, the objection to Holocaust Revisionism (on grounds of uncontrolled weepiness) that he spouts out the other side of his mouth would be rendered null and void.
The problem is no one has ever demonstrated Whites feel guilt for no reason. Johnson and Taylor and others pushing this line ignore the media factor. White guilt, as with other attitudes, is simply a function of jews controlling the media and telling them how to feel. It's no more complex than that. It's simply a response to authority, a conformist response. If the same authority were telling whites to be proud of conquering a continent, they wouldn't feel any guilt over slavery or treatment of injuns. If authority were telling whites that Anne Frank died in a hospital bed after writing her novel with a ballpoint pen that didn't exist yet, whites would laugh, not feel guilty. If they were likewise told that there was not an atom of evidence of gassings, and that 6 million was a bogus figure based on a certain historical fetish jews have, and that it should be mocked and spit on and stomped into the dirt, do you think whites would be feeling guilty? Of course not. Whites feel guilty because they believe the lies are truth. And how would they know any differently? Every authority repeats them. And even the would-be counter-authorities like Greg Johnson go along with these lies. It is to shake head over.

Greg Johnson is simply cutting his views to increase his chances of getting 501c3 satus. It's safe to blame whites, and it's dangerous to blame jews. That's why he's slowly but surely back out of WN to the conservative position that we're doing it to ourselves.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 10th, 2012 at 11:24 PM.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #275
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Seemed like someone mentioned this or similar rejection by KM in that TOO thread, so I suspect they do mean MacDonald.
This guy submitted a response that MacDonald rejected.
http://nsarchives.blogspot.com/2012/...relevance.html

Quote:
Organon
July 23, 2012 - 11:28 pm | Permalink

@Andrew:

“So in conclusion, I would like to just say that I wish you a****les would quit ragging on the author, if you think the f****ing Holocaust is so frigging important, get together and write a persuasive article and submit it and explain why.”

I did this just this very thing only yesterday, and was swiftly informed by Kevin MacDonald that he doesn’t want a revisionist essay on TOO.

Last edited by Hadding; August 10th, 2012 at 06:11 PM.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #276
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,364
Henry.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
This guy submitted a response that MacDonald rejected.
http://nsarchives.blogspot.com/2012/...relevance.html
Below, I've reproduced the text from your provided link but I'm unable to find (in the body of that text) anything that relates to your claim that ''This guy submitted a response that MacDonald rejected''

Do you have something that actually supports your claim of rejection by MacDonald rather than some other 'moderator'?

Help me out here.

Thanks.

Quote:
Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Some Commentary on the Political Relevance of Revisionism to Ethnic Nationalists


The relevance of historical revisionism to ethnic nationalists was recently challenged in an article at The Occidental Observer by Greg Johnson, who regularly publishes at Counter-Currents Publishing. In this article, Johnson claims that while ethnic nationalists need to address the Holocaust, historical revisionism is not relevant to their political aims. Revising history is important, he suggests, but it will do nothing to improve our declining racial situation.

The article has evoked serious criticism. Over seven hundred comments followed, including some comments from myself.(1)

A serious problem with Johnson's argument is that while he claims historical revisionism is irrelevant to our aims, he takes for granted that "the Holocaust" occurred. He takes it as sufficient that because some Jews died as a result of internment in concentration camps, that this warrants the continued use of the label "the Holocaust" and simply assumes that the deaths resulted from a policy of deliberate extermination, in contrast to revisionist claims.(2)

Revisionists argue that a number far less than the six million figure, probably less than a million, is a more accurate estimate of the number of deaths, and that these deaths were not part of a central and deliberate policy of mass extermination. There is no evidence for this, and while we are constantly being bombarded by Holocaust propaganda, mainstream and academic historians have failed to provide documentation of an order for such a policy.

Jewish deaths and suffering in World War II were not unique. There was no Holocaust and so the name is unwarranted.

This fact is relevant to our political goals because a serious obstacle to those goals is the reality of significant Jewish power, which in part is predicated upon the myth of the Holocaust. Even though I agree with Johnson that Jews would still attempt to evoke pity and sap us for our sympathy, depriving them on a factual basis of the dignity of an exclusive claim to exceptional victimization would be a serious blow to their hold over people of European descent.

People of European descent also need to bear in mind that Jews are a foreign body, poisonous to us. Jews have actively sought to undermine us, and therefore any sympathy for their suffering in the first place is seriously misguided. They do not belong in Europe or America, for in the past several decades we have seen clearly the results of nearly unrestrained Jewish power, fueled by the Holocaust myth, and determined to breed Europeans out of existence.

In conclusion, Johnson claims that revisionism is irrelevant to our political goals, though Jewish influence and power is based upon the myth of the Holocaust and undermining that myth, which revisionists have already accomplished, is a fatal blow to that myth. Johnson also claims that a "Holocaust" occurred because some Jews died in World War II, and though their suffe ring was not unique, Jews would appeal to this fact regardless to garner support.

Johnson is pandering to Jews, and in tandem with his arguments elsewhere that we have a stake in Israel's existence, is advocating continued moral and political dependency on Jews.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #277
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
Below, I've reproduced the text from your provided link but I'm unable to find (in the body of that text) anything that relates to your claim that ''This guy submitted a response that MacDonald rejected''

Do you have something that actually supports your claim of rejection by MacDonald rather than some other 'moderator'?

Help me out here.

Thanks.
What the hell? You need better proof than I already produced? I think you may be beyond help.

Organon posted on TOO that MacDonald turned down his essay, which I generously copied and pasted for you. If it were UNTRUE, MacDonald could say so.

What Organon posted on his own blog was an abridged version of his essay.

Last edited by Hadding; August 10th, 2012 at 07:34 PM.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #278
Henry.
Senior Member
 
Henry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,364
Henry.
Default

Assuming you were referring to a comment on the Johnson/TOO article, I quickly went through those almost 800 comments to confirm it was posted there, which it was - but the fact is that MacDonald did not reject or remove the posters comment, but instead declined to post his ''revisionist essay''.

That's not quite the same as rejecting his ''reply/comment/response''...is it?

Last edited by Henry.; August 10th, 2012 at 07:32 PM.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #279
Lew_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 146
Lew_
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The problem is no one has ever demonstrated Whites feel guilt for no reason.
True enough. When the injustice aligns with Jewish interests, it gets different treatment in the media, and those are the injustices Whites do not seem to feel guilty about.

I can't tell you the number of times I've clashed with White anti-Whites who cited Indians, slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism or the holocaust as reasons White should feel guilty. I've never had anyone bring up the Iraqi or Afghan civilian dead. I've never had anyone cite as reasons for guilt the cruel mistreatment of White indentured servants, or child laborers, or any other subset of the White population that has unfairly suffered.

If you go back a bit further, it also seems to be true that prior to the Jewish media takeover, Whites felt no unearned guilt at all about any event. Like every race/ethnic group, Whites have committed their fair share of actions that one could argue were injustices. But, prior to WW2, I know of no evidence Whites were collectively languishing with unearned guilt over Indians, slavery, and colonialism in the 1910s - 1920s.

If you go back even further, I know of no major historical commentators who ever suggested Euro peoples like to claim unearned guilt. Who talked about this? Herodotus? Aristotle? Luther? Hume? Machiavelli? I don't know that any of them ever did. If Whites have a guilt flaw, unless they discussed it and I missed it (possible), it seems that some of the most powerful minds to ever walk the Earth didn't notice it.

So what we're left with is this:

- Before the Jewish media takeover, unearned guilt seems to be non-existent among Whites.

- After the Jewish media takoever, unearned guilt has become pervasive among Whites. The exception is when events that you would expect to trigger guilt are aligned with Jewish interests.

So yeah, on reflection, I think you're right; this inherent race-guilt argument quickly crumbles upon scrutiny. Not is only is there no evidence Whites feel guilty for no reason, there is evidence the guilt perfectly aligns with Jewish media presentation, and Jewish presentation is the only explanation that makes sense.
 
Old August 10th, 2012 #280
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry. View Post
That's not quite the same as rejecting his ''reply/comment/response''...is it?
You are very confused, and clueless.

There is very little control on COMMENTS at TOO. Nobody submits COMMENTS to be accepted or rejected. Anybody that talks about a "response" being "rejected" by MacDonald at TOO is obviously talking about an essay.

Last edited by Hadding; August 10th, 2012 at 07:44 PM.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, holocaust fairytales, holocaust mythology, jared taylor, revisionism

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 PM.
Page generated in 0.19420 seconds.