#1 Holohoax Thread

[James Hawthorne]

As with MacDonald, one should take Rudolf at his word. Trying to extrapolate from what's not there is a form of projection and wishful thinking.

Sure you can Henry. I think you are the one who takes Rudolf 'literally'. You couldn't go through what he has been through and not be on our side.

[Robin King]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr

WNs, as a body, haven't promoted it enough yet, but you used the "effective single message" about a dozen times in your post: HOLOHOAX

Good work.

The replacement of the enemy's word-weapon with HOLOHOAX strikes the meme at ground zero. It puts the enemy on the defensive.

Make the believers justify themselves. Then laugh at them, and tell them that the gas was used to save human lives by killing typhus bearing lice, and the HOLOHOAX is a continuation of war by psychological means.

"Holohoax" is catchy but because there is so much skepticism about Holocaust revisionism, I think the public needs some sort of "proof" or reason for why the Holocaust is bunkum.

Otherwise, we just come across as nasty Holocaust Deniers—denying the Holocaust because we're "antisemitic".

The same with "The Holocaust-held together by six million lies". It's catchy and witty but the only thing is that it could be dismissed as some rant by an antisemitic Holocaust Denier.

We need to provide some catchy slogan that arouses the curiosity of the public. Talking about ovens is too complicated and technical. The same with the burial of the millions of bodies the Germans were supposed to have done. So nothing really too difficult for the lay person to understand. And you have got to think like a typical kwan. What would it take to convince them?

I don't think saying that there's no written document ordering extermination is effective. Kwans will rationalize to themselves that the Germans hid or destroyed those documents or never put that kind of directive in writing in the first place.

The kwan has heard about the "gassing" of the Jews. So he will prick up his ears when he hears the word "gas" mentioned.

Maybe leave out the typhus part, and just have "Gas was used to kill lice, not Jews". Don't want to make the unawakened have to think too much.

Maybe someone who is good at slogans can phrase it in a better way.

"There's no business like Shoah business" is a good one that has been around for some time. However, this should mainly be used with people who would know what "Shoah" stands for—most people would not.

"The Holocaust is a religion, not a fact" is one I've coined just now, but it doesn't really provide "evidence" or information about the Holocaust that reveals it to be a fraud.

Another one is: "If the Nazis were going to kill the Jews, why would they shave their heads and tattoo their arms in the first place?" However, some people might think that the Nazis were a perverted bunch and would do something strange like that. Or else, they might think the Nazis kept the people alive for a while and used them, and then discarded them by gassing them and putting them in ovens.

[Henry.]

Originally Posted by James Hawthorne

Sure you can Henry. I think you are the one who takes Rudolf 'literally'. You couldn't go through what he has been through and not be on our side.

You're doing it again, James

Germar Rudolph is a man of high intelligence with a perfect command of the English language. When he speaks he does so with accuracy and clarity. His words are carefully chosen to convey his precise meaning. Ambiguity and occult signals form no part of his message in so far as he has a 'message'.

Contrast that with David Duke's sloppy reference to "Dr. Rudolph" and Duke's tortured excuse for embarrassing the man after Rudolph had been forced to begin the interview by correcting the interviewer (Duke) re: his academic credentials.

Germar Rudolph is no fraud who'll tell you what he thinks you want to hear: as Nick Griffin did on his way to destroying British nationalism.

The fact remains: when Germar says he's a ''liberal'' and not a nationalist he's simply telling the truth; albeit, an unfortunate truth from our point of view.

[Jimmy Marr]

Originally Posted by Robin King

"Holohoax" is catchy but because there is so much skepticism about Holocaust revisionism, I think the public needs some sort of "proof" or reason for why the Holocaust is bunkum.

Your opinion of the public is higher than mine.

Otherwise, we just come across as nasty Holocaust Deniers—denying the Holocaust because we're "antisemitic".

Holohoaxers are homicidally anti-gentilic, and should be locked up.

The same with "The Holocaust-held together by six million lies". It's catchy and witty but the only thing is that it could be dismissed as some rant by an antisemitic Holocaust Denier.

Calling it the Holohoax is a kick in the balls. They won't dismiss it. It'll be the last thing they think about before they fall asleep that night. They'll dream about it.

We need to provide some catchy slogan that arouses the curiosity of the public. Talking about ovens is too complicated and technical. The same with the burial of the millions of bodies the Germans were supposed to have done. So nothing really too difficult for the lay person to understand. And you have got to think like a typical kwan. What would it take to convince them?

Kwans don't need to be convinced. They need to be cajoled.

I don't think saying that there's no written document ordering extermination is effective. Kwans will rationalize to themselves that the Germans hid or destroyed those documents or never put that kind of directive in writing in the first place.

Debating the lack of documentation is inferential participation in the Hoax.

The kwan has heard about the "gassing" of the Jews. So he will prick up his ears when he hears the word "gas" mentioned.

True.

Maybe leave out the typhus part, and just have "Gas was used to kill lice, not Jews". Don't want to make the unawakened have to think too much.

This would be useful as a karate chop at the base of the kwan's skull after he is doubled over from the hoax poke.

Maybe someone who is good at slogans can phrase it in a better way.

Yes. Keep those cards and letters coming.

"There's no business like Shoah business" is a good one that has been around for some time. However, this should mainly be used with people who would know what "Shoah" stands for—most people would not.

Jews

"The Holocaust is a religion, not a fact" is one I've coined just now, but it doesn't really provide "evidence" or information about the Holocaust that reveals it to be a fraud.

That's a good phrase. Those alleging genocide should provide evidence, but they suppress it. Providing evidence is a crime in the countries where the evidence exists.

Another one is: "If the Nazis were going to kill the Jews, why would they shave their heads and tattoo their arms in the first place?" However, some people might think that the Nazis were a perverted bunch and would do something strange like that. Or else, they might think the Nazis kept the people alive for a while and used them, and then discarded them by gassing them and putting them in ovens.

Right. They'd kill them the same way the Jewish commissars killed Gentiles.

Propaganda selection depends on circumstances. I'm looking for material to use as a street picket, so I prefer the quickest and dirtiest.

In the past I've played the bagpipes while picketing. Sometimes I get sick of standing all the time. There are often homeless panhandlers working in the same areas, and I notice they sometimes sit down on the job. If I decide to sit down, I may opt for a sign I've seen on somebody's signature line here at VNN: Holohoax survivor

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Henry.

The fact remains: when Germar says he's a ''liberal'' and not a nationalist he's simply telling the truth; albeit, an unfortunate truth from our point of view.

It's really not unfortunate that Germar Rudolf focuses entirely on revisionism. If Germar Rudolf were a nationalist he would not be a White Nationalist but a German nationalist in the NPD. The NPD already has talented people, but we don't hear much about them because they are pursuing a specifically German agenda. As a revisionist Germar Rudolf is doing something more controversial than what the NPD does, for benefit of the entire world.

Becoming noteworthy for political positions would actually detract from Rudolf's credibility as a revisionist. It would facilitate portraying his work as politically motivated and therefore biased.

We are fortunate for the revisionists that are not in any obvious way motivated by political nationalism. Their work aids nationalism all the more.

[Henry.]

Originally Posted by Hadding

It's really not unfortunate that Germar Rudolf focuses entirely on revisionism.

There's no doubt about the importance of his work and he mustn't be distracted from it: though he seems such a cogent and determined individual I don't see any chance of that. Of course interference from the state (anywhere in the west) remains a constant threat.

[James Hawthorne]

I think Hadding nailed it.

It's really not unfortunate that Germar Rudolf focuses entirely on revisionism. If Germar Rudolf were a nationalist he would not be a White Nationalist but a German nationalist in the NPD. The NPD already has talented people, but we don't hear much about them because they are pursuing a specifically German agenda. As a revisionist Germar Rudolf is doing something more controversial than what the NPD does, for benefit of the entire world.

[Cesar Tort]

Linder has convincingly responded to Greg Johnson’s piece on “OR and NR”.

I took the trouble to copy, paste & polish a bit the main retort here.

[James Hawthorne]

Weber looking for even more suckers to send him money to keep him in his indolent lifestyle.

What progress? What impact??

ON THE FRONT LINE: PROGRESS AND REAL IMPACT
In years of hard work we've established the IHR on the front line in the struggle for freedom and historical truth.
For one thing, we’ve made the IHR a much more important online source of reliable information and sound perspective. And the success of my recent visit to Iran is yet another expression of our global impact.
What we accomplish -- through meetings, broadcasts, videos, lectures, interviews, online outreach, mailings, books, booklets, discs and flyers -- depends on backing from readers like you.
Please help!
Mark Weber
And the IHR Team
To make a secure, tax-deductible donation, click here.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Cesar Tort

Linder has convincingly responded to Greg Johnson’s piece on “OR and NR”.

I took the trouble to copy, paste & polish a bit the main retort here.

Why does that blog have Kevin MacDonald's name in the address? Does he have anything to do with it?

Johnson's silly essay didn't deserve much of a response beyond pointing out that the terms Old Right and New Right are already defined and do not mean what he wants them to mean. The New Right in North America conventionally denotes Goldwater conservatism. The New Right in Europe is akin to what Greggy wants to call "Old Right." The European New Right is more or less fascist. Beyond simply pointing that out, a good pelting with garbage might be appropriate.

[Cesar Tort]

@ Hadding,

KMD is not the title of the post; it’s the name of the blog itself: a site I used for the translation to Spanish of some of KMD’s CofC chapters; and now to reproduce some of the original material in English—and a single post on my racialist reading of Wuthering Heights (recently posted too at TOO).

[Hadding]

"Pearson," what is your racial origin? With your desert nose, almond eyes, black hair, and dark skin, I and the people that I accompanied at the Stormfront conference had the instant impression just from looking at you that you were a Jew.

I'd have thought that Tubbington could at least find an apologist that could pass for White. You're not even close.

Whatever you are, if you mean what you say, you are addled. An honest man with a healthy psyche doesn't excuse a career of vicious defamation spanning 30+ years with a statement like, "Everybody's done things."

I don't believe that you "enjoyed meeting" me either. My concluding words to you were, "Get the hell away from me."

[Rounder]

Originally Posted by Hadding

"Pearson," what is your racial origin? With your desert nose, almond eyes, black hair, and dark skin, I and the people that I accompanied at the Stormfront conference had the instant impression just from looking at you that you were a Jew.

I'd have thought that Tubbington could at least find an apologist that could pass for White. You're not even close.

Whatever you are, if you mean what you say, you are addled. An honest man with a healthy psyche doesn't excuse a career of vicious defamation spanning 30+ years with a statement like, "Everybody's done things."

I don't believe that you "enjoyed meeting" me either. My concluding words to you were, "Get the hell away from me."

Aha !!! I figured from "Pearson's" posting that something wasn't right about him.

Good to read above, that Alex thinks highly of your work, Hadding. Alex is also right on the money when it comes to "Tub o shit" Covington, the most efficient and destructive liar in American WN history.

[Dave from New York]

Originally Posted by Cesar Tort

Linder has convincingly responded to Greg Johnson’s piece on “OR and NR”.

I took the trouble to copy, paste & polish a bit the main retort here.

Nice work by Alex, a complete refutation of Johnson's slumgullion of White racial philosophy.

Alex: " There is no winning without violence; that is, obtaining the power to eradicate our enemies."

Johnson: "Quill 'em all, let Goethe sort 'em out!"

But of course I'll reserve judgement until one of my esteemed cerebral betters types out that 8,000 word movie review concerning the cryptic pro-white messages that are subtly hidden in 'The computer wore tennis shoes.'

[Cesar Tort]

The problem with Counter-Currents is that its editor doesn’t allow free speech in subjects he considers taboo, e.g. criticism of his Hollywood tastes or of homosexualism. And not only that. Recently for example he did not let pass a comment of mine critical of Alexander Dugin, who in my opinion is an intellectual charlatan who criticizes racism and used to promote a new form of Bolshevism in Russia.

It’s precisely such suppression of speech at CC what moved me to elaborate in my blog what Johnson doesn’t allow in the threads:

On “West-Coast White Nationalism”

Fuck Hollywood!

[Lew_]

Chechar,

Out of curiosity, can you elaborate a bit on Dugin? How did you get to the judgment he is a charlatan? I'm trying to keep an open mind on him mainly because knowledgeable people at CC see value in his work. However, from what I have seen of Dugin's ideas so far, second hand from reviews and commentary, his ideas have left me cold.

[Cesar Tort]

From the Wiki: “He was the leading organizer of National Bolshevik Party, National Bolshevik Front, and Eurasia Party…”

I’ve only heard a couple of Dugin’s conferences and in both he dismissed NS. When I read the above, lead paragraph in the wiki, I had just added my latest WDH posts on Tom Goodrich’s revisionism on WW2 and Solzhenitsyn’s “duel with cold walls”. Dugin’s infatuation with Bolshevism immediately stroke me as charlatanry: an intellectual pigmy compared with Alexandr. This is my comment that Johnson did not let pass:

Most mainstream intellectuals are just ignorant. They don’t even know that the decline and fall of the Greco-Roman World was caused by miscegenation & blood mixing.

If I am allowed to be frank let me say that, like the other intellectuals, Alexander Dugin is sleeping in the matrix of political correctness. In another video he said something to the effect that the fact that Germany was defeated “proved” that a racialist view of history was wrong (something as silly as saying that the fact that Giorndano Bruno was tried by the Inquisition and burned at the stake “proved” that the heliocentric Copernican view was wrong).

Don’t take intellectuals or even philosophers seriously. No single so-called great philosopher of the Western tradition that I know figured out that “all the great events of history have a racial basis”, the POV of Arthur Kemp’s book, not even the nationalist G.W.F. Hegel.

[Alex Linder]

going to be out today until late; somehow that Pearson sneaked through. anyone who makes excuses for covington is not welcome. don't bother responding, i will erase it all when i get back.

[Rick Ronsavelle]

Don’t take intellectuals or even philosophers seriously. No single so-called great philosopher of the Western tradition that I know figured out that “all the great events of history have a racial basis”, the POV of Arthur Kemp’s book, not even the nationalist G.W.F. Hegel. Cesar Tort

There are problems with Hegel's philosophy, however. Possibly the most offensive to a modern reader is the apparent racism of Hegel's historical analysis. One of many examples of this racism / ethnocentrism can be found in the Philosophy of History: "The inferiority of [the Native Americans] in all respects, even in regard to size, is very manifest...[they are] still abiding in their natural condition of rudeness and barbarism" (Hegel 81). Another example: "The Negro, as already observed, exhibits the natural man in his completely wild and untamed state" (Hegel 93). Of course, we must understand that Hegel was interpreting "barbaric" peoples as the antithesis of Europeans; their negative existence was necessary in order to create a clash of cultures which would result in a new nation which had a fuller understanding of the "plan of Providence." All the same, it is easy to see why many people have criticized Hegel for his outright ethnocentrism and racism.

http://gyral.blackshell.com/hegel/heghist.html

[Cesar Tort]

But Hegel did not use race or ethnicity as the axis in his philosophy of history (as Kemp and Pierce did).